Arvid Ågren
LightNews LightNews
arvidagren.bsky.social
Arvid Ågren
@arvidagren.bsky.social
1.3K followers 380 following 340 posts
Evolutionary biologist. Assistant Professor CCLCM/CWRU.

Author of The Gene's-Eye View of Evolution (OUP 2021). The Paradox of the Organism (HUP) coming Dec 2025.

www.arvidagren.com
Posts Replies Media Videos
arvidagren.bsky.social
Michael Ruse on being both a holist and a reductionist.
December 8, 2025 at 3:10 PM
arvidagren.bsky.social
Thank you for all the replies!

The answer is George Williams.

This is the full quote
I remember the English evolutionary geneticist John Maynard Smith remarking to me that he was astonished to find out that George Williams wasn't in our National Academy. Williams finally got elected in 1993. When I visited him in Stony Brook in the mid 1980s, he told me he was having a hard time getting grant support for his research, and I couldn't believe that. The two thoughts converged, because George really is the most important thinker in evolutionary biology in the United States since the 1959 Darwin centennial. It's astonishing that he hasn't gotten more credit and acclaim. He's a shy guy, but a very nice guy, and a very deep and a very careful thinker. I admire him tremendously, even though we've been arguing back and forth for years now.
December 4, 2025 at 4:31 PM
arvidagren.bsky.social
"This idea looks fair to be for twentieth century evolution what phlogiston was for chemistry in another day"

Turner reviews Bruce Wallace's "Genetic Load: Its Biological and Conceptual Aspects" (1970) in Nature.
THERE is a strange notion, derived from mathematical theories of evolution, that populations of organisms are threatened by a "genetic load", sometimes called the "cost of evolution". This idea looks fair to be for twentieth century evolution what phlogiston was for chemistry in another day; Professor Wallace's strength is that he plainly believes in oxygen.
December 3, 2025 at 9:56 PM
arvidagren.bsky.social
When the journal Theoretical Population Biology was founded in 1970, it was reviewed in Nature by J.R.G. Turner.
December 3, 2025 at 7:07 PM
arvidagren.bsky.social
The book has so many great contributors. To name a few:

@amyboddy.bsky.social @martijnschenkel.bsky.social @stuwest.bsky.social @reallymccoy.bsky.social @tomwscott.bsky.social @ellenclarke.bsky.social @laurarossevo.bsky.social @philippehune.bsky.social

Very excited that it's finally coming out!
CONTENTS Introduction: Organismality and Its Discontents J. Arvid Ågren and Manus M. Patten .................................................................................... 1 I. CONSIDERATIONS OF CONFLICT Resolving the Paradox of the Organism with Inclusive Fitness Thomas W. Scott and Stuart A. West .............................................................................. 9 In What Sense Can There Be Conflict Between the Levels of Selection? Pierrick Bourrat .................................................................................................................. 32 Internal Conflicts that Organisms Can Live With Manus M. Patten ................................................................................................................ 53 II. IMPLICATIONS OF CONFLICT A Metaphysical Paradox of Organismal Identity Ellen Clarke and Will Morgan .......................................................................................... 75 The Conflict Behind the Conflicts: Organisms as Agents and as Ecosystems Philippe Huneman ............................................................................................................. 96 Cooperation and Conflict in Metazoan Development: Toward a Neo-Darwinian Embryology David Haig ......................................................................................................................... 125 Selfish Genetic Elements and the Evolution of Sex Determination and Inheritance Systems Martijn A. Schenkel, Laura Ross, and Nina Wedell .................................................... 200 II. APPLICATIONS OF CONFLICT Clinical Implications of the Paradox of the Organism Amy M. Boddy and J. Arvid Ågren .................................................................................. 235 Internal Conflict in Genomes and in Persons Samir Okasha .................................................................................................................... 255 Host–Symbiont Conflict in Reef-Building Corals and the Risk of Coral Bleaching Dakota E. McCoy, Brendan Cornwell, Sönke Johnsen, and Jennifer A. Dionne ........ 273 Conclusion: The Eternal Disquiet Within Manus M. Patten and J. Arvid Ågren ............................................................................... 328 CONTRIBUTORS ............................................................................................................... 339
December 3, 2025 at 2:46 PM
arvidagren.bsky.social
E.B. Ford on how T.H. Morgan’s The Physical Basis of Heredity almost made him lose interest in genetics.
November 30, 2025 at 9:46 PM
arvidagren.bsky.social
Crick — An @economist.com best book of the year.

