James Brody
October 22nd, 2005, 01:01 PM
One of the feuds in evolutionary theory has centered on the nature of individual versus group selection. Members of the Human Behavior Evolution Society lined up at George Williams's shoulder when he attacked Wynne Edwards's analysis of avian behavior that suggested individual birds make decisions that benefit the flock.
Sober and Wilson differed and the pendulum now swings between the silent defeated and the new wave of groupies. I think that emergent network theory will reconcile the dispute and let both sides agree because of what physics teaches us, even with some translations by the damned sociologists.
Ed Wilson may have found network theory or simply got bored. Anyhow, he's endorsed the group approach. This abstract appeared in the PNAS :eek:
-----
Published online before print September 12, 2005, 10.1073/pnas.0505858102
Eusociality: Origin and consequences
Edward O. Wilson and Bert Hölldobler
*Museum of Comparative Zoology, Harvard University, 26 Oxford Street, Cambridge, MA 02138-2902; School of Life Sciences-LSC 274, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ 85287-4501; and §Theodor-Boveri-Institut für Biowissenschaften (Biozentrum), Universität Würzburg, Lehrstuhl für Zoologie II, Am Hubland, D97074 Würzburg, Germany
In this new assessment of the empirical evidence, an alternative to the standard model is proposed: group selection is the strong binding force in eusocial evolution; individual selection, the strong dissolutive force; and kin selection (narrowly defined), either a weak binding or weak dissolutive force, according to circumstance. Close kinship may be more a consequence of eusociality than a factor promoting its origin. A point of no return to the solitary state exists, as a rule when workers become anatomically differentiated. Eusociality has been rare in evolution, evidently due to the scarcity of environmental pressures adequate to tip the balance among countervailing forces in favor of group selection. Eusociality in ants and termites in the irreversible stage is the key to their ecological dominance and has (at least in ants) shaped some features of internal phylogeny. Their colonies are consistently superior to solitary and preeusocial competitors, due to the altruistic behavior among nestmates and their ability to organize coordinated action by pheromonal communication.
-----
References:
Williams, G. (1966) Adaptation and Natural Selection: A Critique of Some Current Evolutionary Thought. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton Univ.Press.
Wilson, E.O. & Hölldobler, B. (2005) Eusociality: Origin and consequences. Proceedings National Academy of Science, September 20, 102(38), 13367-13371.
Sober, E. & Wilson, D.S. (1998) Unto Others: The Evolution and Psychology of Unselfish Behavior. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University.
Sober and Wilson differed and the pendulum now swings between the silent defeated and the new wave of groupies. I think that emergent network theory will reconcile the dispute and let both sides agree because of what physics teaches us, even with some translations by the damned sociologists.
Ed Wilson may have found network theory or simply got bored. Anyhow, he's endorsed the group approach. This abstract appeared in the PNAS :eek:
-----
Published online before print September 12, 2005, 10.1073/pnas.0505858102
Eusociality: Origin and consequences
Edward O. Wilson and Bert Hölldobler
*Museum of Comparative Zoology, Harvard University, 26 Oxford Street, Cambridge, MA 02138-2902; School of Life Sciences-LSC 274, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ 85287-4501; and §Theodor-Boveri-Institut für Biowissenschaften (Biozentrum), Universität Würzburg, Lehrstuhl für Zoologie II, Am Hubland, D97074 Würzburg, Germany
In this new assessment of the empirical evidence, an alternative to the standard model is proposed: group selection is the strong binding force in eusocial evolution; individual selection, the strong dissolutive force; and kin selection (narrowly defined), either a weak binding or weak dissolutive force, according to circumstance. Close kinship may be more a consequence of eusociality than a factor promoting its origin. A point of no return to the solitary state exists, as a rule when workers become anatomically differentiated. Eusociality has been rare in evolution, evidently due to the scarcity of environmental pressures adequate to tip the balance among countervailing forces in favor of group selection. Eusociality in ants and termites in the irreversible stage is the key to their ecological dominance and has (at least in ants) shaped some features of internal phylogeny. Their colonies are consistently superior to solitary and preeusocial competitors, due to the altruistic behavior among nestmates and their ability to organize coordinated action by pheromonal communication.
-----
References:
Williams, G. (1966) Adaptation and Natural Selection: A Critique of Some Current Evolutionary Thought. Princeton, N.J.: Princeton Univ.Press.
Wilson, E.O. & Hölldobler, B. (2005) Eusociality: Origin and consequences. Proceedings National Academy of Science, September 20, 102(38), 13367-13371.
Sober, E. & Wilson, D.S. (1998) Unto Others: The Evolution and Psychology of Unselfish Behavior. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University.