Talk:Group selection

Evolutionary biology C‑class High‑importance

	Evolutionary biology portal This article is part of WikiProject Evolutionary biology, an attempt at building a useful set of articles on evolutionary biology and its associated subfields such as population genetics, quantitative genetics, molecular evolution, phylogenetics, and evolutionary developmental biology. It is distinct from the WikiProject Tree of Life in that it attempts to cover patterns, process and theory rather than systematics and taxonomy. If you would like to participate, there are some suggestions on this page (see also Wikipedia:Contributing FAQ for more information) or visit WikiProject Evolutionary biologyEvolutionary biologyWikipedia:WikiProject Evolutionary biologyTemplate:WikiProject Evolutionary biologyEvolutionary biology articles
C	This article has been rated as C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

1

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Group selection. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:47, 24 October 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Major Revision on May 2018

I'm working on a major revision of this page to explain some of the controversy that is associated with the idea of group selection. If anyone disagrees with my interpretation, please let me know to discuss it before reverting.

Thanks and best wishes. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wcrea6 (talk • contribs) 02:38, 15 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

This was a major copyright violation, which has been removed and flagged by another editor. The main additions were too-detailed quotations from various authors, substantially from a single article. Both the opinions mentioned and the copyvio source were in fact already in the article, so little of substance was added to the article. The controversy, too, is already described historically. If you still feel, despite all this, that anything further is needed, please present a brief summary of what you mean to do and obtain consensus before proceeding. Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:26, 16 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, I was obviously too overzealous in doing a major revision. I'm communicating with the other editor, and I sent a query letter to the Edge Foundation about the copyright status. However, I still think that there are major parts of this article that badly need a rewrite. To mention a few items, why is the reference to Darwin's "Descent of Man" only in the section about #Implications in Population Biology? The last paragraph in this same section has 3 sentences that start with "However". The section on #Other Arguments isn't clear about what the other arguments are. In the #Criticism section, the quote from Jerry Coyne doesn't have any rebuttal or balance. In my opinion, the controversy about the theory isn't covered in nearly enough detail, including not covering in detail the issues with the definition of a group, and the relevant discussion about altruism or punishment, which are notable in their own right since several have their own Wikipedia pages. That is why I added a section on Discussions. With your permission, I will fix some of these problems one at a time. User:wcrea6 —Preceding undated comment added 14:12, 27 May 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Since there are no further comments, I will make revisions to correct some of these problems, without causing the same copyright issues.Wcrea6 (talk) 22:12, 5 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Additional comments on ongoing revisions, July 2018

Thanks for your comments, Chiswick Chap but I'm not sure why you put them on my Talk page rather than on the Talk page for the page that is being edited. If there is a reason that you put them on my talk page, please let me know if this is a breach of courtesy. Otherwise, I would prefer to keep the comments here.Wcrea6 (talk) 02:18, 24 July 2018 (UTC) Copied from user:wcrea6 Talk page:[reply]

Hi, I notice you have made substantial edits to Group selection, without always making clear which claim came from which source. The effect has been to loosen the structure of a fully-cited article, not exactly a desirable direction of travel. I have accordingly marked up three 'citation needed' points in the text. I note also that the new text is in places more contentious than the carefully encyclopedic text that it replaces; I considered a full revert but have decided to hold off for now. I would be grateful if you could copy-edit your additions, considering carefully if each claim or implication is fully justified by the source(s) it is cited to. The uncited sentences should either be removed or be cited to sources which again fully cover the claims made. Any claims that represent your personal opinion rather than a cited source are not allowed. All the best, Chiswick Chap (talk) 09:18, 21 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

I will try to address these questions, so please let me know if my response doesn't address your issues.

For the first comment:

"Group selection on the level of the species is flawed because it is difficult to see how selective pressures would be applied to competing/non-cooperating individuals.^{[citation needed]}"

The above sentence is a summary comment about the following section, which I considered to be unclear and hard to understand. In addition to being strictly referenced, a Wikipedia article should be readable and understandable to a layman. If the summary or paraphrase is unacceptable, let me know and let me know exactly what part of the sentence you find objectionable.

