To see the other types of publications on this topic, follow the link: Dual-inheritance theory.
Journal articles on the topic 'Dual-inheritance theory'
Create a spot-on reference in APA, MLA, Chicago, Harvard, and other styles
Consult the top 24 journal articles for your research on the topic 'Dual-inheritance theory.'
Next to every source in the list of references, there is an 'Add to bibliography' button. Press on it, and we will generate automatically the bibliographic reference to the chosen work in the citation style you need: APA, MLA, Harvard, Chicago, Vancouver, etc.
You can also download the full text of the academic publication as pdf and read online its abstract whenever available in the metadata.
Browse journal articles on a wide variety of disciplines and organise your bibliography correctly.
1
Peter J. Richerson. "Recent Critiques of Dual Inheritance Theory." Evolutionary Studies in Imaginative Culture 1, no. 1 (2017): 203. http://dx.doi.org/10.26613/esic.1.1.27.
Full text
2
Richerson, Peter J. "Recent Critiques of Dual Inheritance Theory." Evolutionary Studies in Imaginative Culture 1, no. 1 (July 31, 2017): 203–12. http://dx.doi.org/10.26613/esic/1.1.27.
Full text
3
Whitebook, Joel. "Our Dual Inheritance: On Psychoanalytic Social Theory Today." American Imago 76, no. 1 (2019): 1–14. http://dx.doi.org/10.1353/aim.2019.0000.
Full text
4
Houkes, Wybo. "Population thinking and natural selection in dual-inheritance theory." Biology & Philosophy 27, no. 3 (January 26, 2012): 401–17. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s10539-012-9307-5.
Full text
5
Verpooten, Jan. "Extending Literary Darwinism." Scientific Study of Literature 3, no. 1 (May 31, 2013): 19–27. http://dx.doi.org/10.1075/ssol.3.1.05ver.
Full textAbstract:
Literary Darwinism is an emerging interdisciplinary research field that seeks to explain literature and its oral antecedents (“literary behaviors”), from a Darwinian perspective. Considered the fact that an evolutionary approach to human behavior has proven insightful, this is a promising endeavor. However, Literary Darwinism as it is commonly practiced, I argue, suffers from some shortcomings. First, while literary Darwinists only weigh adaptation against by-product as competing explanations of literary behaviors, other alternatives, such as constraint and exaptation, should be considered as well. I attempt to demonstrate their relevance by evaluating the evidentiary criteria commonly employed by Literary Darwinists. Second, Literary Darwinists usually acknowledge the role of culture in human behavior and make references to Dual Inheritance theory (i.e., the body of empirical and theoretical work demonstrating that human behavior is the outcome of both genetic and cultural inheritance). However, they often do not fully appreciate the explanatory implications of dual inheritance. Literary Darwinism should be extended to include these recent refinements in our understanding of the evolution of human behavior.
6
Baravalle, Lorenzo. "París, California y la búsqueda por una teoría del cambio cultural." Humanities Journal of Valparaiso, no. 14 (December 29, 2019): 223. http://dx.doi.org/10.22370/rhv2019iss14pp223-240.
Full textAbstract:
The debate on the possibility of an evolutionary theory of cultural change has heated up, over the last years, due to the supposed incompatibilities between the two main theoretical proposals in the field: dual inheritance theory and cultural epidemiology. The former, first formulated in the 1980’s by a group of biologists and anthropologists mostly hosted at Californian universities, supports an analogy between genetic inheritance and cultural transmission. Cultural epidemiology, more recently formulated by Dan Sperber and his collaborator (mostly hosted at Parisian universities), denies the defensibility of such an analogy and put forward a partially alternative model. But how much do these proposals actually differ with each other? In this article, I shall argue that less than what cultural epidemiologists use to think.
7
Laing, Bart Du. "Dual Inheritance Theory, Contract Law, and Institutional Change – Towards the Co-evolution of Behavior and Institutions*." German Law Journal 9, no. 4 (April 1, 2008): 491–514. http://dx.doi.org/10.1017/s2071832200006556.
