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

no, mutations don't become more drastic

Not all mutations are equal. And beyond that, the frequency at which they occur can definitely change.

Environmental stressors can play a part, for instance. Of course with epigenetics now being studied. We might find new data I think. I'm not sure how that impacts mutation. But it seems like mutation to me at some level.

Huh. Well I doubt that's a significiant factor.

Again it really depends upon the scenario. I'm not talking about most of the time.

well back to gays, even if we argue that altruism is not always good, doesn't the persisabtce of homosexual genes prove that they werr somehow beneficial for the species?

no

it implies that it's good for people with that gene

stop thinking of genes as benefiting the species

No. We have plenty of genes that serve no purpose or are actively detrimental.

yeah but aren't they usually significiantly more rare

@Tero how can it benefit the homosexuals themselves

i already said how

Genetic diseases are common. They don't really benefit anyone.