Congrats @matthewcobb.bsky.social!
November 27, 2025 at 1:08 AM
arvidagren.bsky.social
Sometimes online supplementary materials feel overly long and poorly edited.

Still, quite glad that we no longer have to purchase them from the British Library Document Supply Centre in Weatherby, West Yorkshire.

From Alan Grafen's "The phylogenetic regression" (Phil Trans, 1989)
The proofs have been omitted for reasons of space, but have been lodged in the archives of the Royal Society and the British Library Document Supply Centre†. Copies of the material deposited may be purchased from the British Library Document Supply Centre, Weatherby, West Yorkshire LS23 7BQ, U.K. (reference SUP 10052).
November 26, 2025 at 7:20 PM
arvidagren.bsky.social
How to make sense of a disagreement like that between Dawkins and Noble?

Here, I think @birchlse.bsky.social comment of sub-field competition (originally made in a different context) is helpful

(9/n)
Screenshot reading: “My suspicion is that ‘defining the organism’ is often a means by which biologists hope to extend the explanatory reach of their subfield. In other words, it’s a subtle attempt to assert that one’s subfield occupies a special, privileged, fundamental position in relation to the rest of biology. If the organism is defined in terms of evolutionary theory, then other biologists cannot afford to be ignorant of evolutionary theory (cf. Richard Dawkins, The Extended Phenotype, 1982). Likewise, if the organism is defined in terms of physiology, then other biologists cannot afford to ignore physiology (cf. Scott Turner, The Extended Organism, 2000) … and so on.”
November 23, 2025 at 7:35 PM
arvidagren.bsky.social
Fireside Books in Chagrin Falls, OH.

@maxjtelford.bsky.social and @matthewcobb.bsky.social in good company.
November 22, 2025 at 6:38 PM
arvidagren.bsky.social
Dan Dennett on the spandrels paper as "the latest chapter of Postpositivist Harvard Conservatism".
The case leveled against adaptationist thinking by Gould and Lewontin has been widely misinterpreted, even by some of those who have espoused it, perhaps because of the curious mismatch between the rhetoric of Gould and Lewontin’s attack and the mildness of their explicit conclusions and recommendations. They heap scorn on the supposed follies of the adaptationist mind set, which leads many to suppose that their conclusion is that adaptationist thinking should be shunned altogether. Their work was drawn to my attention, in fact, by critics of an earlier version of this paper who claimed that my position was a version of adaptationism, “which Gould and Lewontin have shown to be completely bankrupt.” But when I turned to this supposed refutation of my fundamental assumptions, I found that the authors’ closing summation finds a legitimate place in biology for adaptationist thinking. Theirs is a call for “pluralism,” in fact, a plaint against what they see as an exclusive concentration on adaptationist thinking at the cost of ignoring other important avenues of biological thought. But still, the arguments that precede this mild and entirely reasonable conclusion seem ill-suited to support it, for they are clearly presented as if they were attacks on the fundamental integrity of adaptationist thinking, rather than support for the recommendation that we should all try in the future to be more careful and pluralistic adaptationists. Moreover, when I looked closely at the arguments, I was struck by feeling of déjà vu. These arguments were not new, but rather a replay of B. F. Skinner’s long-lived polemical campaign against “mentalism.” Could it be, I wondered, that Gould and Lewontin have written the latest chapter of Postpositivist Harvard Conservatism? Could it be that they have picked up the torch that Skinner, in retirement, has relinquished? I doubt that Gould and Lewontin view the discovery of their intellectual kinship with Skinner with unalloyed equanimity…
November 21, 2025 at 9:00 PM
arvidagren.bsky.social
Dan Dennett on what Michael Dummett and Richard Dawkins learned from his Locke Lectures.
November 21, 2025 at 3:07 PM
arvidagren.bsky.social
Bill Hamilton on not worrying too much about the all the progress in molecular genetics.

