From: Scott Chase (osteopilus@yahoo.com)
Date: Sun 20 Feb 2005 - 13:27:58 GMT
--- Agner Fog <agner@agner.org> wrote:
---------------------------------
I am splitting this thread (What happened to the
journal of memetics?)because Keith Henson introduced a
new subject.
Keith Henson wrote:
>I got this far and then took a look at your web page
. . . .
>It might look like group selection happens, but it is
much betterdescribed by selfish genes and Hamilton's
inclusive fitness criteria.
That's the predominant view among evolutionary
biologists today, but Idisagree.Some simplified
mathematical theories say that group selection
doesn'twork, but real world observations seem to
indicate the opposite.That's why I am doing research
on group selection, and I am trying torefine the
mathematical models.
The non-reproductive castes among ants and bees might
possibly beexplained by kin selection because they
have haplodiploid inheritance,i.e. they have more
genes in common with their siblings. But
thisexplanation doesn't work for termites, naked mole
rats, and other socialanimals. They have diploid
inheritance, so they share only half theirgenes with
their siblings, and less with their half-siblings.
Kin selection theory says that I should help my
brother if his gain ismore than the double of my
costs. But this doesn't explain why we aresending
money to starving children in Africa and tsunami
victims in Asia.You may say that this is because of
religious memes. This may be true tosome extent, but
atheists give to charity too.
Why do birds and many other animals have ritualized
fights, and why dothey respect the outcome of the
fight? A hungry bird that has lost thefight for the
best territories would be better off by not respecting
theterritorial boundaries than starve to death.
There are so many behaviors among animals as well as
humans that can't beexplained by kin selection and
reciprocal selection. This is why I amdoing research
on group selection. I have not published very much
yet, butyou can see the most important results
atwww.agner.org/evolution
>
I've seen some sort of argument that group selection
doesn't hold for non-humans in most instances, but
that there could be some sort of group selection at
play in humans, perhaps due to our possession of the
capacity for culture. OTOH one could puncture this by
some selfish gene or strictly individual selectionist
EEA account via ev psych or reducing it to the "meme's
eye view".
I think all this stuff relies too heavily on the
philosophy of selectionism, regardless of your focus
on genes, memes, or groups. If memes exist, drift
might be another factor in cultural evolution, like
how the Tasmanians lost technologies relative to
indigenous Aussies. Plus I'm rather partial to Gould's
nonaptive spandrel and exaptive hypotheses which tend
to puncture adaptionist EEA logic where historical
origin and current utility could be conflated. With
Gould dead, we run the risk of forgeting his critical
contributions to ev psych.
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - Helps protect you from nasty viruses.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
===============================================================
This was distributed via the memetics list associated with the
Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission
For information about the journal and the list (e.g. unsubscribing)
see: http://www.cpm.mmu.ac.uk/jom-emit
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sun 20 Feb 2005 - 13:45:06 GMT