-
Darwin - Origin of Species
Darwin postulates on potential selection benefit to related organisms -
Fisher - Genetical Theory of Natural Selection
earliest mathematically formal treatment of kin selection -
Haldane - The Causes of Evolution
fully grasped the basic quantities and considerations in kin selection -
Wynne-Edwards - Animal Dispersion in Relation to Social Behavior
he argued that many behaviors are adaptations of the group, rather than adaptations of the individual, and that populations have adaptive self-regulatory mechanisms. His arguments were vigorously criticised by George C. Williams in his Adaptation and Natural Selection, as well as by Richard Dawkins in The Selfish Gene. -
Hamilton - The Genetical Evolution of Social Behavior
Hamilton's Rule - a mathematical basis for inclusive fitness. C<rB. -
John Maynard Smith coins term "Kin Selection"
"These processes I will call kin selection and group selection respectively. Kin selection has been discussed by Haldane and by Hamilton. … By kin selection I mean the evolution of characteristics which favour the survival of close relatives of the affected individual, by processes which do not require any discontinuities in the population breeding structure." -
GC Williams - Adaptation and Natural Selection
Williams responds to Wynne-Edwards, characterizing his argument as one for gene-level selection, and presenting a limited definition of group selection and conditions under which the theory could be proved. -
Price Equation
"If a certain inheritable characteristic is correlated with an increase in fractional fitness, the average value of that characteristic in the child population will be increased over that in the parent population." Considered an exact formulation of selection processes. Price attempted to disprove Hamilton's rule be rederived it. -
Lewontin - Units of Selection
another milestone for kin selection's impending dominance -
EO Wilson - Group Selection and Its Significance for Ecology
Wilson justifies group theory but discredits it as a model for altruism -
Hamilton - . Innate social aptitudes of man: anapproach from evolutionary genetics
Hamilton first hypothesizes the theories are formally equivalent -
DS Wilson - A Theory of Group Selection
DS Wilson provides early model arguing for validity of group selection: "In any case , the traditional concepts of group and individual selection appear to be two extremes of a continuum, with systems in nature operating in the interval in between." -
Dawkins - The Selfish Gene
A populist text espousing inclusive fitness as the unifying mathematical framework of evolution. Claims to discredit any other theory of selection -
Wade - A critical Review of the Models of Group Selection
First comprehensive review calling for reevaluation of kin selection as dominant selection theory as opposed to group selection -
Dawkins - 12 Misunderstandings of Kin Selection
Dawkins refutes all criticism of kin selection -
Uyenoyama & Feldman - Theories of Kin and Group Selection
Comprehensive review of the opposing mathematical theories to date -
Dawkins - The Extended Phenotype
More posturing from Dawkins - "since selection operates at the genic rather than at the individual level, the nature of kin selection and inclusive fitness must be addressed at the genic level" -
Queller - Quantitative Genetics, Inclusive Fitness, and Group Selection
Queller uses the Price equation to derive an equivalence of group selection and inclusive fitness. This paper is widely cited in the subsequent 15 years. -
Kerr - What is Altruism?
Kerr uses a trait-group framework to show that different configurations of cost/benefit result in varied definitions and units of altruism (including both kin selection and group selection) -
Borello - Rise, Fall, Resurrection of Group Selection
Review -
Van Veelen - On the use of the Price equation
This paper distinguishes two categories of questions that the Price equation can help us
answer. These disciplines are probability theory on the
one hand and statistical inference on the other. In the literature on the Price equation this
distinction is not made. -
Jansen & Van Baalen - Altruism through beard chromodynamics
A formal model of the green beard theory gives credence to altruism tag markers without consideration for kin recognition/selection -
Traulsen & Nowak - Evolution of cooperation by multilevel selection
We propose a minimalist stochastic model of multilevel (or group)selection.In our model, higher-level selectionemerges as a byproduct of individual reproduction and populationstructure. We derive a fundamental condition for the evolution ofcooperation by group selection: ifbc>1nm, then groupselection favors cooperation. -
West - Social Semantics: altruism, cooperation, etc
West attempts to discuss the semantic subtleties of the debate and clarify definitions of specific terms -
Taylor & Nowak - Transforming the Dilemma
Prisoner's dilemma formulated 5 ways depending on selection type, review and distinguish btwn kin selection and group selection -
Van Veelen - Hamilton's Missing Link
This note provides a condition under which Hamilton's rule does not follow from his central result -
Gardner & West - Rise & Fall of Kin Recognition
casts doubt on Kin recognition as a method for kin selection -
DS Wilson - Social Semantics: towards a genuine pluralism
" A recent article by West et al. [Journal of Evolutionary Biology (2007) vol. 20, 415–432] attempts to classify the many equivalent frameworks that have been developed to study the evolution of social behaviour. This article addresses shortcomings in the West et al.’s article, especially with respect to multilevel selection, in a common effort to maximize the benefits of pluralism while minimizing the semantic costs." -
West - Social Semantics: How useful has group selection been?
