Adaptation and Natural Selection

by George C. Williams

Biological evolution is a fact-but the many conflicting theories of evolution remain controversial even today. In 1966, simple Darwinism, which holds that evolution functions primarily at the level of the individual organism, was threatened by opposing concepts such as group selection, a popular idea stating that evolution acts to select entire species rather than individuals. George Williams's famous argument in favor of the Darwinists struck a powerful blow to those in opposing camps. His Adaptation and Natural Selection, now a classic of science literature, is a thorough and convincing essay in defense of Darwinism; its suggestions for developing effective principles for dealing with the evolution debate and its relevance to many fields outside biology ensure the timelessness of this critical work.

Genres: Science, Biology, Evolution, Nonfiction, Philosophy, Nature, Anthropology

320 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 1966

Reviews

[Steven Peterson · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is a classic in evolutionary theory; it is one of the more important works published in the past half century on the subject. The book represents a hard-nosed individualistic take on the process of natural selection. Square in its crosshairs are arguments in favor of group level selection. The book, in my view, may be a bit too rigid in its rejectionism here, but it served a salutary purpose at the time of its publication. This book laid the groundwork for later approaches such as sociobiology and evolutionary psychology.

[Ian Pitchford · Rating 5 out of 5]

The classic account of the gene-centric approach to evolution by natural selection from one of the most erudite theorists in the field.

[Resul · Rating 4 out of 5]

The book's main contribution lies not so much in its conclusion (genetic selection is fundamental) as in the method used to reach that conclusion: the relentless application of logical consistency. Williams taught biologists how to think about adaptation. He observed a “widespread inconsistency in the use of the theory of natural selection.” He identified the root of this problem not as a lack of data, but as the absence of “rigorous criteria” and a tendency for imagination to override logic. His solution was not merely to present arguments against group selection but also to propose a “basic rule” or ‘doctrine’: “adaptation is a special and burdensome concept that should only be used when truly necessary” and should be attributed to the lowest level of organization required by the evidence. Therefore, the lasting impact of the book lies not so much in specific examples (some of which he later admitted were flawed) as in the fundamental shift it brought about in the logic of evolutionary explanation. This work compelled a generation of biologists to justify their claims with a new level of rigor.
One of Williams' most revolutionary arguments is the logical justification he provides for why the gene should be accepted as the unit of selection.
Persistence Argument: For natural selection to have a cumulative effect, the selected unit must be highly persistent and the rate of change must be low relative to the selection pressure. According to this criterion:
• Phenotypes are transient; they disappear with death.
• Genotypes are also transient; they are broken down in each generation through the processes of meiosis and recombination in sexual reproduction.
• Only the gene, defined by Williams as “the abstract piece of hereditary information that separates and recombines with significant frequency,” has the potential for immortality and stability to persist across generations. Therefore, the target of cumulative selection can only be the gene.
The Gene as a “Cybernetic Abstraction”: Williams' definition of the gene is functional, not structural. A gene is any piece of information where the rate of selection bias is far higher than its own internal rate of change (mutation). This abstract and informational perspective is the direct precursor to Richard Dawkins' concept of the “replicator.”
This work is much more than a critique of group selection; it is a fundamental text on how evolutionary biology should be conducted with rigor, clarity, and logical consistency. Williams showed biologists not only what to think, but also how to think.

[Jurij Fedorov · Rating 2 out of 5]

I love reading about evolution. It is along with economy the most important topics to study if you want to understand psychology and how the basic principles work. So of course I was going to read one of the most quoted books in evolutionary psychology. It is said to be the foundation of modern psychology and one of the most important books ever written. So it has to be good, right? Not so much. It was very boring. Since I read it in 2015 I can compare it to modern books on evolution. It did not have any pictures, illustrations or graphs - something extremely important for explaining evolution. It had a boring impersonal narrative form with no jokes, quirks or even interesting writing. It was dated on a lot of points and with very few sources. A book like this today would be considered very intellectual but would drawn in more illustrative books, which it does.

So, is group selection an significant part of evolution? No, but you can read about evolution in many other books. Historically it is a 10 star book no doubt. But it makes for a boring read. And don't read it to understand evolution if you are beginner in the field. It has a few mistakes in it that at least in my 70's version were not corrected - but along with many good examples too.

[Sarah · Rating 4 out of 5]

Williams's essay is a precursor and foundational influence on the work of Richard Dawkins, which is how I came to it. Dawkins re-purposes and expands upon many of the ideas that G. C. Williams explores in Adaptation and Natural Selection: A Critique of Some Current Evolutionary Thought. He fiercely protects individual fitness and natural selection based on the reproductive success of genes. He argues against group selection and "biotic adaptations" as largely unnecessary, the phenomena of which should be explained using the lowest common denominator of individual genetic selection (as vehicles for genes - the things truly being reproduced and passed between generations). This work and others later leads Dawkins to suggest that the genes themselves are the units of natural selection. The work is quite accessible given its importance to 20th century evolutionary thought. If I had known of it ahead of time, I would have chosen to read it before some others.

[Elizabeth]

Fav quotes:

"The loss of Socrates' genotype is not assuaged by any consideration of how prolifically he may have reproduced."

"Ecological or physiological necessity is not an evolutionary factor, and the development of an adaptation is no evidence that it was necessary to the survival of the species."

