
E. O. Wilson Still Thrives on Being a Scientific Provocateur - objections
https://www.wired.com/story/at-90-e-o-wilson-thrives-on-being-a-scientific-provocateur/
======
Jun8
My son (he's 12) is currently _infatuated_ with ants, he bought a colony from
a GAN farmer through AntsCanada and is watching his videos all the time (they
are great, by the way). We checked out Holldobler and Wilson's epic tome
_Ants_ (it's too expensive, even for a used copy, but a beautiful, large
volume) but he found Wilson's _Journey to the Ants_ much more readable, he's
going through it page by page, taking notes, which I've never seen him to with
a book before.

So, this led to some ant-related discussions with him. Did you know that ant
colonies can have memories older than individual ants? (see this great Ted
talk:
[https://www.ted.com/talks/deborah_gordon_digs_ants?language=...](https://www.ted.com/talks/deborah_gordon_digs_ants?language=en))
The bizarre concept of eusociality also came up, how did such a thing involve?
If ants (and termites and bees) are so successful with this strategy why
wasn't it adopted by more species? According to
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eusociality](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eusociality)
very few animals other than these exhibit eusociality (humans aside, which
presents a complicated case).

There's fierce debate about the evolution of eusocial behavior, kin selection
vs. other explanations. Wilson's theory presented in his 2010 _Nature_ paper,
co-written with two mathematical biologists [1], seems to be at odds with
others and generated a strong reaction from other researchers [2] (see this
Quora answer for a high-level intro to this technical discussion:
[https://www.quora.com/Does-EO-Wilson-Corina-Tarnita-and-
Mart...](https://www.quora.com/Does-EO-Wilson-Corina-Tarnita-and-Martin-
Nowaks-paper-on-eusociality-spell-the-death-of-gene-level-selection-in-
evolutionary-biology)).

My son is planning to put his mark on this debate in next year's science fair
by trying to measure DNA similarity of worker ants from his colony :-)

[1]
[https://www.nature.com/articles/nature09205](https://www.nature.com/articles/nature09205)

[2]
[https://www.nature.com/articles/nature09836](https://www.nature.com/articles/nature09836)

~~~
jly
> very few animals other than these exhibit eusociality (humans aside,

Technically, humans are not eusocial, which by definition requires a
biological division of reproductive labor. Most eusocial species actually have
significant morphological differences in their classes (i.e. females that
physically can or cannot reproduce).

Wilson tends to repeat the idea of humans and other primates as eusocial which
I find confusing.

Eusociality and its evolution is indeed a fascinating topic. There are some
great discussions on this from WD Hamilton (the study of led him to inclusive
fitness theory and kin selection) and Richard Alexander (who discovered the
only eusocial mammal - the naked mole-rat).

~~~
lazzlazzlazz
> humans are not eusocial, which by definition requires a biological division
> of reproductive labor

Wouldn't the biological division of labor regarding breast-feeding in humans
be sufficient? It's a significant morphological difference.

~~~
MaxBarraclough
Not sure why you're being downvoted. You're right of course that the
male/female distinction of sexual reproduction is in itself is a clear case of
'biological division of reproductive labor'. Child-bearing itself is an even
clearer example than breast-feeding. I'm not sure jly was really getting at
the core aspects of eusociality there.

Humans aren't eusocial, but we certainly have division of reproductive labor.
So do non-social sexual species.

------
iarejenius
His book, _Letters to a Young Scientist_ , is a great read even if you're not
a scientist. It's one of those books you wish you had read when you were a
teenager.

------
onychomys
I love Ed Wilson. But I think it's so odd that his group selection theories
get such a fawning treatment by journalists. I mean, he publishes in Nature,
and the next month 140 other evolutionary biologists sign a letter telling him
that he's wrong. He claims it's because his new idea is threatening everybody
else's livelihoods. But surely it's more parsimonious that when it's 4 against
140 that the 4 are just plain wrong.

~~~
pierrebai
Clearly I'm no expert in the field, but I've no understood the objections to
group selection.

From what I've read, the objector claim that genes get selected and this
slection necessarily passes by reproduction which is done on an individual
basis.

Yet, especially inthe example of ants, two neighbour colonies of ants of the
same specie might have a queen with different genes and if the difference
grant and advantages the one with the better gene pool with spawn other
similar colonies which woudl supplant the inferior one. In each colonies, non-
reproductive ants with the better gene don't reproduce themselves but yet it's
their better genes that supplant the neighbouring colonies. The queen does no
work other than lay eggs, so it does not not contribute the the higher success
rate ofthe colonies. Clearly, the behaviour of non-reproducing ants has a
direct influence on the gene pool.

For example, the better gene might make better warrior ants. They don't
reproduce themselves, yet the gene helps the colonies.

The same argument could be made of two wolf packs, or any two competing group.
Of course, in those case, you can look at it at an individual level, but the
better gene will sprad at the group level. (Ignoring if a wolf could switch
pack to spread the gene to the other pack. I'm here assuming this doesn't
happen for the sake of the argument.) The more social the species, the more
the group-level genes can influence the chances of reproductions of those not
harboring the gene but part of the group, which make the group more
successful, which eventually will make the gene spread in the group through
gene exchange and selection during reproduction. For example, if the gene
leads to better caring between individuals, it benefits the entire group
harboring individual with that traits and eventually the group with the
highest percentage of that gene will win out.

~~~
onychomys
It's a little tough to explain without resorting to a level of math nerd that
is hard to type out here, but the basic problem with it is that there's too
much gene flow between demes (partially isolated intra-breeding populations),
and that swamps the relatively weak effects of natural selection. It's part of
the reason that almost all speciation is allopatric, because without that
isolation, the effects of selection get wiped out by cross-breeding.

