Group Selection Evolutionary Theory
A Group Selection Evolutionary Theory is an evolution theory in which natural selection acts at the level of the group.
- Context:
- It proposes natural selection acting at the group level, influencing the traits and behaviors of individuals within a group.
- …
- Example(s):
- Counter-Example(s):
- See: Altruism, Ethology, Evolution, Natural Selection, Gene-Centered View of Evolution.
References
2022
- (Wikipedia, 2022) ⇒ https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Group_selection Retrieved:2022-9-5.
- Group selection is a proposed mechanism of evolution in which natural selection acts at the level of the group, instead of at the level of the individual or gene.
Early authors such as V. C. Wynne-Edwards and Konrad Lorenz argued that the behavior of animals could affect their survival and reproduction as groups, speaking for instance of actions for the good of the species. In the 1930s, R.A. Fisher and J.B.S. Haldane proposed the concept of kin selection, a form of altruism from the gene-centered view of evolution, arguing that animals should sacrifice for their relatives, and thereby implying that they should not sacrifice for non-relatives. From the mid 1960s, evolutionary biologists such as John Maynard Smith, W. D. Hamilton, George C. Williams, and Richard Dawkins argued that natural selection acted primarily at the level of the individual. They argued on the basis of mathematical models that individuals would not altruistically sacrifice fitness for the sake of a group. A consensus emerged that group selection did not occur, including in special situations such as the haplodiploid social insects like honeybees (in the Hymenoptera), where kin selection explains the behaviour of non-reproductives equally well, since the only way for them to reproduce their genes is via kin.[1]
In 1994 David Sloan Wilson and Elliott Sober argued for multi-level selection, including group selection, on the grounds that groups, like individuals, could compete. In 2010 three authors including E. O. Wilson, known for his work on social insects especially ants, again revisited the arguments for group selection. They argued that group selection can occur when competition between two or more groups, some containing altruistic individuals who act cooperatively together, is more important for survival than competition between individuals within each group, provoking a strong rebuttal from a large group of ethologists.[1]
- Group selection is a proposed mechanism of evolution in which natural selection acts at the level of the group, instead of at the level of the individual or gene.
- ↑ 1.0 1.1 Strassmann, Joan E.; Page, Robert E.; Robinson, Gene E.; Seeley, Thomas D. (March 2011). "Kin selection and eusociality". Nature. 471 (7339): E5–E6. Bibcode:2011Natur.471E...5S. doi:10.1038/nature09833. PMID 21430723. S2CID 205224117. The same points can be made with regard to the evolution of the eusocial insects, which Nowak et al. suggest cannot be explained by inclusive fitness theory. It was already known that haplodiploidy itself may have only a relatively minor bearing on the origin of eusociality, and so Nowak et al. have added nothing new here. Inclusive fitness theory has explained why eusociality has evolved only in monogamous lineages, and why it is correlated with certain ecological conditions, such as extended parental care and defence of a shared resource. Furthermore, inclusive fitness theory has made very successful predictions about behaviour in eusocial insects, explaining a wide range of phenomena.".
2003
- (Stanford University, 2003) ⇒ https://web.stanford.edu/class/symbsys205/global_brain.html
- QUOTE: ... Bloom’s theory of group selection relies on five key elements: conformity enforcers, diversity generators, inner-judges, resource shifters, and intergroup tournaments. In Bloom’s words, this “pentagram of the learning machine” was in place at least 120 million years ago and comprised “some of the secrets of the nascent global brain.” At first glance, these components are rather straightforward. Conformity enforcers ensure that groups maintain enough similarities to actually function as a group. These “enforcers” are group members who, like the bully on the playground or the informant in a police state, demand obedience to some behavioral norm in exchange for protection from harm. In the best sense, conformity enforcers encourage unity and the pursuit of normalization; in the worst sense, enforcers stifle creativity and destroy deviants. These enforcers are balanced by another element: the “diversity generators.” These individuals each test a new hypothesis of the communal mind, exploring possibilities that conformity enforcers would ignore. They “spawn variety” and open paths to new developments. Generally, diversity generators seem overwhelmingly positive; however, they require some amount of balance, or the individuals lose their connection to the group. When too many members fail to identify with and protect the group, the group dies, and is thus removed from the “global brain.” So, some amount of conformity is required to ensure that the diversity generators do not diversify to the point of their group’s destruction. ...
2000
- (Bloom, 2000) ⇒ Howard Bloom. (2000). “Global Brain: The Evolution of Mass Mind from the Big Bang to the 21st Century.” John Wiley and Sons. ISBN:978-0-471-41919-8