Biological arguments are reductionist. In addition, there is no experimental evidence to support the claims. The theories are also not testable.  The idea that the reason a person helps kin is to "pass on their genes" may make sense in an evolutionary framework, but it is not possible to test the theory.  Finally, much of the biological research is done with animals.  This makes assumptions that since there is a genetic similarity with animals this means that we can explain human behaviour in a similar manner to animal behaviour.  This is a problematic assumption and ignores the role of conscious thought and culture in human behaviour.

Bartal et al found that a rat would help a rat of another species - that is, a rat that was genetically dissimilar - if they had spent time together.  They also found that when a rat was raised with another species that was not genetically similar, the rat not only helped this other species, but he would not help his own species.  This indicates that it is the social environment that may play a more important role in helping behaviour than genetic similarity.

Inclusive fitness is the idea that by helping out someone in your gene pool, this increases the overall probability that the genes in your gene pool will be passed down to the next generation.

Anecdotal data is usually dependent on someone’s memory - leading to the potential of memory distortion.  In addition, anecdotal data is difficult to verify for accuracy.  Finally, anecdotal data cannot be replicated, meaning that it is not reliable.  This means that anecdotal data lacks validity, accuracy, reliability, and, often, objectivity. However, it does give us evidence that such events happen and are part of human behaviour.