Search results for 'group selection' (try it on Scholar)

1000+ found
Sort by:
See also:
  1. Mohan Matthen (2011). Art, Sexual Selection, Group Selection (Critical Notice of Denis Dutton, The Art Instinct). Canadian Journal of Philosophy 41 (2):337-356.score: 90.0
    The capacity to engage with art is a human universal present in all cultures and just about every individual human. This indicates that this capacity is evolved. In this Critical Notice of Denis Dutton's The Art Instinct, I discuss various evolutionary scenarios and their consequences. Dutton and I both reject the "spandrel" approach that originates from the work of Gould and Lewontin. Dutton proposes, following work of Geoffrey Miller, that art is sexually selected--that art-production is a sign of a fit (...)
    Translate to English
    | Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  2. Jeff Kirby (2003). A New Group-Selection Model for the Evolution of Homosexuality. Biology and Philosophy 18 (5):683-694.score: 90.0
    Abstract. Scientists have long puzzled over how homosexual orientation has evolved, given the assumed low relative fitness of homosexual individuals compared to heterosexual individuals. A number of theoretical models for the evolution of homosexuality have been postulated including balance polymorphism, "Fertile females", hypervariability of DNA sequences, kin selection, and "parental manipulation". In this paper, I propose a new group-selection model for the evolution of homosexuality which offers two advantages over existing models: (1) its non-assumption of genetic determinism, (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  3. James R. Griesemer & Michael J. Wade (1988). Laboratory Models, Causal Explanation and Group Selection. Biology and Philosophy 3 (1):67-96.score: 90.0
    We develop an account of laboratory models, which have been central to the group selection controversy. We compare arguments for group selection in nature with Darwin's arguments for natural selection to argue that laboratory models provide important grounds for causal claims about selection. Biologists get information about causes and cause-effect relationships in the laboratory because of the special role their own causal agency plays there. They can also get information about patterns of effects and (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  4. David Sloan Wilson (1999). A Critique of R.D. Alexander's Views on Group Selection. Biology and Philosophy 14 (3):431-449.score: 90.0
    Group selection is increasingly being viewed as an important force in human evolution. This paper examines the views of R.D. Alexander, one of the most influential thinkers about human behavior from an evolutionary perspective, on the subject of group selection. Alexander's general conception of evolution is based on the gene-centered approach of G.C. Williams, but he has also emphasized a potential role for group selection in the evolution of individual genomes and in human evolution. (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  5. Naomi Beck (2011). Be Fruitful and Multiply: Growth, Reason, and Cultural Group Selection in Hayek and Darwin. Biological Theory 6 (4):413-423.score: 75.0
  6. David Sloan Wilson & Elliott Sober (1994). Reintroducing Group Selection to the Human Behavioral Sciences. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 17 (4):585.score: 75.0
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  7. C. Goodnight, E. Rauch, H. Sayama, M. A. M. De Aguiar, M. Baranger & Y. Bar-yam (2008). Evolution in Spatial Predator–Prey Models and the “Prudent Predator”: The Inadequacy of Steady-State Organism Fitness and the Concept of Individual and Group Selection. Complexity 13 (5):23-44.score: 75.0
    No categories
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  8. Alejandro Rosas (2011). Disentangling Social Preferences From Group Selection. Biological Theory 6 (2):169-175.score: 75.0
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  9. Michael Byron, Morality and Evolution by Group Selection.score: 60.0
    Consider the paradox of altruism: the existence of truly altruistic behaviors is difficult to reconcile with an evolutionary theory which holds that natural selection operates only on individuals, since in that case individuals should be unwilling to sacrifice their own fitness for the sake of others. Evolutionists have frequently turned to the hypothesis of group selection to explain the existence of altruism; but, even setting aside difficulties about understanding the relationship between altruistic behaviors and morality, group (...)
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  10. Samir Okasha (2001). Why Won't the Group Selection Controversy Go Away? British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 52 (1):25-50.score: 60.0
    The group selection controversy is about whether natural selection ever operates at the level of groups, rather than at the level of individual organisms. Traditionally, group selection has been invoked to explain the existence of altruistic behaviour in nature. However, most contemporary evolutionary biologists are highly sceptical of the hypothesis of group selection, which they regard as biologically implausible and not needed to explain the evolution of altruism anyway. But in their recent book, (...)
