I've seen lengthy arguments about group selection, most of which border on the religious. I really don't understand why it is such an outrageous idea.
Consider chemical defenses which presumably evolve randomly and persist if they enhance fitness. If a chemical makes an organism smell bad, then it is clearly a case of individual selection. But suppose that the chemical is a poison so that the predators can eat the organisms, but then they die. Predators that like that kind of prey will be selected against, and although the toxic individuals get consumed, after a while the group's survival is enhanced. Is this so outlandish? There are after all lots of living organsims out there which are edible but toxic. Bill Silvert ----- Original Message ----- From: "isab972" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, February 14, 2006 8:49 PM Subject: Re: current natural selection pressures > Your reasoning on selection is almost correct but there is one important > flow: natural selection does not act on clans or groups but only on > individuals. Group selection indeed does not work in nature. In very few > cases, there might be traits selected under kin-selection, but very very > few.
