Richard Dawkins | Inclusive Fitness | Oxford Union

An extract from Richard Dawkin's open Q&A session at the Oxford Union on 18th February 2014.
ABOUT RICHARD DAWKINS: Clinton Richard Dawkins is an English ethologist, evolutionary biologist, and author. He is an emeritus fellow of New College, Oxford, and was the University of Oxford's Professor for Public Understanding of Science from 1995 until 2008.
Dawkins came to prominence with his 1976 book The Selfish Gene, which popularised the gene-centred view of evolution and introduced the term meme. In 1982, he introduced into evolutionary biology the influential concept that the phenotypic effects of a gene are not necessarily limited to an organism's body, but can stretch far into the environment, including the bodies of other organisms; this concept is presented in his book The Extended Phenotype.
SUBSCRIBE for more speakers ► is.gd/OxfordUnion
•Oxford Union on Facebook: / theoxfordunion
•Oxford Union on Twitter: @OxfordUnion
•Website: www.oxford-union.org/
ABOUT THE OXFORD UNION SOCIETY: The Union is the world's most prestigious debating society, with an unparalleled reputation for bringing international guests and speakers to Oxford. It has been established for 189 years, aiming to promote debate and discussion not just in Oxford University, but across the globe.

[@johns9350]

Many years ago I sat in on a seminar taught by Hamilton. Teaching wasn't his strong point,but what ideas! Few if any scientists top Dawkins for making evolutionary concepts clear.

[@dfhfdgfgdfshdfhe8257]

Amazing. I couldn't understand what he is saying here before reading the book "the red queen". Now I can. And after reading "the selfish gene", this looks obvious. People should be educated about these matters. All this isn't that hard to understand. We teach kids history in school, this kind of stuff should also be taught.

[@AEL-codeNchill]

Next read extended phenotype!! It's amazing

If the individual doesn't spread his gene, mutated and formed during his conception, why would he be then altruistic? How would the first "altruistic" trait/gene appear if it was not spread? I still don't grasp that concept

[@newtquestgames]

@ perhaps altruistic traits benefit the group and if the group dies the gene dies. The altruistic genes therefore don't work for the individual they work for the group

@@newtquestgames But don't you agree that some sort of time genetic synchronization must have existed within the group? I mean, two altruistic mutations in two different individuals within the same generation and group. Because if one is altruistic and the other is not, the altruistic gene will not spread. I need to understand better group selection.

[@MrKarenman]

@ He will be altruistic simply because the gene commands him to be altruistic, whether it’s beneficial for him or not. Let’s say an organism was born with a new, altruistic, gene. The organism will care for its siblings even though they don’t have that gene. From the point of view of the altruistic gene it’s a waste of resources. But waste of resources doesn’t necessarily mean immediate death of the organism. The organism may eventually reproduce and now the altruistic gene may start benefitting from altruistic behaviours of the children of the original organism. Because now when one sibling helps another sibling it is likely that the other sibling actually has that altruistic gene as well.

[@karisyanuaria3719]

I wish i could think like him..

[@kennethmarshall306]

I learned from this that it follows, by syllogistic reasoning, that altruism is explained by the "selfish gene" view of evolution (using Hamilton's rule). I had had a fuzzy notion that this was the case, but it is great to hear it confirmed by someone who knows what he's talking about.

[@Fancymanofthedeep]

Oxford, you have finally found a truly intelligent guest worthy of your hall.

[@shamanahaboolist]

Hardly... the man hasn't done any research in over 20 years and spends most of his time arguing strawmen against theists... not what I consider intelligent.

[@shamanahaboolist]

Eric Botosan Absolutely. Dawkins only promotes his polemics against people who are clearly not sufficiently educated well enough to have a reasoned debate. There are many who are able to challenge his world view and indeed completely refute it but he doesn't ever allow those debates to be publicized or he doesn't even enter into debate with them.

[@petrichor1956]

@@shamanahaboolist care to give an example ?

[@MazDelaCerna]

Glad to have watched this!!

