Evol_Anthrop_6. Natureunitssocialsel. Group selection. Group selection was used as a popular explanation for adaptations, especially by V. C. Wynne-Edwards.[1][2] For several decades, however, critiques, particularly by George C. Williams,[3] John Maynard Smith[4] and C.M. Perrins (1964), historically cast serious doubt on group selection as a major mechanism of evolution. However, some scientists have pursued the idea over the last few decades, and group selection models have seen a resurgence since the mid-1990s with increasing popularity.[5][6][7][8] Overview[edit] Group selection is possible when the aggregation of individuals into groups with a particular social structure promotes the fitness of group members. More complex forms of group behavior involve individuals sacrificing personal fitness on behalf of other members of the group, as when a sterile soldier termite self-sacrifices to protect the nest.
Theoretical models of the 1960s suggested that group selection involving altruism is unlikely to evolve. Rb > c rbk + be > c. Joan Roughgarden's Social Selection Theory. So, what do you think of Joan Roughgarden's approach to the evolution of sex? She's "thrown down the gauntlet" as Seed magazine's Maggie Whittlin writes, challenging that the neo-Darwinist view of sexual selection as being largely competitive is wrong.
Has anyone read her book, Evolution's Rainbow? I read the first chapter while wasting time in Chapters but I don't feel I have a good grasp of that book. Is it worth reading in entirety? I feel that she makes some really good points -- a lot of sexual behaviours are not well explained by Sexual Selection theory. Role-reversals or organisms that do not have differentially sized gametes are two examples that she used. But part of me is resistant because she has such a "the world is beautiful because it's diverse" mentality -- I feel like she's almost brought morality into this. Quote. Nesse-SocSelCulture-2009.