3 ms·

I guess you should define what exact mechanism you’re describing when you use the term ‘group selection’. Richard Dawkins would describe the phenomena you menti

I guess you should define what exact mechanism you’re describing when you use the term ‘group selection’. Richard Dawkins would describe the phenomena you mention (multi-cellular organisms and eusocial insects) as cases of the genes which create those complex phenotypes being selected.

iguy 7y ago
Yes. I think a definition of "group selection" which includes either multicellular organisms or social insects would be extremely unusual, and basically misses the whole debate. Nobody is confused about why oak leaves sacrifice themselves every autumn.
- im3w1l 7y ago
  The Pechenga Oak Tree is 2000 years. Imagine a cell line being content playing a support role. For thousands of years. Without trying to spread itself. I find that amazing and mysterious. Unless all long-lived lines in a tree have a shot at spreading? There must be some interesting game theory to keep everyone aligned for that long.
  - toasterlovin 7y ago
    Cancer is an instance of the tension you’re describing erupting into open rebellion as a lineage of cells starts over-consuming resources to the detriment of the organism (and all the other cell lineages contained in the organism). I’m not sure what your depth of knowledge is with regard to genetics and evolution, but a fruitful google search might be “germ line vs somatic cells”. This tension also exists at the level of DNA, with some fragments of DNA replicating themselves willy nilly all over the genome, rather than merely being replicated through the normal mechanism. And regarding the game theory: I think the typical thinking is that incentives are dependent on the mode of replication. If something replicates only when the organism creates offspring, then it tends to work harmoniously with the rest of the organism to further this goal. If it replicates via a different mechanism, such as a parasite or disease, then it tends to be uncooperative in collective endeavors.
hyperpallium 7y ago
In a group without exogamy, selection for the group is selection for those genes responsible for the complex phenotype that is the group, in a similar but less strict way. This is true even with sufficiently minor exogamy.
- toasterlovin 7y ago
  Right, but then you don’t need a mechanism other than genetic selection. Because that’s what is typically meant by group selection: that there is an additional selective mechanism that exists aside and apart from genetic selection.
  - im3w1l 7y ago
    Maybe we are talking past each other then. Because to me group selection is a type of genetic selection.
    - toasterlovin 7y ago
      Then we are in agreement. Typically, group selection is not meant in that way, though. Just an FYI.

iguy 7y ago

Yes. I think a definition of "group selection" which includes either multicellular organisms or social insects would be extremely unusual, and basically misses the whole debate. Nobody is confused about why oak leaves sacrifice themselves every autumn.

im3w1l 7y ago
The Pechenga Oak Tree is 2000 years. Imagine a cell line being content playing a support role. For thousands of years. Without trying to spread itself. I find that amazing and mysterious. Unless all long-lived lines in a tree have a shot at spreading? There must be some interesting game theory to keep everyone aligned for that long.
- toasterlovin 7y ago
  Cancer is an instance of the tension you’re describing erupting into open rebellion as a lineage of cells starts over-consuming resources to the detriment of the organism (and all the other cell lineages contained in the organism). I’m not sure what your depth of knowledge is with regard to genetics and evolution, but a fruitful google search might be “germ line vs somatic cells”. This tension also exists at the level of DNA, with some fragments of DNA replicating themselves willy nilly all over the genome, rather than merely being replicated through the normal mechanism. And regarding the game theory: I think the typical thinking is that incentives are dependent on the mode of replication. If something replicates only when the organism creates offspring, then it tends to work harmoniously with the rest of the organism to further this goal. If it replicates via a different mechanism, such as a parasite or disease, then it tends to be uncooperative in collective endeavors.

hyperpallium 7y ago

In a group without exogamy, selection for the group is selection for those genes responsible for the complex phenotype that is the group, in a similar but less strict way. This is true even with sufficiently minor exogamy.

toasterlovin 7y ago
Right, but then you don’t need a mechanism other than genetic selection. Because that’s what is typically meant by group selection: that there is an additional selective mechanism that exists aside and apart from genetic selection.
- im3w1l 7y ago
  Maybe we are talking past each other then. Because to me group selection is a type of genetic selection.
  - toasterlovin 7y ago
    Then we are in agreement. Typically, group selection is not meant in that way, though. Just an FYI.