Do evolutionary biologists believe that evolution of all traits (including the genetic basis of social behavior) is due to natural selection? Or, is evolution through other forms of selection possible?

Example 1. Are domesticated animals, such as sheep and dogs, entirely the product of natural selection?

Example 2. If it’s argued that domestication through selective breeding is not natural selection, then it seems that the intelligent agent for domestication (the human mind) can as easily affect the genetic basis of social behavior in our own species. As a species, we have the capacity to select behavioral traits that have values other than survival.

I’m with Athena. I think the implied boundaries are, at best, vague. And I’m not at all sure that the altruism shown by bees and ants is driven by similar or analogous mechanisms to the altruism that is (occasionally) shown by humans.

My guess is that human altruism and cooperation are driven by “values” that derive from genetic, cultural and cognitive roots. But the boundaries are not well explored.

With nary a word about where culture came from– poofed into existence by faeries, maybe. Or Tomte.

As a current language teacher in Taiwan, I am always floored when I get – from fluent adults – sentences like “I love you, etc” or ” I will order the chicken and tofu, etc”. It leaves way…way….to much to the imagination and doesnt add to the content. I also think that this leads into proper english contexts, such as science communication. “X drug caused A, B, C, etc”. What the heck does that actually mean?

Just some thoughts…Im not poking at your use (or non-use, thankfully) of it, just the comments above brought it up in my mind.

Often? By whom, exactly? What is meant by ‘etc.’? Are fishes, birds, and mammals “complex organisms”? Do you know what you’re talking about?

“The authors of the first letter argue that Nowak et al don’t get inclusive fitness. They claim it needs lots of stringent assumptions, when, in fact, it’s a general theory. They also challenge the idea that inclusive fitness doesn’t provide any more insights into biology. They offer a list of such insights, such as why animals cooperate with each other, why they can act spitefully, and why mothers produce different ratios of males and females. ”

Most of the occurrences of “they” appear to refer to “The authors of the 1st letter”. But the 2nd sentence makes more sense if the “they” at the start refers to Nowak et al., and that casts doubt, in my mind, on the referents of the other occurrences of “they”.

Wilson has previously argued in favour of group selection by claiming that kin selection is a form of group selection, so the group selectionists won (his 2007 paper with David Sloan Wilson in QRB). The obvious response is that kin selection is an outcome of (purely individual level selection) inclusive fitness, and people did respond that way. So denying that inclusive fitness even exists blocks that objection.

What facts tell for or against this? Basically if the math works, then one can claim inclusive fitness is explanatory, but there can be no experimentum crucis that will show that the working math is true. So wiggle room persists and hence: methodology war.