Narrow Roads Vol I, p. 12
November 14, 2025 at 3:10 PM
arvidagren.bsky.social
Three generations of Oxford zoologists grappling with the theological implications of evolutionary biology.
November 11, 2025 at 1:33 PM
arvidagren.bsky.social
Great days in Kansas for the internal conflicts in biology and economics workshop.

Thanks to all the speakers!
collectiveagents.weebly.com
Group photo by a Jayhawk
November 10, 2025 at 2:14 PM
arvidagren.bsky.social
First copy of The Paradox of the Organism in the wild!
November 6, 2025 at 7:45 PM
arvidagren.bsky.social
Speciation special with @jenncoughlan.bsky.social and @ecmoore.bsky.social!

Thursday November 13.
November 4, 2025 at 1:24 PM
arvidagren.bsky.social
Very excited for the arrival of Oren Harman’s latest book.

Few combine deep knowledge of the history of biology with such compelling writing.
November 3, 2025 at 3:40 PM
arvidagren.bsky.social
*NEW PAPER*

How much of a threat are within-organism conflicts, really?

In Biology & Philosophy, @martijnschenkel.bsky.social, Manus Patten, and I present a mathematical framework to measure evolutionary individuality in the face of internal conflicts. link.springer.com/article/10.1...
Screenshot of the abstract. It reads In biology, individuals can be identified at various levels of organization, ranging from the molecular and cellular—e.g., viruses and protists—to the organismal and societal—e.g., termites and termite colonies. This nested biological hierarchy results from evolutionary transitions in individuality, in which lower-lying entities (particles) come together to form higher-level entities (collectives). These collectives are then taken to be individuals in their own right, capable of being the units on which selection acts and where adaptations may reside. Challenges arise, however, when we recognize the possibility for internal conflict, for example from selfish genetic elements within organisms. Here we develop a quantitative approach to biological individuality, in which collectives qualify as individuals to the extent that their particles possess a unity of purpose—i.e., that they possess aligned fitness interests. We propose a mathematical framework that measures the degree of individuality exhibited by organisms and other biological collectives in the presence of internal conflicts. This framework not only helps pinpoint where in the hierarchy biological individuality sits, but also identifies the level at which adaptation may reside. We develop two metrics: fitness unity, which measures the threat posed by internal conflicts to a collective individual’s status as an optimizing agent; and trait unity, which measures differences in optimal strategies among its particles. Finally, we consider cases where internal conflicts become so disruptive to individualized biological collectives so that it no longer makes sense to think of them as individuals, but instead as compromises of multiple competing particles.
October 31, 2025 at 1:24 PM
arvidagren.bsky.social
John Maynard Smith and Richard Lewontin at the University of Sussex, 9 March 1972.
Photo of young JMS and RCL. Both are wearing shirts and tie.
October 30, 2025 at 3:56 PM
arvidagren.bsky.social
The legend of this 1905 Vanity Fair caricature of Ray Lankester reads:

“His religion is the worship of all sorts of winged and finny freaks.”

The @evornithology.bsky.social of his time.
A caricature of a man in a dark suit and waistcoat, standing with hands tucked into his jacket and gazing intently at two large, vividly coloured hornbills perched on a small wooden table.
October 29, 2025 at 3:08 PM
arvidagren.bsky.social
Desmond Morris came late to football, but his interest seems to to be genuine.

The current edition of his The Soccer Tribe comes with a (rather bland) foreword by none other than The Special One, José Mourinho.
Cover of the latest edition of The Soccer Tribe. It features a photo of Luis Suárez celebrating a goal for Uruguay.
October 27, 2025 at 2:06 PM
arvidagren.bsky.social
Here is the message from JEB managing editor Nicki Cook.
Full message from JEB about the special issue.
October 27, 2025 at 1:50 PM
arvidagren.bsky.social
David Lack gets a job in radar research during World War II.
October 22, 2025 at 7:49 AM
arvidagren.bsky.social
Friday trivia:

On the eve of Tony Blair’s resignation in 2007, which evolutionary biologist did incoming prime minister Gordon Brown phone to offer the job of Science Minister in the new government?

The person turned it down, which they now regret.
GB left, TB right
October 17, 2025 at 1:00 PM