Richard Dawkins doesn't pull punches and he doesn't beat around the bush. You always know where he stands on any given issue. This is what I admire about Richard Dawkins. I don't agree with him on lots of things but whenever you engage him you know you've got a fight on your hands. It's the combination of intelligence and forthrightness that make him such a powerful voice in science. We need more scientists who are both smart, and willing to stand up for their ideas. We need more open controversy in science these days. Scientists need to speak up when they encounter silly ideas in the scientific literature. It is not a scientific virtue to be polite in such cases; in fact, it can be detrimental to science to clog up the scientific literature with scientific nonsense on the grounds that one shouldn't criticize fellow scientists in public. Richard Dawkins does not make that mistake.
Dawkins does not like group selection because it conflicts with his adaptationist, gene-centric, worldview. He's been very clear about this over the years. I admire him for sticking to his guns and standing by the original dismissal of group selection by George Williams.1
David Sloan and E.O. Wilson have recently been pushing for a revival of group selection. They published a short summary of their new book in the Nov. 3 edition of New Scientist [Evolution: Survival of the selfless] where they said,
The concept of genes as "replicators" and "the fundamental unit of selection" averages the fitness of genes across all contexts to predict what evolves in the total population. The whole point of multilevel selection theory, however, is to ask whether genes can evolve on the strength of between-group selection, despite a selective disadvantage within each group. When this happens, the gene favoured by between-group selection is more fit overall than the gene favoured by within-group selection in the total population.Dawkins responds to this in a letter published in the Dec. 15 issue [Genes Still Central].
It is bizarre (in retrospect) to interpret this as an argument against group selection. Both Williams and Dawkins eventually acknowledged their error, but it is still common to find the "gene's-eye view" of evolution presented as a drop-dead argument against group selection.
The old arguments against group selection have all failed. It is theoretically plausible, it happens in reality, and the so-called alternatives actually include the logic of multilevel selection. Had this been known in the 1960s, sociobiology would have taken a very different direction. It is this branch point that must be revisited to put sociobiology back on a firm theoretical foundation.
Genes still centralDoes anyone have any doubts about where Dawkins stands on the issue of group selection?
David Sloan Wilson's lifelong quest to redefine "group selection" in such a way as to sow maximum confusion - and even to confuse the normally wise and sensible Edward O. Wilson into joining him - is of no more scientific interest than semantic doubletalk ever is. What goes beyond semantics, however, is his statement (it is safe to assume that E. O. Wilson is blameless) that "Both Williams and Dawkins eventually acknowledged their error..." (3 November, p 42).
I cannot speak for George Williams but, as far as I am concerned, the statement is false: not a semantic confusion; not an exaggeration of a half-truth; not a distortion of a quarter-truth; but a total, unmitigated, barefaced lie. Like many scientists, I am delighted to acknowledge occasions when I have changed my mind, but this is not one of them.
D. S. Wilson should apologise. E. O. Wilson, being the gentleman he is, probably will.
* Richard Dawkins, Oxford UK
David Sloan Wilson and E.O. Wilson responed to Dawkins' letter by claiming that they were only referring to one minor aspect of the argument against group selection but I don't think anyone is going to be fooled by that. In their article, they clearly imply that Dawkins has acknowledged his "error" in opposing group selection. This is a case where a simple apology would have worked better.
1. Ironically, Dawkins is a huge fan of kin selection, which, in my opinion is just about as weak as group selection.
Interesting comment in your footnote. Do you know of a model by which altruism can evolve without invoking one or the other? (And there are arguments, which look convincing to my amateur eye, that "strong altruism" where there is an absolute negative cost for individuals, eg. sterile worker castes in social insects, requires kin selection and cannot be explained by the "colony-level selection" of Wilson and Wilson: see http://tinyurl.com/35wpsm).
ReplyDeleteas an opposer of group selection, I must say I find dawkin's explanations of altruism and such even more stupid.
