'Nature' Paper Refigures the Evolution of Altruism

Feb 26, 2010
Why do some animals sacrifice themselves for the good of their group? The battle between the theories of kin selection and group selection has raged for decades. Biologist Charles Goodnight completed the math work needed to argue that they are, really, much the same. His calculations appeared this month in the journal 'Nature.'

(PhysOrg.com) -- In 1871, Charles Darwin puzzled over the evolution of altruism. "He who was ready to sacrifice his life, as many a savage has been," he wrote in The Descent of Man, "rather than betray his comrades, would often leave no offspring to inherit his noble nature."

To this day, biologists debate about how altruistic behaviors evolve and persist. Sterile faithfully tend their queen with no chance of reproducing themselves. Vervet monkeys scream to other monkeys about approaching predators, drawing attention to themselves and risking their own safety. Bees lay down their lives to defend the hive.

"Why do they do that?" asks University of Vermont biologist Charles Goodnight. "Doesn't drive animals to behaviors that increase their own chances of survival, not those of others?"

This question underlies the decades-long debate -- sometimes rancorous -- between two camps of scientists. On one side, are those who argue in favor of "kin selection," in which individuals are altruistic to those who share their genes. In defending the hive, a self-sacrificing bee increases the chances that the genes she shares with her sisters will get passed down.

On the other side, are those who argue in favor of "group selection," (or, in its modern form, "multilevel selection") in which altruism arises from being part of a group. The self-sacrificing behavior of the bee persists and spreads across generations because the whole hive, a group, competes more successfully, leaving more offspring than others.

In the February 18 edition of the journal Nature a team of 18 scientists, including UVM's Goodnight, show that the two traditional approaches are actually mathematically equivalent.

One in the same

How can this be? In order for kin selection to be important, the related kin have to be in groups that preferentially confer altruistic behaviors on each other. In order for group selection to operate, the members of a group have to be closer kin than they are to other groups. The two ideas are close enough that they can actually be converted to each other mathematically. This understanding has been stated in technical research articles for more than 30 years, but the broader scientific community has not often recognized it.

"What we did in this paper was take the equations of a group that was very strongly kin selectionist and we worked through them and translated them back into classic equations," says Goodnight. "and they're the same."

"It is remarkable that kin selection has been widely accepted and group selection widely disparaged," says Michael Wade, a biologist at Indiana University, and the lead author on the paper, "when they are actually equivalent mathematically."

Evolution at all levels

A good bit of the fight between kin and group selection proponents is a product of history. (What fight isn't?) In the 1960's, some ideas about group selection were introduced that, in cartoon fashion, looked something like birds choosing not to reproduce for the good of their fellow birds. "There was this big rash of 'for the good of the group', naďve versions of evolution," says Goodnight.

But birds can't choose not to reproduce, nor can bacteria choose to be less virulent -- because it's good for their group. "Evolution doesn't work that way; evolution works by who leaves the most offspring," says Goodnight. Richard Dawkins and many other theorists largely dismantled this first wave of group selection ideas, and kin selection was ascendant. But in recent decades a new group-selection camp -- including Goodnight, David Sloan Wilson and others -- has emerged.

"The point is that evolution can work at many levels: the gene level, the cell level, the organismal level, the group level," Goodnight says, "and it probably works on all these levels at once."

The new paper in Nature considers the evolutionary mechanisms that would lead some parasites to have reduced virulence. From the kin selection (or individual-level selection) perspective, as presented in an earlier Nature paper by Geoff Wild at the University of Western Ontario and his colleagues, this lower virulence can be explained entirely by individual selection -- no group effect needed.

But Goodnight and his colleagues make a mathematical rebuttal, sketching out in their paper an argument for why two forms of opposing group selection -- "within-group" versus "among-group" -- are needed to explain how this seemingly disadvantageous trait nevertheless evolves in the whole parasite population.

"Those of us working on multilevel selection models have started seeing kin selection as subset of multilevel selection," Goodnight says, "The debate should no longer be whether it's individual or multilevel selection. The debate is how strong is each level of selection?" Or, as their paper concludes, "it's time to put the anachronistic debate between single-level and multilevel selection behind us."

Individual preference

Goodnight's colleague in the UVM biology department, Sara Cahan, agrees with this conclusion. But she doesn't agree with everything in Goodnight's paper -- and is more in the kin selection camp. "Charles and I really enjoy one another -- I respect Charles very highly -- but we do tend to argue a lot," she says, with a laugh. (Perhaps it's no wonder the students she and Goodnight had in their co-taught graduate seminar "Levels of Selection" called the course "Crossfire.")

"In this case of virulence, and in many cases where this argument has been battled," she says, "the trait of interest is an individual-level trait. And if it's an individual-level trait, we really need to think about it as an individual-level adaptation -- regardless of what kind of selection, group or otherwise, has acted it."

