...I think when two direct brothers - born to the very same parents - become antagonistic to each other and escalate it to court fights and social aloofness etc., we have a situation where the concepts of "one's own side" does not come in at all because the
Dear Shri sangom, is there any reason why the following explanation from post
#124 is not acceptable. Here is what I said:
The quotient for one's own side of the extended family is twice as high as that of the dayati's side, and when the stakes are high, the intensity of fight will also be high. Therefore, Dayati fights quite nicely fit with RD's explanations.
In a conflict between brothers, we have self (100% related) against brother (only 50% related). So the favored person in a dayati conflict is oneself, it is clear cut.
Behavior of parents is perhaps a little more complicated. It is easy to explain the case when they don't side with anyone. When they do take a side, we can conjecture that it is driven by desire for what they perceive as fair.
.. Reality seems to be far more complex than what may be explainable by the gene relatedness concept. Because such fights, very intense dislikes, are observed in a number of families, I feel that the concept of preservation of gene also has to be tested and verified as to how such hatreds can be explained within its parameters.
Yes, individual cases are far more complex to explain or predict. We can only make discoveries about predominant behavior of large populations. This is what I said in my previous post, excerpted below.
We must also note that environmental factors and gene mutations will interfere in this process, thus making precise mathematical predictions impossible, in other words, how a particular individual will react in a given situation is anybody's guess. However, overall trends for large populations and why certain behaviors are dominant and others not, can be and are understood quite precisely, through painstaking observation and research.
I am not sure why this is unacceptable.
We know siblings can be very loving, sharing and willing to sacrifice for the benefit other siblings. They can also behave in very selfish ways. The gene relatedness construct gives a handle to understand this dichotomy. Perhaps you are expecting a theory to precisely predict how a given sibling will behave under a given situation. That is probably an impossible task way beyond human ability. I don't think biology can explain why Sydney Carton did what he did.
That is what makes this theory suspect.
Are you saying Darwin had it all wrong with Origin of Species? The discovery of genes and the role they play in evolution is one of the most powerful supporting evidences for what Darwin theorized.
Cheers!
