Quote:Not me. . . I don't think it HAS one; in fact, it is quite utter nonsense; it is a bandwagon that people ignorant of biology jump on. "Group Selection" is to biology as "New Age" is to religion.
Ok, that helps Jeremy thanks. Do you think you, or anyone really, could put this in some sort of a thesis statement? I tried and just don't have the background in this to do it justice. Again, I would really appreciate this.
- Member Introductions & Journals
- BookTalk News & Development
- Religion, Philosophy & the Arts
- Politics, Current Events & History
- Science, Nature & Technology
- General Discussion & Miscellaneous Topics
- Book Suggestions, Polls, & Reviews
- Additional Book Discussions
- Godless in America: Conversations With an Atheist - by George A. Ricker
- Interventions - by Noam Chomsky
- Religious Expression and the American Constitution - by Franklyn S. Haiman
- Deep Economy: The Wealth of Communities and the Durable Future - by Bill McKibben
- The God Delusion - by Richard Dawkins
- The Third Chimpanzee: The Evolution and Future of the Human Animal - by Jared Diamond
- The Woman in the Dunes - by Abe Kobo
- Evolution vs. Creationism: An Introduction - by Eugenie Scott
- The Omnivore's Dilemma: A Natural History of Four Meals - by Michael Pollan
- I, Claudius: From the Autobiography of Tiberius Claudius, Born 10 B.C., Murdered and Deified A.D. 54 - by Robert Graves
- Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon - by Daniel Dennett
- A Peace to End All Peace: The Fall of the Ottoman Empire and the Creation of the Modern Middle East - by David Fromkin
- The Time Traveler's Wife - by Audrey Niffenegger
- The End of Faith: Religion, Terror, and the Future of Reason - by Sam Harris
- Ender's Game - by Orson Scott Card
- The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night-Time - by Mark Haddon
- Value & Virtue in a Godless Universe - by Erik J. Wielenberg
- The March: A Novel - by E.L. Doctorow
- The Ethical Brain - by Michael Gazzaniga
- Freethinkers: A History of American Secularism - by Susan Jacoby
- Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed - by Jared Diamond
- The Battle for God - by Karen Armstrong
- The Future of Life - by Edward O. Wilson
- What is Good? The Search for the Best Way to Live - by A.C. Grayling
- Civilization and It's Enemies: The Next Stage of History - by Lee Harris
- Pale Blue Dot: A Vision of the Human Future in Space - by Carl Sagan
- How We Believe: Science, Skepticism, and the Search for God - by Michael Shermer
- Looking For Spinoza: Joy, Sorrow, and the Feeling Brain - by Antonio Damasio
- Lies (And the Lying Liars Who Tell Them): A Fair and Balanced Look at the Right - by Al Franken
- The Red Queen: Sex and the Evolution of Human Nature - by Matt Ridley
- The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature - by Stephen Pinker
- Unweaving the Rainbow: Science, Delusion and the Appetite for Wonder - by Richard Dawkins
- Atheism: A Reader - edited by S. T. Joshi
- Global Brain: The Evolution of Mass Mind from the Big Bang to the 21st Century - by Howard Bloom
- The Lucifer Principle: A Scientific Expedition into the Forces of History - by Howard Bloom
- Guns, Germs and Steel: The Fates of Human Societies - by Jared Diamond
- Demon-Haunted World: Science As a Candle in the Dark - by Carl Sagan
- Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee: An Indian History of the American West - by Dee Alexander Brown
- Future Shock - by Alvin Toffler
Michael Shermer on Howard Bloom's "Global Brain"
| Author | Comment | |||
|---|---|---|---|---|
Jeremy1952 |
Re: Group Selection? | #21 | ||
|
Posts: 907 01/13/03 07:59:53 Enlightened One |
Timothy Schoonover
|
|||
|
|
||||
xilog |
Re: Group Selection? | #22 | ||
|
Posts: 70 01/14/03 14:27:21 |
For the record, according to the Oxford Dictionary of Biology group selection is:
Quote: However, for the purposes of a discussion of "Global Brain" I don't think we should take it that group selection has been supplanted by kin selection. If anything, in Bloom the movement is in the opposite direction. I recommend also to you the following interesting and brief survey of the history of the group selection debate: The Troubled Past and Uncertain Future of Group Selectionism |
|||
|
|
||||
Unregistered(d) |
RE: Group Selection | #23 | ||
|
Posts: 0 01/15/03 12:56:20 |
Thank you xilog. That is exactly what I was looking for.
|
|||
|
|
||||
LanDroid |
Re: RE: Group Selection | #24 | ||
|
Posts: 380 01/15/03 20:43:58 Amusingly Clever |
"Groups do not have the range of heritable variation that would allow any significant contribution to evolution."
