I have recently heard and read about controversy among Darwinists. Some researchers are perhaps claiming to overthrow the “Selfish Gene” idea. But this is all much less exciting than it seems. There is no new reason for religious fundamentalists to celebrate.
This all goes back to the great eccentric British scientist Haldane.
He said he would give his life for more than two brothers or eight cousins. (They would have more of his genes than he had). It seems that many biologists have thought this was the last word on evolution of altruism. Now triumphant researchers have established mathematically that altruism goes further than this in communal animals. Various people (including myself and surely Dawkins) knew this already, without doing the maths. To survive, a swarm of bees needs cooperation. Then new workers will be produced similar to the earlier ones, although workers do not directly reproduce.
This leads me to “Lamarckian” evolution, by inheritance of acquired characteristics, which has only recently become really significant. A blacksmith’s son does not automatically get big muscles because his father develops them. But if he goes into his father’s business, his muscles will grow. A more important and general case, is that well educated parents (especially mothers) tend to have well educated children, (not just because their genes make them clever).
Pilots in WW2 defended Britain, giving their lives voluntarily if not happily. This altruism was hardly genetically driven, as the “enemy” did not differ significantly from their friends. They were rather defending sets of beliefs and habits that they had picked up (e.g. cricket). Darwin knew little about the mechanism of genetics. His ideas work well in other contexts too.
cw
Loading ...
