Comments on: Inclusive Fitness: Return to the Wrestling Ring

By: New Yorker article on the kin-selection flap « Why Evolution Is True

New Yorker article on the kin-selection flap « Why Evolution Is True — Thu, 08 Mar 2012 12:26:46 +0000

[...] supported it with public statements. Referring to Nowak et al.’s nonreply, science writer Carl Zimmer said this: Nowak et al respond to all the criticism and don’t budge in their own stand. They claim that [...]

By: jon osborn

jon osborn — Wed, 06 Apr 2011 21:04:13 +0000

Some people use “nature” to mean everything, or the most fundamental basis of everything. Others use it to mean “unconscious” or “unintentianal”. If we use it to mean basic fundamental, then breeding, “artificial” selection is a sub-category of natural selection. Just like sexual selection is a sub-category of natural selection. As for culture, it is commonly held that genetics forms the basis for the ability to form/maintain/develop culture, as in humans primates song birds/crows whales. To say that our cultural acheivments are NOT evolutionarily based, or not genetic, is both wrong and correct: We didnt have quantum mechanics or jazz-funk in the ancestral environment, but we did appreciation for music and abstract explanations of the varied phenomena. This basic appreciation combined with time and memory yeilds our current culture.

By: johnk

johnk — Fri, 01 Apr 2011 14:20:58 +0000

Exposing my ignorance:

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.

By: How important science done by important scientists at important universities can go wrong | Mario's Entangled Bank

Thu, 31 Mar 2011 03:12:03 +0000

[...] to point any more fingers as many have done so already, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here, here and 140ish, give or take a few, authors here. Instead I present to you a summary of [...]

By: Nathan Taylor

Nathan Taylor — Tue, 29 Mar 2011 18:39:38 +0000

David Sloan Wilson has always struck me as the single person who has paid his dues and understands both the science and the science history of group selection. He did a whole series of blog posts on putting the group selection controversies behind us. And his books are extremely clear and well written, in particular Unto Others. The whole controversy just saddens me as it has once again set back the science for a shouting match. David Sloan Wilson’s blog post on this is well worth reading. One caveat is he does not hide his disdain for Dawkin’s role in this:
http://scienceblogs.com/evolution/2011/03/139_co-authors_cant_be_wrong–.php

By: Linkage 3/25: Giant Bunnies, Religious Obesity, and Kin Selection Kerfuffle « Science Life Blog « University of Chicago Medical Center

Fri, 25 Mar 2011 16:06:55 +0000

[...] share some a significant portion of an individual’s genetic background. As recapped by Carl Zimmer, the current debate began with the publication of Wilson’s paper questioning the evidence of [...]

By: johnk

johnk — Fri, 25 Mar 2011 14:01:29 +0000

I’m not sure who has said that “inclusive fitness” has been applied to higher organisms, but who, among the coiners of the term, has said it doesn’t apply? When scientists borrow terms like “altruism” and “cooperation” and apply formal definitions without much qualification, the implication is that the ‘scientific’ and correct usage of the terms apply universally.

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.

By: yokohamamama

yokohamamama — Fri, 25 Mar 2011 06:38:20 +0000

“, etc.” translates roughly as “I heard something about this from my best friend’s boyfriend’s sister who is a biology major. We were talking about it at this party, and I remember it because I thought it was weird that she said altruism is genetic. I mean, how can feelings be genetic? After all, not everything is genetic–some things are culturally determined!”

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

By: Monkey

Monkey — Fri, 25 Mar 2011 01:45:14 +0000

I think “etc” should be on the list of no-no words, Carl! I second Sven (#12) on that one.

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.

By: Sven DiMilo

Sven DiMilo — Fri, 25 Mar 2011 01:13:47 +0000

“inclusive fitness has often been promoted as the exclusive underpinning of altruism, etc, in humans”

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