"In order to have altruistic behavior in a group you need to spread a gene that promotes such behavior..."
This premise seems to be taken as fundamental dogma in the evolutionary theory community, but perhaps should be questioned. Here is my (layperson's) counterexample: a species might have a gene that switches between whether an individual is a drone or a reproducer over the course of their life; a switch like that could thrown early in the development based on ambient hormones or whatever. If the individual is not a reproducer, they don't spread their own genes but they help the hive or whatever.
I think there is an unexamined assumption guiding contemporary evolution, that ALL behavior must be explained by genes ALONE -- in the case above, lifetime behavior is determined by an environmental trigger, even though the set of possible behaviors is determined by genes. This dogma seems, well, silly and wrong.
(Throw in cultural behaviors with outcomes like longer life and more offspring, and the classical system completely falls apart.)
Certainly not all behavior is the direct result of genes; I don't think this is the common viewpoint. For example there are genes that enable learning. This is extremely useful since disseminating behavior by learning is much faster than doing it through evolution. The rapid changes in human behavior in the last few decades (at least) can be explained in this way, and not by natural selection which is too slow.
Genes that encode specific behaviors are just the simplest possible mechanism that works, and they do account for a vast number of phenomena. I think Occam's razor applies: If you suggest a more complicated mechanism, you should have some supporting evidence.
This premise seems to be taken as fundamental dogma in the evolutionary theory community, but perhaps should be questioned. Here is my (layperson's) counterexample: a species might have a gene that switches between whether an individual is a drone or a reproducer over the course of their life; a switch like that could thrown early in the development based on ambient hormones or whatever. If the individual is not a reproducer, they don't spread their own genes but they help the hive or whatever.
I think there is an unexamined assumption guiding contemporary evolution, that ALL behavior must be explained by genes ALONE -- in the case above, lifetime behavior is determined by an environmental trigger, even though the set of possible behaviors is determined by genes. This dogma seems, well, silly and wrong.
(Throw in cultural behaviors with outcomes like longer life and more offspring, and the classical system completely falls apart.)