Skip to main content
Log in

The gene’s-eye view, major transitions and the formal darwinism project

  • Published:
Biology & Philosophy Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Abstract

I argue that Grafen’s formal darwinism project could profitably incorporate a gene’s-eye view, as informed by the major transitions framework. In this, instead of the individual being assumed to maximise its inclusive fitness, genes are assumed to maximise their inclusive fitness. Maximisation of fitness at the individual level is not a straightforward concept because the major transitions framework shows that there are several kinds of biological individual. In addition, individuals have a definable fitness, exhibit individual-level adaptations and arise in a major transition, only to the extent that the inclusive-fitness interests of genes within them coincide. Therefore, as others have suggested, the fundamental level at which fitness is maximised is the gene level. Previous reconciliations of the concepts of gene-level fitness and individual-level fitness implicitly recognise this point. Adaptations always maximise the fitness of their causative genes, but may be simple or complex. Simple adaptations may be controlled by single genes and be maladaptive at higher levels, whereas complex adaptations are controlled by multiple genes and rely on those genes having coinciding fitness interests at a higher level, for a given trait.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Institutional subscriptions

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Beekman M, Ratnieks FLW (2003) Power over reproduction in social Hymenoptera. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B 358:1741–1753

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Boomsma JJ (2009) Lifetime monogamy and the evolution of eusociality. Philos Trans R Soc B 364:3191–3207

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Bourke AFG (2011) Principles of social evolution. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Bourke AFG, Franks NR (1995) Social evolution in ants. Princeton University Press, Princeton

    Google Scholar 

  • Burt A, Trivers R (2006) Genes in conflict: the biology of selfish genetic elements. The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MA

    Google Scholar 

  • Buss LW (1987) The evolution of individuality. Princeton University Press, Princeton

    Google Scholar 

  • Calcott B, Sterelny K (eds) (2011) The major transitions in evolution revisited. The MIT Press, Cambridge, MA

    Google Scholar 

  • Cosmides LM, Tooby J (1981) Cytoplasmic inheritance and intragenomic conflict. J Theor Biol 89:83–129

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dawkins R (1976) The selfish gene. Oxford University Press, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Dawkins R (1982) The extended phenotype. W. H. Freeman, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Gardner A (2009) Adaptation as organism design. Biol Lett 5:861–864

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gardner A, Grafen A (2009) Capturing the superorganism: a formal theory of group adaptation. J Evol Biol 22:659–671

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gardner A, Welch JJ (2011) A formal theory of the selfish gene. J Evol Biol 24:1801–1813

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grafen A (2006) Optimization of inclusive fitness. J Theor Biol 238:541–563

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Grafen A (2014) The formal darwinism project in outline. Biol Philos 29(2). doi:10.1007/s10539-013-9414-y

  • Haig D (1997) The social gene. In: Krebs JR, Davies NB (eds) Behavioural ecology: an evolutionary approach, 4th edn. Blackwell Science Ltd, Oxford, pp 284–304

    Google Scholar 

  • Haig D (2012) The strategic gene. Biol Philos 27:461–479

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hamilton WD (1963) The evolution of altruistic behavior. Am Nat 97:354–356

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Leigh EG (1977) How does selection reconcile individual advantage with the good of the group? Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 74:4542–4546

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maynard Smith J, Szathmáry E (1995) The major transitions in evolution. W. H. Freeman, Oxford

    Google Scholar 

  • Michod RE (2000) Darwinian dynamics: evolutionary transitions in fitness and individuality. Princeton University Press, Princeton

    Google Scholar 

  • Michod RE (2005) On the transfer of fitness from the cell to the multicellular organism. Biol Philos 20:967–987

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Okasha S (2006) Evolution and the levels of selection. Clarendon Press, Oxford

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Okasha S, Paternotte C (2012) Group adaptation, formal darwinism and contextual analysis. J Evol Biol 25:1127–1139

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Queller DC (2000) Relatedness and the fraternal major transitions. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B 355:1647–1655

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Queller DC, Strassmann JE (2009) Beyond society: the evolution of organismality. Philos Trans R Soc B 364:3143–3155

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ratnieks FLW (1988) Reproductive harmony via mutual policing by workers in eusocial Hymenoptera. Am Nat 132:217–236

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ratnieks FLW, Reeve HK (1992) Conflict in single-queen Hymenopteran societies: the structure of conflict and processes that reduce conflict in advanced eusocial species. J Theor Biol 158:33–65

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Ratnieks FLW, Foster KR, Wenseleers T (2006) Conflict resolution in insect societies. Annu Rev Entomol 51:581–608

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Seeley TD (1997) Honey bee colonies are group-level adaptive units. Am Nat 150:S22–S41

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Trivers RL, Hare H (1976) Haplodiploidy and the evolution of the social insects. Science 191:249–263

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • West SA, Kiers ET (2009) Evolution: what is an organism? Curr Biol 19:R1080–R1082

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Williams GC (1966) Adaptation and natural selection. Princeton University Press, Princeton

    Google Scholar 

  • Williams GC (1992) Natural selection: domains, levels, and challenges. Oxford University Press, New York

    Google Scholar 

  • Woyciechowski M, Kuszewska K (2012) Swarming generates rebel workers in honeybees. Curr Biol 22:707–711

    Article  Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Andrew F. G. Bourke.

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Bourke, A.F.G. The gene’s-eye view, major transitions and the formal darwinism project. Biol Philos 29, 241–248 (2014). https://doi.org/10.1007/s10539-013-9422-y

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10539-013-9422-y

Keywords

Navigation