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  11. Grant Ramsey & Robert Brandon (2011). Why Reciprocal Altruism is Not a Kind of Group Selection. Biology and Philosophy 26 (3):385-400.score: 60.0
    Reciprocal altruism was originally formulated in terms of individual selection and most theorists continue to view it in this way. However, this interpretation of reciprocal altruism has been challenged by Sober and Wilson (1998). They argue that reciprocal altruism (as well as all other forms of altruism) evolves by the process of group selection. In this paper, we argue that the original interpretation of reciprocal altruism is the correct one. We accomplish this by arguing that if fitness (...)
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  12. Andrew Hamilton & Christopher Dimond (2012). Groups, Individuals, and Evolutionary Restraints: The Making of the Contemporary Debate Over Group Selection. Biology and Philosophy 27 (2):299-312.score: 60.0
    Groups, individuals, and evolutionary restraints : the making of the contemporary debate over group selection Content Type Journal Article Pages 1-14 DOI 10.1007/s10539-011-9255-5 Authors Andrew Hamilton, Center for Biology and Society, School of Life Sciences, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ 85287-4501 USA Christopher C. Dimond, Center for Biology and Society, School of Life Sciences, Arizona State University, Tempe, AZ 85287-4501 USA Journal Biology and Philosophy Online ISSN 1572-8404 Print ISSN 0169-3867.
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  13. Bence Nanay (2010). Group Selection and Our Obsession with the Grand Questions of Life. The Monist.score: 60.0
    The aim of this paper is to make an unlikely connection between the old question about the meaning of life and some important concepts in philosophy of biology. More precisely, I argue that while biology is unlikely to help us to figure out the meaning of life, the fact that this question has been considered to be such a crucial one could be explained with the help of some consideration of our evolutionary past. I argue that if there is evidence (...)
    Translate to English
    | Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  14. Samir Okasha (2005). Altruism, Group Selection and Correlated Interaction. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 56 (4):703-725.score: 60.0
    Group selection is one acknowledged mechanism for the evolution of altruism. It is well known that for altruism to spread by natural selection, interactions must be correlated; that is, altruists must tend to associate with one another. But does group selection itself require correlated interactions? Two possible arguments for answering this question affirmatively are explored. The first is a bad argument, for it rests on a product/process confusion. The second is a more subtle argument, whose (...)
    Direct download (8 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  15. Ayelet Shavit & Roberta L. Millstein (2008). Group Selection is Dead! Long Live Group Selection? BioScience 58 (7):574-575.score: 60.0
    We live in interesting times. Two well-known biologists — E. O. Wilson and Richard Dawkins — and some of their well-known colleagues, who used to employ broadly similar selection models, now deeply disagree over the role of group selection in the evolution of eusociality (or so we argue). Yet they describe their models as interchangeable. As philosophers of biology, we wonder whether there is substantial (i.e., empirical) disagreement here at all, and, if there is, what is this (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  16. J. Jeffrey Tillman (2008). Sacrificial Agape and Group Selection in Contemporary American Christianity. Zygon 43 (3):541-556.score: 60.0
    Human altruistic behavior has received a great deal of scientific attention over the past forty years. Altruistic-like behaviors found among insects and animals have illumined certain human behaviors, and the revival of interest in group selection has focused attention on how sacrificial altruism, although not adaptive for individuals, can be adaptive for groups. Curiously, at the same time that sociobiology has placed greater emphasis on the value of sacrificial altruism, Protestant ethics in America has moved away from it. (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  17. Simon Huttegger & Rory Smead (2011). Efficient Social Contracts and Group Selection. Biology and Philosophy 26 (4):517-531.score: 60.0
    We consider the Stag Hunt in terms of Maynard Smith’s famous Haystack model. In the Stag Hunt, contrary to the Prisoner’s Dilemma, there is a cooperative equilibrium besides the equilibrium where every player defects. This implies that in the Haystack model, where a population is partitioned into groups, groups playing the cooperative equilibrium tend to grow faster than those at the non-cooperative equilibrium. We determine under what conditions this leads to the takeover of the population by cooperators. Moreover, we compare (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  18. John Cassidy (1978). Philosophical Aspects of the Group Selection Controversy. Philosophy of Science 45 (4):575-594.score: 60.0