You keep saying that differences between human groups are trivial, but I think that is speculative as is my own opinion that there may be genetically significant differences we cannot perceive. Giraffes are still evolving, but no one can predict in what fashion because we cannot perceive the minute differences that are being selected. The background for what I'm saying comes from Shadows of Forgotten Ancestors - A Search for Who We Are by Carl Sagan and Ann Druyan. They note that humans are very adept at noticing minute differences between individuals, associating with those who are alike, and separating from those that are different. Human evolution would have proceeded most rapidly when groups evolve in isolation, concentrating adaptive improvements in that environment over time, and then on rare occasion spreading these genes by mating outside of the group. That's why I think it's quite possible the gene pool is affected when one group slaughters another. But of course, we'll never know. |
|||
|
|
||||
LanDroid |
Re: RE: Group Selection | #25 | ||
|
Posts: 380 01/15/03 21:32:46 Amusingly Clever |
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) |
|||
|
|
||||
rielmajr |
Re: RE: Group Selection | #26 | ||
|
Posts: 67 01/20/03 17:51:12 |
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. |
|||
|
|
||||
ZachSylvanus |
Re: RE: Group Selection | #27 | ||
|
Posts: 384 01/20/03 20:43:29 Amusingly Clever |
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. |
|||
|
|
||||
Unregistered(d) |
yo | #28 | ||
|
Posts: 0 02/18/03 01:59:20 |
|
|||
|
|
||||
Jeremy1952 |
Group Selection | #29 | ||
|
Posts: 907 02/18/03 08:29:56 Enlightened One |
Rielmajr
Quote: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. |
|||
|
|
||||
LanDroid |
Re: Group Selection | #30 | ||
|
Posts: 380 02/18/03 22:18:04 Amusingly Clever |
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: |
|||
|
|
||||
Jeremy1952 |
Re: Group Selection | #31 | ||
|
Posts: 907 02/19/03 00:39:36 Enlightened One |
LanDroid
Quote:I had wondered about that myself. A couple of answers come to mind, not mutually exclusive. 1.        In the writing biz, the writing of blurbs is a courtesy that writers do for one another; actually reading the book one is praising is by far the exception rather than the rule. 2.        I have started reading Margulis' latest book (Making Genomes), and it is very pugnacious. Perhaps Margulis' support of Bloom is on the order of "the enemy of my enemy is my friend". I simply can't imagine that a scientist of Margulis' abilities would be taken in by Bloom's ramblings if she actually read the material. |
|||
|
|
||||
MichaelangeloGlossolalia |
group selection | #32 | ||
|
Posts: 85 02/27/03 21:39:21 Freshman |
I'm not sure I understand the objections to group selection. It seems to me rather obvious that if a member of a group has traits which undermine the stability and coherence of the group, the whole group will be penalized and their genes scrapped. A group with individuals who benefit the group will benefit, giving all the individuals in the group a selective advantage. Humans are social animals, and we clearly have evolved a lot of traits that strengthen tribal bonds and enable teamwork, even to the point where modern tribalism threatens the survival of our, and other, species. Clearly individuals are part of a mesh, and the actions of one affect the others, with various symmetrical and asymmetrical benefits/penalties for the group.
Michael |
|||
|
|
||||
Jeremy1952 |
Re: group selection | #33 | ||
|
Posts: 907 02/27/03 22:01:24 Enlightened One |
Michael
Quote:You've just described several aspects of ordinary, garden variety selection. Group selection refers to some undefined means for individuals to do things that are good for the group but bad for themselves. The whole group is "selected" for having individuals who, say, sacrifice themselves for the "greater good of the group", making that group more successful than some other group. Since the hypothesis was first proposed, it has been painfully obvious that there is no mechanism available to bring such a setup about; and that, even if it somehow did come about, it would not be stable. |
|||
|
|
||||
MichaelangeloGlossolalia |
not sure what no mechanism means? | #34 | ||
|
Posts: 85 03/01/03 02:37:44 Freshman |
I'm not sure what you mean by "no mechanism"... Individual selection would be part of a matrix whenever the individual's traits affect the survival chances of others in the group. It would make no sense (that I can think of) to consider individual selection as an isolated event, if reproduction depends to any degree on social status or the success of a tribe in warfare (themselves linked...those best at war achieve high status and have more access to mates, perhaps even multiple mates).
