actually, natural selection does occur at the level of species. it's just that the mechanism by which it works is, in a sense, at the level of the individual.
If anyone here has seen the movie "Idiocracy," you know just what De Sousa is referring to here. Where intelligence had once been an adaptive trait to individuals, it began to act as an inhibitor to rates of reproduction. The stupid people had all the kids and the smart people had fewer if any offspring. De Sousa is just pointing out that adaptive behaviors are those which proliferate a species and not necessarily those which help a species reach its "potential" or move it towards "happiness."
I am an evolutionary biologist and I'd just like to say that the person who uploaded this video gets it exactly right. You can read more in Richard Dawkins' book The Selfish Gene or the Extended Phenotype
If you have read it, and you think that the book posits that natural selection operates through host/environment interactions then you completely missed the point of the entire book. The entire thesis of the book is that NS operates exclusively at the genetic level! I mean, just read the synopsis of the book on wikipedia.
Wikipedia has its limit on accuracy. I have read the Selfish Gene. Richard Dawkins does say that gene selection does not directly take place through the interaction of the gene with the environment. That stage passed a long time ago. I have also heard him say later on that natural selection works at the organism level. He was criticizing biologists who where trying to muddle the line between natural selection and species extinction.
I have provided the title of a video below where Richard Dawkins, quite recently, explains that his book posits that natural selection occurs at the genetic level. Furthermore, he says, in this same video, that if he were to write it again he would not change it. People keep making claims about what Richard Dawkins thinks but I am the only one providing any evidence!
What can I say? You got me. I had a case of false memory. Richard Dawkins actually does say natural selection acts on the gene. He also said though, that it does not act directly, it acts through the gene-vehicle, the organism. I might be discussing semantics here. But would it not be more appropriate to say that natural selection acts directly on the gene-vehicle? After all the gene is insulated from nature. Although you could argue that the gene vehicle is also a product of nature....
...so you could say that natural selection is still acting on the gene. There is a theory that Jonathan Miller talks about. The gene vehicle, the body can be thought of as a self-regulated internal environment that resists change even though it exists in an external environment that is constantly changing. Why? To preserve the genes and pass it on. I have the link below:
In terms of natural selection acting on the genes through the gene vehicle, that is exactly right. In my first post on here I mentioned that genes are insulated from the environment; it is the gene's phenotypic effect (the effect that it has on the host) that interacts with nature, and natural selection "chooses" amongst phenotypic effects, thereby acting, although indirectly, at the genetic level, meaning that it is the gene's prospects of replicating that is essential. Kudos for he link.
Again, natural selection acts at the genetic level. Hosts do not display the conditions necessary for to be units of natural selection; namely longevity, fecundity and copying-fidelity. Evolution is the differential survival of genes, not hosts. A mutation may well benefit the organism, but it only needs to benefit the genes.I do wish you would read at least the third chapter of the Selfish Gene before you respond, as there is not enough room on here for me to address every objection you make.
Synopsis of the Selfish Gene from wikipedia: The Selfish Gene is a book on evolution by Richard Dawkins, published in 1976. It builds upon the principal theory of George C. Williams's first book Adaptation and Natural Selection. Dawkins coined the term selfish gene as a way of expressing the gene-centered view of evolution, which holds that evolution is best viewed as acting on genes and that selection at the level of organisms or populations almost never overrides selection based on genes.
Search "Richard Dawkins - The Selfish Gene - Meet the author" on youtube. The first video that comes up is the author himself, Richard Dawkins, explaining that his book posits that natural selection acts at the genetic level (by the way, he is one of the most respected evolutionary biologists in the world). Clearly you either lied about having read the book, or you read it and completely missed the point, which I find hard to believe because it is stated explicitly in the book many times.
Egad, now I have to modify my video description. I try and try very hard to not make these kinds of mistakes. It does not violate the spirit of the argument that I was trying to make.