"In its ultimate essence the theory of natural selection deals with a cybernetic abstraction, the gene, and a statistical abstraction, mean phenotypic fitness. Such a theory can be immensely interesting to those who have a liking and a facility for cybernetics and statistics. Fruitful applications of this theory will also require a detailed knowledge of biology. The theory certainly has little appeal to those who are not in the regular habit of using mathematical abstractions in their thinking about organisms. I doubt that the concept of mean reproductive success as applied to honey bees would have much appeal to such people. The bee population is composed of very many quite sterile individuals and a few extraordinary fertile ones. A bee of mean fertility would be quite atypical. Yet I believe that the sterility of the workers is entirely attributable to the unrelenting efforts of Darwin's demon to maximize a mere abstraction, the mean."

"Fitness is not related to genetic survival in any deterministic fashion. Chance is also an important factor. We cannot measure fitness by an evolutionary success on an individual basis. It should be judged in individuals by the extent and effectiveness of design for survival."

"We must always bear in mind that group selection and biotic adaptation are more onerous principles than genic selection and organic adaptation. They should only be invoked when the simpler explanation is clearly inadequate."

"I believe that the reliability of the ecological conditions of the parental generation as a basis for predicting the conditions to be faced by the offspring will prove to be generally useful in explaining the distribution of sexual and asexual phases of life cycles and in explaining the incidence of various kinds of restrictions on recombination in sexual processes."

"Chromosome numbers are a readily quantified aspect of a fundamentally important adaptive mechanism of almost all organisms. It is remarkable how little we understand their general significance. Our understand of the presumably related phenomenon of linkage is likewise meagre, despite the usual textbook assertion that linkage functions to stabilize favorable genetic combinations. This explanation overlooks the other side of the coin: that is linkage keeps favorable combinations together, it also, to the same extent, keeps unfavorable ones together."

"A neontological species is a group of one or more populations that have irrevocably separated from other populations as a result of the development of intrinsic barriers to genetic recombination. The species is therefore a key taxonomic and evolutionary concept but has no special significance for the study of adaptation. It is not an adapted unit and there are no mechanisms that function for the survival of the species. The only adaptations that clearly exist express themselves in the genetically defined individuals and have only one ultimate goal, the maximal perpetuation of the genes responsible for visible adaptive mechanisms, a goal equated to Hamilton's 'inclusive fitness'. The significant of an individual is equal to the extent to which it realizes this goal. In other words, its significance lies entirely in its contribution to one aspect of the vital statistics of the population."

[Christopher Nilssen · Rating 4 out of 5]

I read this book because Eliezer Yudkowsky recommended it during one of his chats with Lex Fridman. I believe he said it was one of the texts that helped with deep thinking.

The book itself is a challenge to the then-popular scientific ideas on the title matter. I knew what I was getting into when I checked the book out of the university library, that this would be a study, not a casual read. That’s why it took three months to finish. It wasn’t until I established a daily regimen of sitting down and reading for retention. I also started a word list on Dictionary.com, something I should have done a long time ago. I had intended to do some form of permanent vocabulary study with the words I was picking up on my Kindle. The device had stored every word I’d ever looked up, but that data—over two years’ worth—was lost when I upgraded to a newer model last month. Better late than never with the word lists, I suppose, but I’ll mourn the loss of all those uncommitted words.

As for this book, it taught me a few things. First, biologists have words for everything. Once I figured out what those words meant, though, the gist of the text was easy enough to glean. Second, in the 1960s much of evolutionary theory was still just theory and, if you believe Williams, good spirited but often wrong headed. And third, the read reminded me that human life could be on an evolutionary dead end. It also reminded me much of (most, if not all) of our science is seen through a human lens. I got into an argument with ChatGPT about this fact and of course I got nowhere since that program is also human biased. It made me wonder if the evolution of artificial intelligence would come once it shucked off our cute human ideas of altruism and morality. We, as humans, are so terrified of imagining an existence where we do not stand astride all of creation like conquerors, summiting a mountain of skulls at the end of the universe.

As for the book? Decent. I want to investigate more recent biology research, and now that I have an established self-study period the sky’s the limit.

[Ram Vasudeva · Rating 5 out of 5]

A classic book on evolutionary biology- it is clearly written, easy to follow and as the foreword says, once you have read it you will probably not make the common mistakes made in understanding evolution. Some of these common mistakes can derail the processes of understanding what fundamental processes operate across the theme of life! This book covers many aspects within the field from social evolution to reproductive physiology; group selection to adaptations. Worth a read and re-read for anyone interested. A worthy textbook for anyone embarking in science degrees or scientific thinking and writing. A classic for the ages. Highly recommended piece of work.

[Bìtao Qiu · Rating 5 out of 5]

Classic and thought provoking. Explained the rule of parsimony for levels of adaptation and pointed out the inadequacy of Watlington's genetic assimilation. West-Eberhard later addressed this argument in Developmental plasticity and evolution.

[Forked Radish]

Apparently, an ill-conceived dogmatic defense of pre-genetic, unscientific, Darwinism (Darwin was only a naturalist, not a trained scientist). But, since, I have yet to read it, I can only speculate.

[Ogi Ogas · Rating 5 out of 5]

My ratings of books on Goodreads are solely a crude ranking of their utility to me, and not an evaluation of literary merit, entertainment value, social importance, humor, insightfulness, scientific accuracy, creative vigor, suspensefulness of plot, depth of characters, vitality of theme, excitement of climax, satisfaction of ending, or any other combination of dimensions of value which we are expected to boil down through some fabulous alchemy into a single digit.

[Joe Ward · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is the book that killed group selectionist thinking dead. It is also the book that Dawkin's "Selfish Gene" is a mere popularization of, as he readily admits. So skip Dawkin's purple prose, go right to the source and read this instead.

[Michael · Rating 5 out of 5]

Must read for biologists