Print
The Group Delusion
by Richard Dawkins
This week's New Scientist has an article by Daniele Fanelli announcing an apparent change of mind by E O Wilson. This has been picked up by the Daily Telegraph under the headline Scientist renounces insect 'kin selection' theory and by the Independent under the headline Evolutionists at war over altruism's origins . New Scientist asked me to reply, but they gave me a very tight limit of 650 words. I decided that I could fit into this limit only with references to other publications, and I took great care to upload those publications to the web, and asked New Scientist to publish the url:
http://www.simonyi.ox.ac.uk/dawkins/writings/index.shtml
Unfortunately they omitted to do so.
My article, such as it is, follows. Josh has very kindly set up hyperlinks to the other articles.
EDWARD WILSON has given us a characteristically fascinating account of the evolution of social insects (see page 6 and BioScience, vol 58, p 17). But his "group selection" terminology is misleading, and his distinction between "kin selection" and "individual direct selection" is empty. What matters is gene selection.
All we need ask of a purportedly adaptive trait is, "What makes a gene for that trait increase in frequency?" Wilson wrongly implies that explanations should resort to kin selection only when "direct" selection fails. Here he falls for the first of my "12 misunderstandings of kin selection (pdf)", that is, he thinks it is a special, complex kind of natural selection, which it is not (Zeitschrift für Tierpsychologie, vol 51, p 184).
In the true sense of kin selection, offspring are "kin" just as siblings are. Parental care and sibling care both evolve because copies of genes for caring are present in beneficiaries. Genes promoting feeding of larvae by sterile workers are passed on by those larvae – sisters, nephews, and so on – destined to become reproductives. That's kin selection, and it maintains sterile worker castes in insect colonies. Wilson could not dispute that.
What he does dispute - perhaps correctly - is that eusociality originated through related females clubbing together because of kinship. It could also originate through unrelated females nesting together. But to call this "group selection" is massively confusing. A better approach is John Maynard Smith's concept of evolutionarily stable strategies (ESS). "Stable" means that when most individuals follow the strategy, no alternative does better. If "breed cooperatively" were a stable strategy for unrelated females, this would furnish a good preadaptation for the evolution of eusociality.
Jane Brockmann, now at the University of Florida, Gainesville, and I explored this (pdf) with an ESS model (pdf) developed with Alan Grafen of the University of Oxford, using Brockmann's extensive fieldwork on solitary digger wasps, Sphex ichneumoneus. When following the 'dig' strategy, a female digs a burrow, provisions it with prey on which she lays a single egg, seals the burrow and departs. But burrows may be abandoned (for good reasons that can then disappear) and this opens the way for an alternative strategy: 'enter' an existing burrow and take it over, saving the time and effort of digging. The disadvantage of entering is that the original owner may not have abandoned the burrow, and you run the risk of a dangerous fight. So the decision whether to enter or dig is a gamble.
With too much entering in the population, not enough new burrows get dug and chances rise that a given burrow will be occupied. Selection would therefore favour digging. With too much digging, many abandoned burrows go begging, and individuals should enter instead. Grafen's ESS model predicted an equilibrium frequency of digging versus entering with equal benefits to each. Brockmann's field measurements were rich enough to test this prediction, and it was, with reservations, fulfilled.
Brockmann and I then postulated an ecological "landscape" (pdf) over which the parameters governing Grafen's model might vary. A change in ecological conditions might move digger wasps from "aggressive space" (where S. ichneumoneus sits) to "tolerant space" (where diggers benefit from being joined by an enterer). From here there is a smooth gradient to "cooperative space", where both parties benefit from sharing. Our review of the literature uncovered wasp species that apparently take such intermediate positions. From here, the evolutionary journey to full eusociality is easy.
Revealingly, Wilson's great book Sociobiology allots only four sentences – in the chapter on group selection – to ESS theory. Kin selection is also here, as a form of group selection (Misunderstanding #2 (pdf) )! Evidently Wilson's weird infatuation with "group selection" goes way back, unfortunate in a biologist who is so justly influential.
My articles referred to can all be found at
http://www.simonyi.ox.ac.uk/dawkins/writings/index.shtml
As a prelude to this rather overblown episode, E O Wilson collaborated with his (unrelated) namesake D S Wilson on a paper on Group Selection, also in New Scientist. I did not write a proper reply (I was unfortunately extremely busy) but I did write a letter, correcting one outrageous lie about me, and New Scientist solicited a reply from the Wilsons in the same issue:
Genes still central
Richard Dawkins writes:
David Sloan Wilson and Edward O. Wilson write:
The Wilson quotation from The Extended Phenotype is a ludicrous attempt to justify their lying statement that I "eventually" acknowledged an earlier error. For one thing, The Extended Phenotype was published way back in 1982, which makes nonsense of Wilson's "eventually". But more importantly, the point I was making in 1982 (and would make again now) was a general one about the important distinction between replicators and vehicles. I mentioned group selection only to clarify that distinction. I was explaining that those models of group selection that had been proposed were vehicle models not replicator models. I was not for a moment suggesting that I accepted those models as valid. They were (and are) invalid vehicle models, as opposed to invalid replicator models.
