Click here to support the Daily Grail for as little as $US1 per month on Patreon

Heroic Monkey to the Rescue!

At the railway station in India’s northern city of Kanpur, a monkey was seriously electrocuted after stepping on a live wire. The incident would have surely ended on a gruesome fate for the little primate, if it wasn’t for one of his furry friends, who came to the rescue:

It is incidents like these which throw a monkey wrench (pardon the pun) on the whole ‘selfish gene’ notion promoted by neo-Darwinists like Dawkins and the like, who keep insisting that Evolution is spurred by violent competition; when in fact scientists like the late Lynn Margulis have proposed much more accurate evolutionary models founded on the concept of Symbiogenesis.

So next time you see someone in need of help, be a good ape and lend him or her a hand… or a tail.

________________
[UPDATE: Conner Habib has chimed in to point out that the monkey’s heroism may have more to do with Mutualism (Cooperation) than Symbiogenesis –even though the latter is a scientific theory, and the other isn’t. A fair point, yet the idea of mentioning Margulis was only to underscore how there are better ways to explain Nature than the ‘dog-eat-dog’ world proposed by Neo-Darwinists.

  1. only in my ‘nature’
    [quote=red pill junkie]It is incidents like these which throw a monkey wrench (pardon the pun) on the whole ‘selfish gene’ notion promoted by neo-Darwinists like Dawkins and the like, who keep insisting that Evolution is spurred by violent competition; when in fact scientists like the late Lynn Margulis have proposed much more accurate evolutionary models founded on the concept of Symbiogenesis.[/quote]

    Thank. You.

    1. Dawkins
      Dawkins has an entire chapter in Unweaving The Rainbow discussing examples of altruistic behaviour in animals and arguing that they can be explained in terms of “selfish genes”. The account of him here is a travesty.

      1. Travesty
        First off, welcome to the Grail.

        Secondly, can you please provide a link where that chapter is mentioned or shown?

        Thirdly, have you checked this recording of an open debate between Margulis and Dawkins, in which he cynically dismisses example after example she provided that supported her Symbiogenesis theory?

        1. Perpetuation of the misunderstanding of ‘the selfish gene’.
          Hi all,
          I’ve been a Grail reader for a long time and I enjoy all the content on this site as the main contributors are usually very fair, objective and balanced in what they write. On this occasion, however, I felt I *had* to create an account to voice my agreement with Aziraphale and express my disappointment at the misleading way in which the notion of ‘the selfish gene’ was used in this article as a reference to the implication that animals have a dog-eat-dog attitude to each other and wouldn’t help one another.

          The ‘selfish gene’ is NOT meant to imply that animals are selfish – it is a concept to convey that at a molecular level, genes have no feelings at all – they are simply structures that mindlessly advance their replication as best they can, given the correct circumstances, since that is all they are meant to do. Anyone who has made the interpretation that it is a reference to how evolution favours ‘selfish’ organisms has not really understood the concept.

          I hope this post is read in the manner it was intended, i.e. to help clear up a common misunderstanding that seems to persistently propagate itself throughout the media every time the subject of altruistic-like behaviour is observed in nature.

          Cheers.

          PS – The video was quite touching. Thanks for posting it.

          1. Misunderstanding
            Thanks for deciding to (officially) join and posting your comment. This site thrives when discussion and dissenting views are tempered with politeness.

            I understand now that perhaps I may be wrongly accusing biologists like Dawkins for the way Evolution is ‘hijacked’ in other areas of human enterprise to justify ruthlessness and lack of compassion for the fate of our fellow men.

            Nevertheless, I still feel the ‘selfish gene’ view of Nature should be criticized. In part because it still places competition at the heart of natural selection –whereas other biologists like Margulis see cooperation as the real driving force of Evolution– but also because it brings down organisms as nothing more than ‘vessels’ at the service of their genes.

            Thus, from what I read of the link kindly provided by Aziraphale, and other sources, Dawkins explains altruism between members of the same species as the result of those individuals instinctively ensuring the preservation of their common genes. The heroic monkey in the video wasn’t really saving its electrocuted fellow, it was saving its genes.

            The ecological balance in the rain forest is also seen by Dawkins as a deceiving illusion of cooperation between ‘everyone by itself’ genes.

            And of course, Dawkins sees this survival and preservation game as a mindless and directionless process. Something that people like Rupert Sheldrake disagree with.

