Bloom discusses the Wynne-Edwards observations in a very different way than has been summarized here. On pgs 11 - 12 of the prologue he does not mention the reduction of egg laying or the warning behavior taken on by altruistic individuals. Recalling the ill effects suffered when one is cut off from the superorganism as discussed in The Lucifer Principle, Bloom concentrates on the self destructive behavior when individual birds do not succeed in the group. Their health declined in such a way that Wynne-Edwards theorized the unsuccessful birds were unwittingly sacrificing themselves to adjust the group to the environment.

Jeremy capsulized Wynne-Edwards' egg counts, then stated "That's it... that's what all the {group selection} noise is about." I'm certainly no expert, but that doesn't sound right - as Bloom states "David Sloan Wilson has pointed to over four hundred studies that support the group selectionist point of view". (p. 6)

Edited by: LanDroid at: 1/15/03 8:39:47 pm

I have watched, as an interested non-biologist, over the last 4 decades and have found myself frequently amused by the way in which the issue (like so many others) is often framed as an exclusive disjunction: selection acts at the group level or at the group level but -- heaven forbid! -- never at both levels.

If individuals are successful in reproducing, they do so with fellow conspecifics. And if the group is successful, it will have successful individual members. It seems to me that selection operates at both levels.

I don't know if this helps at all, but I stole it from my Behavioural Ecology notes.

A good hypothesis should also be logically consistent. That is, the mechanisms proposed should be plausible and the deductions valid in logic and math, if necessary. This is why most evolutionary biologists reject group selection. It is not so much that it has been proved wrong as that it is not easy to come up with a theoretical framework under which it would work. Sometimes, however, very original hypotheses postulate processes not widely accepted but that actually turn out to be correct. We shouldn't reject a hypothesis based simply because it violates traditional thought patterns in a field. There are many examples of resistance to original ideas in science due to tradition that was portrayed as logic.

Edited by: ZachSylvanus at: 2/18/03 2:12:38 am

Rielmajr

Quote:

---

I have watched, as an interested non-biologist, over the last 4 decades and have found myself frequently amused by the way in which the issue (like so many others) is often framed as an exclusive disjunction: selection acts at the group level or at the group level but -- heaven forbid! -- never at both levels.

If individuals are successful in reproducing, they do so with fellow conspecifics. And if the group is successful, it will have successful individual members. It seems to me that selection operates at both levels.

---

Your statement, " if the group is successful, it will have successful individual members", is the standard refutation of "group selection", not an instance of it. I think the group selection standard-bearers have come up with enough examples and scenarios where it is acknowledged that it probably does happen occasionally. The mainstream answer, though, is that it is not an important force in evolution.

---

Group Selection is on Lynn Margulis' list of terms/concepts that are too vague to have any place in scientific discourse. On the other hand, her list includes many terms that I find useful and explanatory, too.

AHA! So both group and individual selection do take place - looks like we're making progress!

If group selection is on Lynn Margulis' list, why does the following quote appear on the cover of Global Brain?

Quote:

---

This lusty tome is a stunning commitment to scientific evidence.

- Lynn Margulis

---

Edited by: LanDroid at: 2/18/03 9:53:46 pm