|
|
 Up |
|
|
  |
Author: Robert Karl StonjekRobert Karl Stonjek Date: Nov 29, 2007 14:12
Group selection, a theory whose time has come...again
Sociobiology, the discipline founded on Darwin's theory of group evolution,
is in theoretical disarray. In a landmark article for the December issue of
the Quarterly Review of Biology, eminent evolutionary scientists David Sloan
Wilson and Edward O. Wilson usher in a new era in evolutionary science.
"Although a high standard of morality gives but a slight or no advantage to
each individual man and his children over the other men of the same
tribe...an advancement in the standard of morality will certainly give an
immense advantage to one tribe over another."
With these words, Charles Darwin proposed an evolutionary explanation for
morality and pro-social behaviors- individuals behaving for the good of
their group, often at their own expense-that anticipated the future
discipline of Sociobiology. A century after this famous passage was
published in The Descent of Man (1871), however, Darwin's explanation based
on group selection had become taboo and has not recovered since.
|
| Show full article (2.86Kb) |
|
| | 5 Comments |
|
|
Author: LorentzLorentz Date: Dec 2, 2007 11:52
On Nov 30, 3:56 pm, cognitive_ethology gmail.com> wrote:>Whats even funnier is that
> 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.
I think that is itself an improvement. In the old time popular
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. ...
|
| Show full article (1.55Kb) |
|
| | no comments |
|
|
Author: Alberto Gómez CoronaAlberto Gómez Corona Date: Dec 2, 2007 11:52
Yes and No:
Wilson & Wilson explain group selection trough individual selection.
Selection is multilevel, but no effect can be possible witout
satisfiying ALL the levels at the same time. Everytime that group
selection appears, it must exist a mechanism for aviding selfish
behaviour that can destroy the group. On 29 nov, 23:12, "Robert Karl
Stonjek" bigpond.net.au> wrote:> Group selection, a theory whose time has come...again
>
> Sociobiology, the discipline founded on Darwin's theory of group evolution,
> is in theoretical disarray. In a landmark article for the December issue of
> the Quarterly Review of Biology, eminent evolutionary scientists David Sloan
> Wilson and Edward O. Wilson usher in a new era in evolutionary science.
>
> "Although a high standard of morality gives but a slight or no advantage to
> each individual man and his children over the other men of the same
> tribe...an advancement in the standard of morality will certainly give an
> immense advantage to one tribe over another."
>
> With these words, Charles Darwin proposed an evolutionary explanation for ...
|
| Show full article (3.33Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: LorentzLorentz Date: Dec 2, 2007 11:52
On Nov 30, 3:56 pm, cognitive_ethology gmail.com> wrote:> I think its rather funny also that everybody ignored Wynne-Edwards
> last book "Evolution through Group Selection" where he tried to answer
> to his critics of his former book on animal dispersal. Although the
> book contains a lot of the flaws that were self-evident in his first
> book it also contains a lot of well articulated and compelling
> evidence for group selection that has simply been glossed over and
> forgotten about. The modern synthesis did a lot of good things for
> evolutionary biology but creating an near dogmatic taboo against the
> idea of group selection was flawed, and has stifled further research
> into this potentially important factor. Whats even funnier is that
> research into group selection cant...
|
| Show full article (2.23Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
Author: John W EdserJohn W Edser Date: Dec 7, 2007 13:32
"Guy A Hoelzer" unr.edu> wrote:-
>> Lorentz wrote:
>>> On Nov 30, 3:56 pm, cognitive_ethology gmail.com> wrote:>>>> Whats even funnier is that
>>>> research into group selection cant even use the blanket term "group
>>...
|
| Show full article (4.01Kb) |
| no comments |
|
|
|
|
|
Author: LorentzLorentz Date: Dec 18, 2007 09:56
On Dec 9, 11:40 pm, Bill Morse verizonOSPAM.net> wrote:> 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 ...
|
| Show full article (3.20Kb) |
| no comments |
|
RELATED THREADS |
|
|
|
|