Full textAbstract:
The various contributions to this theme issue are likely to have at least two (non-trivial) things in common. First, they aim to contribute to a research project on “Legal certainty for globalized exchange processes” and to the latter's attempts to explain the observed transformation “towards the transnationalization of commercial law, which is understood as a combination of the internationalization and privatization of the responsibility of the state for the production of the normative good of legal certainty for global commerce”. Secondly, they aim to fulfill this task by making use of “evolutionary theory” or, as it was again expressed in the original conference announcement, by dealing with “a theoretical perspective that gives some substance to the meaning of the term “evolution” with regard to law, social organization, and the state”. Since, as I will try to explain shortly, my own particular take on this – it would appear – relatively small set of commonalities involves more specifically the use of contemporary evolutionary approaches to human behavior. I must admit to having been surprised that no one else seemed to have much use for these approaches in their respective takes on the problems that united us in the conference from which this contribution stems. After all, what better use to make of a theory originating from biology than to elucidate the biological underpinnings of our behavior and its underlying psychological mechanisms as they relate to law and legally relevant phenomena? Perhaps some of the reasons for these at first sight, striking differences in opinion on which “evolutionary theory” to make use of, or what meaning to impinge upon the term “evolution” will become clearer in the pages that follow, offering ways in which eventually to combine them. Or perhaps the two things we had in common when we started out will be all there is left to look at in the end.
8
Gabel, Isabel. "From evolutionary theory to philosophy of history." History of the Human Sciences 31, no. 1 (December 27, 2017): 3–18. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0952695117741042.
Full textAbstract:
Well into the 1940s, many French biologists rejected both Mendelian genetics and Darwinism in favour of neo-transformism, the claim that evolution proceeds by the inheritance of acquired characteristics. In 1931 the zoologist Maurice Caullery published Le Problème d’évolution, arguing that, while Lamarckian mechanisms could not be demonstrated in the present, they had nevertheless operated in the past. It was in this context that Raymond Aron expressed anxiety about the relationship between biology, history, and human autonomy in his 1938 Introduction à la philosophie de l’histoire: essai sur les limites de l’objectivité historique, in which he rejected both neo-Kantian and biological accounts of human history. Aron aspired to a philosophy of history that could explain the dual nature of human existence as fundamentally rooted in the biological, and at the same time, as a radical transcendence of natural law. I argue that Aron’s encounter with evolutionary theory at this moment of epistemic crisis in evolutionary theory was crucial to the formation of his philosophy of history, and moreover that this case study demonstrates the importance of moving beyond the methodological divisions between intellectual history and history of science.
9
Henrich, Joseph. "Understanding Cultural Evolutionary Models: A Reply to Read's Critique." American Antiquity 71, no. 4 (October 2006): 771–82. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/40035890.
Full textAbstract:
This reply to Read's (2006) critique of my paper (Henrich 2004) is divided into three parts. Part I clarifies misinterpretations and mischaracterizations of both Dual Inheritance Theory in general and my model specifically. Part II addresses several problems in Read's empirical analyses of forager toolkits, and presents an alternative analysis. Part III tackles some common misunderstandings about the relationship between cost-benefit models (such as Read's) and cultural evolutionary modeling approaches, as well as highlighting some concerns with Read's efforts. In writing this, I have tried to introduce the reader to the issues in debate, but to fully understand this reply, one should read both my paper and Read’s critique.
10
Creanza, Nicole, Oren Kolodny, and Marcus W. Feldman. "Cultural evolutionary theory: How culture evolves and why it matters." Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 114, no. 30 (July 24, 2017): 7782–89. http://dx.doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1620732114.
Full textAbstract:
Human cultural traits—behaviors, ideas, and technologies that can be learned from other individuals—can exhibit complex patterns of transmission and evolution, and researchers have developed theoretical models, both verbal and mathematical, to facilitate our understanding of these patterns. Many of the first quantitative models of cultural evolution were modified from existing concepts in theoretical population genetics because cultural evolution has many parallels with, as well as clear differences from, genetic evolution. Furthermore, cultural and genetic evolution can interact with one another and influence both transmission and selection. This interaction requires theoretical treatments of gene–culture coevolution and dual inheritance, in addition to purely cultural evolution. In addition, cultural evolutionary theory is a natural component of studies in demography, human ecology, and many other disciplines. Here, we review the core concepts in cultural evolutionary theory as they pertain to the extension of biology through culture, focusing on cultural evolutionary applications in population genetics, ecology, and demography. For each of these disciplines, we review the theoretical literature and highlight relevant empirical studies. We also discuss the societal implications of the study of cultural evolution and of the interactions of humans with one another and with their environment.