I might well write something more lengthy about this, but I thought I ought to put something up about it now, in view of the attention that it seems to be getting in the newspapers. It is a great pity Bill Hamilton is not alive to defend his brilliant ideas.
http://www.simonyi.ox.ac.uk/dawkins/writings/index.shtml
Unfortunately they omitted to do so.
My article, such as it is, follows. Josh has very kindly set up hyperlinks to the other articles.
EDWARD WILSON has given us a characteristically fascinating account of the evolution of social insects (see page 6 and BioScience, vol 58, p 17). But his "group selection" terminology is misleading, and his distinction between "kin selection" and "individual direct selection" is empty. What matters is gene selection.
All we need ask of a purportedly adaptive trait is, "What makes a gene for that trait increase in frequency?" Wilson wrongly implies that explanations should resort to kin selection only when "direct" selection fails. Here he falls for the first of my "12 misunderstandings of kin selection (pdf)", that is, he thinks it is a special, complex kind of natural selection, which it is not (Zeitschrift für Tierpsychologie, vol 51, p 184).
In the true sense of kin selection, offspring are "kin" just as siblings are. Parental care and sibling care both evolve because copies of genes for caring are present in beneficiaries. Genes promoting feeding of larvae by sterile workers are passed on by those larvae – sisters, nephews, and so on – destined to become reproductives. That's kin selection, and it maintains sterile worker castes in insect colonies. Wilson could not dispute that.
What he does dispute - perhaps correctly - is that eusociality originated through related females clubbing together because of kinship. It could also originate through unrelated females nesting together. But to call this "group selection" is massively confusing. A better approach is John Maynard Smith's concept of evolutionarily stable strategies (ESS). "Stable" means that when most individuals follow the strategy, no alternative does better. If "breed cooperatively" were a stable strategy for unrelated females, this would furnish a good preadaptation for the evolution of eusociality.
Jane Brockmann, now at the University of Florida, Gainesville, and I explored this (pdf) with an ESS model (pdf) developed with Alan Grafen of the University of Oxford, using Brockmann's extensive fieldwork on solitary digger wasps, Sphex ichneumoneus. When following the 'dig' strategy, a female digs a burrow, provisions it with prey on which she lays a single egg, seals the burrow and departs. But burrows may be abandoned (for good reasons that can then disappear) and this opens the way for an alternative strategy: 'enter' an existing burrow and take it over, saving the time and effort of digging. The disadvantage of entering is that the original owner may not have abandoned the burrow, and you run the risk of a dangerous fight. So the decision whether to enter or dig is a gamble.
With too much entering in the population, not enough new burrows get dug and chances rise that a given burrow will be occupied. Selection would therefore favour digging. With too much digging, many abandoned burrows go begging, and individuals should enter instead. Grafen's ESS model predicted an equilibrium frequency of digging versus entering with equal benefits to each. Brockmann's field measurements were rich enough to test this prediction, and it was, with reservations, fulfilled.
Brockmann and I then postulated an ecological "landscape" (pdf) over which the parameters governing Grafen's model might vary. A change in ecological conditions might move digger wasps from "aggressive space" (where S. ichneumoneus sits) to "tolerant space" (where diggers benefit from being joined by an enterer). From here there is a smooth gradient to "cooperative space", where both parties benefit from sharing. Our review of the literature uncovered wasp species that apparently take such intermediate positions. From here, the evolutionary journey to full eusociality is easy.
Revealingly, Wilson's great book Sociobiology allots only four sentences – in the chapter on group selection – to ESS theory. Kin selection is also here, as a form of group selection (Misunderstanding #2 (pdf) )! Evidently Wilson's weird infatuation with "group selection" goes way back, unfortunate in a biologist who is so justly influential.
My articles referred to can all be found at
http://www.simonyi.ox.ac.uk/dawkins/writings/index.shtml
As a prelude to this rather overblown episode, E O Wilson collaborated with his (unrelated) namesake D S Wilson on a paper on Group Selection, also in New Scientist. I did not write a proper reply (I was unfortunately extremely busy) but I did write a letter, correcting one outrageous lie about me, and New Scientist solicited a reply from the Wilsons in the same issue:
Genes still central
Richard Dawkins writes:
David Sloan Wilson's lifelong quest to redefine "group selection" in such a way as to sow maximum confusion - and even to confuse the normally wise and sensible Edward O. Wilson into joining him - is of no more scientific interest than semantic doubletalk ever is. What goes beyond semantics, however, is his statement (it is safe to assume that E. O. Wilson is blameless) that "Both Williams and Dawkins eventually acknowledged their error..." (3 November, p 42 ).