ReplyDeleteHe has never hadto bend his thinking. hr can just blame genes for everythimg becuase, see, he has never had to do soe actual RESEARCH on this topic. And on this front i have much ore respect for wilson than the endeared pontiff of scientism from oxford.
Sanders, are you under the impression that nobody but Dawkins has ever published on this subject? MANY people have "done actual RESEARCH" on it.
ReplyDeleteThta's not ht reason why I think the way I do. All I'm saying is, between Dawkins and Wilson, Wilson gets my respect (though not too much), whereas Dawkins, I find, brings chuckles whenever mentioned. I am actually pretty surprised at hi inpopuilarity, ate least wuth the people I've been meeting. You know, silliness makes smart people angry.
ReplyDeleteIronically, Dawkins is a huge fan of kin selection, which, in my opinion is just about as weak as group selection.
ReplyDeleteStatements like this merely reflect a biochemist's ignorance of the vast literature--both theoretical and empirical--of behavioral ecology.
Sanders, you should hurry up and publish your own seminal work in evolutionary theory so the rest of us have a reason to care about your opinions of people like Wilson and Dawkins. And for the love of Mike, learn to find the freakin' Preview button!
All I'm doing is calling on what I disagree. To demand me to refund biology just shows how dogmatic are these people: they think we are talking about the foundations of biology here and panic if these are placed into question.
ReplyDeleteKin slection is too reductionist to be a truly productive way of studying the evolution of altruism. The complete, truly satisfactory explanation is much more organismic than that.
To the defenders of kin selection, which do you think is the best case study you would present? If molecular resolution is available that would be nice. Because I myself DO know about several FAILED predictions of sociobiological reductionism. With molecular resolution.
I also think it is worth lifting an eyebrow at the fact that Wilson ended up rejecting that view and opting for group selection. If I remember correctly his PNAS article, he says he has found no evidence for a significant role of kin selection in ant eusociality.
Fink S, Excoffier L, Heckel G.2006Mammalian monogamy is not controlled by a single gene.
ReplyDeleteProc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 103(29):10956-60.
Complex social behavior in Microtus voles and other mammals has been postulated to be under the direct genetic control of a single locus: the arginine vasopressin 1a receptor (avpr1a) gene. Using a phylogenetic approach, we show that a repetitive element in the promoter region of avpr1a, which reportedly causes social monogamy, is actually widespread in nonmonogamous Microtus and other rodents. There was no evidence for intraspecific polymorphism in regard to the presence or absence of the repetitive element. Among 25 rodent species studied, the element was absent in only two closely related nonmonogamous species, indicating that this absence is certainly the result of an evolutionarily recent loss. Our analyses further demonstrate that the repetitive structures upstream of the avpr1a gene in humans and primates, which have been associated with social bonding, are evolutionarily distinct from those in rodents. Our evolutionary approach reveals that monogamy in rodents is not controlled by a single polymorphism in the promoter region of the avpr1a gene. We thus resolve the contradiction between the claims for an evolutionarily conserved genetic programming of social behavior in mammals and the vast evidence for highly complex and flexible mating systems.
why Sanders is allowed to even post here boggles my mind.
ReplyDeleteHowever, this might be useful to some actually interested in the topic of field research in kin selection, so to them I would say to just read the collected works of WD Hamilton, who spent decades evaluating his own theory in the field in South America.
I won't post a specific paper, since ALL of them are useful. Instead, would just recommend reading the entire 3 volume set:
Narrow Roads of Gene Land
which contains most of his seminal theoretical AND field research published papers.
past that, you can find more recent examples summarized in the review publication of the conference on the evolution of cooperation and social behavior, which took place back in 2006, and was published in the Journal of Evolutionary Biology:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/jeb.2006.19.issue-5/issuetoc
btw is Vargas, er I mean "Sanders" still going on about how mimicry supposedly disproves natural selection as a mechanism of evolution?
ReplyDeleteman, that was a real knee slapper once upon a time.