Tim Tyler wrote:
> Anon.  wrote or quoted:
> 
>>Tim Tyler wrote:
>>
>>>Anon.  wrote or quoted:
> 
> 
>>>>But society is paying the policement, so there has to be
some reward for 
>>>>society.  The ability to give out this reward is a group level 
>>>>acitivity, so should evolve at that level.
>>>
>>>That doesn't seem to make much sense.  If some behaviour pattern is
>>>displayed by groups that doesn't mean that it evolved by group
selection -
>>>or that it will do so in the future.
>>>
>>>Search on "the selfish herd" for what I hope will be a clear
>>>counter-example - where what would normally be seen as a group-level
>>>behaviour is shown to be able to be evolved by individual-level
selection.
>>
>>You're giving me general arguments, but not actually giving any answer 
>>to the specific case.  I agree that some apparent group-level behaviour 
>>is due to individual level selection, but that doesn't prove that ALL 
>>group-level behaviour is due to individual level selection.
> 
> 
> I don't think I would ever claim such a thing.  Group level behaviour
> could be due to group-selection.
> 
> I don't know whether the specific example of human policing has
> anything to do with group selection.
> 
> It was proposed that policing represented some of the best evidence
> we have for group selection.  I'm pooh-poohing that idea - the
> evidence for group selection from policing seems to me to be
> insubstantial fluff.
> 
But you haven't poresented any evidence that the system can work without 
group level activity.  It's still society who pays the policeman (i.e. 
who gives the benefit), so you have to show that this can evolve as an 
individual level adaptation.


>>>I expect workers are infertile for the same reason that somatic cells
>>>are infertile - to ensure their loyalty; and make their owner's
phenotype 
>>>more harmonious.
>>
>>But there are many species of social hymenoptera where the workers can 
>>become fertile, but this is supressed by the queen.  So, how did the 
>>supression mechanism come about?  Why did the ants evolve so that 
>>workers receive the queen's signal?  Doing so reduces their individual 
>>fitness.
> 
> 
> If if "really" reduced their inclusive fitness, the situation would be
> like the queen drugging the workers - and making them act against their
> better interests by manipulating their nervous systems.  A possible
> scenario - but probably not a very stable one.
> 
Precisely.

> The other possibility is that those hives with rebellious workers had
> fewer offspring, and the workers that rebelled tended to leave fewer
> offspring as well - so the net effect of rebelling against the existing 
> queen is actually worse than cooperating with the rest of the hive to
> raise sisters.
> 
> I believe that many workers don't get to choose whether they become
> queens themselves.  It is determined by other workers feeding them
> a rich diet from a young age.  Where that happens, the idea of
> the workers "choosing" to receive the queen's signal is not
> appropriate - since the workers obeying the queen's orders
> are different ones from the ones that can still become queens.

But there has to be a control mechanism to decide between whether to 
developas a queen or worker, and this has to be turned on/off by the 
amount of food provided.  If the pupa can increase it's total fitness by 
developing as a queen even when not fed a lot of food, then the 
conditionality of the signal will not evolve.

Bob

-- 
Bob O'Hara

Rolf Nevanlinna Institute
P.O. Box 4 (Yliopistonkatu 5)
FIN-00014 University of Helsinki
Finland
Telephone: +358-9-191 23743
Mobile: +358 50 599 0540
Fax:  +358-9-191 22 779
WWW:  http://www.RNI.Helsinki.FI/~boh/
---
þ RIMEGate(tm)/RGXPost V1.14 at BBSWORLD * Info{at}bbsworld.com

---
 * RIMEGate(tm)V10.2áÿ* RelayNet(tm) NNTP Gateway * MoonDog BBS
 * RgateImp.MoonDog.BBS at 11/10/03 3:33:46 PM