Philosophu Talk

Guest · Posted: Thu Jul 17, 2008 2:42 pm Post subject: Science Disproves Evolution

Altruism 2

If evolution were correct, selfish behavior should have completely
eliminated unselfish behavior (c). Furthermore, cheating and
aggression should have “weeded out” cooperation. Altruism contradicts
evolution (d).

c. “Ultimately, moral guidelines determine an essential part of
economic life. How could such forms of social behavior evolve? This is
a central question for Darwinian theory. The prevalence of altruistic
acts—providing benefits to a recipient at a cost to the donor—can seem
hard to reconcile with the idea of the selfish gene, the notion that
evolution at its base acts solely to promote genes that are most adept
at engineering their own proliferation. Benefits and costs are
measured in terms of the ultimate biological currency—reproductive
success. Genes that reduce this success are unlikely to spread in a
population.” Karl Sigmund et al., “The Economics of Fair Play,”
Scientific American, Vol. 286, January 2002, p. 87.

d. Some evolutionists propose the following explanation for this long-
standing and widely recognized problem for evolution: “Altruistic
behavior may prevent the altruistic individual from passing on his or
her genes, but it benefits the individual’s clan that carries a few of
those genes.” This hypothesis has five problems—the last two are
fatal.

Observations do not support it. [See Clutton-Brock, pp. 69–72.]

“...altruistic behavior toward relatives may at some later time lead
to increased competition between relatives, reducing or even
completely removing the net selective advantage of altruism.” Stuart
A. West et al., “Cooperation and Competition between Relatives,”
Science, Vol. 296, 5 April 2002, p. 73.

If individual X’s altruistic trait was inherited, that trait should be
carried recessively in only half the individual’s brothers and
sisters, one-eighth of the first cousins, etc. The key question then
is: Does this “fractional altruism” benefit these relatives enough
that they sire enough children with the altruistic trait? On average,
one or more in the next generation must have the trait, and no
generation can ever lose the trait. Otherwise, the trait will become
extinct.

From an evolutionist’s perspective, all altruistic traits originated
as a mutation. The brothers, sisters, or cousins of the first person
to have the mutation would not have the trait. Even if many relatives
benefited from the altruism, the trait would not survive the first
generation.

The hypothesis fails to explain altruism between different species.
Without discussing examples that require a knowledge of the life
patterns of such species, consider the simple example above of humans
who forgo having children in order to care for animals.

Edward O. Wilson, an early proponent of this evolutionary explanation
for altruism, now recognizes its failings:

“I found myself moving away from the position I’d taken 30 years ago,
which has become the standard theory. What I’ve done is to say that
maybe collateral kin selection is not so important. These ants and
termites in the early stages of evolution—they can’t recognize kin
like that. There’s very little evidence that they’re determining who’s
a brother, a sister, a cousin, and so on. They are not acting to favor
collateral kin.” Edward O. Wilson, “The Discover Interview,” Discover,
June 2006, p. 61.

http://www.creationscience.com/onlinebook/ReferencesandNotes12.html#wp1012249

Ken · Guest