Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-p9bg8 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-23T01:06:44.740Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Does the Concept of “Clade Selection” Make Sense?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  01 January 2022

Samir Okasha
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

The idea that clades might be units of selection, defended by a number of biologists and philosophers of biology, is critically examined. I argue that only entities which reproduce, i.e. leave offspring, can be units of selection, and that a necessary condition of reproduction is that the offspring entity be able, in principle, to outlive its parental entity. Given that clades are monophlyetic by definition, it follows that clades do not reproduce, so it makes no sense to talk about a clade's fitness, so clade selection is impossible. Three possible responses to this argument are examined and found wanting.

Type
Research Article
Information
Philosophy of Science , Volume 70 , Issue 4 , October 2003 , pp. 739 - 751
Copyright
Copyright © The Philosophy of Science Association

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

Footnotes

‡

Thanks to Kim Sterelny and three referees for this journal for helpful comments on an earlier draft, and to the AHRB for financial support.

References

Arnold, Anthony J., and Fristrup, Kurt (1982), “The Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection: A Hierarchical Expansion”, The Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection: A Hierarchical Expansion 8:113–129.Google Scholar
Damuth, John, and Heisler, Lorraine (1988), “Alternative formulations of multilevel selection”, Alternative formulations of multilevel selection 3:407–430.Google Scholar
Dawkins, Richard (1982), The Extended Phenotype: The Gene as the Unit of Selection. Oxford: W.H. Freeman.Google Scholar
Eldredge, Niles (1985), Unfinished Synthesis: Biological Hierarchies and Modern Evolutionary Thought. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Eldredge, Niles (2003), “The Sloshing Bucket: How the Physical Realm Controls Evolution” in Crutchfield, James P. and Schuster, Peter (eds.), Evolutionary Dynamics. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar
Gardezi, Tariq, and Silva, Jack da (1999), “Diversity in Relation to Body Size in Mammals: A Comparative Study”, Diversity in Relation to Body Size in Mammals: A Comparative Study 153 (1): 110–123..Google ScholarPubMed
Gould, Stephen Jay (2001), “The Evolutionary Definition of Selective Agency, the Validation of the Theory of Hierarchical Selection, and the Fallacy of the Selfish Gene”, in Singh, Rama, Krimbas, Costas, Paul, Diane, and Beatty, John (eds.), Thinking about Evolution: Historical, Philosophical and Political Perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Gould, Stephen Jay (2002), The Structure of Evolutionary Theory. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gould, Stephen Jay, and Eldredge, Niles (1977), “Punctuated Equilibria: The Tempo and Mode of Evolution Revisited”, Punctuated Equilibria: The Tempo and Mode of Evolution Revisited 6:115–151.Google Scholar
Griesemer, James R. (2000), “Reproduction and the Reduction of Genetics”, in Beurton, Peter J., Falk, Raphael, and Rheinberger, Hans-Jorg (eds.), The Concept of the Gene in Development and Evolution: Historical and Epistemological Perspectives. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.Google Scholar
Griesemer, James R. and Wade, Michael J. (2000), “Populational Heritability: Extending Punnett Square Concepts to Evolution at the Metapopulational Level”, Populational Heritability: Extending Punnett Square Concepts to Evolution at the Metapopulational Level 15:1–17.Google Scholar
Hennig, Willi (1966), Phylogenetic Systematics. Urbana, IL: University of Illinois Press.Google Scholar
Hoffman, Antoni, and Hecht, Max K. (1986), “Species Selection as a Causal Process: A Reply”, Species Selection as a Causal Process: A Reply 20:275–281.Google Scholar
Hurst, Laurence D., and McVean, Gilean T. (1996), “Clade Selection, Reversible Evolution and the Persistence of Selfish Elements: The Evolutionary Dynamics of Cytoplasmic Incompatibility”, Clade Selection, Reversible Evolution and the Persistence of Selfish Elements: The Evolutionary Dynamics of Cytoplasmic Incompatibility B 263:97–104.Google Scholar
Lewontin, Richard C. (1970), “The Units of Selection”, The Units of Selection 1:1–18.Google Scholar
Maynard Smith, John (1987), “How to Model Evolution”, in Dupre, John (ed.), The Latest on the Best: Essays on Evolution and Optimality, Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.Google Scholar
Mayr, Ernst (1969), Principles of Systematic Zoology. New York: McGraw-Hill.Google Scholar
Michod, Richard (1999), Darwinian Dynamics: Evolutionary Transitions in Fitness and Individuality. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Nelson, Gareth J., and Platnick, Norman (1984), “Systematics and Evolution”, in Ho, Mae-Wan and Saunders, Peter T. (eds.), Beyond Neo-Darwinism. London: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Nunney, Leonard (1999), “Lineage Selection: Natural Selection for Long-term Benefit”, in Keller, Laurent (ed.), Levels of Selection in Evolution. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Okasha, Samir (2001), “Why Won’t the Group Selection Controversy Go Away?”, Why Won’t the Group Selection Controversy Go Away? 52 (1): 25–50..Google Scholar
Okasha, Samir (2003), “The Concept of Group Heritability”, The Concept of Group Heritability 18 (3): 445–461..Google Scholar
Ridley, Mark (1989), “The Cladistic Solution to the Species Problem”, The Cladistic Solution to the Species Problem 4:1–16.Google Scholar
Simpson, George Gaylord (1961), Principles of Animal Taxonomy. New York: Columbia University Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Sober, Elliott (1992), “Monophyly”, in Keller, Evelyn Fox and Lloyd, Elizabeth A. (eds.), Keywords in Evolutionary Biology. Cambridge MA: Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Stanley, Steven M. (1975), “A Theory of Evolution above the Species Level”, A Theory of Evolution above the Species Level 72:646–650.Google ScholarPubMed
Stearns, Steven C. (1986), “Natural Selection and Fitness: Adaptation and Constraint”, in Jablonski, David and Raup, David (eds.), Patterns and Processes in the History of Life, Berlin: Springer-Verlag.Google Scholar
Sterelny, Kim (1996), “Explanatory Pluralism in Evolutionary Biology”, Explanatory Pluralism in Evolutionary Biology 11:193–214.Google Scholar
van Valen, Leigh (1978), “Why not To Be a Cladist”, Why not To Be a Cladist 3:285–299.Google Scholar
van Valen, Leigh (1988), “Species, Sets, and the Derivative Nature of Philosophy”, Species, Sets, and the Derivative Nature of Philosophy 3:49–66.Google Scholar
Vermeij, Geerat J. (1996), “Adaptations of Clades: Resistance and Response”, in Rose, M.R. and Lauder, G. (eds.), Adaptation. San Diego: Academic Press.Google Scholar
Vrba, Elizabeth (1984), “What is Species Selection?”, What is Species Selection? 33:318–328.Google Scholar
Vrba, Elizabeth (1989), “Levels of Selection and Sorting with Special Reference to the Species Level”, Levels of Selection and Sorting with Special Reference to the Species Level 6:111–168.Google Scholar
Williams, George C. (1992), Natural Selection: Domains, Levels, Challenges. Oxford: Oxford University Press.Google Scholar