Re: Writing from the POV of older people than one's self

In article <1145564879.183449.59310@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
"forrest_m" <forrest_m@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

"Group selection" isn't the same thing as "for the good of the species."
Just like individual selection, group selection could select in favor of
characteristics that made the species less successful....

Maybe we're using terminology differently. Are you using "group
selection" to refer to the differential success of different groups
within a species?

Yes. As a mechanism for increasing the frequency of the genes of an
individual in the group.

Because back when I studied this stuff - admittedly
quite some time ago - that term was used to refer to the idea that
individuals could have genes that caused them to act at a personal
disadvantage in order to foster the success of the group/species as a
whole.

Group, not species. One standard explanation of altruism, for those who
believe it exists, is that one increases extended fitness by promoting
the survival of your kin at some cost to your own fitness. If groups
tend to consist of related members, that means that behavior patterns
that benefit the group at the cost of the individual actor might be
selected for--because they cost him in individual survival but benefit
him in genetic survival.

In principle, one could have selection at the level of species, but it
would presumably be very very slow.

This was generally considered a fallacy, with exceptions
generally in border conditions where the mathematics of relatedness
intersect with unusual reproductive habits - social insects and
whatnot.

Social insects are a special case because, as you say, of their
relatedness--although I gather a similar behavior pattern is observed in
a species of moles with ordinary mammalian genetics. But even with
standard genetics there is some payoff to benefitting the group, and if
the individual cost is low enough relative to the group benefit, it gets
selected for. I gather there is now a minority school of opinion that
argues that such selection was an important element in evolution.

--
http://www.daviddfriedman.com/ http://daviddfriedman.blogspot.com/
Author of _Harald_, a fantasy without magic.
Published by Baen, in bookstores now
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Mendel refutes evolution
    ... Meiotic drive is just selection. ... I deny the validity of a term like "species selection". ... because it kills of organisms who ... reproduction that has nothing to do with genetic or phenotypic ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: How does a new species emerge?
    ... >> Allopatric involves a separation that precedes speciation ... >> selection is not random and maybe focused for cultural ... The barrier gene meaning that no extrinsic barrier separates two ... species, the barrier is intrinsic meaning they could potentially ...
    (sci.anthropology.paleo)
  • Re: Re: Evolution is not a fact
    ... All made of what some term micro evolution. ... exactly what you mean by "species selection". ... different populations then external pressures can select one or the ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Sexual competition
    ... the selection of attributes that are contrary to bettering survival. ... You've named a few species, ... If ornaments are what decides which male gets to mate then in time ever ... Ornamentation does have a cost. ...
    (talk.origins)
  • Re: Seanpit, ID and complexity
    ... random mutation and I assume natural selection. ... think (using empirical evidence to support your position) each of them ... I, in fact, did define evolution: ... Even Paley recognized variation within a species. ...
    (talk.origins)