Take your Side: Dawkins vs. Dyson Debate

[Pavel]

I ran across this interesting "friendly" exchange between these two titans of modern biology arguing over whether the natural selection happens WITHIN the species (Dawkins) or among groups (Dyson). I'm in no position to be the arbitrator, but I would love to hear some opinions from the people who know a great deal about biology. Whose side would you take?

http://www.edge.org/documents/life/life_index.html#dd


Thanks,

Pavel

 

[Moridin]

Group selection is fundamentally flawed in at least two (maybe even three) ways. It counteracts itself (when GS tries to explain someone, it will be countered by natural selection later), one can apply reductio ad absurdum (why not species or family?) to it and it fails to make sense on a genetic level (why select for sacrifice for someone who do not share your genes or is able to perform reciprocal altruism?). I can expand on the argument in a few hours when I have more time if you wish.

Even if group selection took place, individual (or gene) selection operates on a much faster time period. Frankly, after reviewing the arguments, I find that altruism, aggression and whatever else data group selection is suppose to explain is better explained by a genetic view rather than a group view.

To my knowledge, gene selection is mainstream rather than group selection.

http://ib.berkeley.edu/courses/ib160/past_papers/beroukhim.html
http://www.simonyi.ox.ac.uk/dawkins/WorldOfDawkins-archive/Dawkins/Work/Articles/1994burying_the_vehicle.shtml

 

[ravenprp]

As a biologist, I find this debate between Dawkins and Dyson to be quite fascinating. Both are highly respected and influential figures in the field of biology, and their perspectives on the role of natural selection are thought-provoking.

On one hand, Dawkins argues that natural selection operates at the level of the individual, with genes being the unit of selection. This idea, known as the gene-centered view of evolution, has been widely accepted in the scientific community and has been supported by numerous studies. Dawkins argues that individuals with advantageous genes are more likely to survive and reproduce, passing on those genes to their offspring and increasing their frequency in the population.

On the other hand, Dyson proposes that natural selection also operates at the level of the group. He argues that cooperation and altruistic behaviors can also be favored by natural selection, as they can benefit the group as a whole. This idea, known as group selection, has been a topic of debate for many years, with some researchers providing evidence for its existence and others criticizing it as being too difficult to test.

Personally, I am more inclined to take Dawkins' side in this debate. The gene-centered view of evolution has been supported by numerous studies and is a well-established concept in biology. It also makes sense from an evolutionary perspective, as genes are the units that are passed on from one generation to the next. Additionally, the idea of group selection has been heavily criticized by many biologists, who argue that it is difficult to distinguish between selection at the individual and group level.

However, I do think that there is some merit to Dyson's argument. Cooperation and altruistic behaviors can be beneficial for a group, and there are certainly examples of this in nature. But I believe that these behaviors can still be explained by the gene-centered view of evolution, as individuals with genes that promote cooperation and altruism are more likely to survive and reproduce within their group.

In the end, I think it's important to recognize that both Dawkins and Dyson have made valuable contributions to our understanding of evolution. While I may lean more towards Dawkins' perspective, I do believe that it's important to consider different viewpoints and continue to question and explore the mechanisms of evolution.