scholarly journals Natural selection. VII. History and interpretation of kin selection theory

2013 ◽  
Vol 26 (6) ◽  
pp. 1151-1184 ◽  
Author(s):  
S. A. Frank
Keyword(s):  
Natural Selection ◽  
Kin Selection ◽  
Selection Theory

Kin Selection

Ecology ◽  
2012 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrew F. G. Bourke
Keyword(s):  
Natural Selection ◽  
Social Behavior ◽  
Kin Selection ◽  
Inclusive Fitness ◽  
Social Behaviors ◽  
Selection Theory ◽  
Direct Fitness ◽  
Inclusive Fitness Theory ◽  
Gene Copies ◽  
Genetical Theory

According to Hamilton’s kin selection theory (also known as “inclusive fitness” theory), kin selection is the process by which social evolution occurs in nature. The theory extends the genetical theory of natural selection to social behaviors and finds that their evolution is affected by the likelihood that individuals share genes (relatedness). In biology, a social behavior occurs when one individual (the actor) behaves so as to affect the direct fitness (number of offspring) of itself and another individual (the recipient). For example, altruism occurs when the actor’s behavior decreases the actor’s direct fitness and increases the recipient’s direct fitness. Conversely, selfishness occurs when the actor’s behavior increases the actor’s direct fitness and decreases the recipient’s. Social behaviors are widespread in nature. A classic example is the altruism shown by the sterile workers of social insects such as ants, which sacrifice their own reproduction in order to rear the queen’s offspring. At first sight, altruism poses a problem for the genetical theory of natural selection, which seems to preclude the spread of a gene for reduced reproduction. Kin selection was devised by William Hamilton in the early 1960s to address this “problem of altruism.” The basic principle behind kin selection had been hinted at by Darwin, Fisher, and Haldane, but it was Hamilton who provided the first general model. Hamilton called his idea “inclusive fitness” theory, and it was later dubbed “kin selection” by Maynard Smith in 1964. For most purposes, the two can be considered identical, although inclusive fitness theory technically includes kin selection theory because the relatedness it invokes need not involve kin (genealogical relatives). Kin selection theory solved the problem of altruism by showing that a gene for altruism can spread if altruism is directed at individuals likely to bear the same gene. By definition, kin are likely to share genes. So, a gene for altruism can spread if altruism is directed at kin and the loss of gene copies through the actor’s decreased reproduction is more than offset by the gain in gene copies through the increased reproduction of the recipient. The algebraic version of this condition is termed “Hamilton’s rule.” Although kin selection theory was devised to explain altruism, it also applies to the other forms of social behavior such as selfishness. The theory is therefore now widely used to investigate and explain many kinds of social behavior in living organisms as diverse as bacteria and human beings.

Units and levels of selection

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Samir Okasha
Keyword(s):  
Natural Selection ◽  
Kin Selection ◽  
Evolutionary Biology ◽  
Evolutionary Process ◽  
Levels Of Selection ◽  
Evolutionary Transitions ◽  
Individual Organism ◽  
Selection Processes ◽  
Hierarchical Levels ◽  
The Individual

In a standard Darwinian explanation, natural selection takes place at the level of the individual organism, i.e. some organisms enjoy a survival or reproduction advantage over others, which results in evolutionary change. In principle however, natural selection could operate at other hierarchical levels too, above and below that of the organism, for example the level of genes, cells, groups, colonies or even whole species. This possibility gives rise to the ‘levels of selection’ question in evolutionary biology. Group and colony-level selection have been proposed, originally by Darwin, as a means by which altruism can evolve. (In biology, ‘altruism’ refers to behaviour which entails a fitness cost to the individual so behaving, but benefits others.) Though this idea is still alive today, many theorists regard kin selection as a superior explanation for the existence of altruism. Kin selection arises from the fact that relatives share genes, so if an organism behaves altruistically towards its relatives, there is a greater than random chance that the beneficiary of the altruistic action will itself be an altruist. Kin selection is closely bound up with the ‘gene’s eye view’ of evolution, which holds that genes, not organisms, are the true beneficiaries of the evolutionary process. The gene’s eye approach to evolution, though heuristically valuable, does not in itself resolve the levels of selection question, because selection processes that occur at many hierarchical levels can all be seen from a gene’s eye viewpoint. In recent years, the levels of selection discussion has been re-invigorated, and subtly transformed, by the important new work on the ‘major evolutionary transitions’. These transitions occur when a number of free-living biological units, originally capable of surviving and reproducing alone, become integrated into a larger whole, giving rise to a new biological unit at a higher level of organization. Evolutionary transitions are intimately bound up with the levels of selection issue, because during a transition the potential exists for selection to operate simultaneously at two different hierarchical levels.