I cannot speak for George Williams but, as far as I am concerned, the statement is false: not a semantic confusion; not an exaggeration of a half-truth; not a distortion of a quarter-truth; but a total, unmitigated, barefaced lie. Like many scientists, I am delighted to acknowledge occasions when I have changed my mind, but this is not one of them.
D. S. Wilson should apologise. E. O. Wilson, being the gentleman he is, probably will.
David Sloan Wilson and Edward O. Wilson write:
Our comment about Dawkins specifically relates to the error of using the replicator concept - genes as the "fundamental" unit of selection - as an argument against group selection. Dawkins writes in The Extended Phenotype (p 115): "The point here is that we must be clear about the difference between those two distinct kinds of conceptual units, replicators and vehicles... The majority of models ordinarily called 'group selection'... are implicitly treating groups as vehicles. The end result of the selection discussed is a change in gene frequencies, for example, an increase of 'altruistic genes' at the expense of 'selfish genes'. It is still genes that are regarded as the replicators which actually survive (or fail to survive) as a consequence of the (vehicle) selection process."
Another error is to suppose that within-group selection poses an insuperable problem for between-group selection. Dawkins has yet to acknowledge this error and we apologise if our article seemed to imply otherwise. Finally, Dawkins seems to think that one of us has somehow confused the other. We are united in our view about group selection, which we converged upon through separate lines of enquiry.
The Wilson quotation from The Extended Phenotype is a ludicrous attempt to justify their lying statement that I "eventually" acknowledged an earlier error. For one thing, The Extended Phenotype was published way back in 1982, which makes nonsense of Wilson's "eventually". But more importantly, the point I was making in 1982 (and would make again now) was a general one about the important distinction between replicators and vehicles. I mentioned group selection only to clarify that distinction. I was explaining that those models of group selection that had been proposed were vehicle models not replicator models. I was not for a moment suggesting that I accepted those models as valid. They were (and are) invalid vehicle models, as opposed to invalid replicator models.
I might well write something more lengthy about this, but I thought I ought to put something up about it now, in view of the attention that it seems to be getting in the newspapers. It is a great pity Bill Hamilton is not alive to defend his brilliant ideas.
Add to del.icio.us
Posted: Thursday, January 10, 2008 | PermalinkComments 1 - 50 of 253 | | View Alternate Comment Thread
Reload Comments | Back to Top | Page Numbers2. Comment #110137 by skyhook87 on January 10, 2008 at 2:34 pm
It is a shame that in fighting a multi-front war, Dawkins has to be stretched thin to maintain the hard fought ground he has gained in the past.I have been keeping up with what the Wilsons have been putting out and I am eagerly awaiting Dawkins "more lengthy" response.
Other Comments by skyhook87
3. Comment #110138 by TinyRobot on January 10, 2008 at 2:35 pm
DS Wilson has been bent upon getting group selection theories back into fashion for years. There is little doubting that he is willing to redefine the concept as much as possible in order to do so. I'm not exactly an expert, but many of these topics in biology strike me as being rather meaningless semantical debates. From a certain viewpoint, group selection can make sense of an certain observed changes. However, when you try to elaborate the details of the mechanism behind these changes, individual and gene-based selection always seem to make more sense. At least that's how i see it.I also disdain the apparent glee that media outlets take in proclaiming that Dawkins has been proved wrong (i'm thinking in particular of the recent Sunday Times article to that effect).
Other Comments by TinyRobot
4. Comment #110144 by theantitheist on January 10, 2008 at 2:38 pm
AAARRGGGGGGGGHHHHHH you beat me to the first post!! (and through writing this one a few more beat me. Bugger)As for the faith heads using that reason to dismiss all the other hard gained knowledge i'm sure it will only be a select few. The one's who, and they know who they are, try to bulldoze thier arguements making the generalised statements and not stoping to listen to any reasoned logic. (They wind me up and Brianworldcitizen is fighting them at the moment for what good it will do i don't know)
However to me this is a perfect example of the truth coming out in the end. Scientists argue, bicker, through statements around and finally when they manage to convince the others the truth in their statements we hold it up as the accepted theory until someone can come along later and change it. Who knows Darwin may be wrong and he will admit to it when he is convinced or vice versa with Wilson.
Science is the pursuit of truth and it's good to see passion is still alive in it.
Other Comments by theantitheist
5. Comment #110150 by D'Arcy on January 10, 2008 at 2:46 pm
The Daily Telegragh's editor may well think that "Evolutionists at war over altruism's origins", makes for good copy. The so-called "evolutionists" are in fact something like 95% of the scientific community. There are endless rows among "evolutionists" about who or what and when came out of Africa some ?3 million years ago and gave rise to Homo Sapiens, and all admit that not enough hard information is yet available. However, as far as I'm aware, the consensus of science at the moment, is that human beings' ancestors did come out of Africa round about that time.
As long as The Daily Telegrapgh is not implying that the the theory of evolution is in any way under serious threat of being undermined, then let the scientific discussions continue as to the details of altruism.