"This debate is far from over," says Charles Goodnight.

Explore further: Evolution of competitiveness

More information: Paper: www.nature.com/nature/journal/… abs/nature08809.html

Provided by University of Vermont

3.8 /5 (12 votes)

Related Stories

Altruism in social insects is a family affair

May 29, 2008

The contentious debate about why insects evolved to put the interests of the colony over the individual has been reignited by new research from the University of Leeds, showing that they do so to increase the chances that ...

Disease resistance may be genetic

Aug 30, 2007

According to a study in Evolution, resistance to certain infectious diseases may be passed genetically from parent to child. The genetic resistance may be beneficial to families as those with the gene are both unlikely to suf ...

Recommended for you

Evolution of competitiveness

Oct 29, 2014

Virtually all organisms in the living world compete with members of their own species. However, individuals differ strongly in how much they invest into their competitive ability. Some individuals are highly competitive and ...

Status shift for whale pelvic bones

Oct 29, 2014

For decades, scientists assumed that the relatively small pelvic bones found in whales were simple remnants of their land-dwelling past, "useless vestiges" that served no real purpose, akin to the human appendix ...

Is the outcome of evolution predictable?

Oct 28, 2014

If one would rewind the tape of life, would evolution result in the same outcome? The Harvard evolutionary biologist Stephen Jay Gould came up with this famous thought experiment. He suggested that evolution would not repeat ...

How did complex life evolve? The answer could be inside out

Oct 27, 2014

A new idea about the origin of complex life turns current theories inside out. In the open access journal BMC Biology, cousins Buzz and David Baum explain their 'inside-out' theory of how eukaryotic cells, which all multic ...

User comments : 20

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

breadhead
1 / 5 (9) Feb 26, 2010
What a bunch of nonsense. How did chemicals mix together and form life, then cause self sacrifice?
You evolutionists sure believe a lot of crap. All I can say to this is, "Goodnight".
mutantbuzzard
1 / 5 (5) Feb 26, 2010
How many speices rescue members of a difrent species? How many spiecies rescue more than one kind of spieces other than there own kind and how many spieces have humans tryed to save Mr.Darwin? What is the evloutionary advantage to man in saving endangered critters of no social, moral, or ecnomic value to man?
trekgeek1
5 / 5 (2) Feb 26, 2010
"You evolutionists sure believe a lot of crap"

I hear a lot of complaining about evolutionary theories. Would you like to present a better scientifically supported theory? Don't just tear down theories you don't agree with. If you think there are so many holes in it and have a better idea please enlighten the community. And you better not say what I think you're going to say.
Parsec
5 / 5 (5) Feb 26, 2010
What a bunch of nonsense. How did chemicals mix together and form life, then cause self sacrifice?
You evolutionists sure believe a lot of crap. All I can say to this is, "Goodnight".

Broadhead - Please address your comments in another forum. Its quite ok with everyone if you do not believe in science, or think the world is flat or any other such nonsense, but this is a science forum. You belong in a religious forum or faith based institution, not here. Your not going to convince anyone here that the theory of evolution isn't correct.
Parsec
5 / 5 (4) Feb 27, 2010
How many speices rescue members of a difrent species? How many spiecies rescue more than one kind of spieces other than there own kind and how many spieces have humans tryed to save Mr.Darwin? What is the evloutionary advantage to man in saving endangered critters of no social, moral, or ecnomic value to man?


Dolphins save human lives. Just because creatures of other species have no social, moral, or economic value to you, doesn't mean the same is true of everyone. As for how many, of each, no one knows.
GaryB
5 / 5 (7) Feb 27, 2010
What a bunch of nonsense. How did chemicals mix together and form life, then cause self sacrifice?
You evolutionists sure believe a lot of crap. All I can say to this is, "Goodnight".


Yeah, the fools. Next they'll be claiming that the earth orbits the sun rather than the sun orbiting God's earth as we are clearly told Ps. 93:1, Ps. 19:1-6, Joshua 10:12-14. Crazy talk.
frajo
3.7 / 5 (3) Feb 27, 2010
What is the evloutionary advantage to man in saving endangered critters of no social, moral, or ecnomic value to man?
Maybe it's the glimpse of a feeling that the ongoing marginalization of the non-human part of the local biosphere could cause massive disadvantages for its human part?
Skeptic_Heretic
not rated yet Feb 27, 2010
Maybe it's the glimpse of a feeling that the ongoing marginalization of the non-human part of the local biosphere could cause massive disadvantages for its human part?

Great point and along side it is the fact that life can recognize and distinguish between other life and non-life. There is always benefit in being in proximity to other life regardless of the inherent danger.
marjon
3 / 5 (2) Feb 27, 2010
Don't just tear down theories you don't agree with.

