In certain matriarchal Native American tribes, wives weren't expected to be faithful to their husbands, so the husbands could not be sure if her offspring were theirs. In these societies, men tended to invest more into the offspring of their sisters (or half-sisters), because they could be more certain that the children of a sister carried at least part of their genes.
Not that this will surprise you, but I became aware of your channel (the algorithm) as a result of your hilarious (and accurate) "10 Things that all Flat Earthers Say" video. While I do enjoy a good take down, my brain can only take so much nonsense before it needs a jump start. Enter...The rest of your channel. I do enjoy science, but I'm certainly not well enough versed in the sciences to have a channel devoted to it ("Space travel real. Gravity real". After that, my channel would dry up). So thank you for making a science enjoying layman such as myself learn something while being entertained. That's no easy task, yet you pull it off. Kudos.
So this is super interesting to me. I heard about the stat that gay men are likely to be the younger or the youngest sibling, and that the more children a couple has, the more likely that the later born child is gay. I really didnt care about this theory at all until I watched this video, but this video gave me new insight. Gay children are indeed able to care for the their siblings’ children because they dont have their own. It enhances the inclusive fitness of the entire herd. Should some of the heterosexual siblings die and leave their children behind, by having gay children who are more available to take on the care of the now orphaned children, the entire herd’s chance of survival increases. And I have an inexplicable dislike for this theory, but it truly truly does not matter to natural selection at all how I feel. Whatever enhances the herd’s chance of survival will be selected by natural selection, really doesnt matter anything else. If it works, the gene will be selected and propagate.
@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
Just debated with someone that didn't believe if helping our relatives was part of alturism. I showed him few articles about the types of alturism included kin alturism and then he had no words.
“They needs of the many outweighs the needs of the one or the few”” Spock in one of the Star Trek movies. Oh yea, Wrath of Kahn.. Guess it depends on other factors though, if one has no absolute logic. Are there degrees of altruism?
Another great example of ants displaying this behavior are when a colony wants to cross a body of water, the ants will create a make shift raft(or w/e it's called), where many ants at the base of this raft will drown and allow the ants above to survive the trip across the water I'v seen this in person several years ago in our pond out back when I was swimming in it I thought it looked scary because it went through my mind what would have happened to me if I had accidently made physical contact with them, because they were fire ants lol.
Dave, can you do a cool video about the science of time travel or black holes? In addition, can you also do a video about Einstein's theory on time dialation? Thanks!
I know this may be entirely off-topic, but how do creatures evolve from something like giving birth to eggs, to live birth? I recently watched a TierZoo video on lizards evolving to live birth for better survival, but I'm struggling to understand how this change occurs. What genes change to create this? Is this actually a behaviour thing? Is it an example of altruism, like parental instincts?
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.
You should explain how altruistic behavior benefits the species in a society (most notably human) and not just close family. I bring it up because my mother can't understand how people can be nice to each other even when it hurts the person being nice. She thinks God must have instilled that in people. I say science has the answers.
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.
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.
Where would you put humans, are we an Altruistic species (monarchical society- think kings and queens eruopean monarchy or pharoes) that has moved away to another system?
What about that guy in that anime who saved a girl by getting shot in the face whilst she didn’t even notice him and continued writing a book? (He also reincarnated as a dog)
Hello dave, I would like to ask you if you are interested in a debate with this UA-cam channel called "Standing for Truth". It is a Christian Channel based around creationism, specifically Young Earth Creationism. He does not believe in evolution. He has many many debates and discussions with other content creators. It would be very interesting for you to debate him as he seems quite knowledgable about the topic. He isn't very rude and arrogant in the discussions I have watched. I am just asking you if you were interested, I'm not his accomplice so I can't set anything up.
What is your opinion on how, since modern medicine has basically exempted humans from natural selection, it will impact the future of the human race. Weak genetics can now continue as where before, it would have been culled out.
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.
I'm actually a bit disappointed because I was introduced to this channel as a guy spreading his highly specialized expertise. Or even marginal expertise. This is...reading a middle school text book. I mean...I get it. But you're not explaining anything, you're reading a Wiki page.
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.
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.
@@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.
Dave will teach you more in 20 minutes than most teachers will teach you in a semester
In certain matriarchal Native American tribes, wives weren't expected to be faithful to their husbands, so the husbands could not be sure if her offspring were theirs. In these societies, men tended to invest more into the offspring of their sisters (or half-sisters), because they could be more certain that the children of a sister carried at least part of their genes.
Not that this will surprise you, but I became aware of your channel (the algorithm) as a result of your hilarious (and accurate) "10 Things that all Flat Earthers Say" video. While I do enjoy a good take down, my brain can only take so much nonsense before it needs a jump start. Enter...The rest of your channel.
I do enjoy science, but I'm certainly not well enough versed in the sciences to have a channel devoted to it ("Space travel real. Gravity real". After that, my channel would dry up).
So thank you for making a science enjoying layman such as myself learn something while being entertained. That's no easy task, yet you pull it off. Kudos.
So this is super interesting to me. I heard about the stat that gay men are likely to be the younger or the youngest sibling, and that the more children a couple has, the more likely that the later born child is gay. I really didnt care about this theory at all until I watched this video, but this video gave me new insight.
Gay children are indeed able to care for the their siblings’ children because they dont have their own. It enhances the inclusive fitness of the entire herd. Should some of the heterosexual siblings die and leave their children behind, by having gay children who are more available to take on the care of the now orphaned children, the entire herd’s chance of survival increases.
And I have an inexplicable dislike for this theory, but it truly truly does not matter to natural selection at all how I feel. Whatever enhances the herd’s chance of survival will be selected by natural selection, really doesnt matter anything else. If it works, the gene will be selected and propagate.
