Biology & Philosophy

, Volume 29, Issue 2, pp 217–224 | Cite as

Levels of selection and the formal Darwinism project

  • Deborah E. SheltonEmail author
  • Richard E. Michod


Understanding good design requires addressing the question of what units undergo natural selection, thereby becoming adapted. There is, therefore, a natural connection between the formal Darwinism project (which aims to connect population genetics with the evolution of design and fitness maximization) and levels of selection issues. We argue that the formal Darwinism project offers contradictory and confusing lines of thinking concerning level(s) of selection. The project favors multicellular organisms over both the lower (cell) and higher (social group) levels as the level of adaptation. Grafen offers four reasons for giving such special status to multicellular organisms: (1) they lack appreciable within-organism cell selection, (2) they have multiple features that appear contrived for the same purpose, (3) they possess a set of phenotypes, and (4) they leave offspring according to their phenotypes. We discuss why these rationales are not compelling and suggest that a more even-handed approach, in which multicellular organisms are not assumed to have special status, would be desirable for a project that aims to make progress on the foundations of evolutionary theory.


Adaptation Formal Darwinism project Levels of selection Major evolutionary transitions 


  1. Boven MVAN, Weissing FJ (1999) Segregation distortion in a deme-structured population: opposing demands of gene, individual and group selection. J Evol Biol 12:80–93CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Buss LW (1987) The evolution of individuality. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  3. Foster KR (2011) The sociobiology of molecular systems. Nat Rev Genet 12:193–203CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  4. Gardner A, Grafen A (2009) Capturing the superorganism: a formal theory of group adaptation. J Evol Biol 22:659–671CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  5. Godfrey-Smith P (2008) Conditions for evolution by natural selection. J Philos 104:489–516Google Scholar
  6. Grafen A (2002) A first formal link between the Price equation and an optimization program. J Theor Biol 217:75–91CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  7. Grafen A (2006) Optimization of inclusive fitness. J Theor Biol 238:541–563CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. Grafen A (2007) The formal Darwinism project: a mid-term report. J Evol Biol 20:1243–1254CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  9. Grafen A (2014) The formal darwinism project in outline. Biol Philos 29(2). doi: 10.1007/s10539-013-9414-y
  10. Hamilton WD (1963) The evolution of altruistic behavior. Am Nat 97:354–356CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. Hamilton WD (1964) The genetical evolution of social behaviour I & II. J Theor Biol 7:1–52CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Hamilton WD (1970) Selfish and spiteful behaviour in an evolutionary model. Nature 228:1218–1220CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Hamilton WD (1975) Innate social aptitudes of man: an approach from evolutionary genetics. In: Fox R (ed) Biosocial anthropology. Wiley, New York, pp 133–155Google Scholar
  14. Hamilton WD (1996) Narrow roads of gene land. I. Evolution of social behavior. W.H. Freeman, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  15. Herron MD, Rashidi A, Shelton DE, Driscoll WW (2013) Cellular differentiation and individuality in the ‘minor’ multicellular taxa. Biol Rev 88:844–861. doi: 10.1111/brv.12031 Google Scholar
  16. Kerr B, Godfrey-Smith P (2002) Individualist and multi-level perspectives on selection in structured populations. Biol Philos 17:477–517CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. Lewontin RC (1970) The units of selection. Ann Rev Ecol Evol Syst 1:1–18CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Maynard Smith J (1981) Will a sexual population evolve to an ESS? Am Nat 117:1015–1018CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Maynard Smith J, Szathmáry E (1995) The major transitions in evolution. Freeman, OxfordGoogle Scholar
  20. Michod RE (1999) Darwinian dynamics. Princeton University Press, PrincetonGoogle Scholar
  21. Monro K, Poore A (2009) The potential for evolutionary responses to cell-lineage selection on growth form and its plasticity in a red seaweed. Am Nat 173:151–163CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Okasha S (2006) Evolution and the levels of selection. Oxford University Press, OxfordCrossRefGoogle Scholar
  23. Okasha S, Paternotte C (2012) Group adaptation, formal Darwinism and contextual analysis. J Evol Biol 25:1127–1139CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  24. Paley W (1802) Natural theology: or, evidence of the existence and attributes of the deity. Gould and Lincoln, BostonGoogle Scholar
  25. Price G (1970) Selection and covariance. Nature 227:520–521CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. Queller DC (2000) Relatedness and the fraternal major transitions. Philos T R Soc B 355:1647–1655CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  27. Schnable PS, Ware D, Fulton RS, Stein JC, Wei F, Pasternak S, Liang C et al (2009) The B73 maize genome: complexity, diversity, and dynamics. Science 326:1112–1115CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Shelton DE, Michod RE (2014) Group selection and group adaptation during a major evolutionary transition: insights from the evolution of multicellularity in the volvocine algae. Biol Theory. doi: 10.1007/s13752-014-0159-x
  29. Sober E, Wilson DS (2011) Adaptation and natural selection revisited. J Evol Biol 24:462–468CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Wright S (1969) Evolution and the genetics of populations. A treatise in three volumes, vol 2 The theory of gene frequencies. The University of Chicago Press, ChicagoGoogle Scholar

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2014

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.Department of Ecology and Evolutionary BiologyUniversity of ArizonaTucsonUSA

Personalised recommendations