    This article is primarily a study of the group selection controversy, with special emphasis on the period from 1962 to the present, and the rise of inclusive fitness theory. Interest is focused on the relations between individual fitness theory and other fitness theories and on the methodological imperatives used in the controversy over the status of these theories. An appendix formalizes the notion of "assertive part" which is used in the informal discussion of the methodological imperatives elicited from (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  19. Deborah G. Mayo & Norman L. Gilinsky (1987). Models of Group Selection. Philosophy of Science 54 (4):515-538.score: 60.0
    The key problem in the controversy over group selection is that of defining a criterion of group selection that identifies a distinct causal process that is irreducible to the causal process of individual selection. We aim to clarify this problem and to formulate an adequate model of irreducible group selection. We distinguish two types of group selection models, labeling them type I and type II models. Type I models are invoked to (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  20. Robert A. Wilson (2004). Test Cases, Resolvability, and Group Selection: A Critical Examination of the Myxoma Case. Philosophy of Science 71 (3):380-401.score: 60.0
    The evolution of the myxoma virus in Australia has been presented for many years as a test case for the hypothesis that group selection can function effectively `in the wild.' This paper critically examines the myxoma case, and argues that its failure as a test case for this hypothesis has broader implications for debates over the levels of selection.
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  21. Brad Lowell Stone, “The Current Evidence for Hayek's Culture Group Selection Theory”.score: 60.0
    In this article I summarize Friedrich Hayek’s cultural group selection theory and describe the evidence gathered by current cultural group selection theorists within the behavioral and social sciences supporting Hayek’s main assertions. I conclude with a few comments on Hayek and libertarianism.
    Translate to English
    | Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  22. Bruce Glymour (2008). Correlated Interaction and Group Selection. British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 59 (4):835-855.score: 60.0
    argues that correlated interactions are necessary for group selection. His argument turns on a particular procedure for measuring the strength of selection, and employs a restricted conception of correlated interaction. It is here shown that the procedure in question is unreliable, and that while related procedures are reliable in special contexts, they do not require correlated interactions for group selection to occur. It is also shown that none of these procedures, all of which employ partial (...)
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  23. Bence Nanay (2010). Group Selection and Our Obsession with the Meaning of Life. The Monist 93 (1):76-95.score: 60.0
    The aim of this paper is to make an unlikely connection between the old question about the meaning of life and some important concepts in philosophy of biology. More precisely, I argue that while biology is unlikely to help us to figure out the meaning of life, the fact that this question has been considered to be such a crucial one could be explained with the help of some consideration of our evolutionary past. I argue that if there is evidence (...)
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  24. Samir Okasha (2012). Wynne-Edwards and the History of Group Selection. Metascience 21 (2):355-357.score: 60.0
    Wynne-Edwards and the history of group selection Content Type Journal Article Category Book Review Pages 1-3 DOI 10.1007/s11016-011-9613-6 Authors Samir Okasha, Department of Philosophy, University of Bristol, Bristol, BS8 1TB UK Journal Metascience Online ISSN 1467-9981 Print ISSN 0815-0796.
    No categories
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  25. Nicholas S. Thompson (2000). Niche Construction and Group Selection. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 23 (1):161-162.score: 60.0
    The antipathy toward group selection expressed in the target article is puzzling because Laland et al.'s ideas dovetail neatly with modern group selection theory.
    Direct download (7 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  26. Robert Boyd & Peter J. Richerson, Transmission Coupling Mechanisms: Cultural Group Selection.score: 60.0
    The application of phylogenetic methods to cultural variation raises questions about how cultural adaption works and how it is coupled to cultural transmission. Cultural group selection is of particular interest in this context because it depends on the same kinds of mechanisms that lead to tree-like patterns of cultural variation. Here, we review ideas about cultural group selection relevant to cultural phylogenetics. We discuss why group selection among multiple equilibria is not subject to the (...)
