1. Taking a Cue From Ants on Evolution of Humans

Comment #211258 by abilard on July 15, 2008 at 4:59 pm

Thanks for the information, 82abhilash. I suppose the genes don't care whether they are organized into a group of cells called an organism, or a group of organisms called a colony, so long as they survive and replicate. But, just as it can be edifying to speak of organisms with reference to natural selection, as the most obvious expressions of the replicative interests of genes and of selective competition, one could also take one more step out from the genetic level of selection and examine questions at the level of the group or species.

Group strategies are certainly present in nature and have a genetic basis (Wilson's ants). As such they can be selected for or against. Perhaps reproductive entities are the best unit of analysis, with queens and drones representing one unit as part of a hive strategy, and individual humans representing another.

2. Taking a Cue From Ants on Evolution of Humans

Comment #211028 by abilard on July 15, 2008 at 12:31 pm

I must be missing something, because this dispute between Dawkins and Wilson seems a bit like a tempest in a teapot. If I understand them correctly, both agree that 1) genes are the unit of natural selection and that 2) natural selection can favor genes that in turn favor the group. To speak of "group selection" then would just be to shift the level of analysis exclusively to those pressures that favor such genes and their social effects. Is Dawkins' point that speaking at this level is unproductive, confusing, or invalid? What am I missing?

3. Kansas science standards evolve again, becoming pro-Darwin

Comment #22312 by abilard on February 14, 2007 at 4:33 am

Does this mean they won't be teaching about the Flying Spaghetti Monster? :-(