scholarly journals Naive Juvenile Diamondback Terrapins: Kin Recognition in Controlled Encounter Experiments

Elements ◽  
2007 ◽  
Vol 3 (1) ◽  
Author(s):  
Brad Macdonald ◽  
Alexis Rife
Keyword(s):  
Social Behavior ◽  
Kin Selection ◽  
Kin Recognition ◽  
Diamondback Terrapin ◽  
Malaclemys Terrapin ◽  
Selection Theory ◽  
Boston College ◽  
Diamondback Terrapins ◽  
Existing Data

Northern diamondback terrapin (<span style="font-family: mceinline;"><em>malaclemys terrapin</em>) turtle </span>hatchlings raised as part of a laboratory headstarting program are the focus of kin recognition studies taking place at Boston College. Experiments examining basking behaviors in 13 trials of familiar kin and 11 trials of unfamiliar non-kin. Familiar kin averaged more aggressive engagements per trial (2.44 vs. 0.36), more displacements per trial (13.36 vs. 3.91), and more instances of climbing on one another (13.36 vs. 2.36). Familiar kin basked in congregations more frequently per trial than unfamiliar non-kin. These data suggest that diamondback terrapins treat each other differently based on either kinship or familiarity-or both. Further research will be conducted on familiar and unfamiliar kin and non-kin groupings to help elucidate the existing data by determining which variable has greater consequence and if Hamilton's kin selection theory can be applied to terrapin juvenile social behavior.

What the human annals tell us

1999 ◽  
Vol 22 (5) ◽  
pp. 888-888 ◽  
Author(s):  
Gwen J. Broude
Keyword(s):  
Sexual Selection ◽  
Natural Selection ◽  
Kin Selection ◽  
Reciprocal Altruism ◽  
Cross Cultural ◽  
Mental Processes ◽  
Theory Of Evolution ◽  
Evolution By Natural Selection ◽  
And Behavior ◽  
Cultural Data

Evidence reveals numerous cross-cultural universals regarding human mental processes and behavior. Similarly, cross-cultural data are consistent with predictions from theories of kin selection, reciprocal altruism, and sexual selection inspired by Darwin's theory of evolution by natural selection. Thus, the “annals of human behaviour” do provide “example[s] fitting the sociobiological bill,” (Lifelines, p. 202) thereby, supporting sociobiological accounts of human behavior.

scholarly journals The validity and value of inclusive fitness theory

2011 ◽  
Vol 278 (1723) ◽  
pp. 3313-3320 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrew F. G. Bourke
Keyword(s):  
Kin Selection ◽  
Evolutionary Biology ◽  
Social Evolution ◽  
Inclusive Fitness ◽  
Evidence Base ◽  
Alternative Theory ◽  
Selection Theory ◽  
Inclusive Fitness Theory ◽  
Evolution Of Eusociality ◽  
Natural Selection Theory

