-
Darwin postulates on potential selection benefit to related organisms
-
earliest mathematically formal treatment of kin selection
-
fully grasped the basic quantities and considerations in kin selection
-
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's Rule - a mathematical basis for inclusive fitness. C<rB.
-
"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."
-
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.
-
"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.
-
another milestone for kin selection's impending dominance
-
Wilson justifies group theory but discredits it as a model for altruism
-
Hamilton first hypothesizes the theories are formally equivalent
-
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."
-
A populist text espousing inclusive fitness as the unifying mathematical framework of evolution. Claims to discredit any other theory of selection
-
First comprehensive review calling for reevaluation of kin selection as dominant selection theory as opposed to group selection
-
Dawkins refutes all criticism of kin selection
-
Comprehensive review of the opposing mathematical theories to date
-
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 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 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)
-
Review
-
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. -
A formal model of the green beard theory gives credence to altruism tag markers without consideration for kin recognition/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 attempts to discuss the semantic subtleties of the debate and clarify definitions of specific terms
-
Prisoner's dilemma formulated 5 ways depending on selection type, review and distinguish btwn kin selection and group selection
-
This note provides a condition under which Hamilton's rule does not follow from his central result
-
casts doubt on Kin recognition as a method for kin selection
-
" 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."
-
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. "
-
review
-
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 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.
-
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 contests Van Veelen's result about Queller's rule, claims inclusive fitness and group selection are formally equivalent
-
"even though inclusive fitness does not provide a generally correct prediction, i am not at all implying that i think inclusive fitness is useless".
-
An appeal to authority attempts to disrepute NTW assertions
-
Fresh rebuttal to the appeal to authority laying out the misrepresentations of the earlier Nowak & Wilson paper in 2010
-
. 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.
-
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. -
review
-
Dawkins sharply criticizes the notion that the "selfish gene" is becoming a dated concept in genetics, makes personal attacks
-
A comprehensive overview of the mathematical issues with inclusive fitness theory.
-
A simple model which provides a mathematical framework for multilevel selection
-
Van Veelen extends Luo's model explicitly to a scenario in which inclusive fitness cannot analyze dynamics
-
the crux: "people disagree because they are actually talking about different versions of Hamilton's rule"
-
A defense of JAR's bible on inclusive fitness (same old Queller)
-
LRC formulate NTW to apparently support inclusive fitness theopry. They contest the suggestion that inclusive fitness is not a robust theory.
-
This paper breaks down the failed response by LRQ to address the criticism of inclusive fitness prsented by NTW
-
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."
-
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)
-
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. -
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.
-
poking more holes in the non-additive version of hamilton's rule
-
Lehtonen picks up the mantle for the "formally equivalent" camp
-
this approach formulates inclusive fitness as classical darwinian fitness averaged across a lineage.
-
JAR is having none of Allen's criticism, arguing for the mathematical and causal validity of inclusive fitness
-
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
-
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’.
-
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"
-
"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."
-
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.
-
"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."
-
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.”
-
This paper attempts to reconcile critics and defenders of inclusive fitness by constructing a synthesis that does justice to the insights of both
-
-
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 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