Without knowing the specifics of Dawkins' dispute about altruism with the Wilsons, the nature of human beings necessitates that they live in societies and not as hermits in caves.
Other Comments by D'Arcy
6. Comment #110155 by Damien White on January 10, 2008 at 2:47 pm
I am not a student of Biology (in fact, I am an absolute beginner on the subject), but after a careful reading of this article I have a question regarding the outcome of the research shown: while it can be shown that some species reach a pareto-optimal point in their behaviour, why is it we can see other similar species not exhibiting this behaviour, yet surviving just as well? Therefore, does this behaviour have an evolutionary advantage at all? Given the generational span of insects and the age of the earth, shouldn't we expect to see all insect species currently behaving in the same, optimal way?Can anybody help?
Other Comments by Damien White
7. Comment #110161 by Richard Morgan on January 10, 2008 at 2:57 pm
coelacanth :I wonder how many faith-heads will use this article to support their attack on reason and the fatuous claim that "even scientist can't agree on anything"Which will give us the chance to remind the religious about how many of them can't agree about God.
How many different versions of Christianity would you guess there in the U.S. alone? And their differences of opinion do not concern trifling matters like scientific truth, but real important stuff like eternal salvation and the Great Virgin Hand-Out. Or if you're a Mormon, actually becoming a God with loads of Goddess wives!
Other Comments by Richard Morgan
8. Comment #110165 by Coelacanth on January 10, 2008 at 3:01 pm
Right on Richard! I couldn't agree more.Other Comments by Coelacanth
9. Comment #110173 by Enlightenme.. on January 10, 2008 at 3:14 pm
^ Damien, that sounds like a why is there still apples and oranges question. Other Comments by Enlightenme..
10. Comment #110180 by Steve Zara on January 10, 2008 at 3:28 pm
an increase of 'altruistic genes' at the expense of 'selfish genes'.
I am struggling to figure out what the term "altrustic gene" means. Altruism between vehicles is due to selfish genes, through mechanisms such as kin selection and the "green beard" idea. But an "altruistic" gene presumably aids the propogation of unrelated genes? Would an "altruistic" gene remove itself from the gene pool out of sympathy for the plight of another gene?
Other Comments by Steve Zara
11. Comment #110183 by Richard Dawkins on January 10, 2008 at 3:36 pm
I am not a student of Biology (in fact, I am an absolute beginner on the subject), but after a careful reading of this article I have a question regarding the outcome of the research shown: while it can be shown that some species reach a pareto-optimal point in their behaviour, why is it we can see other similar species not exhibiting this behaviour, yet surviving just as well? Therefore, does this behaviour have an evolutionary advantage at all? Given the generational span of insects and the age of the earth, shouldn't we expect to see all insect species currently behaving in the same, optimal way?
Can anybody help?
The reductio ad absurdum of this kind of reasoning is that there should be only one species of animal on earth, following the optimal way to be an animal. But of course you KNOW why you are wrong. There are lots of different ways of making a living, lots of different diets, habitats, nesting sites; and the different ways of making a living can be dissected into ever finer subdivisions.
One of the most interesting aspects of this is that existing species of animals and plants constitute opportunities for new species to evolve to exploit them. Darwin has a famous analogy of a set of wedges, in Chapter 3 of The Origin of Species:
Lighten any check, mitigate the destruction ever so little, and the number of the species will almost instantaneously increase to any amount. The face of Nature may be compared to a yielding surface, with ten thousand sharp wedges packed close together and driven inwards by incessant blows, sometimes one wedge being struck, and then another with greater force.
What might shift an ancestral digger wasp species from 'aggressive space' in the ecological landscape to 'tolerant space' to 'cooperative space'? Of course I don't know in detail (it would take another Jane Brockmann years to work it out) but I know the KIND of thing we are looking for. It could be a change in food abundance, a change in a competitor species, a change in predation pressure. A forest contains thousands of different ecological opportunities, and thousands of different species evolve in their own special ways to to take advantage of those opportunities.
Richard
Other Comments by Richard Dawkins
12. Comment #110186 by BAEOZ on January 10, 2008 at 3:43 pm
On a completely unrelated note. Richard, is there any possibility of hearing you speak in Australia. Specifically Melbourne sometime in the future? (Preferably sooner rather than later...) Other Comments by BAEOZ
13. Comment #110187 by Richard Dawkins on January 10, 2008 at 3:44 pm
I am struggling to figure out what the term "altrustic gene" means. Altruism between vehicles is due to selfish genes, through mechanisms such as kin selection and the "green beard" idea. But an "altruistic" gene presumably aids the propogation of unrelated genes? Would an "altruistic" gene remove itself from the gene pool out of sympathy for the plight of another gene?
Yes, you are right. An 'altruistic gene' in that sense would always be removed from the population by natural selection. The Wilsons were using the phrase in a different sense: an altruistic gene, for them, is one that makes its vehicles behave altruistically towards other vehicles.
