Part of the theory of evolution is the concept of ‘group’ of ‘collective’ fitness.’
The evolutionary researcher looks at a given behavior and tries to fit it into some kind of advantage. Usually he attempts to show an advantage to the individual in the sense of increasing that individual’s progeny.
However, when he can’t find an advantage to the individual, he looks for an advantage to the group, or even the entire species.
‘Altruism,’ whatever one takes that to mean, is the number one type of behavior that evolutionary researchers seek to explain with their group fitness theories.
Thank you for that explanation, but I have to ask: if those assumptions really do drive researchers, doesn't that suggest that the researchers have an underlying belief that there must always be some benefit somewhere in a given trait?
I think a cursory glance at the fossil record shows that there were all kinds of dead ends and that would belie the researchers' apparent assumptions. If I understand you correctly, it sounds like researchers try, in some cases, to make a square peg fit into a round hole - which doesn't sound very scientific.