Evolution concepts and mechanisms

¶ … paradoxes of evolutionary biology in today's society is the concept of altruism. At the core, this concept presents several problems in that if natural selection works properly, then why does altruism, which by definition reduces the fitness of individuals, still exist in any form. The following analysis will examine through collected evidence whether or not altruism can occur under the premise of evolutionary biology.

Evolutionary biology has profoundly changed since its initial thrust within the scientific realm with Charles Darwin. Since then Evolutionary theory has been applied not only to biology, but every possible field of social, economic and political development. Within the study of Evolutionary biology itself, deep research has been conducted into the reality of evolution, and evidence that supports its postulates. However, one concept still presents a thorn in the side of evolutionary biology.

The concept of altruism as a biological rather than socially bred action does not appear to be linked to evolutionary biology, yet its presence not only in humans but also in animals draws into doubt its place within the theory of evolution. Research into the implications of altruism in terms of our evolution has become exceedingly complex. In particular the science of ethology or the study of behavior, or the study of social evolution, has specifically been geared to understand how altruism has become biologically ingrained in life on this planet (Hamilton, 1964).

The understanding of altruism as an evolutionary trait can be most easily tested within higher mammals, or more specifically with human beings. In the below research experiment we will test the robustness of altruism in humans and whether or not prevalent theories of altruism would occur. There are three primary hypotheses. First, that reciprocal altruism will occur and the majority of individuals will mutually agree to sacrifice for each other. Second, altruism is a prevalent trait among human beings. Finally, individuals will chose to be altruistic even when others do not reciprocate their altruism.

Background:

Altruism can be defined as the behavior by an individual that increases the fitness of another individual while decreasing the fitness of the actor (RUSHTON, 1989). The reason that altruism has baffled evolutionary biologists is that it is not a restrictive action of humans nor other highly intelligent and sophisticated animals. Altruism appears to be an inbred trait within all of nature. One example of altruism can be found within the cellular slime moulds such as Dictyostelium mucoroides. This class of protests live as amoebae until at a certain point they form together into a multicellular fruiting body. During this process some cells sacrifice themselves in order to help the group survive. This basic biological example of altruism shows that this theory is not restricted to philosophical and social discussions (Hamilton, 1964). It is a very real evolutionary biology topic that has frustrated scientists.

Altruism from a biological definition can be seen as the deliberate sacrifice of a portion of an individual's reproductive capacity in order to increase that of another. More precisely it is "the contribution an individual makes to the gene pool of succeeding generations relative to the contributions of other individuals within a population" (RUSHTON, 1989).

For many the problem of altruism is that it is a paradox for evolutionary biology. If by its very definition, altruism reduces an individual's genetic fitness, then Darwinian evolutionary biology should suggest that natural selection would select against the altruistic trait and eventually reduce its representation to zero. The fact that altruism has not been bred out, even though those with altruism have less genetic fitness, seems to suggest a kink within the theory of evolutionary biology (Hamilton, 1964). The implication is that there is limit or scope in which natural selection operations, whether this scope extends to the level of the gene, individual or kin group. Several theories have been forwarded to explain altruism from the perspective of evolutionary biology.

E.O. Wilson, a prominent biologist suggested one of the most popular explanations for the evolution of altruism, the process of group selection (Maynard, 1974). His explanation is simple, that altruistic behavior ultimately increases the genetic fitness of the entire group, which means that those groups which have altruists would produce more offspring than those who are selfish. Thus taken by itself, it would seem that altruists would breed themselves out of existence, but according to group selection, altruists are more productive from a quantity of offspring perspective because they maximize output (Maynard, 1974). Thus, as long as a population contains multiple groups with differing proportions of altruistic and selfish individuals, the total proportion of altruists will actually increase. From a conceptual perspective this theory makes intuitive sense. However, what it does not explain is how altruism even began as a trait, and where its limitations are.

Another theory resolve the problem of altruism as a developed trait. This is the theory of kin selection, which is founded on the premise that an "individual can maximize the representation of his genes in succeeding generations by either increasing his own personal genetic fitness or by increasing the fitness of his relatives" (RUSHTON, 1989). The implication is that altruism occurs because individual members of the group will promote their own welfare equal to the welfare of their kin. If this is true than altruistic behavior receives a substantial justification in that it is now a device to further propagation of genetic traits of relatives. Using the concepts of relatedness and inclusive fitness, it is evident that altruism between kin would naturally arise in nature.

A final theory of altruism that extends beyond kinship is the theory of reciprocal altruism. Although scholars have identified that the theory of kinship provides a relative explanation for altruism among kin, it presents obvious limitations (Hamilton, 1964). There are situations, especially among higher mammals such as human beings where altruism occurs between two completely unrelated individuals. Professor Robert Trivers was the first to introduce the theory of reciprocal altruism (NOTATION). This theory can be understood as the "process by which one individual will commit an altruistic act towards another in exchange for the second individual returning the altruistic favor at some later time" (RUSHTON, 1989). This theory postulates that a population full of altruistic individuals who enter into a series of reciprocal exchanges will increase their total genetic fitness as compared to competing population devoid of altruism (Hamilton, 1964).

Although many theories have been forwarded on the concept of altruism whether or not they are true, or even believed within society would is the topic of the below study.

Methods:

In order to test whether or not altruism exists within the context of human beings, we will use a survey method. Primarily, this will mean that individuals will be tested for whether or not they would respond to altruism. We will take a sample population of 200 hundred individuals who are randomly selected with gender, race, economic status, geography all blinded. Then we will provide a survey to each of these individuals presenting many different scenarios to test the hypotheses that we stated earlier.

A subjects will be split between two groups, the first hundred will answer their questions by themselves and isolated, the second group will answer their questions in pairs with both sitting in the room. The questions will be administered on a sheet of paper with only sentence answers accepted to provide them full ability to elaborate on their answers. They will answer questions on the topic of altruism that are split into three general categories. First, they will answer whether or not they would willfully commit a series of altruistic behavior ranging from picking up dropped change and returning it to someone, or to save the life of a drowning individual even if they would risk their own lives. Then they would be specifically asked a different set of questions regarding altruism but this time it will be noted that the person they are helping is a murderer or an individual who questionable moral character, would they still engage in the action they answered previously. The purpose of this set of questions is to see whether they would engage in similar action even if they know that the other individual will not reciprocate given the reverse of their circumstances. All individuals will answer blindly, and we will anonomously collect all of the information.