Evaluating inclusive fitness

A Study of the Coevolution of Digital Organisms with an Evolutionary Cellular Automaton

“…Interaction by association . Analogously with Hamilton’s concepts [ 34 ], each organism is defined by two parameters: direct offspring or direct biological fitness ( DirectOffspring ), which is the fitness of the organism given by the number of direct offspring; and indirect offspring or indirect fitness ( IndirectOffspring ), which is the effect of the digital organism (the actor) on the reproduction of another organism with which it is associated (the recipient) [ 45 ], also called neighbor-modulated fitness [ 10 ] ( Table 2 ).…”

“…How coevolution contributes to speciation and species radiation has been a recurrent study for some time, but little progress has been made [ 3 , 5 ]. This is due to the inherent complexity of biological systems [ 6 , 7 ] and our limited ability to obtain an adequate measure of the cost of antagonistic coevolution [ 8 , 9 ], the degree of parenthood, or the genotypic composition of the coevolving species [ 10 ]. For instance, in the case of host–pathogen coevolution, demonstrating the effect of adaptations not only requires a long-term record [ 4 , 11 ], but we also need to consider that it takes place within a more extensive ecological network of additional interacting species, which can influence the coevolutionary arms race between host and pathogen [ 11 , 12 , 13 ].…”

Misconceptions, conceptual pluralism, and conceptual toolkits: bringing the philosophy of science to the teaching of evolution

“…The criticism was noteworthy because one of its authors (E.O. Wilson) long was a major proponent of inclusive fitness theory who had apparently revised his views (Woodford, 2019). It led to a highly critical response authored by 137 biologists (Abbott et al, 2011) and the publication of special criticism-and-response sections and special issues devoted to the controversy, and started a still unresolved discussion among biologists and philosophers of biology.…”