Book Review: The Gene's-Eye View of Evolution

AI Thread Summary
Arvid Ågren's 2021 book, "The Gene's-Eye View of Evolution," explores population genetics through the lens of selfish gene theory, building on Richard Dawkins' foundational work. The book dissects key arguments in the field, providing historical context without heavy mathematical content, making it accessible to those familiar with molecular biology. It contrasts the gene-eye view with inclusive fitness, demonstrating that both approaches yield similar results in explaining evolutionary phenomena, such as the behavior of sterile worker bees. The discussion raises philosophical questions about the implications of using "selfish" to describe genetic behavior, suggesting it may mislead regarding teleological interpretations of evolution. Overall, the book is recommended for its clarity and depth in addressing complex evolutionary concepts.
BillTre
Science Advisor
Gold Member
2024 Award
Messages
2,670
Reaction score
11,538
The Gene's-Eye View of Evolution.

New book by Arvid Ågren (2021), reviews the field of population genetics that is involved with selfish gene kind of thinking (The Selfish Gene, Dawkins, 1976).
It breaks down the big arguments into smaller parts and analyses them.
Lots of references, but not very mathematical.
It also provides an interesting history of how the field as well as the people in it developed over time.

I consider this to be a really well written book. I recommend it.
It probably helps if you already understand some molecular biology/genetics and selfish gene terminology. I feel fairly adept with these concepts and read the book, in a fairly detailed way, in 3-4 days.

Some of the main subjects are:
  1. What is the philosophical basis of the gene-eye view (Ågren's toned down name for selfish genes)? Is it an observation of what is happening or is a description the process that directs evolution?
  2. How does a gene-eye view (selection determined based on considering what benefits a particular gene) compare to inclusive fitness (besides fitness based on a single organism's direct fitness, also count fitness derived from benefiting copies of your genes in other individuals (the altruistic aspect)).
    These approaches have been shown to give the same results. Either way can be used on a particular problem. However, in different situations one or the other is easier to use.
    These approaches provide explanations for situations like social insects. How do sterile worker bees (either individuals or their genes) benefit from their efforts in helping the hive to be successful?
    This can be explained either by selfish self-interest of a bee's many genes, or by the benefits a worker gets (passing its genes on to the next generation, through the closely related breeding queen).
  3. A contentious issue in this field is that they use the term selfish, implying an decision making ability with respect to future evolution. This obviously stupid, but it is used as a shorhand explanation for particular genetic elements increasing in the population because of their survival (or persistence) characteristics (which have the appearance of selfish acts). Some would say selfish in this way is, because it Incorrectly implies teleology choices where there are none.
  4. Replicators and Vehicles (or Interactors) in the evolutionary process; genes are considered the replicator ((the replicating elements being passed on) vs. the thing that carries them through the generations, the vehicle. Dawkins likes vehicle, Hull (a theoretical/philosophical biologist who likes the gene-eye view) prefers interactor. Dawkins related the vehicle to the whole organism and wanted to reduce the influence whole organism fitness in evolution. Hull wanted to more emphasize the importance of organisms (in evolutionary studies, something I like).
  5. The gene-eye view also produced a different way to think about the environment with respect to evolution. When considering a single potentially selfish gene, its environment is everything else (outside the organism (non-animated as well as other organisms), as well as other things inside the organisms (usually other genes and alleles in this discussion).
  6. Many selfish gene situations have been identified, but only in sexually breeding populations, where genetic conflicts between the interest of the whole organism and particular internal replicators can arise.
There is also a Sean Carroll padcast interview with the author (#185), which is how I heard about the book and decided to buy it.
 
  • Like
  • Informative
Likes Klystron, jim mcnamara, pinball1970 and 1 other person
Biology news on Phys.org
Before Dawkins published "Selfish Gene", I had learned the term 'species specific behavior' from B.F. Skinner and associates IIRC and from anthropologists. The actions of sterile worker bees and soldier ants promote and enhance survival of their group. Young male humans and other primates even before reproducing defend the family group from threats. Examples abound.

Jane Goodall employed similar terminology in her books comparing cape dog society with baboon.
 
Deadly cattle screwworm parasite found in US patient. What to know. https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/health/2025/08/25/new-world-screwworm-human-case/85813010007/ Exclusive: U.S. confirms nation's first travel-associated human screwworm case connected to Central American outbreak https://www.reuters.com/business/environment/us-confirms-nations-first-travel-associated-human-screwworm-case-connected-2025-08-25/...
Chagas disease, long considered only a threat abroad, is established in California and the Southern U.S. According to articles in the Los Angeles Times, "Chagas disease, long considered only a threat abroad, is established in California and the Southern U.S.", and "Kissing bugs bring deadly disease to California". LA Times requires a subscription. Related article -...
I am reading Nicholas Wade's book A Troublesome Inheritance. Please let's not make this thread a critique about the merits or demerits of the book. This thread is my attempt to understanding the evidence that Natural Selection in the human genome was recent and regional. On Page 103 of A Troublesome Inheritance, Wade writes the following: "The regional nature of selection was first made evident in a genomewide scan undertaken by Jonathan Pritchard, a population geneticist at the...
Back
Top