Quote:
Originally Posted by jwb
Tldr what's the actual beef between Dawkins and eo Wilson?
|
I didn't respond to this part as I was a bit busy. I have seen some Wilson proponent ant hill selection arguments, but it was a long time ago and I cannot remember the details. Hence, I am quite ignorant on that subject and I will profess that I am generally more of a Dawkins student.
One thing that I feel sets biology apart from other natural sciences like physics and chemistry is there are ALWAYS exceptions to rules in biology. I'm sure there are even many exceptions to my statement just there. This sometimes leads to contention.
So take the unit for selection. In 1973, Dawkins proposed the gene as the unit for selection. It has a lot going for it. An important argument is that genes CAN be selected for. Individuals and populations can't, not in the same way. What is meant by this is that you yourself is made up of a temporary constellation of genes. You're the only jwb that has ever existed and will ever exist. You can be selected for - you get to reproduce - but you won't produce another jwb. Your kid carries some of your genes, but not all of them. Hence, when you reproduce, you might say we break the individual up into genes where some genes get lucky and are passed on and some not. Individuals die, but (some of) their genes live on.
Dawkins actually defined genes in his 1973 book a little differently than common use. What he meant by gene was actually just a length of DNA that tends to get passed down wholly. It's a replicator with a persistent evolutionary existence. Unlike us temporary individuals, these genes are comparatively immortal and exist across generations/individuals, making them a more permanent feature of evolution. Such genes could code for no proteins or several - this is not actually part of Dawkin's definition back then.
So the reasoning, to me, is quite beautiful to my thinking. But I'm sure as you've read this far, you've already come up with some scenarios where it isn't true. As I wrote, evolutionary history is very long and nature makes such a mess, there's bound to be exceptions. Take any clonal insect, like stick insects. There are species where we don't know of males and are a little unsure if they exist. Females reproduce clonally and so you don't really break the individual up into genes when reproducing. The individual is passed on, breaking the above logic. At least until a male comes along.
So it arguably breaks down at various places, but generally holds true. I can't quite remember the argument why we should invoke group selection for ant hills, but perhaps there could be some logical argument made. I may add, though, that when I studied biology, group selection was by and large considered to be dead. It was mostly considered to be an old-fashioned misunderstanding and didn't have much standing, but perhaps it's been reinvigorated since then. Hence, I am skeptical, but wanna remain open to potentially good ideas.
When I have the time, I will look into it and if you remember any specifics, feel free to inform me, of course.