Old issue. It doesn't matter if Wilson agrees or disagrees with kin-selection. Does the current theory adequately explain the data or does his new view provides a more thorough explanation. This case reminds me of Clarke's first law:
When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is probably wrong. On Thu, Aug 26, 2010 at 2:22 PM, Judah McAuley <[email protected]> wrote: > > I haven't had the time yet to go through the underlying papers but > E.O. Wilson founded the discipline of Sociobiology and has serious > cred. One of the big things that Sociobiology brought about was the > notion of kin selection, that is that closely related organisms may > behave altruistically to benefit their relatives because their > relatives are likely to carry a large portion of the same genes that > the altruistic individual has. Wilson now seems to claim that kin > selection is not necessary as a theory and that altruistic behavior > can be explained with standard natural selection. > > Big stuff if you're into evolutionary biology. > > http://ksjtracker.mit.edu/2010/08/26/e-o-wilson-says-a-key-theory-underlying-sociobiology-is-wrong-2/ > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Order the Adobe Coldfusion Anthology now! http://www.amazon.com/Adobe-Coldfusion-Anthology-Michael-Dinowitz/dp/1430272155/?tag=houseoffusion Archive: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/message.cfm/messageid:325954 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/subscribe.cfm Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/groups/cf-community/unsubscribe.cfm