    Translate to English
    | Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  27. Nicholas S. Thompson (1998). Reintroducing “Reintroducing Group Selection to the Human Behavioral Sciences”to BBS Readers. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 21 (2):304-305.score: 60.0
    Wilson and Sober's (1994t) revival of group selection theory may have failed with some readers because its simple arithmetic foundation was obscured under the complexities of its presentation. When that uncontrovertible principle is uncovered, it broadens dramatically the fundamental motives that social scientists may impute to human nature and still be consistent with Darwinian evolutionary theory.
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  28. Michael S. Alvard (2013). Partner Selection, Coordination Games, and Group Selection. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 36 (1):80-81.score: 60.0
    The process of partner selection reflects ethnographic realities where cooperative rewards obtain that would otherwise be lost to loners. Baumard et al. neglect frequency-dependent processes exemplified by games of coordination. Such games can produce multiple equilibria that may or may not include fair outcomes. Additional, group-selection processes are required to produce the outcomes predicted by the models.
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  29. Gabriele K. Ruchala, Performance Pay, Group Selection and Group Performance.score: 57.0
    Within a laboratory experiment we investigate a principal-agent game in which agents may, first, self-select into a group task (GT) or an individual task (IT) and, second, choose work effort. In their choices of task and effort the agents have to consider pay contracts for both tasks as offered by the principal. The rational solution of the game implies that contract design may not induce agents to select GT and provide positive effort in GT. Furthermore it predicts equal behavior (...)
    Translate to English
    | Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  30. Rasmus Grønfeldt Winther, Michael J. Wade & Christopher C. Dimond (2013). Pluralism in Evolutionary Controversies: Styles and Averaging Strategies in Hierarchical Selection Theories. Biology and Philosophy 28 (6):957-979.score: 54.0
    Two controversies exist regarding the appropriate characterization of hierarchical and adaptive evolution in natural populations. In biology, there is the Wright–Fisher controversy over the relative roles of random genetic drift, natural selection, population structure, and interdemic selection in adaptive evolution begun by Sewall Wright and Ronald Aylmer Fisher. There is also the Units of Selection debate, spanning both the biological and the philosophical literature and including the impassioned group-selection debate. Why do these two discourses exist (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  31. John Damuth & I. Lorraine Heisler (1988). Alternative Formulations of Multilevel Selection. Biology and Philosophy 3 (4):407-430.score: 54.0
    Hierarchical expansions of the theory of natural selection exist in two distinct bodies of thought in evolutionary biology, the group selection and the species selection traditions. Both traditions share the point of view that the principles of natural selection apply at levels of biological organization above the level of the individual organism. This leads them both to considermultilevel selection situations, where selection is occurring simultaneously at more than one level. Impeding unification of the (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  32. Samir Okasha (2005). Maynard Smith on the Levels of Selection Question. Biology and Philosophy 20 (5):989-1010.score: 54.0
    The levels of selection problem was central to Maynard Smith’s work throughout his career. This paper traces Maynard Smith’s views on the levels of selection, from his objections to group selection in the 1960s to his concern with the major evolutionary transitions in the 1990s. The relations between Maynard Smith’s position and those of Hamilton and G.C. Williams are explored, as is Maynard Smith’s dislike of the Price equation approach to multi-level selection. Maynard Smith’s account (...)
    Direct download (6 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  33. Samir Okasha (2003). The Concept of Group Heritability. Biology and Philosophy 18 (3):445-461.score: 54.0
    This paper investigates the role of the concept of group heritability in group selection theory, in relation to the well-known distinction between type 1 and type 2 group selection (GS1 and GS2). I argue that group heritability is required for the operation of GS1 but not GS2, despite what a number of authors have claimed. I offer a numerical example of the evolution of altruism in a multi-group population which demonstrates that a (...) heritability coefficient of zero is perfectly compatible with the successful operation of group selection in the GS2 sense. A diagnosis of why group heritability has wrongly been regarded as necessary for GS2 is suggested. (shrink)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  34. Alejandro Rosas (2009). Levels of Selection in Synergy. Teorema 28 (2):135-150.score: 54.0
    Individual and group selection are usually conceived as opposed evolutionary processes. Though cases of synergy are occasionally recognized, the evolutionary importance of synergy is largely ignored. However, synergy is the plausible explanation for the evolution of collectives as higher level individuals i.e., collectives acting as adaptive units, e.g., genomes and colonies of social insects. It rests on the suppression of the predictable tendency of evolutionary units to benefit at the expense of other units or of the wholes they (...)