There are times when the implicit interests of the vehicle and replicator are in conflict, such as the genes behind certain male spiders' instinctive mating behaviour, which increase the organism's inclusive fitness by allowing it to reproduce, but shorten its life by exposing it to the risk of being eaten by the cannibalistic female. Another good example is the existence of segregation distortion genes that are detrimental to their host but nonetheless propagate themselves at its expense.
These examples might suggest that there is a power-struggle between genes and their host. In fact, the claim is that there isn't much of a struggle because the genes usually win without a fight. Only if the organism becomes intelligent enough to understand its own interests, as distinct from those of its genes, can there be true conflict. An example of this would be a person deciding to use contraception, even though their genes lose out due to this decision.
Natural selection works at the genetic level. Although genes are not physically exposed to nature, their phenotypic effects are. Natural selection "chooses" amongst phenotypic effects, thereby selecting amongst genes (although somewhat indirectly). A gene need not be beneficial for the organism (vehicle), group or species; it only needs to benefit its own prospects for replication. I would suggest that anyone who is confused by this notion should read "The Selfish Gene" by Richard Dawkins.
matt: A gene need not be beneficial for the organism (vehicle), group or species; it only needs to benefit its own prospects for replication.
N: A gene or organism doesn't "need" or "want" anything. By saying "need" you imply it has a "will" or consciousness. Nope. It just "is." If it acquired a good mutation for its host, then it may survive; if a bad one, it exits the scene.
First of all, I never said that genes "want" anything. I said that a gene only needs to benefit its own prospects for replication in order to be "chosen" by natural selection. That is not an error or a personification. I am well aware that genes do not want anything.
You make an error when you say that if a mutation is good for the host it may survive. A mutation only needs to benefit the prospect of the gene's replication. Again, The Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins may clear up your confusion.
Nope, the genes are not directly exposed to the elements of nature. They are insulated by the gene vehicles they build. The gene-vehicles (bodies) are exposed directly to nature. So natural selection acts on them.
No because once again nature acts directly on the rabbit not its genes. It is through the rabbit that the survivability (or not) of certain genes get decided.
Sure but confusion like 'what's in it for the thumping rabbit?' arises without the genecentric viewpoint. Also genes' effects extend beyond the individual in 'extended phenotype' ways like beaver dams etc.
My dear friend, I am very sorry. I got it wrong. Richard Dawkins does think that natural selection acts at the level of the gene. And here is the video to prove it.
watch?v=ciFe8JmR-nY
While it is true that the gene vehicles are directly exposed to the elements, it does not therefore imply that the gene-vehicles are separate from nature. So yes natural selection does act on the gene, albeit indirectly through the gene-vehicles.
There seems to be a lot of confusion about group selection and individual selection.
Also I find it sort of ironic that the death of an individual can benefit the group such that the genetic trait that cause that individual to die is reinforced in the group. e.g. rabbits thumping their feet.
mattm1105 gave this example 'There are times when the implicit interests of the vehicle and replicator are in conflict, such as the genes behind certain male spiders' instinctive mating behaviour, which increase the organism's inclusive fitness by allowing it to reproduce, but shorten its life by exposing it to the risk of being eaten by the cannibalistic female.'
Just to make it clear about that example, I got it from the wikipedia page on The Selfish Gene, not my own example, and the book is filled with such examples. I would highly suggest it to anyone who finds this dialog interesting.
82abhilash, you state in your video description: "Natural selection works at the level of individual organism, not at the level of species or groups.", Perhaps I misunderstand your point but when you look at rabbits that thump their feet to draw the attention of the predator. I think Dawkins discussed this in one of his books but I can't remember his conclusion.
I don't remember his conclusion either. which book is it? But his explanation for altruism is usually kin selection. Rabbits in a group are mostly related to each other. And even if the rabbit that attracts attention gets eaten, the rest can escape and make more rabbits that can attract attention to themselves to save their kin.