[@chrish12345]

nice finally to have something intellectual from the Oxford Union. After seeing the kind of guests they have been having over the last few months I thought it had turned into a kind of Roadshow for the Sun newspaper. I was expecting their next big thing to be a roundtable discussion of how to perform Top Gear stunts at home or an authoratitive lecture on 'Reading is for Poofs' by Wayne Rooney's ex-lover. So really well done.

[@neandashelembe]

LOL!!

[@5eek3r0fknowl3dg3]

chrish12345 rooney screws hookers n old women

[@evangelosgiannopoulos-isar9572]

Inspiring talk by Dr Dawkins!

[@fritula6200]

Suffering makes us think!

[@noeditbookreviews]

Why do we (most people) idolize actors and musicians more than educators and scientists?

[@tempestedits4454]

Illuminating

[@Jester123ish]

Or as Robert Pirsig pointed out in explaining his Metaphysics of Quality, the term 'survival of the fittest' actually means survival of the best.

[@Knaeben]

best is a judgement

[@AnadeMacedo]

The concept of Reciprocal altruism derived seemingly from Hamilton’s rule

[@Jester123ish]

I believe David Sloan Wilson has said that Richard came out on the losing side over group selection and the weight of evidence doesn't support Richard's position. He's not being critical, just noting that it could have gone either way.

[@a8lg6p]

If Wilson said that, he's wrong. The neo-group selections are definitely in the minority. As best I can understand it, there may be a way in which they are sort of right. Maybe they're just looking at the same thing from a different perspective. It might be possible that there are situations in which the multilevel selection view in useful. But neo-Darwinism (the view established by the modern synthesis) is as strong as ever, is still the dominant paradigm, and has churning out advances in a vast range of fields.

[@p.jamesclark8512]

I can't just excuse the term 'teleological' because it begs the question

If the individual doesn't spread his gene, mutated and formed during his conception, why would he be then altruistic? How would the first "altruistic" trait/gene appear if it was not spread? I still don't grasp that concept

[@jessicastrat9376]

The first altruistic gene would be a mutation. ... does that make sense?

@@jessicastrat9376 I think so. But don't you agree that some sort of time genetic synchronization must have existed within the group? I mean, two altruistic mutations in two different individuals within the same generation and group. Because if one is altruistic and the other is not, the altruistic gene will not spread. I need to understand better group selection.

[@jessicastrat9376]

@ I know what you mean. But more likely one person had the gene for altruism (via a mutation) which did nothing for him while he was the only person with it..., until it was passed onto two or more of his offspring, who were then able to look out for each other. This would then multiply through the generations. Good question, and my answer is an informed guess. By the way you commented that you need to better understand group selection. ‘Group selection’ is the very thing that is incorrect here, that’s Dawkins whole point, so if you want to understand altruism, kin selection, and inclusive fitness, DONT look up ‘group selection, because it’s incorrect according my my layperson understanding, and according to Dawkins too

@@jessicastrat9376 ok, you are assuming that the altruistic gene, although within only one individual, was able to pass on, even if it was a gene that reduced the evolutionary fitness. I think you need some sort of group selection, because all animals already apply kin selection. But Homo Sapiens seems to have also sympathy towards other races or even species, although with lower degree

@@jessicastrat9376 thanks for the source, I'm checking now and indeed now I'm starting to fetch it en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Group_selection

[@aaronjohnson6261]

I don't see as much contradiction here. Hamilton's inequality is not an explanation, but a mathematical limit. It defines a "space" of possible altruistic traits: traits which must, in practice, benefit close kin more than distant relatives. A trait which, in its expression, systematically benefits distant relatives *more* than kin will certainly be weeded out. But the definition of this boundary, axiomatically accurate as it may be, does not *explain* why altruism does or does not develop within it.

[@kennethmarshall306]

Aaron Johnson It does explain why altruistic behaviour arises in nature. What Hamilton and Dawkins are saying is that, if apparently altruistic behaviour helps to increase the chances of reproducing the genes that built the altruist, then that behaviour will be naturally selected, so long as these genes are also contained in the body of the beneficiary of the altruistic behaviour.

[@bellarosalarsen1638]

Don't cut your hair Dawkins, so gorgeous.

