Mechanisms of Natural Selection: Altruism and Kin Selection 

@Oli Mazi "Vasey also said the genes of the gay people can be carried on as their nieces and nephews have some of their DNA " That doesn't seem to carry forward. Even in identical twins, being gay vs not is STILL around 1.5 to 2.5% If you include being bi, the most liberal numbers shoot up a tiny bit past 5%. But the average is below that. And that's pretty much exactly the same as anyone else not related in north america. It could simply be that humans are incredibly adaptive and very social creatures. The need for a wider array of both support and skills to aid in survival, at least at a rate of 1:40 might make it worth while enough. It's also very likely this would change depending on the long term environment. Very harsh strictly survival type environments might favor better procreation chances, while safer more social environs might favor more resources and flexibility.

I only wonder if this will disappear in humans over time, sudden death of a sibling who's children would not be taken care of is sort of thing that happens less and less as medicine largely prevents it and wider society is somewhat of a replacement

Dorks unite!

@@ProfessorDaveExplains dorks such Needs rule!

Indeed. I love this one ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-EEa6jZv-Khc.html

I think this one is really interesting -- ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-KRUXU172vGg.html

means that the predators get less food

I did all that! Check my modern physics and astronomy playlists.

@@ProfessorDaveExplains I will check that immediately!

that will be part of my upcoming immunology playlist

@@ProfessorDaveExplains, great. Looking forward to it.

Ovivoparity is when the eggs are hatched internally and the newly born creature is birthed. Maybe that's how live birth came about? From eggs -> ovivoparity -> true live birth? Just my speculation.

And it sure as hell does. But before that - a small foray into the field of mathematics - Game theory and prisoners dilemma. Prisoners dilemma is a thought experiment: Police arrests two criminals (us), but does not have enough evidence to charge either of us on major crimes (2 years prison), but can charge each individually on a minor crime (1 year). It offers both of us a deal; rat the other out, and we'll drop your minor charges. We have no way of communicating with each other. The outcomes are as follows; - We both rat each other out; we both receive 2 years sentence. - One speaks, another stays silent: One gets 3 years, another is set free. - Both are silent: both receive 1 year sentence. OK, I'll let you take a pick, but let's add a small twist; what if that scenario happens multiple times? Then the best option is that we both keep our mouths shut. Not out of any "niceness", but out of simple self-interest; if I keep my mouth shut and you betray me, I sure as hell won't keep it quiet next time it happens - and I can expect the same from you. So in the long run, the best payoff for both of us is just to keep our mouth shut and take that damn 1 year sentence. The strategy of "I'll be nice, if you're nice, I'll be bad, if you're bad" (tit-for-tat) in those scenarios turns out to be one of the best strategies. And we tested a bunch of them. Sure it's a nice thought experiment and all, but, really, how often does that happen in nature? Turns out, all the damn time! Some species of birds are infected with ticks in places that they are unable to reach. They need another bird that will remove it for them. So, for any two birds the options are as follows; 1.) Both cooperate: I'll get rid of my ticks, but I have to waste my time removing yours. 2.) I cooperate, he defects: I spend time and energy to remove your ticks, and I'm still stuck with them. 3.) You cooperate, I defect: I got rid of ticks, and I don't have to get rid of yours! 4.) Neither of us cooperate: I still got ticks, but at least didn't spend my time removing yours. Whatever... On the first glance, it appears that option 3 is the best, right? Bullshit. Parasites will eventually come back and that bird will need somebody to remove them again. Sure, it can cheat for a bit, eventually everyone will caught on, and good luck getting rid of your ticks then. Those birds are essentially playing iterated prisoners dilemma. Of course, birds don't hold the payoff matrix in their heads and don't do mental arithmetic on it. Birds who were helpful to each other by instinct, had an easier time getting rid of ticks and could spend more time taking care of their offspring - effectively out-competing those birds who could not. "Foul," - I hear you cry - "They both get something in return! I can do transactions too!" OK, OK, Let's take bats; It is well known that some species of bats share (hunted) blood with one another. Surprisingly this sharing is not limited to sharing only between kin members. Why would a bat give away some of the it's gathered blood to a another bat that's not related to? Surely it is worse off than if it keeps it all for itself, right?. And yes, it is. However, hunting has variable returns. Some nights a bat gets a lot of blood, some nights it comes comes back empty handed. It also turns out that bats starve pretty quickly. So it pays off for a bat to give some of it's blood to another bat who came back empty handed - even to it's own detriment. Since the next time, that same bat may come back empty handed and might need some of the blood from someone else who was more successfull. Bats that help each other - even sometimes to it's own detriment - will on average still have a better chance of surviving than those who don't. Not only that, to minimize chance of being cheated on, bats had a tendency to share blood only with bats they previously shared blood with (and knew they'll get it back). You would do a friend a 30$ favor, but you wouldn't be so nice to a stranger, would you? As for humans, I'll just put a simple though experiment; You have two tribes with 50 people. In one tribe, you have people which instinctively cooperate and help each other and kick out cheaters, in another you have people who only think of their own ass and have no helping instinct. Which tribe will be more successful after 3 generations? Let's put it another way; with which tribe would you rather go hunt mammoth with? Yeah, I thought so. In this thought experiment you're dealing with iterated prisoners dilemma too, but I'm sure you would spit out right answer right away without any of that previous wall of text. Our ancestors who cooperated and helped each other simply out-competed those who didn't in exact same manner those birds and bats did. And that instinct is stuck with us, because it works so damn well for everyone on average. I'll give credit, where credit is due; bird and bat examples were taken out of Richard Dawkins book "The selfish gene". It's a phenomenal book that delves into an evolution of all kinds of altruistic and cheating behaviors. I work a lot with computer algorithms that mimics evolution - so I picked up this book as a sort of "biological analogy" to my work. I was however suprised, when a friend of mine, who studies philosophy, casually mentioned that this book was a required reading during her course on - morality. I should also point that the full story on origin of human morality is in no way fully understood yet and is in a lot of ways still a very open question. However we do know that evolution played a role. TL;DR: Life is not a zero-sum game.

