Advertisement

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

  • Ryan Ketcham
Chapter

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.

Keywords

Interactors Pluralism Additivity criterion Group selection Contextual analysis Multilevel selection 

Notes

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.

References

  1. Arnold, A., & Fristrup, K. (1982). The theory of evolution by natural selection: A hierarchical expansion. Paleobiology, 8(1), 113–129.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  2. Damuth, J., & Heisler, L. (1988). Alternative forms of multilevel selection. Biology and Philosophy, 4(4), 407–408.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  3. Dawkins, R. (1976). The selfish gene. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  4. Dawkins, R. (1982). The extended phenotype: The long reach of the gene. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  5. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  6. 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
  7. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  8. 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
  9. Gould, S. J. (2002). The structure of evolutionary theory. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
  10. Gould, S. J., & Eldredge, N. (1977). Punctuated equilibria: The tempo and mode of evolution reconsidered. Paleobiology, 3(2), 115–151.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  11. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  12. Gould, S. J., & Vrba, E. S. (1982). Exaptation—A missing term in the science of form. Paleobiology, 8(1), 4–15.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  13. Heisler, L., & Damuth, J. (1987). A method for analyzing selection in hierarchically structured populations. The American Naturalist, 130(4), 582–602.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  14. Hull, D. (1980). Individuality and selection. Annual Review of Ecology, Evolution, and Systematics, 11(1), 311–332.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  15. Jablonski, D. (1986). Larval ecology and macroevolution in marine invertebrates. Bulletin of Marine Science, 39(2), 565–587.Google Scholar
  16. Jablonski, D. (1987). Heritability at the species level: Analysis of geographic ranges of cretaceous mollusks. Science, 238(4825), 360–363.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  17. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  18. Kerr, B., & Godfrey-Smith, P. (2002). Individualist and multi-level perspectives on selection in structured populations. Biology and Philosophy, 17(4), 477–517.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  19. Kitcher, P., Sterelny, K., & Waters, C. K. (1990). The illusory riches of Sober’s monism. The Journal of Philosophy, 87(3), 158–161.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  20. 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
  21. Lloyd, E. (1987). A structural approach to defining units of selection. Philosophy of Science, 56(3), 395–418.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  22. Lloyd, E. (1988). The structure and confirmation of evolutionary theory. Westport, CT: Greenwood Press.Google Scholar
  23. 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
  24. 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
  25. Lloyd, E. (2005). Why the gene will not return. Philosophy of Science, 72(2), 287–310.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  26. 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.
  27. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  28. Lloyd, E., Dunn, M., Cianciollo, J., & Mannouris, C. (2005). Pluralism without genic causes? Philosophy of Science, 72(2), 334–341.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  29. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  30. Maynard Smith, J. (1964). Group selection and kin selection. Nature, 200, 1145–1147.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  31. 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
  32. Maynard Smith, J. (2001). Reconciling Marx and Darwin. Evolution, 55(7), 1496–1498.Google Scholar
  33. Okasha, S. (2006). Evolution and the levels of selection. Oxford: Oxford University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  34. Sober, E. (1984). The nature of selection: Evolutionary theory in philosophical focus. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.Google Scholar
  35. Sober, E. (1990). The poverty of pluralism: A reply to Sterelny and Kitcher. The Journal of Philosophy, 87(3), 151–158.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  36. 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.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  37. Sterelny, K. (1996a). Explanatory pluralism in evolutionary biology. Biology and Philosophy, 11(2), 193–214.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  38. Sterelny, K. (1996b). The return of the group. Philosophy of Science, 63(4), 562–584.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  39. Sterelny, K., & Kitcher, P. (1988). The return of the gene. The Journal of Philosophy, 85(7), 339–361.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  40. Vrba, E. (1980). Evolution, species and fossils: How does life evolve? South African Journal of Science, 76(2), 61–84.Google Scholar
  41. 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
  42. Vrba, E., & Gould, S. J. (1986). The hierarchal expansion of sorting and selection. Paleobiology, 12(2), 217–228.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  43. Wade, M. J. (1978). A critical review of the models of group selection. The Quarterly Review of Biology, 53(2), 101–114.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  44. Wade, M. J. (2016). Adaptation in metapopulations: How interaction changes evolution. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  45. Waters, C. K. (1985). Models of natural selection: From Darwin to Dawkins. Bloomington: Indiana University.Google Scholar
  46. Waters, C. K. (1991). Tempered realism about the force of selection. Philosophy of Science, 58(4), 553–573.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  47. Waters, C. K. (2005). Why genic and multilevel selection theories are here to stay. Philosophy of Science, 72(2), 311–333.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  48. Williams, G. C. (1966). Adaptation and natural selection. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
  49. Williams, G. C. (1990). Review of the structure and confirmation of evolutionary theory. The Quarterly Review of Biology, 65(4), 504–505.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
  50. Williams, G. C. (1992). Natural selection: Domains, levels, and challenges. New York: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
  51. 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

Copyright information

© The Author(s) 2018

Authors and Affiliations

  • Ryan Ketcham
    • 1
  1. 1.Indiana UniversityBloomingtonUSA

Personalised recommendations