6533b837fe1ef96bd12a1e4d

RESEARCH PRODUCT

Kin and multilevel selection in social evolution: a never-ending controversy?

Jos KramerJoël Meunier

subject

0106 biological sciences0301 basic medicine[SDV]Life Sciences [q-bio]cooperationReviewKin selectionAltruism (biology)Biology010603 evolutionary biology01 natural sciencesGeneral Biochemistry Genetics and Molecular BiologyBehavioral Ecology03 medical and health sciencesTheoretical Ecologycooperation; altruism; sociobiology; group selection; levels of selection; inclusive fitnessGeneral Pharmacology Toxicology and PharmaceuticsSelection (genetic algorithm)SociobiologyGeneral Immunology and Microbiology[SDV.BA]Life Sciences [q-bio]/Animal biologyinclusive fitnessInclusive fitnessArticlesGeneral Medicinelevels of selectionEpistemology[SDV.BA.ZI]Life Sciences [q-bio]/Animal biology/Invertebrate Zoologygroup selection030104 developmental biologyGroup selectionaltruismEvolutionary EcologysociobiologySocial evolutionNeuroscienceSocial behavior

description

Kin selection and multilevel selection are two major frameworks in evolutionary biology that aim at explaining the evolution of social behaviors. However, the relationship between these two theories has been plagued by controversy for almost half a century and debates about their relevance and usefulness in explaining social evolution seem to rekindle at regular intervals. Here, we first provide a concise introduction into the kin selection and multilevel selection theories and shed light onto the roots of the controversy surrounding them. We then review two major aspects of the current debate: the presumed formal equivalency of the two theories and the question whether group selection can lead to group adaptation. We conclude by arguing that the two theories can offer complementary approaches to the study of social evolution: kin selection approaches usually focus on the identification of optimal phenotypes and thus on the endresult of a selection process, whereas multilevel selection approaches focus on the ongoing selection process itself. The two theories thus provide different perspectives that might be fruitfully combined to promote our understanding of the evolution in group-structured populations.

https://doi.org/10.12688/f1000research.8018.1