Richard
Other Comments by Richard Dawkins
14. Comment #110189 by Goldy on January 10, 2008 at 3:45 pm
Damien, RD has answered quicker and more wordily than me :-)I was just going to say not everywhere is the same and different opportunities, when presented, mean different reactions to exploit them.
Stick with RD's answer...mine appears a bit lame now. Curse these slow fingers!
Other Comments by Goldy
15. Comment #110191 by Enlightenme.. on January 10, 2008 at 3:45 pm
Go easy on him RDSelfish gene beat Sociobiology ;)
Other Comments by Enlightenme..
16. Comment #110201 by Steve Zara on January 10, 2008 at 4:01 pm
Yes, you are right. An 'altruistic gene' in that sense would always be removed from the population by natural selection. The Wilsons were using the phrase in a different sense: an altruistic gene, for them, is one that makes its vehicles behave altruistically towards other vehicles.
Richard:
I apologise for any confusion - I knew. I was attempting to mock what they were saying - their distinction between a "selfish gene" and an "altruistic" gene. I am afraid my ability to indicate irony is not what it was!
Other Comments by Steve Zara
17. Comment #110202 by Enlightenme.. on January 10, 2008 at 4:01 pm
Ha!Yes, he was probably trying to take the mick with that 'altruistic gene' thing from the off I reckon!
Other Comments by Enlightenme..
18. Comment #110203 by Blake C. Stacey on January 10, 2008 at 4:02 pm
To an outsider like me (I'm a physics boffin), this area is probably the most confusing in biology, thanks in large part to the tangled terminology. More than once, I've watched arguments unfold (in Q&A sessions after talks and such) in which the participants might well have been agreeing, but neither knew what the other meant when they said "group selection".A physicist with an interest in biology and some familiarity with the theoretical literature says, "I've created this model and made a computer simulation which shows such-and-such an effect happening. I think it counts as altruism. Does this show up in biology anywhere?"
The biologist says, "Sure, that's just kin selection."
"Well, maybe, but there's this extra assumption in so-and-so's mathematical model of kin selection which I don't think is satisfied by my model."
"What assumption is that?"
"There's this thing about populations distributed across space, and this other thing about the mapping from genotypes to fitness not being constant over time, and. . ."
The physicist starts trying to draw equations in midair using rapid, wiggly hand and finger gestures.
"Yeah, yeah, but what else could it be, other than kin selection?"
"It, er, it looks a little like we're seeing the emergence of trait groups — "
"Group selection? That's impossible!"
And round and round we go, circling the drain of comprehension. It's really rather disheartening.
Other Comments by Blake C. Stacey
19. Comment #110205 by Diacanu on January 10, 2008 at 4:07 pm
Dr. Dawkins.Thanks for The God Delusion.
Changed my outlook on a lot of things, and pushed me off the fence of agnosticism.
Anyhoo, I crave more, when's the sequel?
Other Comments by Diacanu
20. Comment #110209 by Damien White on January 10, 2008 at 4:15 pm
Thank you for your explanation Richard. At the moment i'm about halfway through The Ancestor's Tale, and i'm on a fairly steep learning curve.Other Comments by Damien White
21. Comment #110222 by Enlightenme.. on January 10, 2008 at 4:37 pm
^ Blake C, Kidding, right?
RD is the king of putting what he can into laymans terms, and especially at great risk of being ostracized as 'pop' when he started out.
Ever grateful he learnt the art in the age of elite intellectual cliquery.
Other Comments by Enlightenme..
22. Comment #110224 by chuckgoecke on January 10, 2008 at 4:44 pm
I am not a student of Biology (in fact, I am an absolute beginner on the subject), but after a careful reading of this article I have a question regarding the outcome of the research shown: while it can be shown that some species reach a pareto-optimal point in their behaviour, why is it we can see other similar species not exhibiting this behaviour, yet surviving just as well? Therefore, does this behaviour have an evolutionary advantage at all? Given the generational span of insects and the age of the earth, shouldn't we expect to see all insect species currently behaving in the same, optimal way?
Can anybody help?
Besides the multitude of ways of making a living etc., that Richard and others mentioned, all living things have multiple levels of adversities constantly coming their way, those adversities themselves are always evolving. One such group are parasites and disease organisms. Matt Ridley's book "The Red Queen" covered this marvelously. Like the Lewis Carol's Alice in Wonderland Red Queen, life forms are evolving (running) as fast as they can, just to stay in place.
Other Comments by chuckgoecke
23. Comment #110228 by BigC on January 10, 2008 at 4:48 pm
Diacanu,Judging by discussions on the forum it appears that Richard is planning to write a book for children.
I'm not sure if it will be a general book about science or if it will focus particularly on belief systems and atheism.
