tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3869924253948047268.post4121646638107142263..comments2023-11-05T01:05:14.895-07:00Comments on A Blog from Hell: Atheist vs. Atheistnormdoeringhttp://www.blogger.com/profile/03279378756658563565noreply@blogger.comBlogger8125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3869924253948047268.post-3855575182495674572007-10-15T05:01:00.000-07:002007-10-15T05:01:00.000-07:00Mr. Wilson is also taking money from the Templeton...<EM>Mr. Wilson is also taking money from the Templeton Foundation. This fact might distort Mr. Wilson's conclusions.</EM><BR/><BR/>Now that's an ad hominem, much more than Wilson calling Dawkins an "angry atheist" - which he is, sorry for you.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3869924253948047268.post-10248857631693698602007-07-12T02:09:00.000-07:002007-07-12T02:09:00.000-07:00Sorry, I meant to say "Can selection on groups as ...Sorry, I meant to say "Can selection on groups as a whole overpower selection <B>within</B> groups..."Luis Cayetanohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05210714337197709016noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3869924253948047268.post-16425475257555476602007-07-12T02:07:00.000-07:002007-07-12T02:07:00.000-07:00"The main problem with selection at the individual..."The main problem with selection at the individual or group level as I see it, is that there is no fecundity. That is, every individual and more so every group is different from one another. Since evolution requires reproduction, unequal survival, and high, though not perfect, fecundity, it doesn't work for individuals. The only unit which is relatively constant is the genes."<BR/><BR/>But I think that the issue, for those who subscribe to the gene-centred view of evolution, should really be over what entities can act as <I>vehicles</I>, i.e. as the <I>immediate</I>, proximate units of selection. Most of this honour has been given to the individual, but the group is another possibility. Can selection on groups as a whole overpower selection between groups, such that an allele can be maintained despite its possibly deleterious affects on the individuals that carry them? The issue has stopped being about whether groups can <I>compete</I> with genes as the ultimate units of selection. It is no longer about whether groups can fulfil the role of replicator.<BR/><BR/>Clones would not fulfil the role of replicator, for the reason that Dawkins gives in The Extended Phenotype: if a change is made to the clone, it will not be passed onto the offspring (unless that change comes in the form of a mutation in a gamete). <BR/><BR/>Anyway, I still don't know why Dawkins thinks of Wilson's take on group selection as "idiosyncratic". How is it, as he says, a "re-definition"?Luis Cayetanohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05210714337197709016noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3869924253948047268.post-89896073029081228102007-07-11T23:52:00.000-07:002007-07-11T23:52:00.000-07:00The main problem with selection at the individual ...The main problem with selection at the individual or group level as I see it, is that there is no fecundity. That is, every individual and more so every group is different from one another. Since evolution requires reproduction, unqequal survival, and high, though not perfect, fecundity, it doesn't work for individuals. The only unit which is relatively constant is the genes.<BR/><BR/>Perhaps this will change if we are able to clone ourselves, but I don't see it happening very soon.rasmussenandershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18094631016209971125noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3869924253948047268.post-17465766483019627692007-07-11T19:57:00.000-07:002007-07-11T19:57:00.000-07:00Isn't it true that we can still accept the selfish...Isn't it true that we can still accept the selfish gene theory whilst allowing for groups to be selected as <I>vehicles</I> rather than replicators? Dawkins alludes to this in The Extended Phenotype, when he says that individuals and groups can both potentially act as conduits for allele survival. In that case, one wouldn't talk about "group selection versus gene selection" (and if one did talk about that, then he would mean in terms of whether we can regard groups as replicators), but one could still reasonably ask whether groups can ever be selected as proxies by which alleles can be maintained primarily by the advantages they confer onto the group as a whole rather than on the individuals carrying them. I think it is Dawkins' contention that this is in any case unlikely, and he spends his efforts upon debunking the group-as-replicator idea, in the sense that he thinks Gould subscribed to. David Sloan Wilson accepts the fundamental distinction between vehicle and replicator; he is just more willing to allow for the group to act as a vehicle than is Dawkins. He cites some recent studies involving microbacteria to support his argument (I would like to see Dawkins reply to these studies specifically, or perhaps I should just read them myself). Dawkins calls Wilson's version of group selection "idiosyncratic". Why is this? I don't know, and I shall have to look deeper, because I would have thought that his version was the same as what Dawkins would allow as group selection rather than the group-as-replicator type. Or is Dawkins saying that Wilson is talking about a sub-group of group-as-vehicle? Or perhaps Dawkins' criterion for "true" group selection is that the genes must be involved in "engineering" solutions? This would strike me as a bit unfair, because it seems like he would have moved the goalposts in order that group selection can never be realised. Perhaps I'm just confused (actually, I really am). When we talk about the selfish gene, do we only mean genes that are involved in and must be involved in adaptations? (‘The entity for which adaptations can be said to be “for the good of”’) Or do we mean genes that, for whathever reason, are selected on the basis of their affects on something, be that the individual, group, species, or whatever, and that might or might not be then incorporated into an engineering solution? <BR/>Finally, if we talk about religion as being a group selection adaptation, does this mean that group selection was involved in actually building it up, or simply that the finished product was selected by virtue of the advantaged afforded to the group, (if not the individual)? It seems to me that group selection is incapable of building up complex adaptations, but suppose that something was built up by within-group selection, later becoming a disadvantage to the individuals having it, but still conferring advantage to the group. Is this what Wilson means in terms of religion? Does it differ from what he means by gene selection by virtue of group benefits?Luis Cayetanohttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05210714337197709016noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3869924253948047268.post-36335949063439991232007-07-11T19:00:00.000-07:002007-07-11T19:00:00.000-07:00Blake Stacey wrote:"The 'selfish gene' model,..."G...Blake Stacey wrote:<BR/><I>"The 'selfish gene' model,..."</I><BR/><BR/>Group selection might be stronger at the memetic than at the genetic level. It only needs some basic support from the evolving genes.<BR/><BR/>Obviously Christianity or any specific religion is a memetic effect, not a genetic one... I assume. Maybe we should test that.normdoeringhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03279378756658563565noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3869924253948047268.post-2158705160155223292007-07-11T17:12:00.000-07:002007-07-11T17:12:00.000-07:00The "selfish gene" model, under which kin selectio...The "selfish gene" model, under which kin selection is all, is only an accurate description of a population if that population is "panmictic" — each member can mate with any other. This sort of description, in which each individual feels the same average effect from all the others, is known in physics as a "<A HREF="http://arxiv.org/abs/physics/0002016" REL="nofollow">mean-field theory</A>."<BR/><BR/>Conclusions can be drawn with mathematical certainty for the panmictic case which no longer apply when the "perfect mixing" assumption is dropped. For example, if your population is spread across a geographical region, <A HREF="http://necsi.org/projects/evolecol/opr002vp.pdf" REL="nofollow">interesting effects can occur</A>, and some objections to group selection <A HREF="http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/abstract/101/30/11019" REL="nofollow">no longer apply</A>.Blake Staceyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13977394981287067289noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-3869924253948047268.post-5458412990554937862007-07-11T13:53:00.000-07:002007-07-11T13:53:00.000-07:00Nice blog post and my compliments to your blog ove...Nice blog post and my compliments to your blog overall! <BR/><BR/>Like Dawkins I do not think that group selection can occur. I was entirely convinced after reading the selfish gene. But then again, maybe I should study the oter side as well...<BR/><BR/>Keep up the good work, I will be checking in every now and then ;)rasmussenandershttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18094631016209971125noreply@blogger.com