Skip to main content
SpringerLink
Log in

Equivalence, Interactors, and Lloyd’s Challenge to Genic Pluralism

  • Chapter
  • First Online:
Multilevel Selection and the Theory of Evolution

Abstract

On a train ride in 1986, Elisabeth Lloyd convinced Stephen Jay Gould he had been wrong about species selection. The mistake had to do with differentiating what Lloyd came to call the “interactor question” from three other distinct questions implicit in the units of selection controversy. Lloyd’s efforts to answer this question led her to propose “emergent fitness” with Gould, develop the additivity criterion, and allowed the dissection of the units debates that was endorsed by George Williams and John Maynard Smith. It also led her into conflict with contemporary genic pluralists who argue that higher and lower level models are equivalent. Lloyd’s approach to the interactor question led her to show why this is a mistake and is key to understanding the controversy.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this chapter

Log in via an institution
Chapter
USD 29.95
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
eBook
USD 39.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Available as EPUB and PDF
  • Read on any device
  • Instant download
  • Own it forever
Hardcover Book
USD 54.99
Price excludes VAT (USA)
  • Durable hardcover edition
  • Dispatched in 3 to 5 business days
  • Free shipping worldwide - see info

Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout

Purchases are for personal use only

Institutional subscriptions

References

  • Arnold, A., & Fristrup, K. (1982). The theory of evolution by natural selection: A hierarchical expansion. Paleobiology, 8(1), 113–129.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Damuth, J., & Heisler, L. (1988). Alternative forms of multilevel selection. Biology and Philosophy, 4(4), 407–408.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Dawkins, R. (1976). The selfish gene. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dawkins, R. (1982). The extended phenotype: The long reach of the gene. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Dugatkin, L., & Reeve, H. (1994). Behavioral ecology and levels of selection: Dissolving the group selection controversy. Advances in the Study of Behavior, 23, 101–133.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Godfrey-Smith, P. (1992). Additivity and the units of selection. PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association, 1, 315–328.

    Google Scholar 

  • Goodnight, C. J., & Stevens, L. (1997). Experimental studies of group selection: What do they tell us about group selection in nature? The American Naturalist, 150(S1), S59–S79.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gould, S. J. (1982). The meaning of punctuated equilibrium and its role in validating a hierarchical approach to macroevolution. In R. Milkman (Ed.), Perspectives on evolution (pp. 83–104). Sunderland, MA: Sinauer Associates.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gould, S. J. (2002). The structure of evolutionary theory. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gould, S. J., & Eldredge, N. (1977). Punctuated equilibria: The tempo and mode of evolution reconsidered. Paleobiology, 3(2), 115–151.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gould, S. J., & Lloyd, E. (1999). Individuality and adaptation across levels of selection: How shall we name and generalize the unit of Darwinism? Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 96(21), 11904–11909.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Gould, S. J., & Vrba, E. S. (1982). Exaptation—A missing term in the science of form. Paleobiology, 8(1), 4–15.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Heisler, L., & Damuth, J. (1987). A method for analyzing selection in hierarchically structured populations. The American Naturalist, 130(4), 582–602.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Hull, D. (1980). Individuality and selection. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics, 11(1), 311–332.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jablonski, D. (1986). Larval ecology and macroevolution in marine invertebrates. Bulletin of Marine Science, 39(2), 565–587.

    Google Scholar 

  • Jablonski, D. (1987). Heritability at the species level: Analysis of geographic ranges of cretaceous mollusks. Science, 238(4825), 360–363.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Jablonski, D., & Hunt, G. (2006). Larval ecology, geographic range, and species survivorship in cretaceous mollusks: Organismic versus species-level explanations. The American Naturalist, 168(4), 556–564.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kerr, B., & Godfrey-Smith, P. (2002). Individualist and multi-level perspectives on selection in structured populations. Biology and Philosophy, 17(4), 477–517.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Kitcher, P., Sterelny, K., & Waters, C. K. (1990). The illusory riches of Sober’s monism. The Journal of Philosophy, 87(3), 158–161.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lloyd, E. (1986). Evaluation and evidence in group selection debates. PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association, 1, 483–493.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lloyd, E. (1987). A structural approach to defining units of selection. Philosophy of Science, 56(3), 395–418.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lloyd, E. (1988). The structure and confirmation of evolutionary theory. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lloyd, E. (1992). Unit of selection. In E. Keller & E. Lloyd (Eds.), Keywords in evolutionary biology (pp. 334–340). Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lloyd, E. (2001). Units and levels of selection: An anatomy of the units of selection debates. In R. S. Singh et al. (Eds.), Thinking about evolution: Historical, philosophical, and political perspectives (pp. 267–291). Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Lloyd, E. (2005). Why the gene will not return. Philosophy of Science, 72(2), 287–310.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lloyd, E. (2017). Units and levels of selection. In E. N. Zalta (Ed.), Stanford encyclopedia of philosophy (Summer 2017 Edition). https://plato.stanford.edu/archives/win2012/entries/davidson.