Other Comments by BigC
24. Comment #110231 by Richard Morgan on January 10, 2008 at 4:52 pm
BAEOZ :On a completely unrelated note. Richard, is there any possibility of hearing you speak in Australia. Specifically Melbourne sometime in the future? (Preferably sooner rather than later...)
I'm on my way!
(Sulks)...unless you mean the other Richard, the one who writes books that have a laxative effect on wee fleas...
Other Comments by Richard Morgan
25. Comment #110240 by Blake C. Stacey on January 10, 2008 at 5:06 pm
Kidding, right?
RD is the king of putting what he can into laymans terms, and especially at great risk of being ostracized as 'pop' when he started out.
No, not kidding at all.
I've been trying to read through the scholarly literature on the subject, in the peer-reviewed journals, and it's a mess — the kind of mess you get when people from different fields collide on a topic and overestimate the degree to which they understand one another.
Other Comments by Blake C. Stacey
26. Comment #110242 by Diacanu on January 10, 2008 at 5:07 pm
BigC-
Diacanu,
Judging by discussions on the forum it appears that Richard is planning to write a book for children.
I'm not sure if it will be a general book about science or if it will focus particularly on belief systems and atheism.
Right, right, I remember that now.
"God Delusion 2: Scratching the fleas", would still be cool though.
Other Comments by Diacanu
27. Comment #110245 by notsobad on January 10, 2008 at 5:20 pm
So what's the practical point of proving group selection the way Wilsons see it?Do they observe the same thing as advocates of gene selection and just call it differently?
Other Comments by notsobad
28. Comment #110247 by Matt7895 on January 10, 2008 at 5:22 pm
I've become so accustomed to Richard writing about faith and religion recently that I can't help but be surprised every time he goes back to what he's primarily known and respected for: his work in evolutionary science. I don't presume to understand everything he writes about (especially in this particular article), but I'm learning. I recently bought 'The Ancestor's Tale'. Being an arts based person, I didn't take Biology at A-level (though I could well have been able to, with my GCSE results). I am starting to regret that decision, but hopefully I'll gain a good enough understanding of evolution and other natural sciences by reading Richard's works. Other Comments by Matt7895
29. Comment #110248 by BAEOZ on January 10, 2008 at 5:23 pm
I'm on my way!
(Sulks)...unless you mean the other Richard, the one who writes books that have a laxative effect on wee fleas...
You'll Richard. I'm not sure you'd have the reknown to get up the theists nose. But it'd be fun to hear you rip into them anyway.
Other Comments by BAEOZ
30. Comment #110249 by Styrer- on January 10, 2008 at 5:24 pm
Whenever I again start to feel sorry for the Professor faced with distortion upon misinterpretation upon downright falsehood from the faithful's reaction to his work on religion, I'll re-visit this thread, I think.Witnessing his devastating retorts to duplicitous fellow scientists, I see he is more than equal to the task of taking on the duplicitous faithheads. I shall henceforward reserve my pity for those, unlike this site's inspiring escapee Strigoia, still trapped horribly by the force religion exerts.
the statement is false: not a semantic confusion; not an exaggeration of a half-truth; not a distortion of a quarter-truth; but a total, unmitigated, barefaced lie.
Should the Professor ever fall on hard times, the legal profession would welcome him, on the basis of words such as these, with open arms. The only 'pity' then would be for myself: I could not afford him!
What a privilege it is to see the Professor's passion and reason at first hand here. Long may this site continue.
Best,
Styrer
Other Comments by Styrer-
31. Comment #110252 by Steve Zara on January 10, 2008 at 5:26 pm
Without irony:I was just a bit awestruck by the cheek of Sloane and Wilson to take a very well-established term "the selfish gene" and try and change it to mean what they wanted (genes for "selfish" behaviour (non-group selection mechanisms)) by the introduction of their "altruistic gene" term. This seemed like a crass propoganda exercise against Dawkins's original concept; although I suppose it was less blatant than directly lying about Dawkins apologising.
Of course, this also be an attempt to further confuse Mary Midgley...
Other Comments by Steve Zara
32. Comment #110253 by Blake C. Stacey on January 10, 2008 at 5:30 pm
Steve Zara:Of course, this also be an attempt to further confuse Mary Midgley...
Do we really have to try?
Other Comments by Blake C. Stacey
33. Comment #110257 by Styrer- on January 10, 2008 at 5:36 pm
Of course, this also be an attempt to further confuse Mary Midgley...
Is any such attempt really necessary? She does rather well without, it seems. :) [Edit - sorry - Blake jumped in afore me!]
But your point remains: it is simply a latest example of the willful (it seems) misinterpretation of Dawkins' 'selfish' epithet going back thirty odd years.
What is the statute of limitations on patience?
Best,
Styrer
Other Comments by Styrer-
34. Comment #110260 by zarcus on January 10, 2008 at 6:23 pm
Is this the final article to be published in New Scientist? I sent it off to D. S. Wilson. I've been curious about the line in the Genes Still Central piece by Richard where he says: "and even to confuse the normally wise and sensible Edward O. Wilson into joining him"
That is some power David has. I wonder how many pieces written by Richard and others will we see with a take off of The God Delusion title.
