Access
This article is part of Nature's premium content.
Published online 19 November 2008 | Nature 456, 296-299 (2008) | doi:10.1038/456296a
News Feature
Darwin 200: The needs of the many
The idea that natural selection acts on groups, as well as individuals, is a source of unending debate. Marek Kohn reports on what the two sides disagree about — and why it matters to them.
If biologists have learnt one thing about evolution over the past 40 years, it is that natural selection does not work for the good of the group. The defining insight of modern Darwinism is that selection 'sees' individuals and acts on them through the genes they embody.
To read this story in full you will need to login or make a payment (see right).
Comments
Reader comments are usually moderated after posting. If you find something offensive or inappropriate, you can speed this process by clicking 'Report this comment' (or, if that doesn't work for you, email redesign@nature.com). For more controversial topics, we reserve the right to moderate before comments are published.
I am saddened by not surprised that this article cites not a single experimental study of group selection, and fails to interview anybody who has been in the trenches experimentally studying group selection. To reiterate an argument that was settled long ago: (1) Traditional group selection models are fatally flawed (Wade 1978 Qrt. Rev. Biol. 53: 101; Goodnight and Stevens 1997 Am. Nat. 150: S59-S79). (2) Group selection experiments always work, in most cases group selection is far more effective than most would expect (Goodnight and Stevens 1997) (3) Group selection can be measured in nature, and may be remarkably common (e.g., Stevens, Goodnight, and Kalisz 1995 Am. Nat. 145: 513-526.) (4) Group selection is a proven method of crop and livestock improvement (e.g., Muir, 1996 Poultry Science 75: 447-458). The real rift is between those who would speculate about group selection without experimental evidence, and those that reason from experimental results. Importantly, the two people extensively cited as being proponents of group selection, D. S. Wilson and Joel Peck are both well aware of the experimental evidence and not surprisingly are strong proponents of group selection. Those cited as being group selection skeptics are clearly unaware or unswayed by the experimental evidence. It is worth noting that in our review (Goodnight and Stevens 1997) we argued that there were two schools of thought on "group selection". One which we called the adaptationist school was seeking to explain adaptations, and followed logically from the works of Wynne-Edwards, Williams and Maynard-Smith. The other approach, which we called the genetical school, was derived directly from the field of quantitative genetics, and the work of Wright and Griffing. The genetical school is based on observing the process of adaptation during experimentally applied group selection, or by observing changes in natural populations due to multilevel selection. We lamented that these two schools did not communicate, and we, in particular, argued that the adaptationist school had much to learn from the genetical school. This article, which almost completely ignores the genetical school, demonstrates that this rift is no closer to closing than it was 30 years ago.
150 years of the controversial theory! Darwin?s theory is unique in the annals of science for the uncomfortable reason that it is the only theory that has to fight for survival much like what it suggests for the organisms. The only beneficiaries of the theory are the publishers of books and journals for obvious reasons. It also helps to pile up spurious science and waste library and other storage spaces, not to talk of the waste of energy, time and money of the students who study it! Is not the celebration of the Darwin centenaries another survival strategy for the theory? If the theory of evolution has been scientifically proven as the evolutionists loudly and proudly claim, can any evolutionist give the details of the research papers that proved it? If the theory has been proved, why then the scientists responsible for those works are not even considered for the Nobel, when every other work much less important scientifically or otherwise is given the Noble Prize? Take a look at what passes for proof the theory. One paper proposes that we owe our superior intelligence to weak jaw muscles! A mutation that occurred 2.4 million years ago could have left us unable to produce one of the main proteins in primate jaw muscles. When the researchers examined human DNA samples from across the world, they discovered that we all share a defect in the gene that creates this protein [Stedman, H.H. et al. 2004. Nature 428:415-418; doi:10.1038/nature02358.]. If the authors? claim of human intelligence evolution is correct, it will be possible to create intelligence in non-human primates also by creating the necessary genetic defect in them. However, no scientist is going to make an attempt to create intelligence in non-human primates on the strength of this report because everyone knows for sure it is not true. Evolutionary biology is replete with stories of this kind. Do the authors of such papers and the editors of the journals that publish them honestly think such interpretations are anywhere near the truth? That raises an important question ? why then such papers are published? It is papers of this kind evolutionists say as proofs of evolution! It is not even science. One can also see a similar scenario in a closely related field ? origin of life. Look at the conclusions drawn from a study on the origin of life: ?A CO-dominant atmosphere may have existed when life originated. This atmosphere could have produced a variety of bioorganic compounds with yields comparable to those obtained from a strongly reducing atmosphere. A small amount of CO2 could have allowed the primitive Earth to freeze. This could mean that CO would have been more stable in the atmosphere than previously thought because of the reduced vapor pressure of water. Methane and ammonia would have been also more stable and could have contributed to the synthesis of bioorganic compounds. CO2 is likely to have been present, but it might not have been significantly involved in the synthesis of bioorganic compounds? [Miyakawa, S., Yamanashi, H., Kobayashi, K., Cleaves, J.H. and Miller, S.L. 2002. Prebiotic synthesis from CO atmospheres: Implications for the origins of life. Proc. Natl. Acad. Sci. USA 99(23): 14628-14631]. Is this science? Darwin is more honest than his followers. Look what he says. In a letter to Asa Gray, Harvard biology professor, Darwin wrote: ?I am quite conscious that my speculations run quite beyond the bounds of true science.? [Cited in Charles Darwin and the Problem of Creation, N.C. Gillespie, p. 2.]. Fourteen years after the publication of The Origin of Species, Darwin wrote to a friend thus: ?In fact the belief in Natural Selection must at present be grounded entirely on general considerations?.When we descend to details, we can prove that no one species has changed?nor can we prove that the supposed changes are beneficial, which is the groundwork of the theory. Nor can we explain why some species have changed and others have not.? [Charles Darwin, Letter to Jeremy Bentham, in Francis Darwin (ed.). Charles Darwin, Life and Letters, Vol. 3, p.25.]. What more the scientific community needs to reject the theory? Should we still celebrate the centenary?
Any analysis in terms of group selection can be rewritten as individual selection and, equivalently, as gene-level selection. This is well known and agreed upon by all (as far as I know). Similarly, kin selection can be rewritten as group selection and, equivalently as gene-level selection. This also is undisputed, as far as I know (see, for instance, Benjamin Kerr and Peter Godfrey-Smith, "Individualist and Multi-level Perspectives on Selection in Structured Populations", Biology and Philosophy 17 (2002):477-517. The real issue in the debate is the following: does the structure of group interactions alter the parameters of individual fitness, so the evolutionary dynamics of the group is affected by group structure. Where this is true, we can say that group selection is operative. For instance, the structured interaction of individuals in a bee hive both promotes the fitness of the group (the interactions are highly productive of pollen, etc.), and alters the environment under which individual bees reproduce. Hence, there is group selection for efficient bee-hives. This notion is more general that Wilson and Wilson, who insist that group selection must involve altruism. This is in general not the case. The alternative is that there is group selection for "Nash equilibria"; i.e., for fitness enhancing structures of interaction (e.g., cooperation in seeking prey and in avoiding predators). According to this view, gene-level accounting and individual-level accounting and group-level accounting are equally valid, but when fitness is a function of group organization, it is reasonable to describe the result as group selection.
Natural selection, as far as I know, can make small differences of their colors, shapes, even gens in a kin, but I am still doubt it can change a kin into another kins....