> You are incorrect, but I understand your skepticism. I'm no expert in this area. I'm just a mathematically literate college-educated person of at least avera

> You are incorrect, but I understand your skepticism. I'm no expert in this area. I'm just a mathematically literate college-educated person of at least average intelligence that enjoys reading. In some ways, I imagine that makes me harder to convince, or more skeptical if you like. I also have a bit of a contrarian streak. However, I'm genuinely fascinated by the subject and quite curious. So much for my inadequacies. > You can check out by finding more about Dawkins-Wilson debates and all graduate level evolutionary biology textbooks. Wilson group selection theory does not add anything to inclusive fitness. My understanding is that inclusive fitness was shown to be mathematically unsound[1]. I can follow the mathematical arguments in that paper and I find them convincing. I am, I hope understandably, disinterested in spending the mental energy to achieve a layman's understanding of a theory that's been mathematically debunked. I trust math more than I do debates for judging the merits of a theory. The latter is a species of rhetoric, which is a wonderful tool for persuasion and sometimes entertainment, but not so helpful for achieving understanding. The former is dialectic, and has a pretty good track record for, if not finding truth, at least ruling out some species of falsehood. > Wilson was an intellectual giant but wrong in some cases. Indeed. Much scientific progress has been achieved by standing on the shoulders of past giants and proving them wrong. The domain of evolutionary biology is dizzyingly complex and I'm in no way disparaging those working in the field. Quite the opposite, I'm grateful for their work and the opportunity to learn from it. [1] https://www.pnas.org/content/110/50/20135 https://www.pnas.org/content/110/50/20135