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  35. Christopher Boehm (1999). The Natural Selection of Altruistic Traits. Human Nature 10 (3):205-252.score: 54.0
    Proponents of the standard evolutionary biology paradigm explain human “altruism” in terms of either nepotism or strict reciprocity. On that basis our underlying nature is reduced to a function of inclusive fitness: human nature has to be totally selfish or nepotistic. Proposed here are three possible paths to giving costly aid to nonrelatives, paths that are controversial because they involve assumed pleiotropic effects or group selection. One path is pleiotropic subsidies that help to extend nepotistic helping behavior from (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  36. Susanne Rebers & Ruud Koopmans (2012). Altruistic Punishment and Between-Group Competition. Human Nature 23 (2):173-190.score: 54.0
    Collective action, or the large-scale cooperation in the pursuit of public goods, has been suggested to have evolved through cultural group selection. Previous research suggests that the costly punishment of group members who do not contribute to public goods plays an important role in the resolution of collective action dilemmas. If large-scale cooperation sustained by the punishment of defectors has evolved through the mechanism of cultural group selection, two implications regarding costly punishment follow: (1) that (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  37. David Sloan Wilson & Kevin M. Kniffin (1999). Multilevel Selection and the Social Transmission of Behavior. Human Nature 10 (3):291-310.score: 54.0
    Many evolutionary models assume that behaviors are caused directly by genes. An implication is that behavioral uniformity should be found only in groups that are genetically uniform. Yet, the members of human social groups often behave in a uniform fashion, despite the fact that they are genetically diverse. Behavioral uniformity can occur through a variety of psychological mechanisms and social processes, such as imitation, consensus decision making, or the imposition of social norms. We present a series of models in which (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (3 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  38. Samir Okasha & Cedric Paternotte (2012). Group Adaptation, Formal Darwinism and Contextual Analysis. Journal of Evolutionary Biology 25 (6):1127–1139.score: 51.0
    We consider the question: under what circumstances can the concept of adaptation be applied to groups, rather than individuals? Gardner and Grafen (2009, J. Evol. Biol.22: 659–671) develop a novel approach to this question, building on Grafen's ‘formal Darwinism’ project, which defines adaptation in terms of links between evolutionary dynamics and optimization. They conclude that only clonal groups, and to a lesser extent groups in which reproductive competition is repressed, can be considered as adaptive units. We re-examine the conditions under (...)
    Translate to English
    | Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  39. David Sloan Wilson & Elliott Sober (1998). Multilevel Selection and the Return of Group-Level Functionalism. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 21 (2):305-306.score: 51.0
    We reinforce Thompson's points by providing a second example of the paradox that makes group selection appear counterintuitive and by discussing the wider implications of multilevel selection theory.
    Direct download (5 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  40. J. Philippe Rushton (1989). Genetic Similarity, Human Altruism, and Group Selection. Behavioral and Brain Sciences 12 (3):503.score: 51.0
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  41. Kennon M. Sheldon, Melanie Skaggs Sheldon & Richard Osbaldiston (2000). Prosocial Values and Group Assortation. Human Nature 11 (4):387-404.score: 51.0
    Ninety-five freshmen each recruited three peers to play a "group bidding game," an N-person prisoner’s dilemma in which anyone could win movie tickets depending on their scores in the game. Prior to playing, all participants completed a measure of prosocial value orientation. Replicating and extending earlier findings (Sheldon and McGregor 2000), our results show that prosocial participants were at a disadvantage within groups. Despite this vulnerability, prosocial participants did no worse overall than asocial participants because a counteracting group-level (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  42. Paul E. Smaldino (forthcoming). The Cultural Evolution of Emergent Group-Level Traits. Behavioral and Brain Sciences.score: 51.0
    Many of the most important properties of human groups – including properties that may give one group an evolutionary advantage over another – are properly defined only at the level of group organization. Yet at present, most work on the evolution of culture has focused solely on the transmission of individual-level traits. I propose a conceptual extension of the theory of cultural evolution, particularly related to the evolutionary competition between cultural groups. The key concept in this extension is (...)
