이타주의와 공생관계는 진화를 거부한다

이타주의와 공생관계는 진화를 거부한다

(Altruism and Symbiotic Relationships)


1) 이타주의 (Altruism)

사람과 많은 동물들은 다른 사람이나 다른 동물들을 구하기 위해서 위험을 감수하기도 하며, 그들의 삶을 희생하기도 한다.1 각 종의 생존경쟁을 말하고 있는 자연선택에서, 이타적인(자기 희생의) 개체는 빠르게 제거되어야만 한다. 그러한 위험하고 희생이 큰 행동이 어떻게 유전될 수 있었는가? 왜냐하면 이타적 행동을 지시하는 유전자를 가지는 개체는 그것을 후손에게 전달하는 (생존하는) 것이 방해받을 것이기 때문이다.2 만약 진화가 옳다면, 이기적인 행동은 이타적인 행동을 완전히 제거했을 것이다.3 더군다나 사기성과 공격성은 협력 체제를 붕괴시켰을 것이다. 이타주의는 진화론과 모순된다.4

 

2) 공생관계 (Symbiotic Relationships)

서로 다른 많은 생물체들은 서로가 서로에게 완전히 의존하고 있다. 예를 들면 무화과나무(fig trees)와 무화과말벌(fig gall wasp)5, 유카나무와 유카나방(yucca moth)6, 많은 기생충과 숙주들, 화분을 가진 식물과 꿀벌...등이다. 여왕벌, 일벌, 숫벌로 구성된 꿀벌 집단의 숫자도 상호의존적이다. 만약 상호의존적인 공생관계에서의 한 개체가 먼저 진화하였다면(가령 동물 이전에 식물, 화분식물 이전에 꿀벌, 또는 여왕벌 이전에 숫벌...), 그것은 생존할 수 없다. 그룹의 모든 구성원들이 생존하기 위해서는, 그들 모두가 같이 동시에 진화하였어야만 한다. 다른 말로하면 이것은 창조다.     

 

*참조 : Human Mind Outwits Darwinian Models    
http://creationsafaris.com/crev200805.htm#20080502a

The non-evolution of apoptosis 
http://creationontheweb.com/images/pdfs/tj/j18_1/j18_1_86-96.pdf

 

References and Notes

1.'.... the existence of altruism between different species - which is not uncommon - remains an obstinate enigma.” Taylor, p. 225.

Some inherited behavior is lethal to the animal but beneficial to unrelated species. For example, many animals (goats, lambs, rabbits, horses, frogs, toads) scream when a predator discovers them. This increases their exposure but warns other species.

2. From an evolutionist’s point of view, a very costly form of altruism occurs when an animal forgoes reproduction while caring for another individual’s young. This occurs in some human societies where a man has multiple wives who share child-raising duties, even though only one wife bears children. More well-known examples include celibate individuals (such as nuns and many missionaries) who devote themselves to helping others. Such traits should never have evolved, or if they accidentally arose, they should quickly die out.

Adoption is another example.

From a Darwinian standpoint, going childless by choice is hard enough to explain, but adoption, as the arch-Darwinist Richard Dawkins notes, is a double whammy. Not only do you reduce, or at least fail to increase, your own reproductive success, but you improve someone else’s. Since the birth parent is your rival in the great genetic steeplechase, a gene that encourages adoption should be knocked out of the running in fairly short order.  Cleo Sullivan, 'The Adoption Paradox,” Discover, January 2001, p. 80.

Adoption is even known among mice, rats, skunks, llamas, deer, caribou, kangaroos, wallabies, seals, sea lions, dogs, pigs, goats, sheep, bears, and many primates. Altruism is also shown by some people who have pets - a form of adoption - especially individuals who forgo having children of their own in order to have pets.

Humans, vertebrates, and invertebrates frequently help raise the unrelated young of others.

