I was just reading a short article at the Live Science website titled This week on Live Science forums: AMA on friendliness and evolution which is in effect a review and promotion for the book Survival of the Friendliest by Brian Hare and Vanessa Woods. Both authors appear to be qualified
but I have a serious bone to pick with their premise
They appear to have fallen into the mistaken belief that by "fittest" biologists mean the strongest, fastest, toughest, most aggressive etc. when in fact what they mean is anything that provides an organism a genetic advantage that allows them to have a better chance at mating and leaving progeny.
This can be something that makes an organism faster or stronger but it can also be something like a change in the color of their skin, scales or fur blends in better with the terrain and are harder to detect (camouflage) meaning that they can hide better. For instance, group of mammals that gains a gene that causes their fur to have some white in it would have an advantage in concealing themselves in a cold, snowy environment whether they were the hunter or the hunted[1]. The same with a mutation that might give them thicker fur. As time went on the descendants that had more white in their fur (or thicker fur) than others of their species would have the advantage and out reproduce the others.
And instead of meaning which organism is more aggressive which could very well mean that the organism gets in more situations that can get it killed and not living long enough to reproduce or to take care of their offspring after they reproduce resulting in their deaths, whereas being meeker might mean that the organism avoids conflict where possible and thus lives long enough to reproduce and leave more descendants than aggressive members of its species.
Even with predators it could be that because they are smaller they don't need to kill as much or as often allowing them better odds at surviving and leaving more offspring. Likewise, a predator that has a mutation that allows it to safely digest rotting meat means it can scavenge which is usually safer than having to fight and kill your prey.
So if there is something that causes an organism to be more co-operative, to be "friendlier" with other members of its species[2], and this leads to it having a better chance at surviving and leaving more offspring, then this is an example of "fitness" in the way biologists employ it.
End of rant.
1. Such a mutation would confer a disadvantage in hotter climates. Environment has a lot to do with whether a mutation is beneficial or detrimental (the vast majority of mutations are neutral -- but that is another story)
2. This could range from co-operating with other members of your species to become more efficient hunters to sharing extra food with those who have none lessening the chance of starvation
Woods is a research scientist as well as an award-winning author, journalist and member of the Hominoid Psychology Research Group. Hare is a professor in the Department of Evolutionary Anthropology and the Center for Cognitive Neuroscience at Duke University
but I have a serious bone to pick with their premise
...questioning a fundamental assumption in the study of human evolution: What if the survival and progression of the human species is less reliant on fitness … and more on friendliness?
They appear to have fallen into the mistaken belief that by "fittest" biologists mean the strongest, fastest, toughest, most aggressive etc. when in fact what they mean is anything that provides an organism a genetic advantage that allows them to have a better chance at mating and leaving progeny.
This can be something that makes an organism faster or stronger but it can also be something like a change in the color of their skin, scales or fur blends in better with the terrain and are harder to detect (camouflage) meaning that they can hide better. For instance, group of mammals that gains a gene that causes their fur to have some white in it would have an advantage in concealing themselves in a cold, snowy environment whether they were the hunter or the hunted[1]. The same with a mutation that might give them thicker fur. As time went on the descendants that had more white in their fur (or thicker fur) than others of their species would have the advantage and out reproduce the others.
And instead of meaning which organism is more aggressive which could very well mean that the organism gets in more situations that can get it killed and not living long enough to reproduce or to take care of their offspring after they reproduce resulting in their deaths, whereas being meeker might mean that the organism avoids conflict where possible and thus lives long enough to reproduce and leave more descendants than aggressive members of its species.
Even with predators it could be that because they are smaller they don't need to kill as much or as often allowing them better odds at surviving and leaving more offspring. Likewise, a predator that has a mutation that allows it to safely digest rotting meat means it can scavenge which is usually safer than having to fight and kill your prey.
So if there is something that causes an organism to be more co-operative, to be "friendlier" with other members of its species[2], and this leads to it having a better chance at surviving and leaving more offspring, then this is an example of "fitness" in the way biologists employ it.
End of rant.
1. Such a mutation would confer a disadvantage in hotter climates. Environment has a lot to do with whether a mutation is beneficial or detrimental (the vast majority of mutations are neutral -- but that is another story)
2. This could range from co-operating with other members of your species to become more efficient hunters to sharing extra food with those who have none lessening the chance of starvation
Comment