I have been told that is is what good science is all about, falsifying theories.
otto1923
5 / 5 (1) Feb 27, 2010
There is always benefit in being in proximity to other life regardless of the inherent danger.
Yeah- as food, as alternate targets for predators, as practice, as in mixed herds sharing the acute senses of different species, as in transportation (microbes and parasites). And, as yet another source of knowledge about lifes successful interaction with its environs.
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (1) Feb 27, 2010
Don't just tear down theories you don't agree with.

I have been told that is is what good science is all about, falsifying theories.

No, theories are constructs of science, they are never torn down, merely changed. New science that adds dimension to theories and expands knowledge is the goal. Your definition would leave us ignorant of the world, more akin to religion.
marjon
1 / 5 (1) Feb 27, 2010
"Popper's final position is that he acknowledges that it is impossible to discriminate science from non-science on the basis of the falsifiability of the scientific statements alone; he recognizes that scientific theories are predictive, and consequently prohibitive, only when taken in conjunction with auxiliary hypotheses, and he also recognizes that readjustment or modification of the latter is an integral part of scientific practice."
"the shift in Popper's own basic position is taken by some critics as an indicator that falsificationism, for all its apparent merits, fares no better in the final analysis than verificationism. "
http://plato.stan...noHisPre

I would like to encourage all those promoting 'falsification' as the benchmark for 'science', consider the above.
marjon
1 / 5 (2) Feb 27, 2010
Don't just tear down theories you don't agree with.

I have been told that is is what good science is all about, falsifying theories.

No, theories are constructs of science, they are never torn down, merely changed. New science that adds dimension to theories and expands knowledge is the goal. Your definition would leave us ignorant of the world, more akin to religion.

It seems that the definition of 'science' is quite flexible as it suits the needs of its practitioners.
Ronan
not rated yet Feb 27, 2010
Um...I'm sorry, but what exactly is the difference between kin and group selection? They sound the same to me, particularly if the group in question stays together over several generations (i.e, basically becomes kin). What am I missing, here?
Skeptic_Heretic
not rated yet Feb 27, 2010
It seems that the definition of 'science' is quite flexible as it suits the needs of its practitioners.

Not true. Even your dear Bible holds some of the science of the time. Their observations led them to believe that everything was created by a human like organism that was oniscient and omnipotent. Since then we've refined our measuring tools and refined our observations and discovered that isn't the case. You're reading a 2000 year old book and assuming that it's current events. If you want to deny the advances of science, feel free to enjoy polio, the death of 50% of your children, that is if you aren't sterilized by cholera or rampant parasitic infections.
marjon
1 / 5 (1) Feb 27, 2010
It seems that the definition of 'science' is quite flexible as it suits the needs of its practitioners.

Not true. Even your dear Bible holds some of the science of the time. Their observations led them to believe that everything was created by a human like organism that was oniscient and omnipotent. Since then we've refined our measuring tools and refined our observations and discovered that isn't the case. You're reading a 2000 year old book and assuming that it's current events. If you want to deny the advances of science, feel free to enjoy polio, the death of 50% of your children, that is if you aren't sterilized by cholera or rampant parasitic infections.


Planck said it: "A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it. "
I am disappointed with the ego and arrogance of many in science.
jgelt
3 / 5 (1) Feb 28, 2010
With respect to the topic, it's not really survival of the fit that has the last word all the time.
Nature is happy to settle for marginally adequate in most cases.
What determines the cut is extinction of the unfit.
In the case of human beings, the history of the species is replete with genocidal customs from local, tribal level to regional.
What makes it worth your while to risk your life in war is the threat of extinction as the alternative.
When there is deadly predation the prey needs a group to survive extinction and the group becomes the superset of characteristics, not independent of he individuals, which is the crux of survival.
Skeptic_Heretic
not rated yet Feb 28, 2010
Planck said it: "A new scientific truth does not triumph by convincing its opponents and making them see the light, but rather because its opponents eventually die, and a new generation grows up that is familiar with it. "
My science was developed in the last 20 years, your "science" was developed 2000 years ago. Seeing as you still cling to yours it appears Planck was wrong.
I am disappointed with the ego and arrogance of many in science.

Which is more arrogant:

Finding out a deeper truth and evidencing it to the masses with calculated observation

or

Telling everyone God did it and saying that's the end of the story?
Doug_Huffman
not rated yet Feb 28, 2010
Marjon, read Popper's words rather than someone else's digested pap. In his first few pages he carefully specifies what aspects he addresses. Using his words, only the "logic of knowledge" and not the "psychology of knowledge."

Science is an epistemology that can lead to truth and not a job description or title or, worst of all, a fixed body of knowledge.
siliconboy
not rated yet Mar 06, 2010
I always grin with the irony of a self aware human evolved from matter saying that its not possible for matter to become self aware.

Please sign in to add a comment. Registration is free, and takes less than a minute. Read more

Click here to reset your password.
Sign in to get notified via email when new comments are made.