Altruism Question (Path 1 or Path 2)

Biology question which i'm having trouble with. This question is mainly for hymenoptera species.

You're a certain type of organism (doens't really really matter what), and you have two paths to choose.

You can stay home and take care of your sister and her 8 offspring (all healthy)

or

You can branch out, leave your home and have 5 offspring (all healthy).

which path do you choose in order to more sucessful genetically.

The one with lots of sex.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
The one with lots of sex.

but in all seriousness, i cant figure this out.

Originally posted by Dr. Leg Lock
it's either 0 or 5. so probably path 2 you say.

but in all seriousness, i cant figure this out.

Assuming the 8 children still exist in the second scenario the fact that more children are produced is a huge plus for the species.

Originally posted by Symmetric Chaos
Assuming the 8 children still exist in the second scenario the fact that more children are produced is a huge plus for the species.

i should have mentioned that.

I'm gonna go out on a limb and say, you're a virgin.

8 > 5

Originally posted by Dr. Leg Lock
Biology question which i'm having trouble with. This question is mainly for hymenoptera species.

You're a certain type of organism (doens't really really matter what), and you have two paths to choose.

You can stay home and take care of your sister and her 8 offspring (all healthy)

or

You can branch out, leave your home and have 5 offspring (all healthy).

which path do you choose in order to more sucessful genetically.

You'd have to work it out mathematically in order to see which one has the most evolutionary advantage. As it is, most organisms act accordingly with the math (roughly speaking) in nature, though they aren't aware of it. But natural selection would favor those who maximize their genetic inheritance, so you see behaviors that generally are in accord with what would be expected if we crunch the numbers.

This particular scenario is close, but also clear as to which you should choose (provided I'm remembering my percentages correctly). You share, on average, 50% of your genes with siblings (50% refers to half your genes beyond the base genetic information we share with all humanity and even other species). Once your sibling mates again, the children are again halved in relation to yourself. So you have 8 x 25% = 200. Or for your own offspring 5 x 50% = 250. So you should have kids.

If we're talking about fraternal or identical twins, then the numbers change, but I'm not versed enough on them to be able to say if it would swing in favor of the 8 nieces/nephews or not.

There's a lot of exact calculations to this affect in Richard Dawkins' The Selfish Gene. I realize Dawkins is a figurehead for controversy, but the book is fairly devoid of religion and focuses on evolutionary science.

Funny that you call this an alturism question though. Altruism is kindness for the sake of itself, regardless of personal (or evolutionary) benefit. You'd choose the 8 if you were trying to be altrusitic because you'd be helping more total people. But then that would also endorse helping a stranger with 12 children, so you'd be screwed genetically.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
Funny that you call this an alturism question though. Altruism is kindness for the sake of itself, regardless of personal (or evolutionary) benefit. You'd choose the 8 if you were trying to be altrusitic because you'd be helping more total people. But then that would also endorse helping a stranger with 12 children, so you'd be screwed genetically.

Worse, it would endorse taking care of a predator's children.

Originally posted by McLovin
I'm gonna go out on a limb and say, you're a virgin.

Originally posted by tauros
8 > 5

Originally posted by DigiMark007
You'd have to work it out mathematically in order to see which one has the most evolutionary advantage. As it is, most organisms act accordingly with the math (roughly speaking) in nature, though they aren't aware of it. But natural selection would favor those who maximize their genetic inheritance, so you see behaviors that generally are in accord with what would be expected if we crunch the numbers.

This particular scenario is close, but also clear as to which you should choose (provided I'm remembering my percentages correctly). You share, on average, 50% of your genes with siblings (50% refers to half your genes beyond the base genetic information we share with all humanity and even other species). Once your sibling mates again, the children are again halved in relation to yourself. So you have 8 x 25% = 200. Or for your own offspring 5 x 50% = 250. So you should have kids.

