I have to take issue with this. Evolution occurs at all levels. As Gould puts it, the "Darwinian unit" can be defined as a population or species (as you just did), as an individual, as a Gene (Dawkins) as a molecule, and as a codon, for example. Selection acts at each of these levels, although in varying degrees. However, the basis of evolution is not selection, it is change. And this change occurs at the molecular level.
I’ll split hairs with you on this one. Change without selection is useless, selection without change is meaningless. Evolution is the selection of changes.
Selection acts at each of these levels, although in varying degrees.
Selection never operates on a group, only on the individuals in that group.
I think that Dawkins is correct in stating the absolute “Darwinian unit” is the “gene”. All evolution can be considered as genes trying to reproduce.
But, to always use this language is like trying to do chemistry by arguing from quantum mechanical principles. It is often more convenient to talk of individual or group selection, but this is a semantical convenience only.
I’ll split hairs with you on this one. Change without selection is useless, selection without change is meaningless. Evolution is the selection of changes.
Selection acts at each of these levels, although in varying degrees.
Selection never operates on a group, only on the individuals in that group.
I think that Dawkins is correct in stating the absolute “Darwinian unit” is the “gene”. All evolution can be considered as genes trying to reproduce.
But, to always use this language is like trying to do chemistry by arguing from quantum mechanical principles. It is often more convenient to talk of individual or group selection, but this is a semantical convenience only.