Support Our Troops?

[Borachio]

Right. It is badly put, I agree. What drives evolution, if anything does, is the passing on of the individuals genes.

In so much as this can be extended to other members of a particular small group, it can extend to the whole species - as "recognizably" belonging to the same group?

But this is to express it very badly indeed.

 

[Flying Pig]

Only if the other members are likely to possess the gene which causes the altruistic behaviour - for example, a gene could well become prominent which causes a mother to lay down her life to save her children, but only if three or more of them are threatened at the same time.

 

[Borachio]

but only if three or more of them are threatened at the same time.

This I don't understand.

But seriously, there's a significant evolutionary advantage to protecting individuals with similar genes to oneself. But not necessarily one's own progeny.

Mole rats exhibit this to a major degree, iirc.

So family members, less close relatives, people from the same linguistic or national group are all preferentially protected.

There's no reason to suppose this doesn't extend to the entire species, and even beyond to all sentient life. And even beyond that. It's a matter of perspective, imo.

 

[Flying Pig]

There is only a selection in favour of it if you help individuals with the gene which causes the altruism- selection works on the level of the gene, not anything larger. This means immediate family, but even then there's a numbers game to be played - Dawkins sets it out nicely in his book The Selfish Gene, which I did have on my bookshelf but have since managed to lend out and never see back.

 

[Borachio]

Yes, I understand.

But what makes the individual recognize a member of their immediate family?

I suggest it is the same cues that you recognize, to an extent, in other members of the species.