If we're talking about fraternal or identical twins, then the numbers change, but I'm not versed enough on them to be able to say if it would swing in favor of the 8 nieces/nephews or not.

There's a lot of exact calculations to this affect in Richard Dawkins' The Selfish Gene. I realize Dawkins is a figurehead for controversy, but the book is fairly devoid of religion and focuses on evolutionary science.

Funny that you call this an alturism question though. Altruism is kindness for the sake of itself, regardless of personal (or evolutionary) benefit. You'd choose the 8 if you were trying to be altrusitic because you'd be helping more total people. But then that would also endorse helping a stranger with 12 children, so you'd be screwed genetically.

i dunno, the question was titled

'Kin Selection & Altrusim'

edit:

as for Dawkins, i really like his seminars, but the topics in his books are really shallow at times.

Originally posted by Dr. Leg Lock
that is pretty much what i wrote on the exam. afterwards, i asked the other students and they were all saying that staying with the 8 kids passes down more of your genes.

So they didn't really read the question in detail.

Originally posted by Dr. Leg Lock
that is pretty much what i wrote on the exam. afterwards, i asked the other students and they were all saying that staying with the 8 kids passes down more of your genes.

i dunno, the question was titled

'Kin Selection & Altrusim'

If they said that, they're wrong, provided my math is right and I'm not skewing the percentages (which is possible, but not likely).

In general your own self, and then direct offspring, are more important from an evolutionary stance than a lot of other stuff. The percentages drop off in a hurry even after only a couple steps. Even without doing the math when I saw the thread I immediately assumed the 5 would be the correct choice.

Of course, some of your genes are encased in relatives, so natural selection should and does engender altruism among kin.

It's also a leading hypothesis for why men are more likely to be unfaithful than women. Women are 100% sure a child is theirs. Men, fairly sure most of the time but less so, especially before DNA testing (which evolution has not had time to account for). So natural selection likely favored men at one point in history who had multiple partners, and were slightly more skeptical about the parentage of their children. Because nothing kills a gene pool like toiling away trustingly for someone else's kids while he makes even more offspring.

i doubled checked, and you're math was correct.

thanks for the help guyz. appreciate it.

The only thing I was unsure about was whether or not siblings were 50%...if they weren't it threw the whole thing off.

Originally posted by DigiMark007
The only thing I was unsure about was whether or not siblings were 50%...if they weren't it threw the whole thing off.

it's either 1/2 or 1/4. shit

Originally posted by Dr. Leg Lock
Biology question which i'm having trouble with. This question is mainly for hymenoptera species.

You're a certain type of organism (doens't really really matter what), and you have two paths to choose.

You can stay home and take care of your sister and her 8 offspring (all healthy)

or

You can branch out, leave your home and have 5 offspring (all healthy).

which path do you choose in order to more sucessful genetically.

Staying with the sister, I would imagine, is the more altruistic path. If one is altruistic in this scenario, then the propogation of their own genes would be of secondary concern.

-Edit-

Originally posted by DigiMark007
Funny that you call this an alturism question though. [/B]

sorry, I didn't realize you'd already said that.

Originally posted by Dr. Leg Lock
Biology question which i'm having trouble with. This question is mainly for hymenoptera species.

You're a certain type of organism (doens't really really matter what), and you have two paths to choose.

You can stay home and take care of your sister and her 8 offspring (all healthy)

or

You can branch out, leave your home and have 5 offspring (all healthy).

which path do you choose in order to more sucessful genetically.

I dont get the how some people feel they HAVE to procreate.

Originally posted by Dr. Leg Lock
actually siblings might be 25%. hmmm shit i'm lost.

it's either 1/2 or 1/4. shit

Either way, it should get halved with a sibling's children. So the ratio is the same, even if the exact numbers aren't, so you'd get the same outcome to the problem regardless.

I'm interested to know the circumstances under which the question was originally posed. Was it in a class of some sort?

I was just thinking the same thing.