  • Lloyd, E., & Gould, S. J. (1993). Species selection on variability. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 90(2), 595–599.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lloyd, E., Dunn, M., Cianciollo, J., & Mannouris, C. (2005). Pluralism without genic causes? Philosophy of Science, 72(2), 334–341.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Lloyd, E., Lewontin, R. C., & Feldman, M. W. (2008). The generational cycle of state spaces and adequate genetical representation. Philosophy of Science, 75(2), 140–156.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maynard Smith, J. (1964). Group selection and kin selection. Nature, 200, 1145–1147.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Maynard Smith, J. (1987). How to model evolution. In J. Dupre (Ed.), The latest of the best: Essays on evolution and optimality (pp. 119–131). Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Maynard Smith, J. (2001). Reconciling Marx and Darwin. Evolution, 55(7), 1496–1498.

    Google Scholar 

  • Okasha, S. (2006). Evolution and the levels of selection. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Sober, E. (1984). The nature of selection: Evolutionary theory in philosophical focus. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sober, E. (1990). The poverty of pluralism: A reply to Sterelny and Kitcher. The Journal of Philosophy, 87(3), 151–158.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Stanley, S. M. (1975). A theory of evolution above the species level. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 72(2), 646–650.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sterelny, K. (1996a). Explanatory pluralism in evolutionary biology. Biology and Philosophy, 11(2), 193–214.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sterelny, K. (1996b). The return of the group. Philosophy of Science, 63(4), 562–584.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Sterelny, K., & Kitcher, P. (1988). The return of the gene. The Journal of Philosophy, 85(7), 339–361.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Vrba, E. (1980). Evolution, species and fossils: How does life evolve? South African Journal of Science, 76(2), 61–84.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vrba, E. (1989). Levels of selection and sorting with special reference to the species level. In P. Harvey & L. Partridge (Eds.), Oxford surveys in evolutionary biology (Vol. 6, pp. 111–168). Oxford: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Vrba, E., & Gould, S. J. (1986). The hierarchal expansion of sorting and selection. Paleobiology, 12(2), 217–228.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wade, M. J. (1978). A critical review of the models of group selection. The Quarterly Review of Biology, 53(2), 101–114.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Wade, M. J. (2016). Adaptation in metapopulations: How interaction changes evolution. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.

    Book  Google Scholar 

  • Waters, C. K. (1985). Models of natural selection: From Darwin to Dawkins. Bloomington: Indiana University.

    Google Scholar 

  • Waters, C. K. (1991). Tempered realism about the force of selection. Philosophy of Science, 58(4), 553–573.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Waters, C. K. (2005). Why genic and multilevel selection theories are here to stay. Philosophy of Science, 72(2), 311–333.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Williams, G. C. (1966). Adaptation and natural selection. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Williams, G. C. (1990). Review of the structure and confirmation of evolutionary theory. The Quarterly Review of Biology, 65(4), 504–505.

    Article  Google Scholar 

  • Williams, G. C. (1992). Natural selection: Domains, levels, and challenges. New York: Oxford University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wimsatt, W. C. (1980). The units of selection and the structure of the multi-level genome. PSA: Proceedings of the Biennial Meeting of the Philosophy of Science Association, 1980(2), 122–183.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

I would like to thank Elisabeth Lloyd for her generosity and candid insight over the course of multiple extensive discussions regarding the development of her ideas and how they were received by a host of distinguished figures she engaged with over the course of her career so far. I would also like to thank Michael Wade for discussion of some of the technical details, Ciprian Jeler for helpful editorial insight, and especially Lisa Ferrier for all of her crucial support.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Indiana University, Bloomington, USA

    Ryan Ketcham

Authors
  1. Ryan Ketcham
    View author publications

    You can also search for this author in PubMed Google Scholar

Editor information

Editors and Affiliations

  1. Department of Interdisciplinary Research – Humanities and Social Sciences, “Alexandru Ioan Cuza” University of Iaşi, Iaşi, Romania

    Ciprian Jeler

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

Copyright information

© 2018 The Author(s)

About this chapter

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this chapter

Ketcham, R. (2018). Equivalence, Interactors, and Lloyd’s Challenge to Genic Pluralism. In: Jeler, C. (eds) Multilevel Selection and the Theory of Evolution. Palgrave Pivot, Cham. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-78677-3_4

Download citation

Publish with us

Policies and ethics

Search

Navigation