If, say, a rock star gets his genes into the pants of several dozen women, his genes have an advantage...but in order to become a rock star, he must have some traits that the tribe promotes...in that case it is not prowess in battle that attracts a mate, but "charisma" which might be a sort of strange attractor involving feedback between performer and audience, amplified by the genetic (or memetic) traits of the person on stage. Being such an attractor would put one in a position to have a far greater influence on the memes and genes of a tribe, amplifying his traits in a way not available to Joe Paycheck. I'd like to hear Howard's views on this thread... It would (it seems to me) be impossible to isolate the individual's reproduction from his status in the group. Clearly success in the human mating game depends on status, there's no way for the individual's success at reproducing his genes to be separated from the cultural matrix, since the individual and group influence one another reciprocally. When the individual not only depends on the tribe for status (influencing his chances of reproduction) but has an effect on the ability of the tribe to form war or hunting packs, then the "weak link" would naturally impact the reproductive success of others in the tribe. One's genes represent information which would make no sense if the cultural matrix were not considered...the information in the individual's DNA could not be derived without interaction with the culture (without the culture, the environment would exert totaly different selection pressures). In fact, I don't see how you could isolate any organism from the organisms which impact its environment, chances of reproducing, food supply, etc. It's all a system, the individuals interact in unfathomably deep ways, and there is just no way I can see to talk about "individual" rather than group selection. Selection IS group selection, any time the group has any sort of influence on the survival or reproductive success of the individual. I don't see a need for a special mechanism, I would consider group selection the natural outcome of individual selection. The difference would be in the inclusion of one's gene-mates in one's environment, whereas a solitary species would interact more with members of other species and not have its reproductive chances determined to the same degree by its relatives (although he might lose out to a cousin whose sperm are faster, I suppose). The feedback would tie individual and group together in the way the weather is not just a collection of independent drops of water or vectors of air flow, but is an interaction between the properties of zillions of water and air molecules, none of which contains the weather in itself, yet influences the weather as much as any other drop or breeze does. Michael |
|||
|
|
||||
Jeremy1952 |
Re: not sure what no mechanism means? | #35 | ||
|
Posts: 907 03/01/03 11:25:54 Enlightened One |
MichaelangeloGlossolalia
Quote:The confusion is one of terminology, not of biology. I agree with every single word you wrote. There is no need for a "special mechanism"; but that is exactly what proponents of group selection are selling. They are saying that the rock star doing better in a society of rock star groupies (individual rock star) is not enough to explain the end result. That some groups do better than other groups "as the natural outcome of individual selection" is simply observing a known aspect of ordinary selection, not requiring an unsupportable "group selection" hypothesis. |
|||
|
|
||||
- Member Introductions & Journals
- BookTalk News & Development
- Religion, Philosophy & the Arts
- Politics, Current Events & History
- Science, Nature & Technology
- General Discussion & Miscellaneous Topics
- Book Suggestions, Polls, & Reviews
- Additional Book Discussions
- Godless in America: Conversations With an Atheist - by George A. Ricker
- Interventions - by Noam Chomsky
- Religious Expression and the American Constitution - by Franklyn S. Haiman
- Deep Economy: The Wealth of Communities and the Durable Future - by Bill McKibben
- The God Delusion - by Richard Dawkins
- The Third Chimpanzee: The Evolution and Future of the Human Animal - by Jared Diamond
- The Woman in the Dunes - by Abe Kobo
- Evolution vs. Creationism: An Introduction - by Eugenie Scott
- The Omnivore's Dilemma: A Natural History of Four Meals - by Michael Pollan
- I, Claudius: From the Autobiography of Tiberius Claudius, Born 10 B.C., Murdered and Deified A.D. 54 - by Robert Graves
- Breaking the Spell: Religion as a Natural Phenomenon - by Daniel Dennett
- A Peace to End All Peace: The Fall of the Ottoman Empire and the Creation of the Modern Middle East - by David Fromkin
- The Time Traveler's Wife - by Audrey Niffenegger
- The End of Faith: Religion, Terror, and the Future of Reason - by Sam Harris
- Ender's Game - by Orson Scott Card
- The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night-Time - by Mark Haddon
- Value & Virtue in a Godless Universe - by Erik J. Wielenberg
- The March: A Novel - by E.L. Doctorow
- The Ethical Brain - by Michael Gazzaniga
- Freethinkers: A History of American Secularism - by Susan Jacoby
- Collapse: How Societies Choose to Fail or Succeed - by Jared Diamond
- The Battle for God - by Karen Armstrong
- The Future of Life - by Edward O. Wilson
- What is Good? The Search for the Best Way to Live - by A.C. Grayling
- Civilization and It's Enemies: The Next Stage of History - by Lee Harris
- Pale Blue Dot: A Vision of the Human Future in Space - by Carl Sagan
- How We Believe: Science, Skepticism, and the Search for God - by Michael Shermer
- Looking For Spinoza: Joy, Sorrow, and the Feeling Brain - by Antonio Damasio
- Lies (And the Lying Liars Who Tell Them): A Fair and Balanced Look at the Right - by Al Franken
- The Red Queen: Sex and the Evolution of Human Nature - by Matt Ridley
- The Blank Slate: The Modern Denial of Human Nature - by Stephen Pinker
- Unweaving the Rainbow: Science, Delusion and the Appetite for Wonder - by Richard Dawkins
- Atheism: A Reader - edited by S. T. Joshi
- Global Brain: The Evolution of Mass Mind from the Big Bang to the 21st Century - by Howard Bloom
- The Lucifer Principle: A Scientific Expedition into the Forces of History - by Howard Bloom
- Guns, Germs and Steel: The Fates of Human Societies - by Jared Diamond
- Demon-Haunted World: Science As a Candle in the Dark - by Carl Sagan
- Bury My Heart at Wounded Knee: An Indian History of the American West - by Dee Alexander Brown
- Future Shock - by Alvin Toffler