I'll have a look later though my books to see if I can find it.
My point was that the altruistic action of an individual can be seen to benefit the group, which would seem to counter the positive selection of the individual (in this case) in favour of the group.
Superficially that is what it seems like. Yet if you look closely, altruism is a function that enhances the fitness of the individual. A fitness trait that can be passed on. If my altruism lets my kids survive and their altruism lets theirs and so on, we can conclude that the selfish genes that makes these altruistic individuals survive as well. They enhance the individual's capacity to reproduce, so thus enhancing their fitness.
"If my altruism lets my kids survive and their altruism lets theirs and so on". My point is that the benefit of this altruism isn't constrained to your offspring, it benefits the group.
We see countless examples of people sacrificing themselves for their people. 1 dies, a group sharing the same principles is saved. If it weren't for the might of western military power this would be true of Islam (frighteningly).
I am not sure how your last statement fits into all that. But what you have pointed out here is the lack of precision in evolved competencies and the consequences resulting from it. We must have lived in small groups for millions of years where people in a group are usually related. A crude, sacrifice yourself for anyone in your group instinct would have been enough. Civilization has been here only for a few thousand years. We cannot suddenly turn off these tendencies, evolution takes time.
Natual selection is not good for us because most species are now extinct?
He seems to miss the fundamental point that without natural selection ALL species would be extinct!
He confuses the global disasters such as meteor strikes and volcanic erruptions are not really part of natural selection because they are indiscriminate.
Natural selection doesn't guarantee a particular life goes on forever, just that a life form is possible in a given environment. After all the sun will eventually envelop all in 3-5 billion years.
I've not sufficient competence to take part in the individual/group selection quandary. Until recently I read Dawkins and Blackmore only. However in these days I'm reading "Global Brain", by Howard Bloom. He's a fierce supporter of group selection. No matter weather he's right or wrong his book is terrific. Extremely fascinating and ingenious.
Ok, but in this clip, the authenticity or the lack there of of 'group selection' is not the issue. Even scientists who believe in group selection agree that the natural selection occurs at the level of the organism, not groups, unless Howard Bloom says something else. All I have read of him is his article ,"REALITY IS A SHARED HALLUCINATION"
actually, natural selection does occur at the level of species. it's just that the mechanism by which it works is, in a sense, at the level of the individual.
m30wc0w 3 months ago
I don't see where he claimed anything to the contrary (it was, in fact, De Souza who first taught me about the gene-centered view).
He certainly wasn't endorsing group selection, just showing that even then the conflation of adaptiveness with happiness wouldn't follow.
happpybum 4 months ago
For some reason I find De Sousa reeeeeeeally irritating!!!
nowgleaning 8 months ago
If anyone here has seen the movie "Idiocracy," you know just what De Sousa is referring to here. Where intelligence had once been an adaptive trait to individuals, it began to act as an inhibitor to rates of reproduction. The stupid people had all the kids and the smart people had fewer if any offspring. De Sousa is just pointing out that adaptive behaviors are those which proliferate a species and not necessarily those which help a species reach its "potential" or move it towards "happiness."
PapaWilk 11 months ago 2
I am an evolutionary biologist and I'd just like to say that the person who uploaded this video gets it exactly right. You can read more in Richard Dawkins' book The Selfish Gene or the Extended Phenotype
darwinkilledgod 1 year ago
Why is there a "vs." on the title? They both agree on the subject.
eduardolima85 2 years ago 32
Oh, I believe that is Dan Dennett! -- lol, good eye=p
dplind87 2 years ago
do i see Dan Dennett in the crowd there?
nylonhead116 2 years ago 11
Yes. Besides Scott Atran.
