The search for an evolutionary theory

What Mister Economister says is clearly true. I'm surprised there's any debate about it.
The group of people(or animals) that help eachother out(even when there is no obvious direct benefit to it)is more likely to survive than the group where everyone only cares about his own wellbeing. Therefore the first group's genes are more likely to continue.

Altruism is not counter-intuitive or a challenge to Darwinism if one adopts the gene's-eye perspective as Richard Dawkins explains in The Selfish Gene. Worker bees spending their lives defending a queen bee who will pass on 50% of their genes in her offspring is a sensible strategy (after all, that's how much we pass on as individuals to our own children). For the genes inside the worker bees it makes perfect sense to follow that strategy. It only looks odd if we insist on thinking in terms of organisms' survival, rather than genes', which is the real driver of natural selection.

But the problem is reproduction is one of the fundamentals of evolutionary ascendancy. In this scenario the daughter bees just working for the fitness level of the queen bee and this instigating their evolution i.e. to become the most efficient keeper of the queen bee!!!! This is just contradictory to the fundamentals of Darwin. I think there is something more to this then mere academic decipherment. Man and particularly "we" of today post modernist have to learn a lot from these 'insignificant' animals.

"...I'm surprised there's any debate about it.
The group of people(or animals) that help eachother out(even when there is no obvious direct benefit to it)is more likely to survive than the group where everyone only cares about his own wellbeing. Therefore the first group's genes are more likely to continue"

Not so easy, because some or many can free ride on the kindness of the group, making altruism rapidly disappear. The solution may be that somehow an institution or an equilibrium arises to give incentives or punish free riders, forcing them to behave "altruisticaly". As you can see, this kind of altruism is really a form of egotism that does not contradict the theory of evolution.

Altruism to me is an impulse to help tempered by the awareness that one can be taken advantage of.

Think of a worker bee as being a detached part of the queen bee - then the behaviour of the selfish gene of the bee colony becomes clear.

"Learned Cooperation" as an acquired cultural, survival-mechanism is one thing, but altruism is another. The one fits nicely into intuitive evolutionary-patterning, the other is intuitive to us as well but it does not follow intuitively as evolutionary patterning. Because the essential survival of the altruistic is subjugated, it defeats the core tenet of Evolution which is survival itself.