In “The Descent of Edward Wilson,” (June), Richard Dawkins reviewed the latest book by the renowned biologist, concluding that its “theoretical errors are important, pervasive, and integral to its thesis in a way that renders it impossible to recommend.” The article received more responses than any in Prospect’s history. To read the debate in full, see the comments section of Dawkins's article here
Hamilton’s rule [a formula specifying the conditions under which reproductive altruism evolves] is fine as a rule of thumb. But if you look into the maths rigorously it doesn’t work properly. Dawkins is no mathematician and doesn’t understand this, but this seminal paper went through a completely rigorous peer review. Many biologists didn’t like the results but no-one has refuted them. An obvious non-mathematical counterexample to Dawkins’s assertion that “Group selection would imply that a group does something equivalent to surviving or dying” is the fact that groups can be defined by cultural ties. If members of a group share a common language which allows them to communicate and hence fight or forage more effectively they will survive better than a group that doesn’t (other things being equal). The ability to learn a language has a genetic basis, but the particular language that you learn doesn’t. Nicholas Beale, Sciteb London
I can understand Richard Dawkins getting hot under the collar on the subject of evolution. But he does not have an exclusive right to the subject, and to ridicule a fellow noted academic as forcefully as he does makes him seem like the sort of ranting ideologue that he usually campaigns against. He does not actually explain why he feels that Wilson’s interpretation is dangerous. What is the consequence of Wilson’s supposed inappropriate use of group selection? Does it endanger the theory of evolution itself? Dawkins does not tell us. Marina Khilkoff-Boulding Dallington
I find it stunning that people like Dawkins have no respect for biology as an experimental science. Nowhere in his article do I see mention of the extensive experimental work on multi-level selection. Group selection has been shown to work in plants, insects, chickens, and hogs. The theory is well developed, and has been tested in some detail, with experiments being published as early as 1976. We know why group selection works, and why the old models incorrectly predict that it doesn’t work. None of this is in there. Instead he makes a false argument by referring to authority. That includes a large number of people who have made their name based on additive theory. None are scientists who have made a name doing experimental research on structured populations. Why aren’t Wade, Goodnight, Muir, Bijma, Weinig, Okasha, Eldakar mentioned? These are the people who actually have data. Charles Goodnight
I’m not a biologist, but Dawkins makes an inference that I’ve never quite found convincing. I agree that “Evolution results from the differential survival of genes in gene pools.” I’m less clear on why he insists that we equate the gene pool with the individual organism. Even taking for granted that most selection happens at the level of individual organisms, it is easy to imagine scenarios where the survival of genes might depend on their frequency in the organism’s background population. It is entirely plausible that testable hypotheses could be made that view the organism’s population, rather than the individual organism, as the relevant “gene pool” in which gene frequencies are measured. It isn’t unreasonable then to ask whether the frequency of certain genes in a population-level gene pool could affect the overall number of organisms in the population. Nor would it be unreasonable to ask if the presence of certain genes affects one group’s survival relative to others of the same species. I’ve read Wilson’s book, and it was extremely disappointing to find him such a poor advocate for his own ideas. His rejection of kin selection, rather than integrating it into the larger point he wants to make, is unfortunate. Anthony K
Neo-Darwinians like Dawkins would misguide you into believing that natural selection is synonymous with evolution. This is misguided, dogmatic and vulgar science. Darwin wrote in September 1860 that if he started again he would have called the mechanism “natural preservation,” because nature preserves (from random variations), and it is more accurate to think of genes as “units of preservation.” To call them “units of selection” is a mistake. Genes are part of the process of evolution, an important part, but for Dawkins they have become the “purpose.” Mark Cowan
Dawkins’s gene-centered view is less Darwinian than the multi-level selection view advocated now by Wilson. Dawkins’s entire argument is founded on the notion that the level at which you find the highest fidelity in replication is the only level at which natural selection acts and influences evolution. This claim simply does not hold water. Consider the literature on the evolution of mutation rate. Clearly natural selection cannot work at all on a population of perfect replicators without mutation, because there would be no variation to work with. There must be enough mutation to create variation, which inherently diminishes the perfection of replication at the gene level. So natural selection requires imperfect replication, and different levels of biological organisation exhibit a wide variety of replicator perfection (mutation rates and heritabilities, for example). I think this leads naturally to the notion of multi-level selection theory, and it seems inconsistent with centring so strongly on the gene level. Guy Hoelzer