82abhilash 2 years ago
@nylonhead116 can't miss that mans beard
VictorEchoNovember79 1 year ago
If you have read it, and you think that the book posits that natural selection operates through host/environment interactions then you completely missed the point of the entire book. The entire thesis of the book is that NS operates exclusively at the genetic level! I mean, just read the synopsis of the book on wikipedia.
mattm1105 3 years ago
Wikipedia has its limit on accuracy. I have read the Selfish Gene. Richard Dawkins does say that gene selection does not directly take place through the interaction of the gene with the environment. That stage passed a long time ago. I have also heard him say later on that natural selection works at the organism level. He was criticizing biologists who where trying to muddle the line between natural selection and species extinction.
venompangx 3 years ago
I have provided the title of a video below where Richard Dawkins, quite recently, explains that his book posits that natural selection occurs at the genetic level. Furthermore, he says, in this same video, that if he were to write it again he would not change it. People keep making claims about what Richard Dawkins thinks but I am the only one providing any evidence!
mattm1105 3 years ago
What can I say? You got me. I had a case of false memory. Richard Dawkins actually does say natural selection acts on the gene. He also said though, that it does not act directly, it acts through the gene-vehicle, the organism. I might be discussing semantics here. But would it not be more appropriate to say that natural selection acts directly on the gene-vehicle? After all the gene is insulated from nature. Although you could argue that the gene vehicle is also a product of nature....
venompangx 3 years ago
...so you could say that natural selection is still acting on the gene. There is a theory that Jonathan Miller talks about. The gene vehicle, the body can be thought of as a self-regulated internal environment that resists change even though it exists in an external environment that is constantly changing. Why? To preserve the genes and pass it on. I have the link below:
watch?v=uXg1p7vzrAY
venompangx 3 years ago
In terms of natural selection acting on the genes through the gene vehicle, that is exactly right. In my first post on here I mentioned that genes are insulated from the environment; it is the gene's phenotypic effect (the effect that it has on the host) that interacts with nature, and natural selection "chooses" amongst phenotypic effects, thereby acting, although indirectly, at the genetic level, meaning that it is the gene's prospects of replicating that is essential. Kudos for he link.
mattm1105 3 years ago
M: A mutation only needs to benefit the prospect of the gene's replication.
N; As I implied, and understand very well indeed, the gene's replication is more likely if its host is accidentally benefited by that gene.
nearenough3 3 years ago
Again, natural selection acts at the genetic level. Hosts do not display the conditions necessary for to be units of natural selection; namely longevity, fecundity and copying-fidelity. Evolution is the differential survival of genes, not hosts. A mutation may well benefit the organism, but it only needs to benefit the genes.I do wish you would read at least the third chapter of the Selfish Gene before you respond, as there is not enough room on here for me to address every objection you make.
mattm1105 3 years ago
I've read it. NS operates through host/environmental interaction, not directly on genes. You read it.
nearenough3 3 years ago
Synopsis of the Selfish Gene from wikipedia: The Selfish Gene is a book on evolution by Richard Dawkins, published in 1976. It builds upon the principal theory of George C. Williams's first book Adaptation and Natural Selection. Dawkins coined the term selfish gene as a way of expressing the gene-centered view of evolution, which holds that evolution is best viewed as acting on genes and that selection at the level of organisms or populations almost never overrides selection based on genes.
mattm1105 3 years ago
Search "Richard Dawkins - The Selfish Gene - Meet the author" on youtube. The first video that comes up is the author himself, Richard Dawkins, explaining that his book posits that natural selection acts at the genetic level (by the way, he is one of the most respected evolutionary biologists in the world). Clearly you either lied about having read the book, or you read it and completely missed the point, which I find hard to believe because it is stated explicitly in the book many times.
mattm1105 3 years ago
Bifurcation fallacy: I could have lied; I could have miissed the point; OrI could have disagreed and disagree now.
nearenough3 3 years ago
Egad, now I have to modify my video description. I try and try very hard to not make these kinds of mistakes. It does not violate the spirit of the argument that I was trying to make.
