#hypothesisofkinselection

(The Social Gene chs 1 & 3) In a world defined by Darwin as one of relentless competition for success in producing offspring, evolutionists were confronted by the existence of altruistic gestures between individuals. They resolved this paradox in the theory of “kin selection” by granting a waiver for close relatives on the grounds that their genes were almost identical to each other, and so those favorable genes of the subject could be propagated almost as effectively by these relatives. The doctrine of kin selection was described by William Hamilton as: “If natural selection followed the classical models exclusively, species would not show any behaviour more positively social than the coming together of the sexes and parental care. ”1 Richard Dawkins offered a similar sentiment: “... a predominant quality to be expected in a successful gene is ruthless selfishness.” 2 In this interpretation of evolution these authors have concluded that the sole purpose of sociality is contained in its benefit to close relatives. This appears to be the fulfillment of the dogma of “natural selection” proposed by Darwin, although he did not express this view. In deconstructing this hypothesis the first decision is whether it is justified in its own right without further explanation as is implied by the quotations. I will argue that there are no grounds a priori to conclude that either expression is established in fact or in theory. Delving Deeper into the Faulty Hypothesis of Kin Selection For the sake of argument, let us take the opposite position that animals may benefit from being unselfish. The criteria for determining which is most likely to be true will be whether the needs of the individual and the species are furthered. A first impression would suggest that natural selection favors the first interpretation by promoting the success of the individual in competition with other members of the species. In many species - those that are not social – conflicts may occur between individuals when they meet each other. A case in point is the Arctic Fox that pounces on small prey in their burrows and would not appreciate competition. Sociality offers no benefit to the individual or species in this example. In contrast, cooperation is intrinsic to African Wild Dogs who depend for their survival on their ability to take down preys that are much larger than them in the open savannah. They achieve this by forming packs that are optimal in size for their task and without redundancy. Ruthless selfishness plays no role in the act of hunting in their society. They precede their hunts by performing a chorus of joyful yapping and all members join in the feast of a successful kill. The hypothesis, then, depends on whether kinship is the basis of the pack. It certainly seems as though the dogs receive a strong motive to cooperate and that this applies independently of family connections. I have presented the evidence that kinship is not a prerequisite for sociality in The Social Gene and address the failures of kin selection further in the second article “II: The Evidence”.   1. Hamilton W. D. J. . (1964) The Genetical Evolution of Social Behavior. I. Theoret. Biol 7, 1-16 2. Dawkins, R. (2006). The Selfish Gene (No. 199). Oxford university press. Read the full article