More on the genetical theory of multilevel selection

Andy Gardner

doi:10.1111/jeb.12684

More on the genetical theory of multilevel selection

Research output: Contribution to journal › Comment/debate › peer-review

Abstract

In my article The genetical theory of multilevel selection, I provided a synthesis of the theory of multilevel selection (MLS) and the theory of natural selection in class-structured populations. I framed this synthesis within Fisher’s genetical paradigm, taking a strictly genetical approach to traits and fitness. I showed that this resolves a number of longstanding conceptual problems that have plagued the MLS literature, including the issues of “aggregate” versus “emergent” group traits, “collective-fitness1” versus “collective-fitness2” and “MLS1” versus “MLS2”. In his commentary, Goodnight suggests this theoretical and conceptual synthesis is flawed in several respects. Here, I show this is incorrect, by: reiterating the theoretical and conceptual goals of my synthesis; clarifying that my genetical approach to traits is necessary for a proper analysis of the action of MLS independently of non-Darwinian factors; emphasising that the Price-Hamilton approach to MLS is consistent, useful and conceptually superior; and explaining the role of reproductive value in the study of natural selection in class-structured populations.

Original language	English
Journal	Journal of Evolutionary Biology
Volume	Early view
Early online date	12 Aug 2015
DOIs	https://doi.org/10.1111/jeb.12684
Publication status	Published - 2015

Keywords

Breeding value
Cancer
Class structure
Contextual analysis
Group adaptation
Group selection
Haplodiploidy
Price equation
Reproductive value

UN SDGs

This output contributes to the following UN Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs)

Access to Document

10.1111/jeb.12684

ms
© 2015 European Society For Evolutionary Biology. This work is made available online in accordance with the publisher’s policies. This is the author created, accepted version manuscript following peer review and may differ slightly from the final published version. The final published version of this work is available at https://dx.doi.org/10.1111/jeb.12684. This article may be used for non-commercial purposes in accordance with Wiley Terms and Conditions for Self-Archiving.
Accepted author manuscript, 132 KB

NERC Fellowship: Understanding major transitions in individuality
Gardner, A. (PI)
NERC
31/03/14 → 30/04/22
Project: Standard

Cite this

@article{170394d1fcae40c88b33e3e4fc564bc3,

title = "More on the genetical theory of multilevel selection",

abstract = "In my article The genetical theory of multilevel selection, I provided a synthesis of the theory of multilevel selection (MLS) and the theory of natural selection in class-structured populations. I framed this synthesis within Fisher{\textquoteright}s genetical paradigm, taking a strictly genetical approach to traits and fitness. I showed that this resolves a number of longstanding conceptual problems that have plagued the MLS literature, including the issues of “aggregate” versus “emergent” group traits, “collective-fitness1” versus “collective-fitness2” and “MLS1” versus “MLS2”. In his commentary, Goodnight suggests this theoretical and conceptual synthesis is flawed in several respects. Here, I show this is incorrect, by: reiterating the theoretical and conceptual goals of my synthesis; clarifying that my genetical approach to traits is necessary for a proper analysis of the action of MLS independently of non-Darwinian factors; emphasising that the Price-Hamilton approach to MLS is consistent, useful and conceptually superior; and explaining the role of reproductive value in the study of natural selection in class-structured populations. ",

keywords = "Breeding value, Cancer, Class structure, Contextual analysis, Group adaptation, Group selection, Haplodiploidy, Price equation, Reproductive value",

author = "Andy Gardner",

note = "This study was supported by a Natural Environment Research Council Independent Research Fellowship (NE/K009524/1). ",

year = "2015",

doi = "10.1111/jeb.12684",

language = "English",

volume = "Early view",

journal = "Journal of Evolutionary Biology",

issn = "1010-061X",

publisher = "John Wiley & Sons, Ltd",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - More on the genetical theory of multilevel selection

AU - Gardner, Andy

N1 - This study was supported by a Natural Environment Research Council Independent Research Fellowship (NE/K009524/1).

PY - 2015

Y1 - 2015

N2 - In my article The genetical theory of multilevel selection, I provided a synthesis of the theory of multilevel selection (MLS) and the theory of natural selection in class-structured populations. I framed this synthesis within Fisher’s genetical paradigm, taking a strictly genetical approach to traits and fitness. I showed that this resolves a number of longstanding conceptual problems that have plagued the MLS literature, including the issues of “aggregate” versus “emergent” group traits, “collective-fitness1” versus “collective-fitness2” and “MLS1” versus “MLS2”. In his commentary, Goodnight suggests this theoretical and conceptual synthesis is flawed in several respects. Here, I show this is incorrect, by: reiterating the theoretical and conceptual goals of my synthesis; clarifying that my genetical approach to traits is necessary for a proper analysis of the action of MLS independently of non-Darwinian factors; emphasising that the Price-Hamilton approach to MLS is consistent, useful and conceptually superior; and explaining the role of reproductive value in the study of natural selection in class-structured populations.

AB - In my article The genetical theory of multilevel selection, I provided a synthesis of the theory of multilevel selection (MLS) and the theory of natural selection in class-structured populations. I framed this synthesis within Fisher’s genetical paradigm, taking a strictly genetical approach to traits and fitness. I showed that this resolves a number of longstanding conceptual problems that have plagued the MLS literature, including the issues of “aggregate” versus “emergent” group traits, “collective-fitness1” versus “collective-fitness2” and “MLS1” versus “MLS2”. In his commentary, Goodnight suggests this theoretical and conceptual synthesis is flawed in several respects. Here, I show this is incorrect, by: reiterating the theoretical and conceptual goals of my synthesis; clarifying that my genetical approach to traits is necessary for a proper analysis of the action of MLS independently of non-Darwinian factors; emphasising that the Price-Hamilton approach to MLS is consistent, useful and conceptually superior; and explaining the role of reproductive value in the study of natural selection in class-structured populations.

KW - Breeding value

KW - Cancer

KW - Class structure

KW - Contextual analysis

KW - Group adaptation

KW - Group selection

KW - Haplodiploidy

KW - Price equation

KW - Reproductive value

U2 - 10.1111/jeb.12684

DO - 10.1111/jeb.12684

M3 - Comment/debate

SN - 1010-061X

VL - Early view

JO - Journal of Evolutionary Biology

JF - Journal of Evolutionary Biology

ER -

More on the genetical theory of multilevel selection

Abstract

Keywords

UN SDGs

Access to Document

Fingerprint

Projects

NERC Fellowship: Understanding major transitions in individuality

Cite this