82abhilash 3 years ago
There are times when the implicit interests of the vehicle and replicator are in conflict, such as the genes behind certain male spiders' instinctive mating behaviour, which increase the organism's inclusive fitness by allowing it to reproduce, but shorten its life by exposing it to the risk of being eaten by the cannibalistic female. Another good example is the existence of segregation distortion genes that are detrimental to their host but nonetheless propagate themselves at its expense.
mattm1105 3 years ago
These examples might suggest that there is a power-struggle between genes and their host. In fact, the claim is that there isn't much of a struggle because the genes usually win without a fight. Only if the organism becomes intelligent enough to understand its own interests, as distinct from those of its genes, can there be true conflict. An example of this would be a person deciding to use contraception, even though their genes lose out due to this decision.
mattm1105 3 years ago
Natural selection works at the genetic level. Although genes are not physically exposed to nature, their phenotypic effects are. Natural selection "chooses" amongst phenotypic effects, thereby selecting amongst genes (although somewhat indirectly). A gene need not be beneficial for the organism (vehicle), group or species; it only needs to benefit its own prospects for replication. I would suggest that anyone who is confused by this notion should read "The Selfish Gene" by Richard Dawkins.
mattm1105 3 years ago
matt: A gene need not be beneficial for the organism (vehicle), group or species; it only needs to benefit its own prospects for replication.
N: A gene or organism doesn't "need" or "want" anything. By saying "need" you imply it has a "will" or consciousness. Nope. It just "is." If it acquired a good mutation for its host, then it may survive; if a bad one, it exits the scene.
nearenough3 3 years ago
First of all, I never said that genes "want" anything. I said that a gene only needs to benefit its own prospects for replication in order to be "chosen" by natural selection. That is not an error or a personification. I am well aware that genes do not want anything.
You make an error when you say that if a mutation is good for the host it may survive. A mutation only needs to benefit the prospect of the gene's replication. Again, The Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins may clear up your confusion.
mattm1105 3 years ago
He has put his comment below instead of replying to yours, you can pick it up from there, if you like.
82abhilash 3 years ago
The level of the gene, not the individual.
marchog 3 years ago
Nope, the genes are not directly exposed to the elements of nature. They are insulated by the gene vehicles they build. The gene-vehicles (bodies) are exposed directly to nature. So natural selection acts on them.
82abhilash 3 years ago
Copies of the genes for rabbit foot-thumping survive, the individual foot-thumper may be eaten. Is this not selection at gene level?
marchog 3 years ago
No because once again nature acts directly on the rabbit not its genes. It is through the rabbit that the survivability (or not) of certain genes get decided.
82abhilash 3 years ago
Sure but confusion like 'what's in it for the thumping rabbit?' arises without the genecentric viewpoint. Also genes' effects extend beyond the individual in 'extended phenotype' ways like beaver dams etc.
marchog 3 years ago
Agreed. Without the gene-centric view, evolution makes no sense. My only point was that natural selection works on he level of the gene-vehicles.
82abhilash 3 years ago
My dear friend, I am very sorry. I got it wrong. Richard Dawkins does think that natural selection acts at the level of the gene. And here is the video to prove it.
watch?v=ciFe8JmR-nY
While it is true that the gene vehicles are directly exposed to the elements, it does not therefore imply that the gene-vehicles are separate from nature. So yes natural selection does act on the gene, albeit indirectly through the gene-vehicles.
82abhilash 3 years ago
There seems to be a lot of confusion about group selection and individual selection.
Also I find it sort of ironic that the death of an individual can benefit the group such that the genetic trait that cause that individual to die is reinforced in the group. e.g. rabbits thumping their feet.
artyfarty2 2 years ago
mattm1105 gave this example 'There are times when the implicit interests of the vehicle and replicator are in conflict, such as the genes behind certain male spiders' instinctive mating behaviour, which increase the organism's inclusive fitness by allowing it to reproduce, but shorten its life by exposing it to the risk of being eaten by the cannibalistic female.'
