Kin and multilevel selection in social evolution
In the “development and evolution” thread on Thompson, Paul dismissed and contrasted him with “people who actually study organisms.” Hence my latest referenced articles are by exactly those people that do. And even among the experts in the know there are differences and disagreements. Another such article confirming this is “Kin and multilevel selection in social evolution: A never ending controversy?” (The abstract is below.) Some adamantly choose one side of the debate, others like this article seeks some semblance of rapprochement. As to the debate, Pinker wrote a piece that explicitly shows on which side he butters his evolution: “The false allure of group selection.” In the comments section there is some good debate by those in the know on both sides. One of the most amusing is Dawkin’s reply titled: “Group selection is a cumbersome, time-wasting distraction.”
“Kin selection and multilevel selection are two major frameworks in evolutionary biology that aim at explaining the evolution of social behaviors. However, the relationship between these two theories has been plagued by controversy for almost half a century and debates about their relevance and usefulness in explaining social evolution seem to rekindle at regular intervals. Here, we first provide a concise introduction into the kin selection and multilevel selection theories and shed light onto the roots of the controversy surrounding them. We then review two major aspects of the current debate: the presumed formal equivalency of the two theories and the question whether group selection can lead to group adaptation. We conclude by arguing that the two theories can offer complementary approaches to the study of social evolution: kin selection approaches usually focus on the identification of optimal phenotypes and thus on the endresult of a selection process, whereas multilevel selection approaches focus on the ongoing selection process itself. The two theories thus provide different perspectives that might be fruitfully combined to promote our understanding of the evolution in group-structured populations.”
“The central tenet of multilevel (or group) selection theory conveys that selection not only acts on individuals but can act (simultaneously) on multiple levels of biological organization, including cells and/or groups. This view suggests that even if behaviors that benefit other individuals are selectively disadvantageous at the level of the individual, they might still evolve if they are advantageous at—and hence selected for on—a higher level of the biological hierarchy (e.g. on the group or colony level). Altruism, for instance, is costly for the altruistic individual, but groups containing a higher proportion of altruistic individuals usually have a competitive advantage… Read more »
“Multilevel selection theory and major evolutionary transitions,” by DS Wilson et al., Current Directions is Psychological Science 17:1, 2007. “The concept of a group as comparable to a single organism has had a long and turbulent history. Currently methodological individualism dominates in many areas of psychology and evolution, but natural selection is now known to operate at multiple levels of the biological hierarchy. When between-group selection dominates within-group selection, a major evolutionary transition occurs and the group becomes a new, higher-level organism. It is likely that human evolution represents a major transition, and this has wide-ranging implications for the psychological… Read more »
“Rethinking the theoretical foundation of sociobiology” by Wilson and Wilson, The Quarterly Review of Biology 82:4, 2007. “Current sociobiology is in theoretical disarray, with a diversity of frameworks that are poorly related to each other. Part of the problem is a reluctance to revisit the pivotal events that took place during the 1960s, including the rejection of group selection and the development of alternative theoretical frameworks to explain the evolution of cooperative and altruistic behaviors. In this article, we take a “back to basics” approach, explaining what group selection is, why its rejection was regarded as so important, and how… Read more »
Here is Gintis’ response to Pinker entitled “On the evolution of human morality.”
https://evolution-institute.org/commentary/herbert-gintis-on-the-evolution-of-human-morality-comment-on-steven-pinker/
“We have never been individuals,” subtitle of an article by Gilbert et al. entitled “A symbiotic view of life,” The Quarterly Review of Biology, Vol. 87, No. 4 (December 2012), pp. 325-341. The following is an excerpt of the section on evolutionary individuality beginning on p. 331: “From the above discussion, it is evident that organisms are anatomically, physiologically, developmentally, genetically, and immunologically multi-genomic and multispecies complexes. Can it be that organisms are selected as multigenomic associations? Is the fittest in life’s struggle the multispecies group, and not an individual of a single species in that group?” “An instructive example… Read more »