Kin selection vs multilevel selection
Inclusive fitness vs group selection
Sober, E. When prey is abundant, cooperation is no longer beneficial enough to outweigh the disadvantages of altruism, and hunting is no longer cooperative. Price developed an equation that partitioned selection in the total population into within- and between-group components. Multilevel selection theory is defined as coherently as inclusive fitness theory. To this end, we first separately introduce the two theories and then point to the roots of the controversy. Other issues that were originally framed in terms of group selection vs. New York: Allen Lane. This question underlies the decades-long debate between those who argue in favor of "kin selection," in which individuals are altruistic to those who share their genes, and those who argue in favor of "group selection," in which altruism arises from being part of a group. Thus was born the era of pluralism and equivalence in sociobiology. The Price equation also helped Hamilton realize that his original interpretation of r, which was largely restricted to genealogical relatedness, could be generalized to include any correlation between the genes of the donor and genes of the recipient s , for any reason. Most of the important questions can be asked within either framework and can be translated between frameworks. An article was published in Nature with over a hundred coauthors. Abstract Kin selection and multilevel selection are two major frameworks in evolutionary biology that aim at explaining the evolution of social behaviors. Accordingly, they can also represent mutually beneficial both fitness components positive , spiteful both components negative , or selfish direct component positive and indirect component zero or negative behaviors.
I favour an approach that explicitly accounts for the differences between kin and group selection in terms of the structural features of populations, bringing the role of population structure to the fore.
Moreover, it provides a potential solution to the central problem of sociobiology, as it shows that even costly social behaviors can be favored by natural selection as long as the direct costs are outweighed by a sufficient amount of indirect benefit to sufficiently closely related individuals Figure 1 Intuitively i is a more serious form of causal inadequacy than ii.
Wilson compared the layers of competition and evolution to nested sets of Russian matryoshka dolls. Sober Ed. I also have claimed that there is a zone of consensus of the many and that both Dawkins and Wilson are outliers who fail to recognize that the days of pitting kin selection against group selection are over.
Dawkins, R. The internal degree of an arbitrary vertex, vj, in N[vi] is the number of edges directly linking vj to other vertices within N[vi]; the external degree of vj is the number of edges directly linking it to vertices outside N[vi]; and the total degree of vj is the sum of its internal and external degrees.
In paradigm cases of kin selection, by contrast, there is no causal path running via the group means and no allocation mechanism.
The other, which I will develop in this article, is a population-centred approach that explicates the distinction in terms of structural properties of populations. This behavior could emerge under conditions such that the statistical likelihood that benefits accrue to the survival and reproduction of other organisms whom also carry the social trait.
When Wilson observes that species with high r values are common while the evolution of eusociality is rare, he is saying that high r values are not sufficient to explain the evolution of eusociality and might not even be necessary.
These groups are nothing like individual organisms.
Most of the important questions can be asked within either framework and can be translated between frameworks. These should be seen as extreme cases: real social networks are typically neither perfectly transitive nor perfectly intransitive, but instead have some intermediate level of transitivity. The assumption is that variation between different groups is larger than variation within groups. A vehicle is a collection of genes that survive and reproduce as a unit. While these spatial populations do not have well-defined groups for group selection, the local spatial interactions of organisms in transient groups are sufficient to lead to a kind of multi-level selection. Open in new tab Download slide An illustration of the causal graphs approach. There is also a more general moral, namely, that isomorphism of fitness structures does not necessarily imply isomorphism of the causal facts giving rise to those fitness structures. I think the importance of this qualification has been understated in the literature Godfrey-Smith  ,  is an important exception; see Section 4.
based on 78 review