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  43. Barbara Smuts (1999). Multilevel Selection, Cooperation, and Altruism. Human Nature 10 (3):311-327.score: 51.0
    Unto Others (Sober and Wilson 1998) shows how the general principles of Multi-Level Selection (MLS) theory apply to selection at multiple levels of the biological hierarchy. It also argues for the existence of "genuine" evolutionary and psychological altruism. The authors’ views on altruism do not follow logically from principles of MLS, and their failure do disentangle these two themes undermines their otherwise excellent presentation of MLS theory. Rebuttal of the view that human nature is completely selfish depends not (...)
    No categories
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  44. Robin Hanson, Adverse Selection In Group Insurance: The Virtues of Failing to Represent Voters.score: 48.0
    Compared with non-union workers, union workers take more of their compensation in the form of insurance. This may be because unions choose democratically, and democratic choice mitigates adverse selection in group insurance. Relative to individually-purchased insurance, we show that group insurance chosen by an ideal profit-maximizing employer can be worse for every employee, while group insurance chosen democratically can be much better. The reason is that democracy can fail to represent the preferences of almost half the (...)
    No categories
    Direct download  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  45. Elisabeth A. Lloyd (1986). Evaluation of Evidence in Group Selection Debates. PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association 1986:483 - 493.score: 48.0
    I address the controversy in evolutionary biology concerning which levels of biological entity (units) can and do undergo natural selection. I refine a definition of the unit of selection, first presented by William Wimsatt, that is grounded in the structure of natural selection models. I examine Elliott Sober's objection to this structural definition, the "homogeneous populations" problem; I find that neither the proposed definition nor Sober's own causal account can solve the problem. Sober, in his solution using (...)
    Direct download (2 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  46. Matthew Barrett & Peter Godfrey-smith (2002). Group Selection, Pluralism, and the Evolution of Altruism. [REVIEW] Philosophy and Phenomenological Research 65 (3):685–691.score: 45.0
  47. Ayelet Shavit (2004). Shifting Values Partly Explain the Debate Over Group Selection. Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C 35 (4):697-720.score: 45.0
  48. Doyne Dawson (1999). Evolutionary Theory and Group Selection: The Question of Warfare. History and Theory 38 (4):79–100.score: 45.0
  49. Joseph Heath (2002). The Robustness of Altruism as an Evolutionary Strategy. Biology and Philosophy 17 (4):567-590.score: 45.0
    Kin selection, reciprocity and group selection are widely regarded as evolutionary mechanisms capable of sustaining altruism among humans andother cooperative species. Our research indicates, however, that these mechanisms are only particular examples of a broader set of evolutionary possibilities.In this paper we present the results of a series of simple replicator simulations, run on variations of the 2–player prisoner's dilemma, designed to illustrate the wide range of scenarios under which altruism proves to be robust under evolutionary pressures. (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
  50. Alejandro Rosas (2007). Beyond the Sociobiological Dilemma: Social Emotions and the Evolution of Morality. Zygon 42 (3):685-700.score: 45.0
    Is morality biologically altruistic? Does it imply a disadvantage in the struggle for existence? A positive answer puts morality at odds with natural selection, unless natural selection operates at the level of groups. In this case, a trait that is good for groups though bad (reproductively) for individuals can evolve. Sociobiologists reject group selection and have adopted one of two horns of a dilemma. Either morality is based on an egoistic calculus, compatible with natural selection; (...)
    Direct download (4 more)  
     
    My bibliography  
     
    Export citation  
1 — 50 / 1000