Darwin might have gotten it wrong

Scientists at MIT have found some information that might counter the Darwinian argument for evolution. Based on experiments with yeast cells, they discovered that a single gene will not alter the genetic makeup of a living creature. Instead they think the entire genetic network affects the selection process and that all the genes affect each other. What does this have to do with our social networks class teachings? Well, here are a few article excerpts:

According to traditional evolutionary theory organisms that cooperate should not survive against freeloaders or cheaters that expend less of their own resources. By using Game theory, the mathematics of predicting individuals' behaviour in group situations, a team of MIT researchers have discovered how cooperating cells of yeast get around this problem...the team's findings indicate that if an individual can benefit even slightly by cooperating, it can survive when surrounded by freeloading individuals. The yeast that cooperate do so because there is some benefit for themselves as well as those that don’t. However, when most of the yeast colony are cooperating it becomes advantageous for some individuals to cheat and vice versa, which allows co-existence between cheaters and co-operators to arise.

interesting how this class applies to so many different topics.

here's the link to the article if you are interested:
http://www.australia.to/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=9135:future-darwinism-from-genes-to-group-evolution&catid=92:david-tow&Itemid=189

I found this to be interesting but kind of creepy at the same time. The way the article presents the game is that cells of yeast are players choosing whether to cooperate or not, and then the cell chooses which one would be more beneficial. Just the fact that the cells are “choosing” is kind of strange to me. I didn’t know that there were cheaters and a co-operators when it came to yeast cells, but I guess you learn something every day.

I think that it is interesting that such an unideal situation is the one that developed. It is a more ideal setting when everyone works with equal amounts of rigor, yet some work hard, and others leech off of these hard workers. This is an observable phenomenon in the working world too. The Pareto principle states that most of the effects come from only a few of the sources. Also called the 80-20 rule, this effect is very comparable to the yeast cells who work hard, and those who freeload. When too many stop working, poor results occur. And when many work hard, then some take it easy because they are already performing more than enough. So while cooperation is the best, freeloading is more ideal when people work hard.

this is interesting in that it somewhat related to how the economy works. more is gained by trading, then production by oneself. everyone specializes in an area of expertise, and trade good to gain access of other people's expertise to survive in the world. but this i believe still supports darwins theory of survival of the fittest. by coorperating, we benefit, by benefitting, we become fitter, by being fitter, we have a better chance of survival. if somehow, the group of yeast cells decides to isolate one particular yeast cell, that particular cell will die eventually, since it not only lost its connection with the yeast cell social network of trade and profitting, but must spend its own energy to survive without the help of others.

This research seems to be similar to the theories described by the evolutionary biologist, Richard Dawkins' The Selfish Gene (1976). Instead of countering Darwin's traditional theory of evolution, Dawkins thinks that a 'cooperative gene' persists because it is beneficial to that individual organism rather than for the entire community. Not everyone can be a freeloader since the entire group would then perish. Because of this phenomenon, at least a portion needs to cooperate, creating an equilibrium.

Dave Sexton wrote:I found this to be interesting but kind of creepy at the same time. The way the article presents the game is that cells of yeast are players choosing whether to cooperate or not, and then the cell chooses which one would be more beneficial. Just the fact that the cells are “choosing” is kind of strange to me. I didn’t know that there were cheaters and a co-operators when it came to yeast cells, but I guess you learn something every day.

This doesn't necessary for the cell to compute high levels of thinking. All a cell needs to know which decision would maybe yield more outputs, and since the cell only needs to align to an adjacent cell, all the information that the cell needs is available.

Imagine we have three cells. Each cell can pick to mutate into the same form as an adjacent cell.

The decision is solely based on which adjacent cell can produce more output.
The cells look like this at t=0
(1)-(1)-(1)
At t=1, cell#1 mutates to 1.1 due to random mutation process
(1.1)-(1)-(1)
At t=2, cell#2 decides to mutate into cell#1's form because it produces more output
(1.1)-(1.1)-(1)
At t-3, cell#3 follows
(1.1)-(1.1)-(1.1)

Now all cells output at an increased rate of 10%. We can call this an evolutionary mutation.

Doesn't require cells to do high-level decision making or any time domain forecast.
Nothing scary and makes a whole lot of sense imho.

Ching-Yen Pai wrote:

Dave Sexton wrote:I found this to be interesting but kind of creepy at the same time. The way the article presents the game is that cells of yeast are players choosing whether to cooperate or not, and then the cell chooses which one would be more beneficial. Just the fact that the cells are “choosing” is kind of strange to me. I didn’t know that there were cheaters and a co-operators when it came to yeast cells, but I guess you learn something every day.

This doesn't necessary for the cell to compute high levels of thinking. All a cell needs to know which decision would maybe yield more outputs, and since the cell only needs to align to an adjacent cell, all the information that the cell needs is available.

Imagine we have three cells. Each cell can pick to mutate into the same form as an adjacent cell.

The decision is solely based on which adjacent cell can produce more output.
The cells look like this at t=0
(1)-(1)-(1)
At t=1, cell#1 mutates to 1.1 due to random mutation process
(1.1)-(1)-(1)
At t=2, cell#2 decides to mutate into cell#1's form because it produces more output
(1.1)-(1.1)-(1)
At t-3, cell#3 follows
(1.1)-(1.1)-(1.1)

Doesn't require cells to do high-level decision making or any time domain forecast.
Nothing scary and makes a whole lot of sense imho.

We can also look at how cancer might spread in such a situation if we add perceived information into the game.

Imagine that a normal cell can output 1, while a cancer cell can output 0.1. However, cancer cell can fake information and pretend that it actually outputs 1.1.

The cells look like this at t=0
Real Output: (1)-(1)-(1)
Perceived Output: (1)-(1)-(1)
At t=1, cell#1 mutates to cancer due to random mutation process
Real Output: (0.1)-(1)-(1)
Perceived Output: (1.1)-(1)-(1)
At t=2, cell#2 decides to mutate into cell#1's form because it thinks that the cancer cell produces more output
Real Output: (0.1)-(0.1)-(1)
Perceived Output: (1.1)-(1.1)-(1)
At t-3, cell#3 follows
Real Output: (0.1)-(0.1)-(0.1)
Perceived Output: (1.1)-(1.1)-(1.1)

Now you got cancer in the whole system!