Uncommon Descent Serving The Intelligent Design Community

A little more background on E.O. Wilson calling Dawkins a “journalist”

Share
Facebook
Twitter
LinkedIn
Flipboard
Print
Email

As promised. Further to: Science 2.0 on Darwin great dismissing arch-Darwinist Richard Dawkins as a “journalist”:

A friend explains that Wilson’s attack on Dawkins grew out of an earlier attack by Wilson (Wilson, Nowak et al. Nature 2010) on the concept of kin selection. This mattered to Dawkins because W. D. Hamilton’s ideas on kin selection were aired in Dawkins’ The Selfish Gene.

Another friend writes to say that staffer Andrew Brown offers an interpretation in the comments to the Guardian article on the flap:

Dawkins made his bones attacking a theory that claimed some behaviours were maintained by evolution because they benefited the species, although they damaged the individual involved. Using mathematics suggested by Haldane, and worked out by Hamilton, he argued that they benefitted genes, which spread through the surviving relatives of the self-sacrificing individual and that when you analyse the situation properly, you see “ruthless selfishness” all the way down.

Wilson was originally a convert to the Hamilton view. Later he changed his mind, for two reasons. The first is that the Hamilton equations don’t actually work well when you apply them to social insects. These are more eusocial than their degree of relatedness would suggest, since some of them are not in fact haplodiploid — ie they are not closely enough related for the equations to work. Also, there is a suggestion that the equations do not predict the emergence of eusociality even when they account for its maintenance. [too long since I read the relevant paper, so I can’t remember the reference].

There is also good experimental evidence for group selection among all sorts of not very closely related organisms: see David Sloan Wilson. “Darwin’s Cathedral”. So that’s the experimental evidence against Dawkins’ favoured hypothesis, and so far as I know it hasn’t been challenged. More.

He goes on to say that the politically correct view advanced by both Hamilton and John Maynard Smith (an elder generation of Darwin greats) and accepted by Dawkins and his followers, is that even though group selection could conceivably occur, natural selection will always favour cheaters. So evidence of group selection, accepted by Darwin greats and Darwin faithful today, comes at an inconvenient time for Dawkins, who ruled it out as nearly impossible in practice.

Still not clear? No, because nature just doesn’t fit into either box, really. This still feels like a moment of Darwinism in decline, except for the power to punish dissenters.

See also: If Dawkins is only a hack like me – doesn’t that raise the question whether the same could be said of Wilson?

Follow UD News at Twitter!

Comments
Frankly the Wilson guy strike me as a creep protected by his academic standing. Dawkins likely has darker issues, so …. But that’s just – O’Leary for News.
Neither of them seem like good candidates for heroes of evolutionary science, but they're the only ones available.Silver Asiatic
November 21, 2014
November
11
Nov
21
21
2014
08:33 PM
8
08
33
PM
PDT
Yes, that's the thing, Silver Asiatic at 1. It was Dawkins, not Wilson,who conveyed Darwinian naturalism to a broad public. How many pastors took E.O. "Dear Pastor" Wilson seriously? And when he mooted giving half the plant to wild animals, don't we all just KNOW that - no matter what else happens - it'll be the poor folks' half? Not the half inhabited by the enviro-weenies with bicoastal homes. They'll still have all theirs, plus the fun of pretending to be righteous. Frankly the Wilson guy strike me as a creep protected by his academic standing. Dawkins likely has darker issues, so .... But that's just - O'Leary for News.News
November 21, 2014
November
11
Nov
21
21
2014
10:17 AM
10
10
17
AM
PDT
This still feels like a moment of Darwinism in decline, except for the power to punish dissenters.
The more frenetic the defense of Darwin, the weaker it looks and nobody wants to be aligned with a confused and dying concept. The attack on Dawkins is embarrassing because he has been such a popular voice.Silver Asiatic
November 21, 2014
November
11
Nov
21
21
2014
08:45 AM
8
08
45
AM
PDT

Leave a Reply