82abhilash 3 years ago
Just to make it clear about that example, I got it from the wikipedia page on The Selfish Gene, not my own example, and the book is filled with such examples. I would highly suggest it to anyone who finds this dialog interesting.
mattm1105 3 years ago
82abhilash, you state in your video description: "Natural selection works at the level of individual organism, not at the level of species or groups.", Perhaps I misunderstand your point but when you look at rabbits that thump their feet to draw the attention of the predator. I think Dawkins discussed this in one of his books but I can't remember his conclusion.
artyfarty2 3 years ago
I don't remember his conclusion either. which book is it? But his explanation for altruism is usually kin selection. Rabbits in a group are mostly related to each other. And even if the rabbit that attracts attention gets eaten, the rest can escape and make more rabbits that can attract attention to themselves to save their kin.
82abhilash 3 years ago
I'll have a look later though my books to see if I can find it.
My point was that the altruistic action of an individual can be seen to benefit the group, which would seem to counter the positive selection of the individual (in this case) in favour of the group.
artyfarty2 3 years ago
Superficially that is what it seems like. Yet if you look closely, altruism is a function that enhances the fitness of the individual. A fitness trait that can be passed on. If my altruism lets my kids survive and their altruism lets theirs and so on, we can conclude that the selfish genes that makes these altruistic individuals survive as well. They enhance the individual's capacity to reproduce, so thus enhancing their fitness.
82abhilash 3 years ago
"If my altruism lets my kids survive and their altruism lets theirs and so on". My point is that the benefit of this altruism isn't constrained to your offspring, it benefits the group.
We see countless examples of people sacrificing themselves for their people. 1 dies, a group sharing the same principles is saved. If it weren't for the might of western military power this would be true of Islam (frighteningly).
artyfarty2 3 years ago
I am not sure how your last statement fits into all that. But what you have pointed out here is the lack of precision in evolved competencies and the consequences resulting from it. We must have lived in small groups for millions of years where people in a group are usually related. A crude, sacrifice yourself for anyone in your group instinct would have been enough. Civilization has been here only for a few thousand years. We cannot suddenly turn off these tendencies, evolution takes time.
82abhilash 3 years ago
Natual selection is not good for us because most species are now extinct?
He seems to miss the fundamental point that without natural selection ALL species would be extinct!
He confuses the global disasters such as meteor strikes and volcanic erruptions are not really part of natural selection because they are indiscriminate.
artyfarty2 3 years ago
I read something some where that said that about 95% of all life that ever excisted on this planet is all ready extinct.Thats kinda interesting.
flubno 3 years ago
Exactly!
pepper123 3 years ago
Natural selection doesn't guarantee a particular life goes on forever, just that a life form is possible in a given environment. After all the sun will eventually envelop all in 3-5 billion years.
nearenough3 3 years ago
Is that Dan Dennett on the right?
falsificationism 3 years ago
Dan Dennett is sitting beside Scott Atran.
82abhilash 3 years ago
It's Paul Churchland beside Ronnie.
Letranger 3 years ago
I've not sufficient competence to take part in the individual/group selection quandary. Until recently I read Dawkins and Blackmore only. However in these days I'm reading "Global Brain", by Howard Bloom. He's a fierce supporter of group selection. No matter weather he's right or wrong his book is terrific. Extremely fascinating and ingenious.
italianchappy 4 years ago
Ok, but in this clip, the authenticity or the lack there of of 'group selection' is not the issue. Even scientists who believe in group selection agree that the natural selection occurs at the level of the organism, not groups, unless Howard Bloom says something else. All I have read of him is his article ,"REALITY IS A SHARED HALLUCINATION"
82abhilash 4 years ago
What does he say about group selection ?
flubno 3 years ago
flubno, I can't in 500 words. Maybe here you can get a glimpse to his ideas:
roychristopher d o t com s l a s h howard-bloom-mind-at-large
italianchappy 3 years ago