From the mixture of yes/no and certain/uncertain answers here, you can see how a “debate” could occur if two conversing parties were unwittingy trying to answer two different questions. But now, having calrified what’s selected versus what’s selected for, and what occurs in reality versus what’s fundamental in our model...
...is there anything more to ask?
Well, yes actually. Some of the debate I’ve seen concerns whether the traditional inclusive fitness framework and a new multilevel selection framework are mathematically equivalent or whether one is more general than the other, the ease and accuracy of modeling associated with both frameworks, and other assorted technical details.
Still, this post is a good dissolution of a lot of confusion present in the debate. Upvoted.
I don’t know too much about the latest in group-selection theory, but I did read a little while back about E. O. Wilson & others critiquing the common view of kin selection from a group-selection standpoint in a paper Dawkins & Coyne did not think highly of.
Q: Should we treat group-level gene selection as fundamental? I.e., If we need a large-scale model of organismal evolution, should we program it with extra laws that govern the selection of groups?
Because the answer is debatable, I said “probably not” in my answer instead of no. I’ll ETA a link to your comment indicating some disagreement.
I’m not sure here. Look at this paper, for example, in which the author suggests a few points of differences between the two theories and some practicality issues. There doesn’t seem to be much concern over what’s “fundamental,” only over which model is more useful and in which situations this is true.
Edit: Actually, now I’m confused. I’m going to leave the text above, but I’m not sure I agree with it. I’ll reply when (if?) I figure this out.
Well, yes actually. Some of the debate I’ve seen concerns whether the traditional inclusive fitness framework and a new multilevel selection framework are mathematically equivalent or whether one is more general than the other, the ease and accuracy of modeling associated with both frameworks, and other assorted technical details.
Still, this post is a good dissolution of a lot of confusion present in the debate. Upvoted.
I don’t know too much about the latest in group-selection theory, but I did read a little while back about E. O. Wilson & others critiquing the common view of kin selection from a group-selection standpoint in a paper Dawkins & Coyne did not think highly of.
This was my third question:
Because the answer is debatable, I said “probably not” in my answer instead of no. I’ll ETA a link to your comment indicating some disagreement.
I’m not sure here. Look at this paper, for example, in which the author suggests a few points of differences between the two theories and some practicality issues. There doesn’t seem to be much concern over what’s “fundamental,” only over which model is more useful and in which situations this is true.
Edit: Actually, now I’m confused. I’m going to leave the text above, but I’m not sure I agree with it. I’ll reply when (if?) I figure this out.