'... it is not clear that the degree of relatedness is consistently higher in cooperative breeders than in other species that live in stable groups but do not breed cooperatively. In many societies of vertebrates as well as invertebrates, differences in contributions to rearing young do not appear to vary with the relatedness of helpers, and several studies of cooperative birds and mammals have shown that helpers can be unrelated to the young they are raising and that the unrelated helpers invest as heavily as close relatives.” Tim Clutton-Brock, 'Breeding Together: Kin Selection and Mutualism in Cooperative Vertebrates,” Science, Vol. 296, 5 April 2002, p. 69.

Six different studies were cited in support of the conclusions above.

3.'Ultimately, moral guidelines determine an essential part of economic life. How could such forms of social behavior evolve? This is a central question for Darwinian theory. The prevalence of altruistic acts - providing benefits to a recipient at a cost to the donor - can seem hard to reconcile with the idea of the selfish gene, the notion that evolution at its base acts solely to promote genes that are most adept at engineering their own proliferation. Benefits and costs are measured in terms of the ultimate biological currency - reproductive success. Genes that reduce this success are unlikely to spread in a population.” Sigmund, Carl et al., 'The Economics of Fair Play,” Scientific American, Vol. 286, No. 1, January 2002, p. 87.

4. Some evolutionists try to explain this long-standing and widely recognized problem for evolution as follows: 'Altruistic behavior may prevent the altruistic individual from passing on his or her genes, but it benefits the individual’s clan that carries a few of those genes.” This hypothesis has five problems - the last two are fatal.

Observations do not support it. [See Clutton-Brock, pp. 69-72.]

'... altruistic behavior toward relatives may at some later time lead to increased competition between relatives, reducing or even completely removing the net selective advantage of altruism.” Stuart A. West et al., 'Cooperation and Competition between Relatives,” Science, Vol. 296, 5 April 2002, p. 73.

* If individual X’s altruistic trait was inherited, that trait should be carried recessively in only half the individual’s brothers and sisters, one-eighth of the first cousins, etc. The key question then is: Does this 'fractional altruism” benefit these relatives enough that they sire enough children with the altruistic trait? On average, one or more in the next generation must have the trait, and no generation can ever loose the trait. Otherwise, the trait will become extinct.

* If X did not inherit the altruistic trait but got it from a rare mutation, then probably no brothers, sisters, or cousins have the trait. No matter how much the individual’s clan benefits, the trait will become extinct. From an evolutionist’s perspective, all altruistic traits had to originate this way. Therefore, altruistic traits cannot survive the first generation.

* The hypothesis fails to explain altruism between different species. Without discussing examples that require a knowledge of the life patterns of such species, consider a simple example above of humans who forgo having children in order to care for animals.

5. Oscar L. Brauer, 'The Smyrna Fig Requires God for Its Production,” Creation Research Society Quarterly, Vol. 9, September 1972, pp. 129-131.

* Bob Devine, Mr. Baggy-Skin Lizard (Chicago: Moody Press, 1977), pp. 29-32.

6. Jerry A. Powell and Richard A. Mackie, Biological Interrelationships of Moths and Yucca Whipplei (Los Angeles: University of California Press, 1966).



번역 - 미디어위원회

링크 - http://www.creationscience.com/ ,

출처 - CSC

구분 - 3

옛 주소 - http://www.kacr.or.kr/library/itemview.asp?no=600

참고 : 4885|5735|5943



서울특별시 종로구 창경궁로26길 28-3

대표전화 02-419-6465  /  팩스 02-451-0130  /  desk@creation.kr

고유번호 : 219-82-00916             Copyright ⓒ 한국창조과학회

상호명 : (주)창조과학미디어  /  대표자 : 박영민

사업자번호 : 120-87-70892

통신판매업신고 : 제 2021-서울종로-1605 호

주소 : 서울특별시 종로구 창경궁로26길 28-5

대표전화 : 02-419-6484

개인정보책임자 : 김광