Advertisement

Biology & Philosophy

, Volume 29, Issue 2, pp 241–248 | Cite as

The gene’s-eye view, major transitions and the formal darwinism project

  • Andrew F. G. Bourke
Article

Abstract

I argue that Grafen’s formal darwinism project could profitably incorporate a gene’s-eye view, as informed by the major transitions framework. In this, instead of the individual being assumed to maximise its inclusive fitness, genes are assumed to maximise their inclusive fitness. Maximisation of fitness at the individual level is not a straightforward concept because the major transitions framework shows that there are several kinds of biological individual. In addition, individuals have a definable fitness, exhibit individual-level adaptations and arise in a major transition, only to the extent that the inclusive-fitness interests of genes within them coincide. Therefore, as others have suggested, the fundamental level at which fitness is maximised is the gene level. Previous reconciliations of the concepts of gene-level fitness and individual-level fitness implicitly recognise this point. Adaptations always maximise the fitness of their causative genes, but may be simple or complex. Simple adaptations may be controlled by single genes and be maladaptive at higher levels, whereas complex adaptations are controlled by multiple genes and rely on those genes having coinciding fitness interests at a higher level, for a given trait.

Keywords

Adaptation Formal darwinism project Gene’s-eye view Inclusive fitness theory Levels of selection Major transition 

References

  1. Beekman M, Ratnieks FLW (2003) Power over reproduction in social Hymenoptera. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B 358:1741–1753CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Boomsma JJ (2009) Lifetime monogamy and the evolution of eusociality. Philos Trans R Soc B 364:3191–3207CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Bourke AFG (2011) Principles of social evolution. Oxford University Press, OxfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Bourke AFG, Franks NR (1995) Social evolution in ants. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  5. Burt A, Trivers R (2006) Genes in conflict: the biology of selfish genetic elements. The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  6. Buss LW (1987) The evolution of individuality. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  7. Calcott B, Sterelny K (eds) (2011) The major transitions in evolution revisited. The MIT Press, Cambridge, MAGoogle Scholar
  8. Cosmides LM, Tooby J (1981) Cytoplasmic inheritance and intragenomic conflict. J Theor Biol 89:83–129CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Dawkins R (1976) The selfish gene. Oxford University Press, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  10. Dawkins R (1982) The extended phenotype. W. H. Freeman, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  11. Gardner A (2009) Adaptation as organism design. Biol Lett 5:861–864CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Gardner A, Grafen A (2009) Capturing the superorganism: a formal theory of group adaptation. J Evol Biol 22:659–671CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Gardner A, Welch JJ (2011) A formal theory of the selfish gene. J Evol Biol 24:1801–1813CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Grafen A (2006) Optimization of inclusive fitness. J Theor Biol 238:541–563CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Grafen A (2014) The formal darwinism project in outline. Biol Philos 29(2). doi: 10.1007/s10539-013-9414-y
  16. Haig D (1997) The social gene. In: Krebs JR, Davies NB (eds) Behavioural ecology: an evolutionary approach, 4th edn. Blackwell Science Ltd, Oxford, pp 284–304Google Scholar
  17. Haig D (2012) The strategic gene. Biol Philos 27:461–479CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Hamilton WD (1963) The evolution of altruistic behavior. Am Nat 97:354–356CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Leigh EG (1977) How does selection reconcile individual advantage with the good of the group? Proc Natl Acad Sci USA 74:4542–4546CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. Maynard Smith J, Szathmáry E (1995) The major transitions in evolution. W. H. Freeman, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  21. Michod RE (2000) Darwinian dynamics: evolutionary transitions in fitness and individuality. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  22. Michod RE (2005) On the transfer of fitness from the cell to the multicellular organism. Biol Philos 20:967–987CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Okasha S (2006) Evolution and the levels of selection. Clarendon Press, OxfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Okasha S, Paternotte C (2012) Group adaptation, formal darwinism and contextual analysis. J Evol Biol 25:1127–1139CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  25. Queller DC (2000) Relatedness and the fraternal major transitions. Philos Trans R Soc Lond B 355:1647–1655CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Queller DC, Strassmann JE (2009) Beyond society: the evolution of organismality. Philos Trans R Soc B 364:3143–3155CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Ratnieks FLW (1988) Reproductive harmony via mutual policing by workers in eusocial Hymenoptera. Am Nat 132:217–236CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Ratnieks FLW, Reeve HK (1992) Conflict in single-queen Hymenopteran societies: the structure of conflict and processes that reduce conflict in advanced eusocial species. J Theor Biol 158:33–65CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. Ratnieks FLW, Foster KR, Wenseleers T (2006) Conflict resolution in insect societies. Annu Rev Entomol 51:581–608CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Seeley TD (1997) Honey bee colonies are group-level adaptive units. Am Nat 150:S22–S41CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. Trivers RL, Hare H (1976) Haplodiploidy and the evolution of the social insects. Science 191:249–263CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  32. West SA, Kiers ET (2009) Evolution: what is an organism? Curr Biol 19:R1080–R1082CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  33. Williams GC (1966) Adaptation and natural selection. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  34. Williams GC (1992) Natural selection: domains, levels, and challenges. Oxford University Press, New YorkGoogle Scholar
  35. Woyciechowski M, Kuszewska K (2012) Swarming generates rebel workers in honeybees. Curr Biol 22:707–711CrossRefGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.School of Biological SciencesUniversity of East AngliaNorwichUK

Personalised recommendations