11
Hodgson, Derek. "The Visual Brain, Perception, and Depiction of Animals in Rock Art." Journal of Archaeology 2013 (July 22, 2013): 1–6. http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2013/342801.
Full textAbstract:
Several aspects of the depiction of animals in rock art can be explained by certain perceptual correlates relating to the visual brain and evolutionary factors. Recent evidence from neuroscience and the visual brain not only corroborates this claim but provides important new findings that can help delineate which graphic features relate to biological/genetic criteria. In addition to highlighting how the insights from visual science and evolutionary studies can promote a greater understanding of the depictive strategies employed to portray animals, this paper will also explore ways in which the findings from these disciplines can be assimilated with semiotics that provide novel insights into the preference for depicting animals in a particular format over an extended period. The emphasis throughout is placed on dual-inheritance theory where culture and evolutionary determinants are seen as complementary.
12
Silva, Willian T. A. F., Sarah P. Otto, and Simone Immler. "Evolution of plasticity in production and transgenerational inheritance of small RNAs under dynamic environmental conditions." PLOS Genetics 17, no. 5 (May 26, 2021): e1009581. http://dx.doi.org/10.1371/journal.pgen.1009581.
Full textAbstract:
In a changing environment, small RNAs (sRNAs) play an important role in the post-transcriptional regulation of gene expression and can vary in abundance depending on the conditions experienced by an individual (phenotypic plasticity) and its parents (non-genetic inheritance). Many sRNAs are unusual in that they can be produced in two ways, either using genomic DNA as the template (primary sRNAs) or existing sRNAs as the template (secondary sRNAs). Thus, organisms can evolve rapid plastic responses to their current environment by adjusting the amplification rate of sRNA templates. sRNA levels can also be transmitted transgenerationally by the direct transfer of either sRNAs or the proteins involved in amplification. Theory is needed to describe the selective forces acting on sRNA levels, accounting for the dual nature of sRNAs as regulatory elements and templates for amplification and for the potential to transmit sRNAs and their amplification agents to offspring. Here, we develop a model to study the dynamics of sRNA production and inheritance in a fluctuating environment. We tested the selective advantage of mutants capable of sRNA-mediated phenotypic plasticity within resident populations with fixed levels of sRNA transcription. Even when the resident was allowed to evolve an optimal constant rate of sRNA production, plastic amplification rates capable of responding to environmental conditions were favored. Mechanisms allowing sRNA transcripts or amplification agents to be inherited were favored primarily when parents and offspring face similar environments and when selection acts before the optimal level of sRNA can be reached within the organism. Our study provides a clear set of testable predictions for the evolution of sRNA-related mechanisms of phenotypic plasticity and transgenerational inheritance.
13
Adam, Robert. "The role of evolution and invention of tradition in identity and the built environment." Journal of Traditional Building, Architecture and Urbanism, no. 1 (November 20, 2020): 551–61. http://dx.doi.org/10.51303/jtbau.vi1.378.
Full textAbstract:
Tradition is often presented as simply the past and a static phenomenon. This view can be shared by some supporters of tradition in architecture and urbanism, leading to a valorisation of literal past form and detail. Social analysis of tradition acknowledges that it is a more complex and not static phenomenon. At the same time, the concept of the invention of tradition is widely used to discredit tradition itself. This paper departs from the work of Halbwachs and subsequent studies on collective identity, Boyd and Richerson on Dual Inheritance Theory, Shils on the ubiquity of tradition and Cohen on the sociology of identity, amongst others. This is combined with case studies in the evolution and invention of tradition. The paper presents the applicability of changing and invented traditions that foment social cohesion and how their use in design can respond to community identity.
14
Zhang, Tingzhen, Xiaoming Jia, and Zhao Xu. "An Alternative Analysis on Nilsson-Ehle’s Hybridization Experiment in Wheat —Theory of Dual Multiple Factors and Three Normal Distributions on Quantitative Inheritance (Continuation)." Applied Mathematics 09, no. 08 (2018): 1005–14. http://dx.doi.org/10.4236/am.2018.98068.
Full text
15
Dwivedi, Divya. "Homologies in Freud and Derrida." Eco-ethica 9 (2020): 187–207. http://dx.doi.org/10.5840/ecoethica20218241.
