3 ms·

The remarkable thing about his new theory, group selection is that to an outsider and a lay person, it sounds simpler and a lot more dynamic then the original k

by xal 15y ago

The remarkable thing about his new theory, group selection is that to an outsider and a lay person, it sounds simpler and a lot more dynamic then the original kin selection theory. This is no crackpot prediction by someone who enjoys causing a ruckus. It very neatly explains related observations such as adhoc gangs/groups which are as common in the animal kingdom as they are with humans. I'll put a calendar reminder in 2 years from now to check back on how this one turned out :-) Thanks for sharing! This is indirectly but wonderfully on topic for this site.

kenjackson 15y ago
Are adhoc gangs/groups that perform altruism common across genetic lines? While some animals do exibit adoption, I don't think its nearly as common as altruism towards biological children. And group membership that requires altruism overwhelmingly seems to have genetic tie-in.
- rcthompson 15y ago
  Well, elephant mothers in a group help protect each others' young from predators by creating an impenetrable elephant wall around them. A single elephant mother could not protect her own young by surrounding them in this way, but she can protect her young by joining the group, if she is also willing to help protect others' young as well. On the other hand, members of a herd are usually genetically related, so it is possible that kin selection can also explain this phenomenon.
  - Alex3917 15y ago
    "On the other hand, members of a herd are usually genetically related, so it is possible that kin selection can also explain this phenomenon." Wilson isn't proposing they are mutually exclusive, he is saying they are both right but to differing degrees.
- guygurari 15y ago
  In order to have altruistic behavior in a group you need to spread a gene that promotes such behavior within the group. The simplest way for this to happen is for the gene to appear in one member, and then spread to others by inheritance. For this to happen across, say, two genetic lines, it seems you need the "cross-altruistic" genes to emerge more or less simultaneously in the two groups so they can cooperate. The probability for this to happen is smaller, so it's not surprising that it happens less often than kin-style altruism. But if this does happen (and apparently it does), then it means kin selection is not enough to explain altruism. It seems to me that Wilson's theory is an elegant generalization of kin selection. I don't see the contradiction between them, although I'm not a biologist so quite likely I'm misunderstanding something.
  - forkandwait 15y ago
    "In order to have altruistic behavior in a group you need to spread a gene that promotes such behavior..." This premise seems to be taken as fundamental dogma in the evolutionary theory community, but perhaps should be questioned. Here is my (layperson's) counterexample: a species might have a gene that switches between whether an individual is a drone or a reproducer over the course of their life; a switch like that could thrown early in the development based on ambient hormones or whatever. If the individual is not a reproducer, they don't spread their own genes but they help the hive or whatever. I think there is an unexamined assumption guiding contemporary evolution, that ALL behavior must be explained by genes ALONE -- in the case above, lifetime behavior is determined by an environmental trigger, even though the set of possible behaviors is determined by genes. This dogma seems, well, silly and wrong. (Throw in cultural behaviors with outcomes like longer life and more offspring, and the classical system completely falls apart.)
    - guygurari 15y ago
      Certainly not all behavior is the direct result of genes; I don't think this is the common viewpoint. For example there are genes that enable learning. This is extremely useful since disseminating behavior by learning is much faster than doing it through evolution. The rapid changes in human behavior in the last few decades (at least) can be explained in this way, and not by natural selection which is too slow. Genes that encode specific behaviors are just the simplest possible mechanism that works, and they do account for a vast number of phenomena. I think Occam's razor applies: If you suggest a more complicated mechanism, you should have some supporting evidence.
- da_dude4242 15y ago
  >Are adhoc gangs/groups that perform altruism common across genetic lines? It's common in the sense that symbiotic relationships are common across ecosystems and probably a definitive element of what makes them a "system". Stephen Gould took the idea further in his idea of "hierarchal evolution". Evolution isn't just happening on the genetic, individual, group, and species levels. It's happening at every level of organization.

by xal 15y ago

kenjackson 15y ago

Are adhoc gangs/groups that perform altruism common across genetic lines? While some animals do exibit adoption, I don't think its nearly as common as altruism towards biological children. And group membership that requires altruism overwhelmingly seems to have genetic tie-in.

rcthompson 15y ago
Well, elephant mothers in a group help protect each others' young from predators by creating an impenetrable elephant wall around them. A single elephant mother could not protect her own young by surrounding them in this way, but she can protect her young by joining the group, if she is also willing to help protect others' young as well. On the other hand, members of a herd are usually genetically related, so it is possible that kin selection can also explain this phenomenon.
- Alex3917 15y ago
  "On the other hand, members of a herd are usually genetically related, so it is possible that kin selection can also explain this phenomenon." Wilson isn't proposing they are mutually exclusive, he is saying they are both right but to differing degrees.
guygurari 15y ago
In order to have altruistic behavior in a group you need to spread a gene that promotes such behavior within the group. The simplest way for this to happen is for the gene to appear in one member, and then spread to others by inheritance. For this to happen across, say, two genetic lines, it seems you need the "cross-altruistic" genes to emerge more or less simultaneously in the two groups so they can cooperate. The probability for this to happen is smaller, so it's not surprising that it happens less often than kin-style altruism. But if this does happen (and apparently it does), then it means kin selection is not enough to explain altruism. It seems to me that Wilson's theory is an elegant generalization of kin selection. I don't see the contradiction between them, although I'm not a biologist so quite likely I'm misunderstanding something.
- forkandwait 15y ago
  "In order to have altruistic behavior in a group you need to spread a gene that promotes such behavior..." This premise seems to be taken as fundamental dogma in the evolutionary theory community, but perhaps should be questioned. Here is my (layperson's) counterexample: a species might have a gene that switches between whether an individual is a drone or a reproducer over the course of their life; a switch like that could thrown early in the development based on ambient hormones or whatever. If the individual is not a reproducer, they don't spread their own genes but they help the hive or whatever. I think there is an unexamined assumption guiding contemporary evolution, that ALL behavior must be explained by genes ALONE -- in the case above, lifetime behavior is determined by an environmental trigger, even though the set of possible behaviors is determined by genes. This dogma seems, well, silly and wrong. (Throw in cultural behaviors with outcomes like longer life and more offspring, and the classical system completely falls apart.)
  - guygurari 15y ago
    Certainly not all behavior is the direct result of genes; I don't think this is the common viewpoint. For example there are genes that enable learning. This is extremely useful since disseminating behavior by learning is much faster than doing it through evolution. The rapid changes in human behavior in the last few decades (at least) can be explained in this way, and not by natural selection which is too slow. Genes that encode specific behaviors are just the simplest possible mechanism that works, and they do account for a vast number of phenomena. I think Occam's razor applies: If you suggest a more complicated mechanism, you should have some supporting evidence.
da_dude4242 15y ago
>Are adhoc gangs/groups that perform altruism common across genetic lines? It's common in the sense that symbiotic relationships are common across ecosystems and probably a definitive element of what makes them a "system". Stephen Gould took the idea further in his idea of "hierarchal evolution". Evolution isn't just happening on the genetic, individual, group, and species levels. It's happening at every level of organization.