Add: Also, the David effect has reached other "wise and sensible" people, such as Massimo Pigliuuci. I would like to see a responce also from Richard to Massimo's recent Skeptical Inquirer articles - Beyond Selfish Genes and The Trouble with Memetics
Other Comments by zarcus
35. Comment #110279 by AntonAAK on January 10, 2008 at 9:02 pm
Am I the only person who wishes there were more articles and discussions like this on this site?Issues like this are what brought me to Professor Dawkins writing in the first instance (ever since reading an abridged chapter from The Selfish Gene in Dennett and Hofstadter's excellent book The Mind's I) and I have been fascinated and illuminated by his books ever since. Unfortunately much of the content of this site is negative in tone, focussing on the debunking of religion, rather than positively exploring that which is real. This is not meant to be a criticism of the site administration at all, but an observation on a society where a great scientific communicator has to spend so much of his time dealing with inconsequential hokum. If only scientists could return to the real issues and continue to enlighten us about the nature of the universe unhindered by a need to justify doing so.
I agree that the battle against irrational superstition in our society is an important one and I applaud Professor Dawkins for his fine efforts in this field but I still prefer to hear him speak passionately about the very real wonders of the natural world.
Thank you Professor for a body of writing which has helped a scientific lay-person gain some sort of understanding of why he is here.
Other Comments by AntonAAK
36. Comment #110286 by Atheist_from_Hell on January 10, 2008 at 9:58 pm
Diacanu,"God Delusion 2: Scratching the fleas"
FAF LOL
Other Comments by Atheist_from_Hell
37. Comment #110288 by Janus on January 10, 2008 at 10:10 pm
"God Delusion 2: Scratching the fleas"Hahaha! Ohh, that's brilliant.
Other Comments by Janus
38. Comment #110290 by Richard Dawkins on January 10, 2008 at 10:24 pm
"God Delusion 2: Scratching the fleas"
Hahaha! Ohh, that's brilliant.
Son of God Delusion?
Richard
Other Comments by Richard Dawkins
39. Comment #110291 by AshtonBlack on January 10, 2008 at 10:54 pm
Son of God Delusion?
Richard
Oh the irony....
I like it.
Other Comments by AshtonBlack
40. Comment #110300 by clodhopper on January 11, 2008 at 12:01 am
No more Delusions.....please can we have'Oblative Behaviour in Phenotypes'
oh, imagine the fleas!
Other Comments by clodhopper
41. Comment #110306 by Dante2428 on January 11, 2008 at 12:47 am
E O Wilson collaborated with his (unrelated) namesake D S Wilson
I thought we are all related :)
Other Comments by Dante2428
42. Comment #110308 by Styrer- on January 11, 2008 at 1:01 am
Unfortunately much of the content of this site is negative in tone, focussing on the debunking of religion, rather than positively exploring that which is real.
What on earth are you talking about?
Take some time looking through this site and its marvellous resources.
Look at the archives.
Read through all the topics on offer.
Then re-read your post. The only 'negative tone' you'll find here is your own.
Styrer
Other Comments by Styrer-
43. Comment #110310 by clatz on January 11, 2008 at 1:02 am
I am saddened to read this, it sort of feels like two friends arguing and there is the possibility that they will not be on speaking terms when the dust settles! Perhaps you are there already.Professor, I agree that these publications are not necessarily the place to make the claim they did (that you admitted a mistake, for which you say you haven't) and certainly not without the sort of explanation they subsequently provided.
Who knows they may have been under the same constraints you were. However I hope the matter could be straightened out amicably and without the neighbours having to hear it :-)
Other Comments by clatz
44. Comment #110320 by Styrer- on January 11, 2008 at 1:42 am
Dawkins is nearly there. It surely has to be:'Son of a...God Delusion'
Maybe more for our American cousins.
I'll stop now.
Best,
Styrer
Other Comments by Styrer-
45. Comment #110322 by Atticus_of_Amber on January 11, 2008 at 1:47 am
Wouldn't "The Son of God Delusion" have to be co-authored by a scientist and an historian? I realise it was a joke, but *that* is actually starting to sound like an interesting book: Jesus, what we can know based on the historical evidence and our current knowledge of medicine, biology, etc.
Other Comments by Atticus_of_Amber
46. Comment #110325 by EeekiE on January 11, 2008 at 1:49 am
How could it naturally be anything but physical gene molecule "survival".Isn't it like arguing about the effects the RPM of an engine has on a car, compared to the effects of in cylinder conditions have on a car?
Isn't it just about the level of abstraction you look at a problem in?
Or are the two camps as "apparently" irreconcilable as Quantum theory and Einsteins theory?
But then again if physical gene selection can explain such things in principal where's the problem. It sounds to me like group selection is Newtons theory to Einsteins theory of Gravity.
