This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Unit of selection article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
![]() | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article has serious POV inspired errors:
JeffBurdges 11:28, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
For now, I recommend reverting to this version, which has much more minor and easily correctable errors: specifically it assigns credit to Dawkins for work he merely popularized. Agreed? JeffBurdges 15:03, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
I agree that this simpler version is better for now. We need to eventually include a discussion of each level of selection, at the gene, cell, individual, group, and higher taxa level. (link to macroevolution?)
Safay
23:35, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
"....A unit of selection is a biological entity within the hierarchy of biological organisation (e.g. genes, cells, individuals, groups, species) that is subject to natural selection..." -- Who is the person that formally established this? Scientific theories are always formally established. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 41.17.51.103 ( talk) 20:22, 7 September 2009 (UTC)
I quickly tried to add some structure and for the intro pared down the convoluted prose. Maybe this will help guide it into a more coherent whole. It is still far from being readable but with time and help we can all pull it together. Safay 00:57, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
You'll all notice that there is quite a bit of info at both Group selection and Gene-centered view of evolution. I believe this brings up the question of how we should handle the page as a whole. I assume if you're working on this page that you at least are willing to entertain the idea of there being a hierarchy of selection. I think there are two possibilities:
I strongly prefer this second option. Any other opinions out there?
Safay
01:01, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
A split is better. Evolution topics currently have ongoing POV wars. So damage will be minimized by keeping articles specific.
JeffBurdges
13:03, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I also favour the split. - Samsara ( talk • contribs) 23:29, 12 April 2006 (UTC)
Cool. Interesting "damage control" observation, Jeff. I'll start working on a more complete section for Leo Buss' work on selection at the level of the cell. BTW, the Gould book is great for all this stuff, pp. 644-714 or thereabouts, if you happen to have it. I myself have to look up that Sober reference. Another interesting one is the book by Maynard-Smith and Szmarthy (sp?) "The Major Transitions in Evolution," which deals loosely with this subject.
Safay
02:12, 13 April 2006 (UTC)
I've reverted the last set of changes because they seemed to introduce some anthropomorphisms. For example "He argues that genes are "selfish" because they manipulate the characteristics of individuals" No, I don't believe that Dawkins would never say anything quite so crass. There are similar problems later. Gleng 20:54, 17 May 2006 (UTC) On deeper reading I see that this article is in deep trouble. I run away Gleng 21:10, 17 May 2006 (UTC)
I decided to look at this article. I think the Marcos version is a big improvement on what was there before. But it does contain some pro-Sober anti-Dawkins bias which ought to be corrected? And those are not the only two positions. I've looked around on this and I think there are 7 different views on what it means for an entity to be a 'unit of selection'.
This gives us a problem with the opening line! — Axel147 03:11, 2 August 2006 (UTC)
Marcos seems to have expressed a different point from Sober here, or if he is expressing Sober's point I don't find it clear enough. This is the sentence I have issue with: The description of the causation chain in this case of selection can be stopped at the individual level because the generation of fitness differences is supervenient to the (various possible) causes below the individual level (i.e. differences in speed were necessary and sufficient in this case of selection).
If an event has multiple causes I don't think Sober is giving us any basis for choosing between them. The individual gazelle is the unit of selection in the example because the gazelle is the entity whose property (speed) is the cause of selection. For high speed to be a cause of selection in Sober's sense it must
Sober says p94, 'disjunctive properties will appear to be causally efficacious only to the degree that their disjuncts strike us a resembling similar sorts of causal processes' . On the other hand supervenient properties, such as (overall) fitness, are not causally efficacious. Sober uses supervenience of fitness to argue p96 'the overall fitness of a trait does not cause survival and reproduction' . So I have removed the sentence for now. — Axel147 02:07, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
I've restored the previous structure but kept text changes. Hope that's ok with Safay. I think it's clearer to distinguish the debate about what it means to be a unit of selection from examples given the multi-level approach. — Axel147 01:24, 15 August 2006 (UTC)
* "Artificial Selection" only used once by Darwin and did not appear before his publication. * "Survival of the fittest" was invented by Darwin and occurs 16 times. * reproductive success, differential appears nowhere in Origin of Species * Artificial Selection was never defined by Darwin. * Only attempts to define Natural Selection once in the entire book. * Natural Selection is repeated over 300 times. * Micro and Macro Evolution were not used by Darwin, only Evolution.
Differential reproduction can be rephrased as unsimilar reproduction. 99.99% organisms reproduce not clone carbon copies of themselves and thus differential is superfluous. If there are 0.01% that actually produce exact clones of themselves would somebody inform me? In trying to get a conceptual grip on what a Unit of Selection is many posters have used this phrase reproductin success. We can't define the concept Unit of Selection before we define phrases that are used to formally establish the concept. Who has formally defined or established what reproductive success means? A Wikipedia entry gets a redirect to Natural Selection. Are the two concepts related, who has formally established that they are one and the same thing, published where? And if beavers were ment to produce A-frames then their present structures can't be described as a "success". For something to be a success, one needs to specify some sort of goal. TongueSpeaker 20:57, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
{{Unreferenced}} tag added. Every section of the article contains unreferenced information. Shayno 11:27, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
Would it be appropriate to organize this article around the functional levels of organization? [1]
Just some thoughts... EPM 23:25, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
I have removed the zig-zag argument for 2 main reasons 1) it appears to suffer from a bit of bias not clearly representing the original source 2) it is a negative argument: there is no positive proposal as to what a unit of selection should be.
Of course the zig-zagging occurs and is in one sense 'invisible' when the gene rather than the genotype is used as a unit of selection. But this 'invisibility' is a symptom of the fact that fitness and evolution are typically defined in terms of frequencies of genes, genotypes or traits. If ones looks at both frequencies and distributions within other entities the zig-zag can be modelled perfectly well while maintaining the gene as a unit of selection.
'The concept of selection as a force and as a cause of evolution' is only lost if a unit of selection is something that causes selection (where cause is defined in a certain way) rather than somethings that simply gets selected. This is a definitional issue. The criticism that the gene is not in general a cause has already been made in the article. — Axel147 21:57, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
The idea is outdated and has fallen out of favor. As explained by Mayr:
" The idea that a few people have about the gene being the target of selection is completely impractical; a gene is never visible to natural selection, and in the genotype, it is always in the context with other genes, and the interaction with those other genes make a particular gene either more favorable or less favorable. In fact, Dobzhanksy, for instance, worked quite a bit on so-called lethal chromosomes which are highly successful in one combination, and lethal in another. Therefore people like Dawkins in England who still think the gene is the target of selection are evidently wrong. In the 30's and 40's, it was widely accepted that genes were the target of selection, because that was the only way they could be made accessible to mathematics, but now we know that it is really the whole genotype of the individual, not the gene. Except for that slight revision, the basic Darwinian theory hasn't changed in the last 50 years. " [2]
Mayr again:
"On one occasion Dawkins (ref. 13, point 7) himself admits that the gene is not an object of selection: “. . . genetic replicators are selected not directly, but by proxy . . . [by] their phenotypic effects.” Precisely! Nor are combinations of genes, as for instance chromosomes, independent objects of selection; only their carriers are. "
How can you reconcile these facts about chromosomes with the gene being the unit of selection?
Mayr should be noted here. He is much more important to evolutionary theory than Dawkins.
Savagedjeff ( talk) 01:24, 30 August 2009 (UTC)
I believe the rabbit/virus example in "Selection at the level of the group" is from Lewontin's 1970 paper - however, it's not a direct quote - is it a paraphrase from a different source? Chgrs ( talk) 19:38, 2 December 2010 (UTC)