Kin Selection Essay

Kinship influences daily life of Indigenous people, including individual responsibilities to other members in the clan.

It was these systems of kinship which determined who, and for which, members of the clan were responsible. In a society in which excess and wealth were not valued, in fact discouraged, this was a method of survival and insuran ce. These kin relationships were the foundation for all forms of reciprocity within the clan. For example, when a larger animal was caught in the hunt, it was pre-determined, depending on who captured the animal, who would receive which parts of the animal (Edwards 2005, p. 49). Sharing and reciprocity was not a friendly gesture within Aboriginal communities, it was an obligation which was to be taken seriously. It was a method for Aboriginal people to survive in a sometimes harsh and unforgiving land, which took the lives of many settlers.

Mate choice is a product of mate preferences form in the environment of evolutionary adaptiveness (EEA). Sexual selection suggests that females prefer males who they can gain benefits from such as gifts. This is shown in male birds who make nests for females in order to mate with them and also in insects who give nuptial gifts.

Complete the worksheet writing 100- to 200-word short answers for each question. Format your references consistent with APA guidelines.

There is a better chance of the traits being passed on when sexual selection is at

In the process of natural selection, individuals that have certain inherited traits tend to survive and

The book of Genesis states that God created life in an array of fixed species and it was not until the 19th Century, that paleontological discoveries started to cast doubt on creationism and Charles Darwin published his theory of evolution in On the Origin of the Species (Clegg, 2007, p.120). The two processes that are involved in evolution and the fundamental connections between the evolutionary process and behaviour, in particular that of altruism and whether it can be seen as an adaptive behaviour are considered here.

One thing about natural selection that many people do not understand that natural selection does not increase the odds of survival for a species, but for individuals in that species. This makes sense when someone considers humans. Humans live in many social cultures, where for instance, the odds of survival in a group can be improved by the selection of certain traits that does not improve an individual’s odds of survival. Coyne states, one never sees the type of adaptations that benefit the group to the detriment of an individual (p.122).

In what he called the ‘survival of the fittest’, Darwin suggested that through the process of natural selection animals with particular characteristics, as a result of possessing advantageous alleles, will survive. However, those with maladaptive genes cannot adapt to changes in environmental conditions, so will die or become extinct. Dowling (1994) stated that this process depends on three principles: species diversity, interaction and the spread of a species as a result of differential amplification. Sexual selection is another component of Darwin’s research, which explains the best strategies adopted for passing on genes to offspring. Moreover, there are problems with Darwin’s theory such as his attempts to generalise animal behaviour to the way in which humans interact in their environment. However, he has presented compelling evidence which is very scientific in its approach and methodology. Furthermore, contrary to Darwin’s evolutionary idea of survival of an individual, Dawkins (1976) suggested that the survival of the genes is more important.

Called the covariance or Price equation, this formula tested natural selection and altruism's role in it (Bankston). “From the Price equation, we can see that such ultimate causes equate to the different ways in which the frequency of an altruistic allele in a population can increase. Under this approach, the ultimate causes underlying the evolution of altruism, given some positive fitness costs and benefits” (Marshall).

An oxymoron appeared to exist between Darwin’s theory of natural selection (1859) and the definition of altruism (West et al., 2006). Hamilton’s theory of inclusive fitness (1964) appeared to mediate this problem. However, the theory does not explain altruistic acts towards non-kin in line with natural selection. Reciprocal altruism (Trivers, 1971), indirect altruism (Alexander, 1987) and strong reciprocity (Gintis, 2000) have been proposed to resolve this conflict. It is of note that behaviour in all theories has been noted in animals, but will not be discussed further. Instead, the essay will focus on which theories are most relevant when understanding human sociality, with the author explaining why no sole theory is seen to describe the phenomenon. All theories will be discussed in relation to evolutionary stable strategies (ESS), which refers to plans that when adopted by a majority of members in a population that restrict any other action existing, which could yield higher reproductive success (Smith & Price, 1973).

societies use kinship as a basis for forming social groups and for classifying people. However,

Kin selection relates to evolutionary advantage according to Hamilton's rule, C/B < b. The ratio of the cost, C (which is the expected loss in reproductive success for the doer) to the benefit for the recipient, B (the gain in reproductive success for the must be less than the probability that the recipient has the same allele, for the altruist gene to survive (5).

Nevertheless, one recent study suggests that genetic differences between our ancestors could have resulted in lethal intergroup competition which disfavoured non-altruists [6]. I will attempt to link this theory to what is known as kin selection. Kin selection explains altruism as an act increasing the probability of an individual’s genes being transmitted to the next generation. [3] We share half of our genes our siblings and parents, and a quarter with cousins, nephews and nieces. [1, 2] Therefore, altruistic behaviour towards these individuals would result in our genes passing on due to their higher probability of survival. This is known as increasing one’s inclusive fitness. [7] Since early human societies included members genetically related to one another, [6] kin selection between these individuals resulted in the societies growing in size. Thus, societies genetically predisposed in displaying co-operative, altruistic behaviour towards each other (through acts such as group hunting, mutually defending each other, and sharing food) are more capable of surviving, resulting in the altruistic gene surviving.[1] This, I believe, is the predominant explanation for altruism in humans today. The act of altruism is a genetic inheritance evolving through the basic instinct of survival and continuity of species.

The law proves that natural selection is necessary for evolution to occur ("SparkNotes: population genetics," 2014). The conditions set up by the Hardy-Weinberg Law allow for variability (the existence of different alleles) and inheritance, but they eliminate natural selection ("SparkNotes: population genetics," 2014). The fact that no evolution occurs in a population meeting these conditions proves that evolution can only occur through natural selection ("SparkNotes: population genetics," 2014). The Hardy-Weinberg Law allows us to estimate the effect of selection pressures