X-Message-Number: 21886 Date: Thu, 5 Jun 2003 09:40:59 -0400 From: Thomas Donaldson <> Subject: CryoNet #21863 - #21871 To David Stodolsky: In one sense I am guilty of the same sin you are: I give references but do not discuss them at all, as if the mere reference would be enough to convince someone. So I will say a bit more about "group selection" and why many evolutionists now think poorly of it, as I understand it. First, like most such ideas, group selection isn't fully true or false. Special situations can exist in which something that at least looks like it might apply. However it suffers from one major problem: just how is it that natural selection can apply to groups rather than individuals? I am talking about genes here, not beliefs or customs, and in virtually all human cases yes, groups may be selected against, but NOT genetically. When we consider animals and plants in general, there simply is no handle by which selection can choose among groups. Sure, some group of animals may all share a particular gene, but that's far more easily explained in terms of selection against holders of that gene than selection against a group. It's also important to point out several other ways in which selection might APPEAR to work for or against a group, but really does not. Families, both extended and restricted to husband, wife, and children, usually share genes. Selection for that gene will look, again, like selection for a group. Not only that, but it's exactly that sharing of genes which can mean that one member of a family (for instance) may have no children but support other members, with positive effects on the number of descendants with the gene, even if not the progeny of that family member. The classical instance of that kind of selection is provided by the communal insects, ants, bees, and termites, most of whom are sterile but work to support their queens (or kings and queens for termites). In human societies, rewards to the relatives of someone who sacrifices him/herself for a group will promote such sacrifices: once more an apparent group selection which turns out on analysis not to be such at all. The major point here, however, is that in order to work on groups selection must somehow have a way of distinguishing them AS GROUPS, rather than as a set of individuals. At some future time, we may indeed INVENT ways to do exactly that (not that it's likely to have very good results!), but that is an entirely separate question. Just how do you claim that selection distinguishes a GROUP rather than simply individuals with particular genes? (And note, for instance, that membership in a group need not imply and often doesn't imply that the member shares any but the genes which make us human with other members of the group). So, David Stodolsky, over to you. Best wishes and long long life for all, Thomas Donaldson PS: Incidentally, for what it's worth, I learned what I know about evolution not from Dawkins but from the people I cited, and others: Hamilton, GC Williams, Simpson, and others. Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=21886