Anyone who says Richard Dawkins is a fool, is a fool themselves. The guy is an Oxford Professor Biology and Evolutionary Biology. I'd like to see these fools get a Professorship from Oxford in ANY SUBJECT!!!!!
Dead-to-the-spirit deluded "God Delusion" author & blithering fool scientist goon Richard Dawkins another "leader" given 2 the profane masses is another useful idiot 4 Jesuit machinations
Jesuitical; pertaining to the Jesuits or their principals; designing; cunning; deceitful; prevaricating
The Jesuit Order completely altered the education system 2 suit their Evo-Hoax Agenda to discredit the Bible
Papal Rome cant have their Counter Reformation 2nd Dark Age DESPOTISM until Bible is destroyed
If you participated in the carnage in Afghanistan, Iraq, or any number of places around the planet, then you MUST be tried for murder, and publicly executed (by hanging) upon conviction. I will, if requested to, put the rope about your neck. American soldiers are nightly brutalizing, ravishing & ritualistically slaughtering Iraqi women & children in house-to-house sweeps. This is happening now, tonight, and every night.
read about VMAT2 and dopamine, VMAT2 is what he calls the god gene even though its not a gene. he is not a scientist he is an activist trying to justify his homosexual atheist lifestyle and make a buck at the same time off anyone incapable of doing research on his many non- peer review discredited theories
So you believe everything you read? Especially when the texts are really freakin old? Dont you have a mind of your own? Dawkins has. Now who is corrupt, no-good, yak yak yak? YOU!
Why do people care if someone is religious or not? As long as they stay on their side of the fence why should it matter. Everyone is trying to prove or disprove, just let it go. The Dawkins Religion is the same as many others. He preaches and teaches and believes in what he is saying. What should that matter to anyone. This is just another way to divide everyone into groups to label them. Pft... same old crap, just a different spin.
@soulmage11 Like you said, "as long as they stay on their side of the fence, why should it matter?". The fact is that the faithful wont stay on their side of the fence, the want to change the laws of countries to fit into their perception of reality, that is the problem, and that's what many of us are no longer willing to put up with.
If you want to place your hope in some faith, FINE, do it, but don't expect the rest of us to follow simply because you want us to. It is beyond infantile!
@coercingcoexistence Influencing the world around you is everyone's desire in some way or another. I still don't get it. Everyone, both religious people and those like Dawkins seem to be pushing their agenda no matter what. Religious and Anti-Religious people all seem to have the same goal, "to Influence the world around them". I just don't get the hostility.
@theattackrat seems you know little about either Dawkins , the selfish gene,altruism, or indeed religion. Oh my god you are a dinosaur and we all know what happened to them.
Anyone interested in the Selfish gene should look up W.D Hamilton, it was his ideas which were the basis for much of the selfish gene. Also look up R.A Fisher, a brilliant evolutionary geneticist and statistican.
The man is brilliant. Anyone with the slightest interest in human psychology, genetics, or evolution needs to read it. Be critical of it, obviously, but also give it a chance.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
He writes a book called the selfish gene, I have a sugestion that he write a book on his sefish or his sinful heart. His heart is a sink of sin, or a cesspool of sin, or a sewage of sin. The wrath of God burns against him. "He that beliveth on the son hath everlasting life but he that believeth not the son shall not see lif but the wrath of God abidith on him." John 3:36 Gods wrath was poured out on Christ when he died in his place but he has no interest in Christ.
Cant god just get over himself and his wrath. Maybe he could even come to visit his beloved earth and give us sinful stupid humans abit of advice on how to live.
This book is such an eyeopener. My view on nature will never be the same after i came to understand evolutionary game theory and the gene centered point of view. Dawkins does an excellent job explaining it.
@ThePipersNicks i agree man, if you're aspiring career is to be in any scientific or medical field, you should read this, it will really change your life. everything i do now i think 'is this selfish of me to take this seat, maybe i shall allow someone else who wants to sit'
it is a book that will stay with you forever, permitting you to think 3 times before doing everything hopefully.
I am genuinely shocked at the number of people who have read The Selfish Gene and (whether they understood it or not) have completely missed the point. All I will say is that whether or not the metaphors that Dawkins uses are good ones is besides the point: they are just a descriptive tool; the argument he makes does not depend on its corresponding metaphors for its veracity.
The word selfish means that something has a knowledge about self. Genes don't have knoweldge or feelings about themselves. They are just chemicals. The word "selfish" is a poorly chosen anthropomorphism chosen by Dawkins which has nothing to do with chemical science.
It is only a metaphor --- a token of literary license. I think Dawkins in his wildest dreams could not imagine anyone being so stupid as to interpret the phrase literally: as an attribution of sentient agency to a string of molecules. This lack of realism about the intelligence of his fellow mammals is the only thing I can fault him for. My point is that Dawkins would certainly agree that genes can be understood at a technical level only in terms of their chemistry. He was trying for a metaphor.
Metaphors have no place in a serious scientific topic. It's like calling your computer electrons "sexy" since they are always dancing. Without sexy electrons, we wouldn't have computers - the electrons would just be dormant an unsexy, not dancers in the disco. His book even wastes a lot of words explaining and justifying the title and the word "selfish" instead of just getting on with the fucking point. I suggest you look up anthropomorphism and the troubles it causes.
