Hi, Bertvan
I think you're being unfair when you do these kinds of remark regarding
sociobiologists, and I'll try to explain why. However, let me first
clarify some points about my view on this issue:
1. I also think that "adaptive story-telling" is not science and should
have no place in evolutionary biology.
2. I agree with you that "random mutation and natural selection" are not
sufficient to explain macroevolutionary patterns, and I think that
phenomena such as self-organization (Kaufman's "order for free") and
self-organized criticality should be incorporated into the big picture.
Now, sociobiology is much more than story telling. The example you gave us
about altruism, what has been called kin selection theory, is one of the
most successful areas in evolutionary biology for the last 35 years, both
in terms of generating research and in providing testable quantitative
descriptions of a wide variety of phenomena. I suggest you to check out
any issue of the journals "Behavioural Ecology" and "Behavioral Ecology
and Sociobiology", the leading journals in this field. The spectrum of
phenomena covered by kin selection includes parent-offspring conflicts,
sex allocation theory, inclusive fitness benefits, eusociality and many
others.
The problem arises when kin selection theory is simplistically or
inappropriately applied to human behavior. This includes most of what has
been called "evolutionary psychology." Human social and cultural behavior
is in a level of complexity many orders of magnitude higher than anything
else found in nature, and in many respects "gene-based" selection is
largely irrelevant. The problem becomes even worse when information is
distorted by the media to suit their purposes. Most of the opposition
Edward O. Wilson (the "father" of sociobiology and a myrmecologist like
myself) had to face came from misunderstandings or distortions of his
ideas.
Cheers
Marcio
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun May 07 2000 - 14:19:21 EDT