Generally, when people say related, they are referring to individuals sharing a line of descent.

but all the humans share a line of descent

You are more closely related to your father than your uncle. So you will probably have a natural preference for your father over your uncle.

of course

If an animal is provided a situation where they can only assist one individual, with one being distantly related and the other being its offspring, it will almost certainly assist it's own offspring.

In other words they are not of equal value or worth.

This hurts any arguement for altruism rather drastically.

I mean that's obviously true

But it doesn't demolish it

If it were a perfect world, and the means to help all individuals existed, altruism might be possible. But even then, you face the issue that few parents will intentionally place another's offspring upon equal footing with their own, due to competition.

I'm not sure what you mean lol

Are you arguing against altruism?

Yes.

If nothing else, consider a situation in which the future cannot be determined. There might be a famine next year, or a disaster.

Now assume you already have enough supplies for several people. You have one child.

Do you hand out those supplies, which *right now* would be enough for several people, or do you keep them because you do not know if you might need more than you thought?

You are essentially providing your offspring with the most resources possible to ensure their success, whatever form that might take. Reproduction, avoiding injury or predation, etc.

To do so you are not allowed to consider altruism. You have other concerns. Among these is the fact that every other individual that you help, that is a potential competitor for your own offspring, that you have provided resources to.

Of course there's a balance here.

You don't want your group to collapse. That would disadvantage you and your offspring. You must therefore assist the group so that it can in turn possibly assist you in the future. But assisting yourself is usually higher in priority.

I mean I'm not currently agruing for communism lol

Well adoption would be a form of altruism. It is not always to the benefit of the individual, or even the species, depending upon how tree that species is doing.

@EnderOctanus `Evolution absolutely occurs at the level of species.`
no, what is meant by this is as follows: genes which harm an individual's chances of reproduction but "benefit the species" will be selected against

obviously species still go extinct, but this is perfectly explainable from the individual level

the reverse cannot be said

actually

no

because this indvidual's relatives can carry those genes in inactive state

The reverse can be said actually. Evolution isn't simply about benefit. It can lead to harm as well.

how so?

Okay. Let's say that there is a sudden shift in climate etc. Your species adapts to it genetically. Soon after this adaptation, however, another change in the opposite direction occurs. Your species is even further from its previous baseline now, so adapting again in such a short time would be far more unlikely, which is believed to be the reason why many species go extinct.

ah well this is true but it isn't really about evolution

Evolution is genetic adaptation over generations.

Well. Mutation as well, so even if it isn't an 'adaptation' I suppose.

I.e. serves no real purpose

well the thing is that the change is gradual

so a siginificiant shift in the "wrong direction" cannot really occur

the "defective" individuals will become unable to reproduce way before thst

Sure it can. Sudden events can lead to rapid change.

what you said only matters when the population is really small

like, really small, when every speciman matters