Re: Article: Group selection, a theory whose time has come...again
- From: Bill Morse <wdNOSPAmorse@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 9 Dec 2007 23:40:47 -0500 (EST)
Guy A Hoelzer wrote:
Bob,
I disagree and I think this approach would do a real disservice to the
evolutionary science community. The whole point of the kin selection
perspective, in my point of view (Hamilton differed), is that altruism can
only evolve as a correlated response to selection at some other level.
Kin selection works equally well as an explanation for altruism whether
you consider it a consequence of selection at the level of the gene or as
group
selection. In fact, these two perspectives have been shown to be
mathematically equivalent. However, kin selection cannot be properly
interpreted as a consequence of selection at the level of the individual.
In other words, kin selection theory has no validity outside of the
multilevel selection framework.
The Wilson and Wilson article referred to by RKS supports your viewpoint
(although I have only gotten about halfway through it so far). They in fact
claim (if I am reading it correctly) that kin selection will not result in
the evolution of altruism based only on individual selection - it still
takes selection at the level of the group for this to work.
While engaging in a discussion on this on t.o, I raised the question of
whether monogamy counts as group selection. Monogamy can't be explained by
kin selection (there is in fact selection against mating by kin). On first
impression, monogamy would seem to be susceptible to the usual instability
in the face of cheaters argument classically used to dismiss group
selection.
Has anyone addressed this question? A quick search on google was
unproductive, but the terms are so common that it was difficult to narrow
down the results to my question.
in article fj4as4$bg3$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, Anon. at<http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/full/10.1111/j.1420-9101.2007.01458.x>
bob.ohara@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote on 12/4/07 11:47 AM:
Lorentz wrote:
On Nov 30, 3:56 pm, cognitive_ethology <kohn.greg...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Whats even funnier is thatI think that is itself an improvement. In the old time popular
research into group selection cant even use the blanket term "group
selection" anymore, and instead had to resort to terms such as clade
sorting, lineage selection, multilevel selection, super-organism or
trait-group selection.
literature and in discussions between nonscientists, the words group
selection was grossly misused. Nonscientific people referred to the
groups protecting themselves, struggling, etc. etc. (e.g., Hitler)
This is not what Darwin meant by "group selection." Sometimes, the
phrase "group selection" turned into a type of magic.
Some scientists (e.g., Haekel, the biologist Lorentz, etc.)
seemed to have absorbed the popular misconception, too. Specifying the
type of group selection is not only more precise, it depersonalizes
"the group" a little.
If this is what Stonjek meant by "coming back," then I agree. Using
a concept with more precision makes the concept more useful. I think
scientists are using the phrase "group selection" with more precision
partly because they understand genes better.
Whilst gratifying my ego yesterday, I noticed this review in the Journal
of Evolutionary Biology:
West et al. argue that group selection is better approached as a variety
of kin selection, and that appeals to "old" group selection are wrong
(because it assumes only a single level of selection).
--
Yours, Bill Morse
.
- References:
- Prev by Date: Re: Memes on social networks
- Next by Date: Re: Osteoporosis
- Previous by thread: Re: Article: Group selection, a theory whose time has come...again
- Next by thread: Re: Article: Group selection, a theory whose time has come...again
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