[@ThatisnotHair]

2:39 Reproduction is more important than survival. So soids are going to win in the end due to sexual selection. Even if Osoids survives. So Rp is more important than Rq.

[@LiveBySoundReason]

Dawkin's grade for how to explain two minutes of ideas in ~15: A+

[@sanazuri8182]

Oh that's interesting.... 3min15, professor Dawkins. The real reason why you've make love, is that you love it. As hard this reality might be to accept in the cold world of evolution biology, without fluids, there's not replication, without erection, there's no fluid, and without motivation, there's no erection. Simple as that. And it applies, for everything! Reason why cow eat herbs, is because they love it.

[@user-jz2vh1vz3d]

alawl 'ana alkawn , almakhluqat alkawn nafsahu. althaani an alkawn walmakhluqat khuliqat bialsudfat walhazi .althaalith an hunak khaliq mubdie la yushbih almakhluq .akhtir linafsik waeid jawab lihadha alkhaliq wahu allah aladhi yaebuduh almuslim walnasaraa walyahud alrabu alkabir lays lah abn

[@TheOneLiliad]

Someone please kick that coughing person out

[@yellowhammer9103]

EVOLUTION is ,,REAL" Richard Dawkins evolve and look like Prince Charles but do not have royal blood and brain.

[@myexperimentalmind]

so a bugs life is not real?

[@yashagar4443]

myexperimentalmind are you nuts

[@shamanahaboolist]

Seems there's a very logical error that Dawkins hypothesis of genetic determinism is founded on... the premise that gene's have any kind of behavioural deterministic facet to them is false. Clearly cognitive processes are influenced by structural capacity defined by genes but the vastly overriding factor is defined by information processing derived by whatever is going on in microtubules in response to the environment.

[@Evoletization]

Aren't the genes which define whatever is going on in microtubules?

[@shamanahaboolist]

Evoletization The genes will determine the structure of the proteins that comprise those microtubules but not the information being processed in them nor the choices being made by them. That's like saying the blueprint of your car determines how where and when it is driven. The blueprint has a bearing on perhaps it's max speed and acceleration, how durable the mechanical system is or how comfortable the ride will be... but no capacity to determine the nature of it's use in response to the environment.

[@shamanahaboolist]

Evoletization Check out the theory of Orchestrated Objective Reduction by Stuart Hameroff and Sir Roger Penrose for a more complete description of the quantum nature of consciousness and cognitive determinism.

[@shamanahaboolist]

PablitaPicasita Automated cars operate without a driver. Still doesn't make the blueprint of its parts any more capable of influencing it's direction. Nor can genes define a cells direction or interaction with the environment.

[@shamanahaboolist]

PablitaPicasita True true the analogy isn't perfect but somewhat illustrative. Dna can confers the structures of proteins correct... but it does not confer how those proteins are used. Aka they are part of the design, they have no capacity to design. Therefore environment and physics has more deterministic elements than genes which is the rather crass terms Dawkins keeps speaking in.

[@5eek3r0fknowl3dg3]

a Dr that knows fuck all about fitness! wtf

[@georgescott6097]

Your comment, is not only silly, it's actually really embarrassing.

[@5eek3r0fknowl3dg3]

George Scott lol, lighten up we know he aint an MD u jackass

[@5eek3r0fknowl3dg3]

and that all professors/dr's are not medics!

[@M3Lucky]

The Secret Scouser What does that have to do with anything? Also why should we think you know more about fitness to the point that you can determine his supposed misunderstanding of it?

[@5eek3r0fknowl3dg3]

M3Lucky u are a clown, it was a joke pretending he was a medical doctor - surely u cant be that stupid and not realise it was a joke?

[@myroseaccount]

Unfortunately he is wrong at least according to David Sloan Wilson

[@MrCmon113]

Sloan is wrong according to me.

[@fritula6200]

We get our DNA from God. This is supernatural selection, not natural !

[@tom-mb7jd]

lol

[@MandoMohan]

Who wrote the code in the first instance? The code is instruction. It is a language. It is vast, unlike the mental capacity of this simpleton.

