(May 10, 2014 at 11:05 am)Chas Wrote: And those are illusory or easily reducible to the genetic level.Your quote is unsourced and doesn't even support your position.
Wikipedia Wrote:Most modern evolutionary biologists accept that the idea [gene level] is consistent with many processes in evolution. However, the view that selection on other levels, such as organisms and populations, seldom opposes selection on genes is more controversial. While naïve versions of group selectionism have been disproved, more sophisticated formulations make accurate predictions in some cases while positing selection at higher levels. Nevertheless, the explanatory gains of using sophisticated formulations of group selectionism as opposed to Dawkins's gene-centred selectionism are still under dispute. Both sides agree that very favourable genes are likely to prosper and replicate if they arise and both sides agree that living in groups can be an advantage to the group members. The conflict arises not so much over disputes on hard facts but over what is the best way of viewing evolutionary selection in animals.
Our server costs ~$56 per month to run. Please consider donating or becoming a Patron to help keep the site running. Help us gain new members by following us on Twitter and liking our page on Facebook!
Current time: October 9, 2025, 12:40 am
Thread Rating:
Evolution, religion, and ignorance.
|
|
« Next Oldest | Next Newest »
|
Users browsing this thread: 1 Guest(s)