"Once Darwinism had been accepted, animal behavior was glibly explained with unsubstantiated hypotheses about survival value, which was largely taken for granted. The naturalist Konrad Lorenz had argued loosely in books like On Aggression (1966) that animal behavior patterns were "for the good of the species",^[1]^[2] without actually studying survival value in the field;^[2] Richard Dawkins noted that Lorenz was a "'good of the species' man"^[3] so accustomed to group selection thinking that he did not realize his views "contravened orthodox Darwinian theory".^[3]"

I replaced this "citation needed" with a reference to Dawkins "Selfish Gene" since he covers this issue in Chapter 1. I'm not sure whether to keep the two references to "Selfish Gene", since the 7th reference includes specific page numbers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Wcrea6 (talk • contribs) 21:43, 19 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Comment 2:

"In a strict interpretation of the kin selection theory, a statistical association of related genes (present in the interactions of close genetic relatives) is understood as a necessary (though not sufficient) condition for the evolutionary emergence of certain traits relating to social cooperation.^{[citation needed]}"

You are correct with this comment. I will have to search longer to find where it came from. I may have lost the reference in a copy and paste. For the moment, I've deleted it from the text.

Comment 3:

"However, such a marker would also allow other individuals to recognize these marked individuals to take advantage of them in competition.^{[citation needed]}"

You are correct with this comment. I deleted it, as I don't have a reference at the moment.

Thanks for your feedback, and thanks for not reverting my edits on the basis of these three comments.Wcrea6 (talk) 02:39, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

You have replied at great length. All that needs to be said is that we evidently agree that all claims must be reliably cited. I'll hold off reverting for a little while longer. I've marked up (more) places where citations are required. Chiswick Chap (talk) 07:11, 24 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Copied from Nurture Kinship page with minor editing:

Anthropologists have worked on an alternative explanation to kin selection from studies of human culture that involves nurture kinship. Holland's Social Bonding and Nurture Kinship^[4] discusses biological inclusive fitness theory. The expression of social traits in primates and humans doesn't necessarily depend on conditions of genetic relatedness. For the vast majority of social mammals—including primates and humans—the formation of social bonds (and the resulting social cooperation) are based on familiarity from an early developmental stage. Genetic relatedness is not necessary for the attachment bonds to develop, and it is the performance of nurture that underlies such bonds and the enduring social cooperation that typically accompanies them. The nurture kinship perspective leads to the synthesis of evolutionary biology, psychology, and socio-cultural anthropology on the topic of social bonding and cooperation, without reductionism or positing a deterministic role to genes or genetic relatedness in the mechanisms through which social behaviors are expressed.^[4]

The 'nurture kinship' perspective does not necessarily mean that human non-blood relationships such as the relationships based on nurturing are more important than the ones based on blood-kinship. Herbert Gintis, in his review of the book Sex at Dawn, critiques the idea that human males were unconcerned with parentage, "which would make us unlike any other species I can think of".^[5]

(end copy)Wcrea6 (talk) 00:57, 23 September 2018 (UTC)[reply]

^ Tudge, Colin (31 March 2011). Engineer In The Garden. Random House. p. 115. ISBN 978-1-4464-6698-8.
^ ^a ^b Burkhardt, Richard W. (2005). Patterns of Behavior: Konrad Lorenz, Niko Tinbergen, and the Founding of Ethology. University of Chicago Press. p. 432. ISBN 978-0-226-08090-1.
^ ^a ^b Dawkins, Richard (1976). The Selfish Gene (1st ed.). Oxford University Press. pp. 9, 72. ISBN 978-0198575191.
^ ^a ^b Holland, Maximilian. (2012) Social Bonding and Nurture Kinship: Compatibility between Cultural and Biological Approaches. North Charleston: Createspace Press.
^ Gintis, Herbert. "Much that is True, but Remember: Is does not Imply Ought,". Amazon.com. Retrieved 6 August 2014.

[Tudge2011-1] Tudge, Colin (31 March 2011). Engineer In The Garden. Random House. p. 115. ISBN 978-1-4464-6698-8.

[Burkhardt2005-2] Burkhardt, Richard W. (2005). Patterns of Behavior: Konrad Lorenz, Niko Tinbergen, and the Founding of Ethology. University of Chicago Press. p. 432. ISBN 978-0-226-08090-1.

[Dawkins1976-3] Dawkins, Richard (1976). The Selfish Gene (1st ed.). Oxford University Press. pp. 9, 72. ISBN 978-0198575191.

[SBNK-4] Holland, Maximilian. (2012) Social Bonding and Nurture Kinship: Compatibility between Cultural and Biological Approaches. North Charleston: Createspace Press.

[gintis-5] Gintis, Herbert. "Much that is True, but Remember: Is does not Imply Ought,". Amazon.com. Retrieved 6 August 2014.

[1]

[2]

[3]

[4]

[5]