[lisper]

The puzzlement over the apparent reproductive disadvantages of wing-singing is simply a reflection of a misunderstanding of how evolution works. Evolution does not select for the reproductive fitness of species, it selects for the reproductive fitness of genes. And it does not select for the absolute fitness of genes, but rather for their fitness relative to competing alleles with respect to a particular environment. The genes for wing-singing are better at reproducing themselves in an environment where manakins already exist than the genes for alternative strategies for finding mates. That this might hurt the reproductive fitness of the other genes that go into making club-wing manakins matters not at all to the wing-singing genes. Genes don't think these things through. Genes don't think at all. Some genes build things that think, and some of those things that think end up being puzzled by the behavior of genes, including the very genes that built them.

[dekhn]

You're describing this viewpoint: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gene-centered_view_of_evolutio... however I don't think it's really an accepted (in terms of evidence) theory that explains all evolution. I think most biologists think that evolution selects at multiple levels (although likely the underlying processes are much more complex than just that).

After all, no real visible phenotype is truly based on a single gene, but rather the dynamic interplay of hundreds of gene products over the course of the organism's development.

[lisper]

> You're describing this viewpoint

Yes.

> evolution selects at multiple levels

That's just another way of saying that evolution selects for reproductive fitness with respect to a particular environment. If a gene is part of an organism, then the other genes in that organism are part of that gene's environment.

The aggregation of genes into organisms is itself an evolutionary adaptation (as is the aggregation of organisms into more complex organisms like eukaryotic cells and multi-cellular creatures). This aggregation provides reproductive fitness by enforcing a certain level of cooperation among the aggregated genes (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Evolution_of_Cooperation). But this is not the fundamental mechanism of evolution, and every now an then a gene "defects" and does what is best for it at the time. Cancer is an example of this.

[dekhn]

I think you're trying very hard to fit the real world into a hypothesis that doesn't make any sense.

[rnabel]

I would encourage you to read up on what the gene-centered view actually states.

> that doesn't make any sense

If you look at the criticism leveled against this theory you will find that many of them have been addressed by the proponents of the theory, in many cases very successfully. Many things can be said about this theory but your claim strikes me as highly unqualified.

[lisper]

It makes perfect sense to me. What about it doesn't make sense to you?

[qb45]

I think he doesn't describe GCVOE but rather uses it to explain the apparent paradox.

Naively expecting "better" organisms to win fails to explain why these birds are evolving progressively "worse".

But if you go down and look at genes which handicap the male while triggering some silly attractiveness glitch in females versus genes that don't, it becomes clear that as long as the handicap isn't too strong, the former genes may easily win.

I think that's a point for the GCVOE this time.

[lisper]

Yes, well said.

[nabla9]

> most biologists think that evolution selects

It's my understanding that gene-centered view is the main view among evolutionary biologists.

Multi-level adaptation seems to have fallen under lack of evidence. Evidence from nature, mathematical theory, and evolutionary simulations seem to back up selfish gene theory. There are still people like David Sloan Wilson who work on it.

[h0l0cube]

"A hen is only an egg's way of making another egg." Samuel Butler, Life and Habit