Re: Group selected altruism - (was: Hamilton's rule)
- From: Guy Hoelzer <hoelzer@xxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 5 Dec 2005 23:07:26 -0500 (EST)
in article dmreb2$1per$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, John Edser at edser@xxxxxxxxxx
wrote on 12/2/05 10:35 PM:
> "Jim McGinn" jimmcginn@xxxxxxxxx wrote:-
>>>> Guy Hoelzer hoelzer@xxxxxxx wrote:-
>>>> Individual selection makes for
>>>> populations of better individuals. Group selection would make for
>>>> populations of better groups. Better components of populations do not
>>>> guarantee better populations.
>
>>> JE:-
>>> I think what Guy wrote sums up this position very clearly. Therefore the
>>> opposing argument becomes: Individual selection makes for populations of
>>> better individuals where group selection would make for populations of
>>> better groups *AND* better individuals which is my position and what I
>> argue
>>> to be the classical Darwinian organism centric position. What has to be
>> done
>>> now is to be able to empirically test between these contradictory
>>> hypothesis.
>
>> What contradictory hypotheses?
>
> JE:-
> Guy Hoelzer stated: "Individual selection makes for populations of better
> individuals. Group selection would make for populations of better groups."
>
> John Edser stated : "Individual selection makes for populations of better
> individuals where group selection would make for populations of better
> groups *AND* better individuals [note the capitalization and accentuation of
> AND].
>
> You will find that these two statements are _contradictory_. Guy's statement
> contradicts individual selection because better components, i.e. Darwinian
> individuals, "do not guarantee better populations" but in my statement they
> do. This means Guy's statement reduces Darwinian organism selection to
> become organism group centric _dependent_ and therefore altruistic to the
> group level whereas organism centricity within my statement remains entirely
> independent contesting an independent group selective level forcing both
> levels to provide a mutualistic outcome for both levels and not just an
> altruistic outcome for one level.
Seemingly in agreement with Jim, I don't see ANY contradiction or
inconsistency between our hypotheses. Your hypothesis merely extends mine
by adding the the prediction that group selection will (tend to?, always?)
make better individuals. BTW, I did not intend my statement as an
hypothesis, although it can certainly be read that way. I usually try to be
more precise with my word choices when intentionally stating an hypothesis.
I was merely trying to summarize a very general perspective/conclusion from
selection theory in plain language.
Cheers,
Guy
.
- References:
- Re: Group selected altruism - (was: Hamilton's rule)
- From: John Edser
- Re: Group selected altruism - (was: Hamilton's rule)
- Prev by Date: Re: Group selected altruism - (was: Hamilton's rule)
- Next by Date: Re: The Baldwin Effect: What is it trying to say?
- Previous by thread: Re: Group selected altruism - (was: Hamilton's rule)
- Next by thread: Re: Group selected altruism - (was: Hamilton's rule)
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