Richard Dawkins’s article reinforces my impression that a youthful epiphany by the preternaturally clever becomes increasingly dogmatic with age. Too much invested. I have always admired Wilson’s tenacity and courage in the face of quite ferocious neo-Lyshenkoism. Stuart Mathieson
Hamilton’s rule [a formula specifying the conditions under which reproductive altruism evolves] is fine as a rule of thumb. But if you look into the maths rigorously it doesn’t work properly. Dawkins is no mathematician and doesn’t understand this, but this seminal paper went through a completely rigorous peer review. Many biologists didn’t like the results but no-one has refuted them. An obvious non-mathematical counterexample to Dawkins’s assertion that “Group selection would imply that a group does something equivalent to surviving or dying” is the fact that groups can be defined by cultural ties. If members of a group share a common language which allows them to communicate and hence fight or forage more effectively they will survive better than a group that doesn’t (other things being equal). The ability to learn a language has a genetic basis, but the particular language that you learn doesn’t. Nicholas Beale, Sciteb London
I can understand Richard Dawkins getting hot under the collar on the subject of evolution. But he does not have an exclusive right to the subject, and to ridicule a fellow noted academic as forcefully as he does makes him seem like the sort of ranting ideologue that he usually campaigns against. He does not actually explain why he feels that Wilson’s interpretation is dangerous. What is the consequence of Wilson’s supposed inappropriate use of group selection? Does it endanger the theory of evolution itself? Dawkins does not tell us. Marina Khilkoff-Boulding Dallington
I find it stunning that people like Dawkins have no respect for biology as an experimental science. Nowhere in his article do I see mention of the extensive experimental work on multi-level selection. Group selection has been shown to work in plants, insects, chickens, and hogs. The theory is well developed, and has been tested in some detail, with experiments being published as early as 1976. We know why group selection works, and why the old models incorrectly predict that it doesn’t work. None of this is in there. Instead he makes a false argument by referring to authority. That includes a large number of people who have made their name based on additive theory. None are scientists who have made a name doing experimental research on structured populations. Why aren’t Wade, Goodnight, Muir, Bijma, Weinig, Okasha, Eldakar mentioned? These are the people who actually have data. Charles Goodnight
I’m not a biologist, but Dawkins makes an inference that I’ve never quite found convincing. I agree that “Evolution results from the differential survival of genes in gene pools.” I’m less clear on why he insists that we equate the gene pool with the individual organism. Even taking for granted that most selection happens at the level of individual organisms, it is easy to imagine scenarios where the survival of genes might depend on their frequency in the organism’s background population. It is entirely plausible that testable hypotheses could be made that view the organism’s population, rather than the individual organism, as the relevant “gene pool” in which gene frequencies are measured. It isn’t unreasonable then to ask whether the frequency of certain genes in a population-level gene pool could affect the overall number of organisms in the population. Nor would it be unreasonable to ask if the presence of certain genes affects one group’s survival relative to others of the same species. I’ve read Wilson’s book, and it was extremely disappointing to find him such a poor advocate for his own ideas. His rejection of kin selection, rather than integrating it into the larger point he wants to make, is unfortunate. Anthony K
Neo-Darwinians like Dawkins would misguide you into believing that natural selection is synonymous with evolution. This is misguided, dogmatic and vulgar science. Darwin wrote in September 1860 that if he started again he would have called the mechanism “natural preservation,” because nature preserves (from random variations), and it is more accurate to think of genes as “units of preservation.” To call them “units of selection” is a mistake. Genes are part of the process of evolution, an important part, but for Dawkins they have become the “purpose.” Mark Cowan
Dawkins’s gene-centered view is less Darwinian than the multi-level selection view advocated now by Wilson. Dawkins’s entire argument is founded on the notion that the level at which you find the highest fidelity in replication is the only level at which natural selection acts and influences evolution. This claim simply does not hold water. Consider the literature on the evolution of mutation rate. Clearly natural selection cannot work at all on a population of perfect replicators without mutation, because there would be no variation to work with. There must be enough mutation to create variation, which inherently diminishes the perfection of replication at the gene level. So natural selection requires imperfect replication, and different levels of biological organisation exhibit a wide variety of replicator perfection (mutation rates and heritabilities, for example). I think this leads naturally to the notion of multi-level selection theory, and it seems inconsistent with centring so strongly on the gene level. Guy Hoelzer
Richard Dawkins’s article reinforces my impression that a youthful epiphany by the preternaturally clever becomes increasingly dogmatic with age. Too much invested. I have always admired Wilson’s tenacity and courage in the face of quite ferocious neo-Lyshenkoism. Stuart Mathieson