            In this Aeon article I read that Dawkins’ critics –also scientists– are against the ‘gene-centered’ view of Evolution because not only we have discovered that genes are not really that important in the phenotypical changes of an organism –there are epistatic and epigenetic matters to consider as well, not to mention what we now know about the hybridization that occurred among our own ancestors and the Neanderthals and Denisovans– but also because they see the ‘selfish gene’ as a much too simplistic explanation for the incredibly dynamic process found in the natural world; an explanation that has gained enormous popularity because it’s easy to explain and to be understood by the public at large –interesting, if you think Dawkins is against religious ideas because he perceives THOSE as the simplistic and comforting ones…

            We here at the Grail take issue with the ‘simplistic’ notion spurred by Dawkins when he puts off his scientific hat and puts on his atheistic one. That notion is of a materialistic universe dictating that Life is only comprised of physical and chemical process, in a mindless ballet that is the result of random accidents.

            Also, getting back to the whole notion of altruism and cooperation, I wonder how the selfish gene helps to explain examples of altruistic behavior among members of different species.

            Saludos,

            RPJ

          1. Thanks
            Thank you for providing the link. Please look at comment #5 of this thread, where I give my response of why IMO the selfish gene theory should be criticized.

            Enjoy your holidays 🙂

          2. I raised 5 different monkeys
            I raised 5 different monkeys as an adolescent – wooly monkey, spider monkey, rhesus monkey, spot-nosed mangabey, and a gibbon ape (not a “monkey”) and had many, many interactions with them`on a daily basis. The were my constant companions after school and on days off. They were sometimes purely selfish and sometimes quite altruistic and also possessed of a charming sense of humor at times. It needn’t be one or the other. It is not black and white – the same as with humans.
            I can’t imagine living in the automaton-ish purgatory that Dawkins has created for himself.

          3. Planet of the apes
            I think when it comes down to it, apes and monkeys will show personalities and mannerisms very closely to humans, because like them, we are apes. However, not just primates have shown that they are self aware and aware of the emotions, wellness, and presence of others in their group and the animals around them. Ravens for example, as well as dogs and elephants. We as humans still have much to learn about how animals communicate with one another and see each other in their “societies.” However, we need to give them more credit in this day and age than we have in the past. They are not the mindless automatons of Descartes, yet at the same time anthropomorphizing them is foolish. I do think that anthropomorphizing is what’s going on here with the monkey who got shocked. Considering the behavior of these animals I have no doubt in my mind that the above case posed by RPJ shows self aware animals trying to aid a member of their clan who is indisposed. To deny that is denying your humanity, at least in the most elemental definition of the term. My point here is thus that if you believe the following is true, than congratulations you have risen above the “old” way:

            [quote=]Voltaire, Excerpt from Dictionary of Philosophy

            What a pitiful, what a sorry thing to have said that animals are machines bereft of understanding and feeling, which perform their operations always in the same way, which learn nothing, perfect nothing, etc.! What! that bird which makes its nest in a semi-circle when it is attaching it to a wall, which builds it in a quarter circle when it is in an angle, and in a circle upon a tree; that bird acts always in the same way? That hunting-dog which you have disciplined for three months, does it not know more at the end of this time than it knew before your lessons? Does the canary to which you teach a tune repeat it at once? do you not spend a considerable time in teaching it? have you not seen that it has made a mistake and that it corrects itself? Is it because I speak to you, that you judge that I have feeling, memory, ideas? Well, I do not speak to you; you see me going home looking disconsolate, seeking a paper anxiously, opening the desk where I remember having shut it, finding it, reading it joyfully. You judge that I have experienced the feeling of distress and that of pleasure, that I have memory and understanding. Bring the same judgment to bear on this dog which has lost its master, which has sought him on every road with sorrowful cries, which enters the house agitated, uneasy, which goes down the stairs, up the stairs, from room to room, which at last finds in his study the master it loves, and which shows him its joy by its cries of delight, by its leaps, by its caresses. Barbarians seize this dog, which in friendship surpasses man so prodigiously; they nail it on a table, and they dissect it alive in order to show the mesenteric veins. You discover in it all the same organs of feeling that are in yourself. Answer me, machinist, has nature arranged all the means of feeling in this animal, so that it may not feel? has it nerves in order to be impassible? Do not suppose this impertinent contradiction in nature. But the schoolmasters ask what the soul of animals is? I do not understand this question.[/quote]

  2. Dawkins vs. Margulis
    I would be interested in seeing Aziraphale’s response to the video you posted of the Dawkins/Margulis discussion (if he/she has time to catch all of it).

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Mobile menu - fractal