Biologists: kin-selection vs. group-selection

[daijobu]

I'm reading E.O. Wilson's book about group selection in evolution and am learning that Dawkins opposes this model.  I'm having a hard time understanding the theory and math of group selection.  (I've read Selfish Gene and I feel like I have a good understanding of kin selection.)  

 

Wilson's book seems to make sense to me, particularly when I consider that early groups of humans are also genetically similar.  And groups that survive at the expense of other groups of humans will also be able to pass on their genes.

 

Can someone explain group selection to me?  Is there a real controversy here, or are more biologists on the kin-selection side and EO Wilson is in the minority?  (If so, I'm going to stop reading his book now.)  

[Ravin]

Both sides have legitimate arguments.

 

I found this blog post on the topic informative in summary:

 

http://blog.oup.com/2015/01/kin-group-selection-controversy/

 

And this one has more detail:

 

https://evolution-institute.org/article/richard-dawkins-edward-o-wilson-and-the-consensus-of-the-many/

 

In short, Wilson's book is very much worth a read, but probably not an ending point if you are interested in the subject of evolutionary sociobiology.

[Kalmia]

Before you quit his books watch this documentary. It is a lovely biopic about Wilson. He talks a little bit about the topic you mentioned. As I understand it, he believes the drive for humans to split into tribes (group selection) is of evolutionary origin. It is normal to have competing theories in this area of science. It is relatively new and the questions haven't been definitively answered.

 

http://www.pbs.org/program/eo-wilson/