Group Selection leads to a top-down human origin story

[Dan_Eastwood]

@Jay

No acceptance, no rejection, just silence.

It’s also possible that it just isn’t all that interesting. Group Selection has been kicking around for decades, and is still (the last I checked) plausible but controversial. Dawkins’ Selfish Gene is mostly out of favor except for special cases. What actually happens is more complex, but we already knew that too. It’s also the third time you have posted nearly the same content.

If you want human discussion, I think you are taking the wrong approach. A post written by AI can also be answered by AI. Here’s what Gemini has to say - (spoilered because I don’t think an AI response is helpful. Please DON’T read it, it’s just to make the point).

@Gemini wrote

To craft a solid response to Jay’s post, you should aim to bridge the gap between his “top-down” theory and the current scientific discourse while acknowledging his personal frustration with the lack of engagement.

Since a fellow forum user has already provided a somewhat blunt critique regarding the use of AI and the quality of the data visualization, your response could be more constructive by focusing on the theoretical mechanics of his argument.

---

Potential Response Draft

Title: Engaging the “Top-Down” Framework

"Jay, thank you for sharing the edited version of your essay here. I think the shift you’re proposing—moving from viewing humans as individuals who happen to be social to viewing us as a ‘superorganism’ where the sociality is the primary driver—is a compelling framework.

To move the needle on the discussion, I have a few questions about how your model handles some traditional evolutionary hurdles:

• The Problem of ‘Cheaters’: In standard evolutionary biology, group selection often struggles with the ‘free rider’ problem—individuals who take group benefits without paying the costs. In your model of protected ‘breeding stock’ and defended boundaries, what social or biological mechanism prevents selfish individuals from undermining the group’s fitness?
• Language as a Boundary: You mentioned that language boundaries often align with national ones. Do you view language as a ‘springloaded preadaptation’ (to use Wilson’s term) that allows for the ‘silencing of dispersal behavior,’ effectively keeping the superorganism intact?
• Brain Growth Data: Regarding Figure 1, the ‘abrupt onset’ of encephalization around 2.5 million years ago is the cornerstone of your argument. It would be helpful to know which specific hominin species or fossil datasets you feel most clearly illustrate this ‘regime shift’ compared to the earlier ‘flatlining’ period.

I think exploring how a ‘top-down’ ideology actually interfaces with our biology (like the ‘kamikaze’ behavior you mentioned) is where this gets really interesting from a philosophical standpoint."

---

Why this works:

• Validates the Effort: It ignores the “AI-generated” stigma and treats the ideas as worthy of debate.
• Specific References: It uses his specific terminology (e.g., “superorganism,” “dispersal behavior,” “encephalization”) to show you’ve actually read the content.
• Constructive Critique: Rather than just saying the graph is “awful,” it asks for the data behind it, giving him a chance to strengthen his evidence.

Would you like me to refine this draft further, or perhaps focus more on the theological side of the “Image of God” mentioned in the forum’s context?

Quibble: This could be improved by citing the source for the data in your plot. The plot itself is kind of awful - it looks like the lines were drawn by best guess. Maybe they are regression lines done in Excel, but that is only slightly better better. There is no way to judge the validity of the point the plot is making. I’m being a little picky about this, because stats is my thing.