[@lasttango4609]

Why do you make the huge assumption that it was a "who" ? Take the parsimonious route and say "process". So the correct question is "By what process did the genetic code arise ?" Answers may include, but are not restricted to: 1. The FSM used his noodly appendages. 2. Yahweh thought it up. 3. Rangi made it. Note that these all presuppose another entity which requires explanation. 4. Chemistry and Natural Selection. Both of which can be observed and measured mathematically. 5. We don't have enough evidence to say yet.

[@shamanahaboolist]

***** One deduces (not assumes) a who because when one reads the works of Shakespeare one doesn't assume a monkey and a typewriter. The "process" of genetic code formation is disassociated from the information contained therein. In fact the process of DNA formation given the right chemicals in isolated proximity is self organising. The information contained which is relevant to protein structure and enables synthesis however is not. By the "infinite monkeys with typewriters" argument it is the genesis of information comprising consciousness in an infinite substrate that gains the eventual probability of 1 over infinite time. The probability of the genesis of a cellular structure comprising cell membrane structures, a cytoskeleton (probably itself comprised of microtubules to enable information processing), motor proteins and atp synthase by the action of geological forces is phenomenally small. So small it is negligible as an hypothesis of genesis to anyone that isn't in denial. We have plenty of evidence with which to deduce a "god" mind. Quantum physics and the nature of the collapse of the wave function also hints at the reality that our universe required a "mind" (or at least something which perceives through measurement) for the substrate we exist in to gain the properties of matter we know as having specific positioning in time and space. The image on the Turin Shroud also offers impressive tactile evidence of the supernatural.

[@shamanahaboolist]

***** That just simply isn't the truth. By all means explain how the image was formed then... bear in mind there's no dyes or paints and it's not burnt on, the image is atoms thick and formed by the rapid aging of cellulose in the linen. The image is a photo negative and contains even greater detail when seen through various different light spectrum. Tell me how someone even in the middle ages could have forged that. It would require laser precision. Now bear in mind there's numerous sources of evidence that the cloth is 1st century.

[@lasttango4609]

***** Thanks for replying. I'll address your points by number so you can refer easily to them. 1. "..one reads the works of Shakespeare one doesn't assume a monkey and a typewriter." What you are doing here is avoiding the issue and errecting a false premise. I am not saying that any number of monkeys could ever write one of the plays of Shakespeare by typing randomly. The process of refining genetic code is not random. Noone who understands it would ever say that it is. Natural selection results in the non random production of genetic information from randomly varying mutations. All your argument arising from the "typewriters" argument is invalid since it proceeds from an invalid premise. 2. "..evidence with which to deduce a "god" mind." Invoking quantum physics here is not evidence for an agent, since non agentic explanations can also be made. Also anyone who claims to understand quantum physics is immediately suspect. 3. Argument from the "Turin Shroud" uh oh, I typed all this and then read this, maybe you are actually a troll, but I will post anyway. Even if the Shroud Crowd are correct and the scientific evidence is wrong, and this is a 1st C cloth, that is not sufficient evidence to accept theistic claims about anything. Now if the cloth had the words "Don't own other humans" in all languages written on it, that would be more impressive as a directive from some superbeing. Still not evidence for any gods though.

[@lasttango4609]

***** Well put, and of course, not being able to explain something does not constitute evidence for any gods whatsoever. We once could not explain thunder. This did not mean it was evidence for any god, then or now.

[@MandoMohan]

The procreation process in animals, is "not perpetuating the species," but "perpetuating the genes". He is a deceptive clown, to say the least.

[@lasttango4609]

Not sure what your point is here. Genes are carried through time in containers, they don't have to be in the same species. We share many genes with other species. I don't think Dawkins is being deceptive, perhaps your notion of species is too narrow ? I'm happy to help if you have questions.

[@MandoMohan]

***** "We share many genes with other species." What? That makes absolutely no sense whatsoever. It's nonsense.

[@wujub]

Please tell us more Mando, so the people in Zoology, Plant Sciences, medsci, DTC etc stop wasting their time

[@MandoMohan]

wizzle I'd be only be addressing my peers and fellow alumni. They know my stance.

[@MandoMohan]

PablitaPicasita Some of us were doctors and scientists long before google was there for morons to doodle with.