Social evolution is a central topic in evolutionary biology, with the evolution of eusociality (societies with altruistic, non-reproductive helpers) representing a long-standing evolutionary conundrum. Recent critiques have questioned the validity of the leading theory for explaining social evolution and eusociality, namely inclusive fitness (kin selection) theory. I review recent and past literature to argue that these critiques do not succeed. Inclusive fitness theory has added fundamental insights to natural selection theory. These are the realization that selection on a gene for social behaviour depends on its effects on co-bearers, the explanation of social behaviours as unalike as altruism and selfishness using the same underlying parameters, and the explanation of within-group conflict in terms of non-coinciding inclusive fitness optima. A proposed alternative theory for eusocial evolution assumes mistakenly that workers' interests are subordinate to the queen's, contains no new elements and fails to make novel predictions. The haplodiploidy hypothesis has yet to be rigorously tested and positive relatedness within diploid eusocial societies supports inclusive fitness theory. The theory has made unique, falsifiable predictions that have been confirmed, and its evidence base is extensive and robust. Hence, inclusive fitness theory deserves to keep its position as the leading theory for social evolution.

The Homeopathy of Kin Selection: An Evaluation of van den Berghe's Sociobiological Approach to Ethnic Nepotism

2001 ◽  
Vol 20 (2) ◽  
pp. 203-215 ◽  
Author(s):  
Ingo Brigandt
Keyword(s):  
Kin Selection ◽  
Evolutionary Explanation ◽  
Present Discussion ◽  
Selection Theory ◽  
Ethnic Boundaries ◽  
Behavioral Mechanism ◽  
Starting Point

The present discussion of sociobiological approaches to ethnic nepotism takes Pierre van den Berghe's theory as a starting point. Two points, which have not been addressed in former analyses, are considered to be of particular importance. It is argued that the behavioral mechanism of ethnic nepotism—as understood by van den Berghe—cannot explain ethnic boundaries and attitudes. In addition, I show that van den Berghe's central premise concerning ethnic nepotism is in contradiction to Hamilton's formula, the essential principle of kin selection theory. It is further discussed how other approaches that make reference to ethnic nepotism are related to van den Berghe's account and its problems. I conclude with remarks on the evolutionary explanation of ethnic phenomena.

scholarly journals Identifying Causes of Social Evolution: Contextual Analysis, the Price Approach, and Multilevel Selection

2021 ◽  
Vol 9 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christoph Thies ◽  
Richard A. Watson
Keyword(s):  
Kin Selection ◽  
Causal Structure ◽  
Multilevel Selection ◽  
Contextual Analysis ◽  
Price Equation ◽  
Evolutionary Transitions ◽  
Selection Theory ◽  
Individual Fitness ◽  
Multilevel Selection Theory ◽  
The Individual

Kin selection theory and multilevel selection theory are distinct approaches to explaining the evolution of social traits. The latter claims that it is useful to regard selection as a process that can occur on multiple levels of organisation such as the level of individuals and the level of groups. This is reflected in a decomposition of fitness into an individual component and a group component. This multilevel view is central to understanding and characterising evolutionary transitions in individuality, e.g., from unicellular life to multicellular organisms, but currently suffers from the lack of a consistent, quantifiable measure. Specifically, the two major statistical tools to determine the coefficients of such a decomposition, the multilevel Price equation and contextual analysis, are inconsistent and may disagree on whether group selection is present. Here we show that the reason for the discrepancies is that underlying the multilevel Price equation and contextual analysis are two non-equivalent causal models for the generation of individual fitness effects (thus leaving different “remainders” explained by group effects). While the multilevel Price equation assumes that the individual effect of a trait determines an individual's relative success within a group, contextual analysis posits that the individual effect is context-independent. Since these different assumptions reflect claims about the causal structure of the system, the correct approach cannot be determined on general theoretical or statistical grounds but must be identified by experimental intervention. We outline interventions that reveal the underlying causal structure and thus facilitate choosing the appropriate approach. We note that kin selection theory with its focus on the individual is immune to such inconsistency because it does not address causal structure with respect to levels of organisation. In contrast, our analysis of the two approaches to measuring group selection demonstrates that multilevel selection theory adds meaningful (falsifiable) causal structure to explain the sources of individual fitness and thereby constitutes a proper refinement of kin selection theory. Taking such refined causal structure into account seems indispensable for studying evolutionary transitions in individuality because these transitions are characterised by changes in the selection pressures that act on the respective levels.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document