Full textAbstract:
Freud’s late works established the schema of a more or less inexorable civilizational course built around one drive—the death drive—despite his emphatic insistence on a dual structure of two drives. This schema became influential for Critical Theory and in a more subterranean way, also for decolonial thought, and has been widely invoked during the pandemic. It indicates the extent to which drive, destruction, and mastery have consolidated into a , which not only fails to be dislodged by but even informs Derrida’s readings of Freud. Instead, we have to be attentive to the play of homology in Freud as of life, psyche, and civilization, as archaic inheritance. Freudian homology distinguishes itself from what Derrida called “genealogical drive.” The Freudian assumptions in this regard need to be addressed in a step beyond which works with a concept of origin—as its own interruption—that can neither comprehend nor deconstruct the concept of origin as a single and perpetually active homological power as is to be found in Freud.
16
Bendixen, Theiss. "Sense or non-sense? a critical discussion of a recent evolutionary–cognitive approach to “folk-economic beliefs”." Evolution, Mind and Behaviour 17, no. 1 (December 2019): 29–47. http://dx.doi.org/10.1556/2050.2019.00011.
Full textAbstract:
Laypeople hold beliefs about economics and policy issues—so-called folk-economic beliefs (FEBs)—that are often wrong or misleading according to professional economists. Here, I critically discuss a recent evolutionary–cognitive approach to understanding folk-economic beliefs. According to this approach (Boyer & Petersen 2018a), some economic beliefs are more prevalent than others, because such beliefs (i.e., folk-economic beliefs) resonate with evolved features of the human mind. I refer to this as the “FEB hypothesis”. A central challenge to the FEB hypothesis, with its heavy reliance on universal cognitive features, is to explain individual and cultural differences in economic beliefs and behavior. This challenge is the starting point for the discussion. Overall, the conclusion of this paper is that the FEB hypothesis relies on unnecessarily strong and controversial theoretical assumptions (e.g., “massive modularity” and the “Environment of Evolutionary Adaptedness”), and that it overlooks important findings from adjacent fields, but that the FEB hypothesis, following some modifications inspired by Dual Inheritance Theory, can be integrated with robust findings from the rest of the evolutionary, cognitive, and anthropological sciences, as well as standard political psychology. Based on this discussion, the paper ends with brief reflections on how to correct inaccurate folk-economic beliefs.
17
Lansing, J. Stephen, and Karyn M. Fox. "Niche construction on Bali: the gods of the countryside." Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences 366, no. 1566 (March 27, 2011): 927–34. http://dx.doi.org/10.1098/rstb.2010.0308.
Full textAbstract:
Human niche construction encompasses both purely biological phenomena, such as the evolution of lactose tolerance, and dual inheritance theory, which investigates the transmission of cultural information. But does niche construction help to explain phenomena in which conscious intention also plays a role? The creation of the engineered landscape of Balinese rice terraces offers a test case. Population genetic analysis and archaeological evidence are used to investigate whether this phenomenon emerged historically from trial and error by generations of farmers, or alternatively was designed by Bali's rulers. In light of strong support for the former hypothesis, two models are developed to explore the emergence of functional structure at both local and global scales. As time goes forward and selected patterns of irrigation schedules are implemented, local variation in rice harvests influences future decisions by the farmers, creating a coupled human–natural system governed by feedback from the environment. This mathematical analysis received a measure of empirical support when government agricultural policies severed the local feedback channels, resulting in the almost instantaneous collapse of rice harvests. The historical process of niche construction may also have included an evolution of religious consciousness, reflected in the beliefs and practices of the water temple cult.
18
Read, Dwight, and Claes Andersson. "Cultural complexity and complexity evolution." Adaptive Behavior 28, no. 5 (January 20, 2019): 329–58. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1059712318822298.
Full textAbstract:
We review issues stemming from current models regarding the drivers of cultural complexity and cultural evolution. We disagree with the implication of the treadmill model, based on dual-inheritance theory, that population size is the driver of cultural complexity. The treadmill model reduces the evolution of artifact complexity, measured by the number of parts, to the statistical fact that individuals with high skills are more likely to be found in a larger population than in a smaller population. However, for the treadmill model to operate as claimed, implausibly high skill levels must be assumed. Contrary to the treadmill model, the risk hypothesis for the complexity of artifacts relates the number of parts to increased functional efficiency of implements. Empirically, all data on hunter-gatherer artifact complexity support the risk hypothesis and reject the treadmill model. Still, there are conditions under which increased technological complexity relates to increased population size, but the dependency does not occur in the manner expressed in the treadmill model. Instead, it relates to population size when the support system for the technology requires a large population size. If anything, anthropology and ecology suggest that cultural complexity generates high population density rather than the other way around.