In response to Wilson's claims of errors: "More generally, kin selection theory allows the construction of a unified conceptual overview that can be applied across all taxa, whereas there is no formal theory of group selection. " -
Wilson & Wilson - Rethinking the Theoretical Foundation of Sociobiology
review -
Van Veelen - Group selection, kin selection, altruism and cooperation: when inclusive fitness is right and when it can be wrong
this paper contains a result that states that inclusive fitness correctly predicts the direction of selection for one class of models, represented by linear public goods games. Equally important is that this result has a flip side: there is a more general, but still very realistic class of models, including models with synergies, for which it is not possible to summarize their predictions on the basis of an evaluation of inclusive fitness. -
Traulsen - Mathematics of kin‐ and group‐selection: Formally equivalent?
Traulsen reviews the respective claims that inclusive fitness and group selection are formally equivalent or not, and concludes: Here, it is argued that this equivalence is in fact only found in special cases and that we are not facing a purely semantic question. In the following, three points are addressed that pinpoint differences between the two frameworks. -
Nowak, Tarnita, EO Wilson (NTW) -The Evolution of Eusociality
Biblical throwdown by Nowak et al claiming inclusive fitness theory is incomplete and that multi-level selection (modern group selection) theory is the most complete -
Marshall - Queller's rule ok: Comment on van Veelen 'when inclusive fitness is right and when it can be wrong'.
Marshall contests Van Veelen's result about Queller's rule, claims inclusive fitness and group selection are formally equivalent -
Van Veelen - A rule is not a rule if it changes from case to case (reply to Marshall's comment)
"even though inclusive fitness does not provide a generally correct prediction, i am not at all implying that i think inclusive fitness is useless". -
120 Authors - Inclusive Fitness Theory and Eusociality
An appeal to authority attempts to disrepute NTW assertions -
Nowak et al. reply
Fresh rebuttal to the appeal to authority laying out the misrepresentations of the earlier Nowak & Wilson paper in 2010 -
Marshall - Group selection and kin selection: formally equivalent approaches
. The mathematical equivalence of these two approaches has long been known. Yet, the problems have already been identified and resolved in the literature. Here, I survey these contemporary objections, and examine them in the light of current understanding of inclusive fitness theory. -
Van Veelen et al - Group selection and inclusive fitness are not equivalent; the Price equation vs. models and statistics
It is often suggested that any group selection model can be recast in terms of inclusive
fitness. The non-equivalence of group selection and kin selection is therefore not only an important finding in itself, but also a case where the use of the Price equation leads to a claim that is not correct. -
Gentis - Clash of the Titans/Social Conquest of Eart
review -
Dawkins - "Review" of Nowak & Wilson paper
Dawkins sharply criticizes the notion that the "selfish gene" is becoming a dated concept in genetics, makes personal attacks -
Allen, Nowak, Wilson - Limitations of Inclusive Fitness
A comprehensive overview of the mathematical issues with inclusive fitness theory. -
Luo - A unifying framework reveals key properties of multilevel selection
A simple model which provides a mathematical framework for multilevel selection -
Van Veelen, Luo, Simon - A simple model of group selection that cannot be analyzed with inclusive fitness
Van Veelen extends Luo's model explicitly to a scenario in which inclusive fitness cannot analyze dynamics -
Birch & Okasha - Kin selection and it's critics
the crux: "people disagree because they are actually talking about different versions of Hamilton's rule" -
Queller - Review of JAR Marshall book
A defense of JAR's bible on inclusive fitness (same old Queller) -
Liao, Rong, Queller (LRC) - Relatedness, Conflict, and the Evolution of Eusociality
LRC formulate NTW to apparently support inclusive fitness theopry. They contest the suggestion that inclusive fitness is not a robust theory. -
Nowak, Allen - Inclusive Fitness Theorizing Invokes Phenomena That are Not Relevant for the Evolution of Eusociality
This paper breaks down the failed response by LRQ to address the criticism of inclusive fitness prsented by NTW -
LRQ - Some Agreement on Kin Selection and Eusociality?
