Gene mobility and the concept of relatedness
About PhilPapers
General Editors:
David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Area Editors:
David Bourget
Gwen Bradford
Berit Brogaard
Margaret Cameron
David Chalmers
James Chase
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Barry Hallen
Hans Halvorson
Jonathan Jenkins Ichikawa
Michelle Kosch
Øystein Linnebo
JeeLoo Liu
Paul Livingston
Brandon Look
Manolo Martínez
Matthew McGrath
Michiru Nagatsu
Susana Nuccetelli
Gualtiero Piccinini
Giuseppe Primiero
Jack Alan Reynolds
Darrell Rowbottom
Aleksandra Samonek
Constantine Sandis
Howard Sankey
Jonathan Schaffer
Thomas Senor
Robin Smith
Daniel Star
Jussi Suikkanen
Lynne Tirrell
Aness Webster
Other editors
Contact us
Learn more about PhilPapers
David Bourget (Western Ontario)
David Chalmers (ANU, NYU)
Area Editors:
David Bourget
Gwen Bradford
Berit Brogaard
Margaret Cameron
David Chalmers
James Chase
Rafael De Clercq
Ezio Di Nucci
Barry Hallen
Hans Halvorson
Jonathan Jenkins Ichikawa
Michelle Kosch
Øystein Linnebo
JeeLoo Liu
Paul Livingston
Brandon Look
Manolo Martínez
Matthew McGrath
Michiru Nagatsu
Susana Nuccetelli
Gualtiero Piccinini
Giuseppe Primiero
Jack Alan Reynolds
Darrell Rowbottom
Aleksandra Samonek
Constantine Sandis
Howard Sankey
Jonathan Schaffer
Thomas Senor
Robin Smith
Daniel Star
Jussi Suikkanen
Lynne Tirrell
Aness Webster
Other editors
Contact us
Learn more about PhilPapers
Biology and Philosophy 29 (4):445-476 (2014)
| Abstract |
Cooperation is rife in the microbial world, yet our best current theories of the evolution of cooperation were developed with multicellular animals in mind. Hamilton’s theory of inclusive fitness is an important case in point: applying the theory in a microbial setting is far from straightforward, as social evolution in microbes has a number of distinctive features that the theory was never intended to capture. In this article, I focus on the conceptual challenges posed by the project of extending Hamilton’s theory to accommodate the effects of gene mobility. I begin by outlining the basics of the theory of inclusive fitness, emphasizing the role that the concept of relatedness is intended to play. I then provide a brief history of this concept, showing how, over the past fifty years, it has departed from the intuitive notion of genealogical kinship to encompass a range of generalized measures of genetic similarity. I proceed to argue that gene mobility forces a further revision of the concept. The reason in short is that, when the genes implicated in producing social behaviour are mobile, we cannot talk of an organism’s genotype simpliciter; we can talk only of an organism’s genotype at a particular stage in its life cycle. We must therefore ask: with respect to which stage(s) in the life cycle should relatedness be evaluated? For instance: is it genetic similarity at the time of social interaction that matters to the evolution of social behaviour, or is it genetic similarity at the time of reproduction? I argue that, strictly speaking, it is neither of these: what really matters to the evolution of social behaviour is diachronic genetic similarity between the producers of fitness benefits at the time they produce them and the recipients of those benefits at the end of their life-cycle. I close by discussing the implications of this result. The main payoff is that it makes room for a possible new mechanism for the evolution of altruism in microbes that does not require correlated interaction among bearers of the genes for altruism. The importance of this mechanism in nature remains an open empirical question
|
|||||||||
| Keywords | Gene mobility Kin selection Inclusive fitness Microbiology Relatedness Social evolution | |||||||||
| Categories | (categorize this paper) | |||||||||
| DOI | 10.1007/s10539-014-9445-z | |||||||||
| Options |
|
|||||||||
| PhilPapers Archive |
Upload a copy of this paper Check publisher's policy on self-archival Papers currently archived: 23,095 |
| External links |
Setup an account with your affiliations in order to access resources via your University's proxy server Configure custom proxy (use this if your affiliation does not provide a proxy) |
| Through your library |
|
David Lewis (1970). How to Define Theoretical Terms. Journal of Philosophy 67 (13):427-446.
Jonathan Birch (2014). Hamilton's Rule and Its Discontents. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 65 (2):381-411.
Maureen A. O’Malley, William Martin & John Dupré (2010). The Tree of Life: Introduction to an Evolutionary Debate. [REVIEW] Biology and Philosophy 25 (4):441-453.
Maureen A. O'Malley (2013). Philosophy and the Microbe: A Balancing Act. [REVIEW] Biology and Philosophy 28 (2):153-159.
View all 6 references / Add more references
Makmiller Pedroso (2015). Starting Small: Using Little Microbes to Tackle Big Philosophical Problems. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C: Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences 53:126-128.
Herbert Gintis (2014). Inclusive Fitness and the Sociobiology of the Genome. Biology and Philosophy 29 (4):477-515.
Andrew F. G. Bourke (2014). The Gene’s-Eye View, Major Transitions and the Formal Darwinism Project. Biology and Philosophy 29 (2):241-248.
Jonathan Birch (2012). Social Revolution. [REVIEW] Biology and Philosophy 27 (4):571-581.
Gregory D. Webster, Angela Bryan, Charles B. Crawford, Lisa McCarthy & Brandy H. Cohen (2008). Lineage, Sex, and Wealth as Moderators of Kin Investment. Human Nature 19 (2):189-210.
Grant Ramsey (2013). Can Fitness Differences Be a Cause of Evolution? Philosophy and Theory in Biology 5 (20130604).
Alejandro Rosas (2010). Beyond Inclusive Fitness? On A Simple And General Explanation For The Evolution of Altruism. Philosophy and Theory in Biology 2 (20130604).
Vernon L. Quinsey, Martin L. Lalumière, Matthew Querée & Jennifer K. McNaughton (1999). Perceived Crime Severity and Biological Kinship. Human Nature 10 (4):399-414.
Robert L. Perlman (2005). Why Disease Persists: An Evolutionary Nosology. [REVIEW] Medicine, Health Care and Philosophy 8 (3):343-350.
Peter J. Beurton (1995). How is a Species Kept Together? Biology and Philosophy 10 (2):181-196.
Jonathan Birch (2012). Collective Action in the Fraternal Transitions. Biology and Philosophy 27 (3):363-380.
Hannes Rusch (2014). A Threshold for Biological Altruism in Public Goods Games Played in Groups Including Kin. MAGKS Discussion Paper Series in Economics.
Kim Sterelny, Kelly C. Smith & Michael Dickison (1996). The Extended Replicator. Biology and Philosophy 11 (3):377-403.
Maureen A. O’Malley & John Dupré (2007). Size Doesn't Matter: Towards a More Inclusive Philosophy of Biology. [REVIEW] Biology and Philosophy 22 (2):155-191.
Elliott Sober (2010). Evolutionary Theory and the Reality of Macro Probabilities. In Ellery Eells & James H. Fetzer (eds.), The Place of Probability in Science. Springer 133--60.
Monthly downloads |
Added to index2014-04-04Total downloads126 ( #33,548 of 1,939,609 )Recent downloads (6 months)15 ( #50,276 of 1,939,609 )How can I increase my downloads? |