19
SVETLOV, Victor A., Nikolai M. SIDOROV, and Anatoly G. EGOROV. "Conflict of Altruists and Egoists: New Paradigm for Environmental and Social Sciences." Journal of Environmental Management and Tourism 9, no. 1 (June 19, 2018): 46. http://dx.doi.org/10.14505//jemt.v9.1(25).07.
Full textAbstract:
The study of the interconnection between genetic and cultural evolution, often called dual inheritance theory, became a dominant problem for scientists working at the intersection of environmental and social sciences in the second half of the 20th century. At the same time, the philosophical and methodological aspects of the new ecological and social paradigm of research are still uncertain. Below is justified the view that the missing part of the new paradigm should be a theory of conflict. Since C. Darwin, the driving cause of the evolution of living organisms was seen in the instinct of self-preservation (selfishness). The purpose of natural selection was conceived as an improvement in the degree of fitness of an individual organism and indirectly in te species as a whole. However, P.A. Kropotkin in the work "Mutual Assistance as a Factor of Evolution" drew attention to the fact that altruism and the cooperation of organisms are no less important for their survival than egoism. R. Dawkins in the work "The Selfish Gene", which became a bestseller, made the general discovery of evolutionists geneticists - the conflict of altruists and egoists is already embedded in the genetic program of the evolution of all organisms. R. Travers has proved that sexual reproduction and selection are also based on the conflict of egoists and altruists. The creation of the evolutionary theory of games by J. Smith allowed to generalize the rivalry of egoists and altruists to a strategic level and to understand why only in competition with each other these behavior programs ensure the stability of the entire population. The principle of the "Red Queen" of the L. Van Valen justifies the necessity and sufficiency of antagonism as the eternal driver of the "evolutionary arms race". Finally, the "Tragedy of Communities" of G. Hardin explains the evolutionary defectiveness of egoism and altruism as the only motives for social development. Combining all the above discoveries, we conclude that the theory of co-evolution cannot be built neither on the only Darwinian principles of survival of the fittest, or on their sociocultural reinterpretation. We need a new paradigm that openly recognizes the conflict of egoists and altruists as the main cause of co-evolution at all levels of the organization of living matter.
20
Baravalle, Lorenzo, and Victor J. Luque. "Towards a Pricean foundation for cultural evolutionary theory." THEORIA. An International Journal for Theory, History and Foundations of Science, August 24, 2021. http://dx.doi.org/10.1387/theoria.21940.
Full textAbstract:
The Price equation is currently considered one of the fundamental equations – or even the fundamental equation – of evolution. In this article, we explore the role of this equation within cultural evolutionary theory. More specifically, we use it to account for the explanatory power and the theoretical structure of a certain generalised version of dual-inheritance theory. First, we argue that, in spite of not having a definite empirical content, the Price equation offers a suitable formalisation of the processes of cultural evolution, and provides a powerful heuristic device for discovering the actual causes of cultural change and accumulation. Second, we argue that, as a consequence of this, a certain version of the Price equation is the fundamental law of cultural evolutionary theory. In order to support this claim, we sketch the ideal structure of dual-inheritance theory and we stress the unificatory role that the Price equation plays in it.
21
"Book Reviews." Journal of Economic Literature 49, no. 2 (June 1, 2011): 444–46. http://dx.doi.org/10.1257/jel.49.2.433.r4.
Full textAbstract:
Scott E. Page of University of Michigan and Santa Fe Institute reviews “Why Humans Cooperate: A Cultural and Evolutionary Explanation” by Natalie Henrich and Joseph Henrich. The EconLit Abstract of the reviewed work begins “Examines the evolution of cooperation and altruism in the human species. Discusses evolution, culture, cooperation, and the Chaldeans; dual inheritance theory--the evolution of cultural capacities and cultural evolution; evolutionary theory and the social psychology of human cooperation; the Chaldeans….”
