I do not agree with the Nowak et al. article in every respect and will articulate some of my disagreements in subsequent posts. For the moment, I want to stress how alone you are in your statement about group selection. Your view is essentially pre-1975, a date that is notable not only for the publication of Sociobiology but also a paper by W.D. Hamilton, one of your heroes, who correctly saw the relationship between kin selection and group selection thanks to the work of George Price. Ever since, knowledgeable theoretical biologists have known that inclusive fitness theory includes the logic of multilevel selection, which means that altruism is selectively disadvantageous within kin groups and evolves only by virtue of groups with more altruists contributing more to the gene pool than groups with fewer altruists. The significance of relatedness is that it clusters the genes coding for altruistic and selfish behaviors into different groups.See earlier post for links to replies to Nowak et al. by Dawkins and others.
David Sloan Wilson on kin selection and group selection
Open Letter to Richard Dawkins: Why Are You Still In Denial About Group Selection?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
David Sloan Wilson writes: “Ever since, knowledgeable theoretical biologists have known that inclusive fitness theory includes the logic of multilevel selection, which means that altruism is selectively disadvantageous within kin groups and evolves only by virtue of groups with more altruists contributing more to the gene pool than groups with fewer altruists.”
Kevin MacDonald writes: “Genes for self-sacrifice definitely lose out within groups over a long period -- that’s the basic argument against group selection.”
George C. Williams examination of group selection is interesting. Wilson quotes him.
"It is universally conceded by those who have seriously concerned themselves with this problem that...group-related adaptations must be attributed to the natural selection of alternative groups of individuals and that the natural selection of alternative alleles within populations will be opposed to this development. I am in entire agreement with the reasoning behind this conclusion. Only by a theory of between-group selection could we achieve a scientific explanation of group-related adaptations.
However, I would question one of the premises on which the reasoning is based. Chapters 5 to 8 [Adaptation and Natural Selection] will be primarily a defense of the thesis that group-related adaptations do not, in fact, exist. A group in this discussion should be understood to mean something other than a family and to be composed of individuals that need not be closely related."
Any idea if Williams is a New Englander? With that beard and a cap he might pass for Captain Ahab.
"Any idea if Williams is a New Englander?"
No, I didn't immediately find anything on his origins. If you find his birthplace or some information on his parents, I can check again.
The eminent evolutionary biologist George C. Williams died on September 8, 2010, at the age of 84, according to the Evolution & Medicine Review blog (September 10, 2010). Born in Charlotte, North Carolina, on May 12, 1926, Williams served in the U.S. Army from 1944 to 1946, and then studied at the University of California, Berkeley, where he received his A.B. in zoology in 1949, and the University of California, Los Angeles, where he received his Ph.D. in biology in 1955. During his academic career, mostly at the State University of New York, Stony Brook, he published a string of important work, including the books Adaptation and Natural Selection (1966), Sex and Evolution (1975), Natural Selection (1992), Why We Get Sick (coauthored with Randolph M. Nesse, 1994), and Plan and Purpose in Nature (1996). His honors include induction in the National Academy of Sciences (1993) and the Crafoord Prize in Biosciences (1999).
http://ncse.com/news/2010/09/george-c-williams-dies-006171
Post a Comment