Gerhard Adam

Despite the intent in biology to eliminate group selection, it invariably turns up as the only reasonable explanation for the cohesion of species and the behavior of large groups of animals.Additionally, the struggle to explain altruism using kin selection and inclusive fitness is perpetually haunted by the requirement that the entire premise hinges on the existence of an actual "altruism" gene.  In other words, Hamilton's rule and inclusive fitness are meaningless if there isn't a genetic component to cooperation and altruism.

It is clear from many discussions that there is a split between things people consider to be "natural" versus those that are the products of technology, or man-made.  Obviously no one would consider a computer to be natural, nor would anyone suggest that a tree is man-made.  These differences are intuitive.

In my previous article, the fundamental equivalence of foods was discussed recognizing that there is a difference in assessing problems with the food, versus problems with food handling.  Moreover, much of the focus has been on the safety of these foods regarding human/animal consumption, however I would argue that there are much more serious problems that need to be addressed.

It seems that as this discussion continues, more and more concepts become conflated producing all manner of irrelevant comparisons that create more and more confusion.In the first place, we have the problem of defining what we even mean by food safety.  Truth be told, we don't have any idea what constitutes "safe" food beyond the fact that we may have a history of consuming it without obvious incidence.  Even here, we have a basic problem because many people may have allergies or sensitivites that have always existed, or are now being recognized.

"Heritability" is a term used in many articles and through much of the scientific literature and invariably promotes the idea that it relates specifically to inherited traits.  As a result, it is often assumed that the heritability of a particular trait relates to how much influence genetics has on the trait manifesting in an individual.However, that isn't what it means.Heritability attempts to address the relationship between nature (genetics) and nurture (environment), so that as each changes, the variation between individuals within a population can be estimated based on these influences.  In this context, "environment" simply represents everything external to the genome that could effect expression. 

There was an interesting study published recently that addresses the changes that occur to gut bacteria in pregnant women and the role this fulfills in maintaining a healthy pregnancy.There are two primary points that need to be addressed in order to appreciate these findings.

There is little doubt that there is an abundance of evidence regarding the role of cooperation among social animals and it is mentioned here as a precondition for the discussion of group selection and altruism; specifically in humans.While many of the elements that constitute human behavior are present in other animals, there is little question that humans represent an extremely unique existence.  Beyond even the obvious differences regarding intellectual capacity, humans represent a eusocial mammal that exploits an extreme division of labor, such that it is human society that operates to support human existence, rather than the capabilities of any individual (1).

Having just read an article about forest fires [How the Smokey Bear Effect Led To Raging Wildfires], I was struck by the obvious question of why this should be a problem.In effect, it illustrates one of the primary difficulties we face, as humans, in a modern society, equipped with all manner of scientific knowledge and yet seemingly unable to solve the simplest problems.

Recently several posts have played the "race" card and elicited all manner of responses, but at its root, the fundamental premise had not actually been examined.  Is "race" a valid concept?I know that many people will immediately experience a knee-jerk reaction to the idea of discussing "race" as pseudo-scientific, because they either have a vested interest in advancing their own "race", or because they wish to use it as a lever against other "races".

Living Forever - Boring?A recent article ["Would it be boring to live forever"] raised the question that if science could resolve the problem of dying and prolong human life indefinitely, in a healthy state, would we become bored with such an existence and look at death more favorably.  The two perspectives are essentially expressed in the following quotes.

I recently came across an article entitled "Synthetic biology: 'playing God' is vital if we are to create a better future for all".  As you can imagine, the article itself is primarily focused on the advance of science and the counter-arguments that are often viewed as being "anti-science".  Many of the comments support this view by arguing that we have been "playing God" since we domesticated the first animal, or planted the first food plant (1).One of the primary issues is what this phrase of "playing God", actually means and the article addresses that point (2).

Too often we see the "anti-science" label being tossed around and invariably we get behind our respective barricades and prepare for the barrage of arguments thrown at each side.However, the question we should be asking is why a different point of view should automatically be considered "anti-science".  After all, how is "anti-science" even manifest?  Is it simply the denial of facts?  Is it simply the denial of research?I suppose that any of those might be sufficient to consider someone anti-science, yet for people to have an opposing opinion, doesn't it suggest that exactly the opposite has occurred?  That they have facts and research.  They simply don't agree with each other.