However I'm a newbie and my entire biology education stems from Richards books :P
Other Comments by EeekiE
47. Comment #110335 by bamboospitfire on January 11, 2008 at 2:33 am
As long as E O Wilson doesn't think that changing his mind about one issue will necessarily lend any reflected credibility to group selection as a whole...I am very pleased to see that Professor Dawkins responded in such unequivocal terms to the suggestion contained in the 'Survival of the selfless' article that he had "acknowledged [his] error". I thought it looked off when I read it, as I commented on the forum at the time.
http://www.richarddawkins.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=4&t=28211
Other Comments by bamboospitfire
48. Comment #110336 by Incredulous on January 11, 2008 at 2:33 am
Thanks for the twelve misunderstandings article. I had difficulty understanding this group selection controversy when it broke out, but this has definitely helped though I'll probably dig a little deeper to make sure I do understand it better.I used to get it in the head from my Biology teacher for not pursuing Biology as a possible career move, but your books, plus university courses in neuroscience and genetics(for AI portion of degree), have filled the gaps.
Great Site!
Other Comments by Incredulous
49. Comment #110410 by MJ on January 11, 2008 at 6:01 am
Son of God Delusion?
Richard
Unweaving the McGrath?
Other Comments by MJ
50. Comment #110420 by Tim Friede on January 11, 2008 at 6:10 am
As a parent with two young ones surrounded by religion within their school(my fault), friends, and family that hammers it from a young age, I think Richard should do the same.Start um young with the truth, this is the next generation of clear thinkers, and I think his efforts along this front would be amazingly helpful(necessary).
Because of Richard, my family can now at least talk about evolution, different religions, and things we didn't before him(and others).
Thanks Richard, TF
Other Comments by Tim Friede
Upcoming Events:
About this site
Mailing List Signup: Enter your email
Go to The Richard Dawkins Foundation for Reason and Science
Richard Dawkins Articles | Comments | Tour Journal
Atheist Resources | Local Groups
Debate Points | Latest Responses
Links:
Quotes of Note:
"…the individual organism is a very important unit in the hierarchy of life…But however unitary and discrete an individual wolf or buffalo may be, the package is temporary and unique. (pp. 216-217)…"Abraham was left in no doubt that the future lay with his seed, not his individuality. God knew his Darwinism."
Richard Dawkins
"I turned to speak to God, About the world's despair; But to make bad matters worse, I found God wasn't there."
Robert Frost
"(Religion) With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion"
Steven Weinberg
"Aquarius is a miscellaneous set of stars all at different distances from us, which have no connection with each other except that they constitute a (meaningless) pattern when seen from a certain (not particularly special) place in the galaxy (here)."
Richard Dawkins
"There are, however, exceptions to this reliance on feelings as evidence of truth: if, for instance, your feelings lead to disbelief instead of belief, they're apt to be dismissed as some form of denial. This is not a common problem. Usually intellectualism, not "feeling reality," is blamed for disbelief. But, some angel experts suggest, there may be emotional as well as intellectual barriers to belief: unwillingness to believe in angels can reflect low self-esteem."
Wendy Kaminer
Other Recommended Reading
The Demon-Haunted World
Carl Sagan
Breaking the Spell
Daniel C. Dennett
The Varieties of Scientific Experience
Carl Sagan, Ann Druyan (Editor)
Atheist Manifesto
Michel Onfray
On The Origin of Species
Charles Darwin
More Books
Adjust font size: 
"If this book doesn't change the world -- we're all screwed."
-Penn (Penn & Teller)
The God Delusion
by Richard Dawkins
Over 1.5 million copies sold
DVDs
'Break the Science Barrier' DVD
'The Four Horsemen' DVD
'AAI 2007 Conference' DVD
'Root of All Evil? The Original Program' DVD
'Root of All Evil? The Uncut Interviews' DVD
'Growing Up in the Universe' DVD
Books by Richard Dawkins
The Oxford Book of Modern Science Writing
by Richard Dawkins
The Ancestor's Tale
by Richard Dawkins
The Selfish Gene
by Richard Dawkins
The Blind Watchmaker
by Richard Dawkins
Unweaving the Rainbow
by Richard Dawkins
1. Comment #110131 by Coelacanth on January 10, 2008 at 2:27 pm
I wonder how many faith-heads will use this article to support their attack on reason and the fatuous claim that "even scientist can't agree on anything"Iregardless of the finer nuances of semantics in this article E.O. Wilson remains a major diety in my own pantheon of Reason. I have read Consilience at least a dozen times . . . a brilliant mastpiece!
By the way . . . has anyone caught wind of the growing controversy surrounding Joy Behar's remarks about The Church's saints and their need for anti-psychotics??? That clueless Fr. Johnathen has already chimed in and I'm sure it won't be too long before The Catholic League's president , Bill Donahue, starts whining. We'll see . . .
Other Comments by Coelacanth