22
Schultz, Emily A. "Niche Construction and the Study of Culture Change in Anthropology: Challenges and Prospects." INTERdisciplina 3, no. 5 (February 4, 2015). http://dx.doi.org/10.22201/ceiich.24485705e.2015.5.47629.
Full textAbstract:
<p class="p1"><span class="s1"><strong>Abstract </strong></span>| Many North American anthropologists remain deeply suspicious of attempts to theorize the evolution of culture, given the legacy in our discipline of nineteenth-century stagist theories of cultural evolution that were shaped by scientific racism<span class="s2"><strong>. </strong></span>In the late twentieth-century, some theorists tried to escape this legacy by using formal models drawn from neo-Darwinian population biology to reconceptualize cultural evolutionary processes, but these more recent approaches have been found unsatisfactory for reasons of their own. For example, gene-culture coevolution and the dual inheritance theory have limited appeal to many contemporary cultural anthropologists because these theories rely on definitions of culture, and assumptions about human individuals and social groups, that many cultural anthropologists no longer find persuasive<span class="s2"><strong>.</strong></span>Niche construction, by contrast, appears more promising as a framework for connecting cultural change with biological and ecological change. Nevertheless, the innovative features of niche construction coexist uneasily alongside the same problematic features that limit the usefulness of gene-culture coevolution and dual inheritance theory in cultural anthropology<span class="s2"><strong>. </strong></span>This article discusses anthropological concerns about niche construction theory, but also suggests ways in which some of them might be reduced if niche construction theory were to incorporate insights from developmental systems theory and actor network theory.</p>
23
Du Laing, Bart. "Bio-Legal History, Dual Inheritance Theory and Naturalistic Comparative Law: On Content and Context Biases in Legal Evolution." Review of Law & Economics 7, no. 3 (January 30, 2011). http://dx.doi.org/10.2202/1555-5879.1556.
Full text
24
Abrantes, Paulo C. "Human evolution and transitions in individuality." Contrastes. Revista Internacional de Filosofía, January 28, 2013. http://dx.doi.org/10.24310/contrastescontrastes.v0i0.1168.
Full textAbstract:
ABSTRACTThis paper investigates whether it is fruitful to describe the role culture began to play at some point in the hominin lineage as pointing to a transition in individuality, by reference to the works of Buss, Maynard-Smith and Szathmáry, Michod and Godfrey-Smith. The chief question addressed is whether a population of groups having different cultural phenotypes is either paradigmatically Darwinian or marginal, by using Godfrey-Smith’s representation of such transitions in a multi-dimensional space. Richerson and Boyd’s «dual inheritance» theory, and the explanation it provides of the evolution of cooperation in the hominin lineage, is taken into account to shed light on the way Godfrey-Smith deals with cultural evolution, especially concerning the amount of variation in a population of groups with various cultural phenotypes, the role played by multi-level selection in the evolutionary dynamics of such a population and the adequacy of different modalities of group-reproduction.KEYWORDSTRANSITIONS IN INDIVIDUALITY, CULTURAL EVOLUTION, DARWINIAN POPULATIONS, EVOLUTION OF COOPERATION, DUAL INHERITANCE THEORYRESUMENEste trabajo indaga acerca de si es fructífero o no describir el papel que la cultura comenzó a jugar en algún punto en el linaje de los homininos como si se tratara de una transición en la individualidad, en referencia a las obras de Buss, Maynard-Smith y Szathmáry, y Michod y Godfrey-Smith. La cuestión principal es si una población de grupos con diferentes fenotipos culturales es o bien paradigmáticamente darwiniana o bien marginal, usando para ello la representación de Godfrey-Smith de tales transiciones en un espacio multidimensional. La teoría de la «herencia dual» de Richerson y Boyd, y la explicación que proporciona de la cooperación en el linaje hominino es tenida en cuenta para arrojar luz sobre el modo en que Godfrey-Smith trata la evolución cultural, especialmente en lo concerniente a la cantidad de variación en una población de grupos con diversos fenotipos culturales, el papel jugado por la selección multi-nivel en el dinámica evolutiva de tal población y la adecuación de diferentes modalidades de reproducción de grupos.PALABRAS CLAVETRANSICIONES EN LA INDIVIDUALIDAD, EVOLUCIÓN CULTURAL, POBLACIONES DARWINIANAS, EVOLUCIÓN DE LA COOPERACIÓN, TEORÍA DE LA HERENCIA DUAL