Queller’s Separation Condition Explained and Defended

Birch, Jonathan; Marshall, James A. R.

doi:10.1086/677750

Cited by 9 publications

(8 citation statements)

References 41 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Interestingly, these rejections of the general formulation of kin selection 99 , 121 (see also 122 , 123 ) relate to a more extensive debate that was initiated by a high-profile charge of Nowak, Tarnita, and Wilson against the value of inclusive fitness theory in explaining the evolution of eusociality 101 . This partly philosophical debate revolves around the question of whether the cost-benefit parameters in general formulations of Hamilton’s rule allow a causal interpretation at all.…”

Section: The Controversymentioning

confidence: 99%

Kin and multilevel selection in social evolution: a never-ending controversy?

Kramer

Meunier

2016

F1000Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Kin selection and multilevel selection are two major frameworks in evolutionary biology that aim at explaining the evolution of social behaviors. However, the relationship between these two theories has been plagued by controversy for almost half a century and debates about their relevance and usefulness in explaining social evolution seem to rekindle at regular intervals. Here, we first provide a concise introduction into the kin selection and multilevel selection theories and shed light onto the roots of the controversy surrounding them. We then review two major aspects of the current debate: the presumed formal equivalency of the two theories and the question whether group selection can lead to group adaptation. We conclude by arguing that the two theories can offer complementary approaches to the study of social evolution: kin selection approaches usually focus on the identification of optimal phenotypes and thus on the endresult of a selection process, whereas multilevel selection approaches focus on the ongoing selection process itself. The two theories thus provide different perspectives that might be fruitfully combined to promote our understanding of the evolution in group-structured populations.

show abstract

Section: The Controversymentioning

confidence: 99%

Kin and multilevel selection in social evolution: a never-ending controversy?

Kramer

Meunier

2016

F1000Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Note also that this version of Queller's rule is derived in terms of genes for unconditionally expressed traits, however an equivalent derivation in terms of conditionally-expressed phenotypes is also possible (Queller, 1992a). In the case where focal individual's genetic value (G) is used as the predictors in the regression β DG , and generally, then regression theory guarantees that any residuals from the regression model will be uncorrelated with that predictor; this is important as it enables a quantitative genetics separation between selection coefficients and heritability coefficients (Queller, 1992b;Birch and Marshall, 2014). The generality given by the form of condition 7 comes at a cost however, if we are interested in causal explanations for evolutionary change (Marshall, 2015).…”

Section: Queller's Rule Generalizedmentioning

confidence: 99%

Generalizations of Hamilton's rule applied to non-additive public goods games with random group size

Marshall¹

2014

Front. Ecol. Evol.

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Inclusive fitness theory has been described as being limited to certain special cases of social evolution. In particular some authors argue that the theory can only be applied to social interactions having additive fitness effects, and involving only pairs of individuals. This article takes an elegant formulation of non-additive public goods games from the literature, and shows how the two main generalizations of Hamilton's rule can be applied to such games when group sizes are random. In doing so inclusive fitness theory is thus applied to a very general class of social dilemmas, thereby providing further evidence for its generality. Interestingly, one of the two predominant versions of Hamilton's rule is found to be mathematically easier to apply to the scenario considered, despite both necessarily giving equivalent predictions.

show abstract

“…For example, in both the kin selectionist and multi-level modelling traditions, theorists tend to use phenotypic rather than genetic predictors of fitness when they have empirical applications in mind, since hypotheses about phenotypic selection gradients are easier to test empirically (Grafen [1984]; Queller [1992b]; Frank [1998]; Goodnight and Stevens [1997]; McGlothlin et al [2014]). In fact, formal equivalence results can still be derived in relation to phenotypic versions of the two approaches, provided like is compared with like (Queller [1992b]; Birch and Marshall [2014]).…”

Section: Limitationsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Kin Selection, Group Selection, and the Varieties of Population Structure

Birch

2020

The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Various results show the 'formal equivalence' of kin and group selectionist methodologies, but this does not preclude there being a real and useful distinction between kin and group selection processes. I distinguish individual-and population-centred approaches to drawing such a distinction, and I proceed to develop the latter. On the account I advance, the differences between kin and group selection are differences of degree in the structural properties of populations. A spatial metaphor ('K-G space') provides a useful framework for thinking about these differences: kin and group selection may be conceptualized as large, overlapping regions of K-G space. I then consider some implications of the account, defend it from possible objections, and further argue that the structural features characteristic of both kin and group selection may recur at multiple levels of biological organization. 1 Introduction 2 Equivalence Results and Their Limitations 2.1 An example of an equivalence result 2.2 Limitations 3 Individual-and Population-Centred Approaches 4 Two Influences: Hamilton and Godfrey-Smith 5 K and G 5.1 K 5.2 G 5.3 K-G space 6 The rb 6 ¼ 0 Requirement 7 Levels of Organization 8 The Key Substantive Questions

show abstract

Queller’s Separation Condition Explained and Defended

Cited by 9 publications

References 41 publications

Kin and multilevel selection in social evolution: a never-ending controversy?

Kin and multilevel selection in social evolution: a never-ending controversy?

Generalizations of Hamilton's rule applied to non-additive public goods games with random group size

Kin Selection, Group Selection, and the Varieties of Population Structure

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About