He has already debated one of them. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-lbB7AhwaZy8.html

Raging S social constructionists

Check out SciManDan. He had an episode about that👍

Maybe it identifies or thinks of itself as a queen

Yes I should do one since there are 24 of you now, I just left a poll on my community tab for members only, check it out and vote on a preferred time!

It doesn't. Animals just have behavior that is tied to that value, because of how evolutionary principles work.

@Raging S Very impolite of you to assume. How about you take a look at his channel.

Choo Jun Wyng impolite? How is that impolite?

Right, or I could try to explain metaphysics to a toddler. There are lots of pointless things I could do that I totally won't do.

@@ProfessorDaveExplains Ik. Debating a baby like Nathan Thompson is one of the most pointless things to do.

@@ProfessorDaveExplains 😁

@@ProfessorDaveExplains you are more likely to have success (being measured by educating the other party) with the toddler.

Kin selection implies that it's only natural to want to help your own family. Group (or multi-level) selection doesn't care about how related you are, but biologists tend to freak tf out if you bring this up. Its existence is a major debate in the philosophy of biology.

Bunches of them.

@@CaptIronfoundersson like?

Well, for instance, about 270 million years ago we were four legged lizard-like synapsids with spinal sails, called Dimetradons. I'd say that's a pretty significant physiological change.

@@CaptIronfoundersson thanks mate

I think evolution will all be in the realm of technology from now on, and the degree to which we merge with it.

This script was written by a biologist. As in, one who studied biology. It explains biology concepts for the early undergraduate audience. So I'm not sure what you're talking about.

Donald Douchebag, is that you??

It's just a star, chief. You have no idea what communism is.

Professor Dave Explains Two questions: 1. Do you have a video explaining communism 2. Are you a communist

1) Nope 2) Nope

@@ProfessorDaveExplains 1. Take it as a suggestion 2. Cool

Um, pandemics are hard to solve, bud. Maybe you should learn the first thing about them rather than just sitting there complaining.

@Shahab Baloch Science can't answer everything. Religion can't answer ANYTHING!

You are right we must uplift our scientific knowledge. But science should end this trouble since it is plaguing people worldwide and morbidly disturbing children's education.

you are in my favour long

@@shahabbaloch8338 This is equal to you saying 'If science is so great and knowledgable, why don't we have time travel and why don't we rule over the galaxy yet?' Don't get me wrong, I respect your thinking to be different, but you are heavily uneducated on how science actually works. Professor Dave himself has a number of videos that will help you get better at the subject if you're up for it.