LRQ reframe the argument after Nowak's latest response - claiming they only mean to show that "high relatedness" is required for evolution of eusociality. quote: "it would require admitting that what we have learned about eusociality from kin selection models still stands, and that the NTW models, depsite their much greater complexity, have so far added little more." -
JAR Marshall - Social Evoliton and Inclusive Fitness Theory
A book championing the beleaguered inclusive fitness theory serves as the catalyst for the next flurry of academic skirmishes (including a twitter feud with Benjamin Allen) -
Nowak & Allen - Games among relatives revisited
A family-structured model is presented:
Inclusive fitness methods do not apply to the general case of our model.
Inclusive fitness applies in the special case of “equal gains from switching”, but provides less information than an analysis based on gene frequency. -
Allen - Inclusive fitness theory becomes an end in itself
A critique of James A R Marshall's book "Social Evolution and Inclusive Fitness Theory" which provides examples of cooperative behaviors that are not well described by inclusive fitness theory and pokes holes in it's mathematical formulation. This starts an academic jousting match btwn these two. -
Okasha - On Hamilton’s Rule and Inclusive Fitness Theory with Nonadditive Payoffs
poking more holes in the non-additive version of hamilton's rule -
Lehtonen - Multilevel selection in kin selection language
Lehtonen picks up the mantle for the "formally equivalent" camp -
Akcay and van Cleve - There is no fitness but fitness, and lineage is the bearer
this approach formulates inclusive fitness as classical darwinian fitness averaged across a lineage. -
JAR Marshall - Errors in Allen's review [JAR Marshall Book]
JAR is having none of Allen's criticism, arguing for the mathematical and causal validity of inclusive fitness -
Allen - Statistical Inference is not needed when the solution is already known
Allen immediately rebuts JAR Marshall's rebuttal of Allen's initial rebuttal (lol). Specifically, Allen takes issue with the regression methodology and casual inferences of inclusive fitness -
Okasha, Martens - Causal meaning of HR
This paper examines the causal meaning of the generalized Hamilton’s rule in a simple model, by computing the effect of a hypothetical experiment to assess the cost of a social action and comparing it to the partial regression definition. The two do not agree. A possible way of salvaging the causal meaning of Hamilton’s rule is explored, by appeal to R. A. Fisher’s ‘average effect of a gene substitution’. -
JAR Marshall - What is inclusive fitness theory, and what is it for?
Another impassioned defense, this time framed ontologically. "if the ongoing controversy is to be ‘put to bed’ then the resolution will be conceptual, not mathematic" -
Allen/Nowak - There is no inclusive fitness at the level of the individual
"The inclusive fitness of an individual is defined as the sum of all the effects this individual has on itself and others, with each term multiplied by a relatedness coefficient. However, this quantity does not exist for most evolutionary processes, because biological interactions are typically nonlinear and fitness effects are not additive." -
van Veelen / Allen et al - Hamilton's Rule
How generally Hamilton's rule applies depends on how costs and benefits are defined. We therefore consider costs and benefits following from Karlin and Matessi's (1983) “counterfactual method”, and costs and benefits as defined by the “regression method” (Gardner et al., 2011). With the latter definition of costs and benefits, Hamilton's rule always indicates the direction of selection correctly, and with the former it does not. -
Nowak/Allen/Wilson - The general form of Hamilton's rule makes no predictions and cannot be tested empirically
"We show that in this formulation, which is widely endorsed by proponents of inclusive fitness theory, Hamilton’s rule does not make any prediction and cannot be tested empirically. This formulation of Hamilton’s rule is not a consequence of natural selection and not even a statement specifically about biology." -
de Vladar, Szathmary - Beyond Hamilton's Rule
Published in Science magazine, one of the first pop science articles to acknowledge the shifting understanding of selection in the context of inclusive and group fitness. "“The scope of HR, and the relationship be tween kin and group selection, are now much clearer than they were even 5 years ago.” -
Birch - The inclusive fitness controversy - finding a way forward
This paper attempts to reconcile critics and defenders of inclusive fitness by constructing a synthesis that does justice to the insights of both -
Levin & Grafin - Inclusive fitness is an indispensable approximation for understanding organismal design
-
Lehmann & Rousset - When Do Individuals Maximize Their Inclusive Fitness?
This defines a genuine individual-centered perspective of adaptation and justifies formally, as a first-order approximation, the long-heralded view of individuals appearing to maximize their own inclusive fitness. -
Van Veelen - The group selection–inclusive fitness equivalence claim: not true and not relevant
Van Veelen rejects the "group selection–inclusive fitness equivalence claim"
https://www.cambridge.org/core/journals/evolutionary-human-sciences/article/group-selectioninclusive-fitness-equivalence-claim-not-true-and-not-relevant/89224BA8AC224877F3A22127762668F4