@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
One of my favorite topics! Cheers!
Just debated with someone that didn't believe if helping our relatives was part of alturism. I showed him few articles about the types of alturism included kin alturism and then he had no words.
🎶 He knows a lot about the science stuff
Professor Dave explains 🎶
Good stuff dave. Thanks for sharing this.
I love your content! I don’t mind being the dork on the sidelines who says so. Keep it up 😁
Dorks unite!
@@ProfessorDaveExplains dorks such
Needs rule!
notifications ONNNNNNNN!!!
Wowww... u made me understand this topic in just 6min... thank you 😊
“They needs of the many outweighs the needs of the one or the few”” Spock in one of the Star Trek movies. Oh yea, Wrath of Kahn..
Guess it depends on other factors though, if one has no absolute logic. Are there degrees of altruism?
Fabulous intro 😁
What completely different species working together. How do you explain humpback whales rescuing. Other animals from preditors
Indeed. I love this one ua-cam.com/video/EEa6jZv-Khc/v-deo.html
I think this one is really interesting -- ua-cam.com/video/KRUXU172vGg/v-deo.html
means that the predators get less food
Cool breakdown sir
I love your explanation so much ❤️❤️
Another great example of ants displaying this behavior are when a colony wants to cross a body of water, the ants will create a make shift raft(or w/e it's called), where many ants at the base of this raft will drown and allow the ants above to survive the trip across the water I'v seen this in person several years ago in our pond out back when I was swimming in it I thought it looked scary because it went through my mind what would have happened to me if I had accidently made physical contact with them, because they were fire ants lol.
You describe everything so well!
Dave, can you do a cool video about the science of time travel or black holes? In addition, can you also do a video about Einstein's theory on time dialation?
Thanks!
I did all that! Check my modern physics and astronomy playlists.
@@ProfessorDaveExplains I will check that immediately!
This means that evolution by natural selection can help a species develop morals
I know this may be entirely off-topic, but how do creatures evolve from something like giving birth to eggs, to live birth? I recently watched a TierZoo video on lizards evolving to live birth for better survival, but I'm struggling to understand how this change occurs. What genes change to create this? Is this actually a behaviour thing? Is it an example of altruism, like parental instincts?
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.
Another great video, Professor Dave. Any news on that anti-vaxers video, or have you already uploaded it?
that will be part of my upcoming immunology playlist
@@ProfessorDaveExplains, great. Looking forward to it.
What do you think of the group selection hypothesis put forward by E O Wilson? And mulitilevel selection in general?
How do I calculate the inclusive fitness?
You should explain how altruistic behavior benefits the species in a society (most notably human) and not just close family. I bring it up because my mother can't understand how people can be nice to each other even when it hurts the person being nice. She thinks God must have instilled that in people. I say science has the answers.
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.
This is perfect except that inclusive fitness applies to individuals, not groups.
Can you do a video about 5G towers and why people think that they are bad?
Check out SciManDan. He had an episode about that👍
hello. i was the 600th thumbs up. that is all. carry on.
Lockdown hey hai !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Plz send a video on corona virus
Be carful this will trigger some people you might not expect.
He has already debated one of them. ua-cam.com/video/lbB7AhwaZy8/v-deo.html
Raging S social constructionists
I’ll send this video to anyone who thinks it’s weird or unnatural to contribute to humanity rather than reproduce.
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.
That's no queen, that's just a regular red wood ant and seeing that word queen under it triggers me :D
Maybe it identifies or thinks of itself as a queen
Sir please do live stream for member s please,
I want reply for this
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!
Ultimately, why does it matter if ones genes are passed on?
It doesn't. Animals just have behavior that is tied to that value, because of how evolutionary principles work.
Where would you put humans, are we an Altruistic species (monarchical society- think kings and queens eruopean monarchy or pharoes) that has moved away to another system?
Thought the title said Autism and kin selection
Reminds me of Peter Kropotkin
I like the angry bird music :D
What about that guy in that anime who saved a girl by getting shot in the face whilst she didn’t even notice him and continued writing a book? (He also reincarnated as a dog)
Looking good with less hair.
Hello dave, I would like to ask you if you are interested in a debate with this UA-cam channel called "Standing for Truth". It is a Christian Channel based around creationism, specifically Young Earth Creationism. He does not believe in evolution. He has many many debates and discussions with other content creators. It would be very interesting for you to debate him as he seems quite knowledgable about the topic. He isn't very rude and arrogant in the discussions I have watched. I am just asking you if you were interested, I'm not his accomplice so I can't set anything up.
@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?
What is your opinion on how, since modern medicine has basically exempted humans from natural selection, it will impact the future of the human race. Weak genetics can now continue as where before, it would have been culled out.
I think evolution will all be in the realm of technology from now on, and the degree to which we merge with it.
Did humans undergo a macro-evolution?
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
cool
1st viewer🥺
You should do a flat earth debate with Nathan Thompson.
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.
Handsome devil and smort!
he knows a lot about the science star.... 🎶 🎶 love music
I wonder why nature hasn't selected for longer and longer reproductive lives.
I'm actually a bit disappointed because I was introduced to this channel as a guy spreading his highly specialized expertise. Or even marginal expertise.
This is...reading a middle school text book. I mean...I get it. But you're not explaining anything, you're reading a Wiki page.
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.
im early
wow
Case in point: Nature favors Nice Guys
What’s with the communist star on your animated shirt during the intro?
You some kind of socialist advocate?
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
if scientists are so great and knowledgeable.Why arent they yet sucessful to surmount corona.?
is science fail or knowledge is limited?
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.