Re: Group selected altruism - (was: Hamilton's rule)

in article dmnem7$2udi$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Jim McGinn at
jimmcginn@xxxxxxxxx wrote on 12/1/05 10:16 AM:

> Guy Hoelzer wrote:
>> in article dmi627$b5o$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Jim McGinn at
>> jimmcginn@xxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote on 11/29/05 10:18 AM:
>>
>>> "Guy Hoelzer" <hoelzer@xxxxxxx> wrote
>>>
>>>> . . . your position assumes
>>>> that genetics is the sole conduit of heredity in biological systems. I
>>>> don't think it is controversial at all to claim that there are other modes
>>>> of biological inheritance (e.g., epigenetics, cultural inheritance).
>>> Even
>>>> if genetic elements flow in and out of a group without restriction, it
>>>> remains possible that exchange among groups is restricted with regard to
>>>> other modes of inheritance. This setting permits a group-level
>>>> manifestation of natural selection even without a restriction to gene
>>> flow.
>>>
>>> It took me a while to figure out where you were going with this and why. I
>>> think I know what you are saying now. I think what you are saying is that
>>> some groups have the ability to maintain their relative separateness through
>>> cultural practices. So the fact that there is no external isolating factor
>>> that serves to preserve the structural integrity of the group (and that thus
>>> insures that group behavior benefits the members of the group and not
>>> non-members) does not mean that there won't be cultural practices that
>>> achieve the same end. Assuming this is what you are saying I agree.
>>
>> Thanks for reflecting, Jim. You got the idea right, although I didn't mean
>> to restrict our thinking to just 2 modes of inheritance: genetic and
>> cultural.
>
> I don't know what you mean by this and I also don't know
>
> I would recommend approaching putative levels of organization at
>> which natural selection might operate with an open mind as to modes of
>> inheritance that might apply. We have been studying natural selection at
>> the level both empirically and in theory for a long time now, and we have
>> characterized the genetic mode of inheritance well, though not completely
>> (e.g., the influence of genomic imprinting). The issue of cultural
>> inheritance is at least familiar to most of us. However, the structures of
>> dynamical systems at other scales of organization are different than the
>> one(s) with which we are familiar, and I think one of the first questions we
>> should ask when venturing into a novel system is "what are the operational
>> modes of inheritance in the system?".
>
> I don't see why it's necessary or useful to refer to them as
> "operational modes."

That might not have been the best choice of terms. What I meant was that
different kinds of systems can manifest different mechanisms of inheritance.
IMHO, the important thing for a general theory of multilevel selection is
that at least one mode, any mode, of inheritance is manifested. Further, I
don't think that we can list all possible modes of inheritance on
theoretical grounds, so I recommend being open on this issue.

> And it's not clear to me what "other scales of
> organization," you are referring too. We're in danger of talking past
> each other.

As with potential modes of inheritance, I don't think we can know how many
scales of organization there are, or what they may be. Therefore, I choose
to leave this an open question also.

> I think a lot of the potential for confusion lies in the fact that few
> evolutionists bother to distinguish between units of selection and
> levels of biological phenomena. It's a recipe for confusion. (And,
> IMO, this is the reason that group selection is mistakenly dismissed by
> many adherrents of the current paradigm.)

I agree that this is an important distinction, because not every level of
organization will manifest a mode of inheritance. That is why I recommended
above that we should look for modes of inheritance when we recognize a level
of organization before we assume that selection can be an evolutionary
factor at that level.

> And the reason it's so
> important to distinguish is because one of these is relative and the
> other is absolute, and one of these is real and the other is nonreal.
> Do you know which is which and why?

Can you fill in some of your argument for me. I don't see where you are
coming from yet.

> If you and I could achieve some
> kind of concensus on this it would go a long way toward also achievng
> some kind of concensus on group selection.

That would be nice. :-)

Guy


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Darwin tells us his intent with Natural Selection
    ... You are trying to understand Darwin's intent by lying about what he ... teleological goal directed selection by a human or conscious agent. ... mechanism for these morphological transformations of one species into ... "The laws governing inheritance are quite unknown; ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Group selected altruism - (was: Hamiltons rule)
    ... the important thing for a general theory of multilevel selection is ... > that at least one mode, any mode, of inheritance is manifested. ... >> some kind of concensus on group selection. ...
    (sci.bio.evolution)
  • Re: Science v Religion
    ... Unnatural selection is, of course, extremely well attested. ... Genetics provides a strong mechanism for inheritance of a strictly ... nor does it exploit natural selection in my intervention species. ...
    (uk.religion.christian)