Does Animal Altruism defy Evolution?‎- St Paul Coptic Apologetics

Merriam-Webster defines Altruism as “1) unselfish regard for or devotion to the welfare of others, and 2) behaviour by an animal that is not beneficial to or may be harmful to itself but that benefits others of its species. [1]. Encyclopedia Britannica states, “Altruism is a form of behaviour that benefits other individuals at the expense of the one that performs the action” [2]. In a different article on Britannica.com, they wrote, “Sometimes, however, animals engage in apparent altruism (that is, they exhibit behaviour that increases the fitness of other individuals by engaging in activities that decrease their own reproductive success)” [3].

The most vital argument of Darwin’s theory of evolution starts with the existence of hereditary variation. He reasoned that variations that are favourable or useful in some way must occur in nature to the organism itself in the struggle for existence, increasing its chances for survival and procreation. [4]

Group selection in biology is a type of natural selection that acts collectively on all members of a given group, and its study has been controversial since its introduction in the 19th century by Darwin. “Often, selfless behaviours jeopardize the acting individuals’ fitness, possibly lowering their chances of leaving behind offspring. Darwin realised that this presented a problem for his theory of natural selection, for which the bearing and survival of offspring was a vital determinant of evolutionary success.” [4]

British zoologist V.C. Wynne-Edwards argued that individual surrender of personal gain to promote group well-being could not be explained by individual selection. Especially in altruistic behaviours such as cooperative breeding, where animals parent young that are not their own offspring. “Several decades later, however, group selection found renewed interest in evolutionary thinking—namely, as a factor in multilevel selection, the idea that the most altruistic groups within a population enjoy the greatest reproductive success and thereby fuel the evolution of altruism within the population.” [4]

Yes, most altruistic groups within a population enjoy reproductive success. However, this is only true after the fact. At what point did the very nature of nature change from the urgent overriding need for survival (of the fittest) to making self-sacrifices for the greater good of an organism other than itself? Has the urge for self-preservation for survival deteriorated?

Evolution ‎predicts that animals will behave selfishly, seeking only to further their own reproductive ‎success. So, when an animal adopts an infant of another animal, it exhibits an evolution-defying altruistic behaviour. There are hundreds, perhaps thousands, of examples where animals adopt babies of their own species, and even more unbelievably, members of other species, sometimes across the kind or even predatory boundaries.‎ Interspecific adoption stands as powerful evidence against a blind, random process “moulding” the animals.

Another example of evolutionary altruism is the kin selection of social ‎animals (ants, bees, etc.), where the workers do not reproduce, and ‎they live only to serve the queen. They don’t pass on their genes; they ‎feed the queen, and ‎she passes on her genes only. Workers are sterile.

At what point in the distant past did an insect lay eggs, bearing creatures whose entire purpose of living is to serve their mother and die without their own offspring? They are born with the instinct to work. Bees took it even further. The worker bees will choose suicide to protect the hive… This insect seems to have evolved with the ability to inflict damage on a perceived threat at the cost of its own life. Even mammals and birds that act as sentries put themselves at risk for danger in order for others to have a greater chance at survival.

From the perspective of evolution and natural ‎selection of the fittest, this behaviour contradicts some of their core principles. If Darwinian Evolution occurred, these behaviours would not have “survived”, so to speak. It’s just not logical. However, if they had been designed that way, with their behaviour resulting in reproductive success as planned, it would make so much more sense.