The book was a popular exposition. It was not a textbook in technical evolutionary biology. Dawkins was trying to urge the educated public --- including fellow biologists, but by no means limited to them --- to accept the relocation of the focus of natural selection to the gene pool rather than the organism. In a popular book, if one hopes to be effective, metaphors are sometimes necessary and productive. I agree with you that this particular metaphor was not a very successful one.
The fact that I like a girl with blonde hair and medium sized breasts has nothing to do with genes. It's my own selfish desire for pleasure. Genes also do not distinguish between fat and slim people - brains do. Natural selfish selection doesn't centre around genes but minds. In fact our minds can get us into trouble and cause us to choose people that are worse off in the pool. For example medium breasts are more of a risk for cancer, but people still pick them.
In simple creatures such as bacteria that do not have selfish minds, the genes play a more chemical role in that the most successful bacteria strand continues to replicate. With complex organisms it becomes much less and less close to the way bacteria works. I would never call bacteria "selfish" because it succeeded. I treat bacteria similar to a glass of water, in that it is much simpler. A glass of water is not "selfish" if it spills on to the floor and spreads out the most it can.
I think Mr Dawkins is a Satanist in drag who knows is he also a fag I am shocked and amazed at all the suckers who listen to every word he utters What in the world has happened to you I am talking to you the Red White and Blue What has happened have you gone mad So atheism is now your latest fad Its been tried you know they have done it before take away God take away the law French history called it the reign of terror of this bad news I am the bearer
I like richard dawkins a lot-what he is saying! he uses COMMON SENSE & logic, trying 2 figure things out, questioning things 2 try& make it better. he doesnt stick 2 a belief. beliefs r suppose 2 change as we gain new knowledge or info, just like a CSI has 2 adjust the theory on who the suspect is based off EVIDENCE. science actually brought me closer to GOD, belief in GOD alone never changes, but beliefs on many issues in life DO. I despise RELIGION & church 2 btw. go here:
Laughing at people who are desperately trying to sell you bullshit as "life saving truth" is not showing disrespect. It's a natural reaction to a joke.
I know it must be frustrating to believe in something that can't be proven to be the wonderful fantasy it promises, and see so many people not buy into it. Your preaching is yielding no desired results (recruitment into your cult), so you're disappointed.
Been there, done that. Now I'm free from all that Jazz and my life is wonderful!
I bet switchblade1800 doesn't even know that he has to proof his assumption, or else it will always stay an assumption. Therefore he will stay the same dogmatic idiot that he is...
I read the book a few months ago, it gives you such an understanding of the subject. i always say if you want to know about a certain subject read books about it, and this book is one of those that should be read if you want to know about evolution and biology. then i read the blind watchmaker and climbing mount improbable. Excellent, first class reading!
No thats just the thing, things are explained as if you know nothing anyway (like me lol) and i grasp it. so yeah read it. And you`ll so recomend it after.
That's the beauty of Dawkins's books: he writes them with such clarity that you don't have to be an expert on the subject or know complex terminology to understand them, yet at the same time he doesn't treat the readers like they're retarded either.
I read this for the first time last week and it's miraculous (I'm pretty sure Dawkins wouldn't like that word used). It's a revelation (ok that either). In fact, hard to describe the emotions I felt without envoking religious language. Suffice to say it was amamzing. REALLY good.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
so that it . if your are stronge you get what ever you want it. dosent matter if you rigth or wrong, but if you are weak you will lose everything, because that how the world works survival for the fittest. If that is true then we live in a cruel world dont you think.
This comment has received too many negative votesshow
I find that funny coming from a person who can't write a grammatically correct sentence. I do read a lot of BOOK(s). Here's a tip: next time you call someone a retard, make sure you don't sound like one yourself.
A letter published in Nature in 1998 reported a survey suggesting that belief in a personal god was at an all-time low among the members of the U.S. National Academy of Science, only 7.0% of whom believed in a personal god as compared with more than 85% of the general U.S. population. A correlation indicating that religious conviction diminished with education level. An inverse correlation between religiosity and intelligence has been found by 39 studies carried out between 1927 and 2002.
It is true that humans, and other apes as well, are naturally selfish due to the fact that this is advantagous to survival. However, Humans have shown that they have a strong sense of community and will help other humans without the offer of a reward in exchange for their help.
If you were to drop a pen and couldn`t reach it, anyone, even a human baby (without the order to do so) might automatically try to help by picking it up and handing it to you. We have become this way by living in groups for so long; we can read each other well and know what is trying to be accomplished an if our help is needed in it.
Yes but it is ultimately because group collaboration is beneficial. If a human refused to help other humans, or didn't feel the impulse to help others, he would be an outcast and his probabilities of survival would decrease without a group to support him.
It's also helpful because the humans he is helping also carry some of his genes, so he's basicly helping some of his own genes (present in the other human) to survive.
In theory his closing point is valid, but untrue. True altruism is impossible, and in the book, Dawkins was naive (somewhat self-confessedly) in thinking that there is a possible quality in humans of rebelling against our biological nature and behaving in a truly altruistic way.
No, examples of truly altruistic behaviour do exist. Take for instance people during WWII who volunteered for being executed in the place of perfect strangers.
"Dawkins was naive (somewhat self-confessedly) in thinking that there is a possible quality in humans of rebelling against our biological nature"
He confessed to no such thing; our ability to rebel against our selfish genes is one of the main points of the book. And examples like the above prove him right.
He did confess that he was perhaps being naive in thinking that true altruism was possible, I distinctly remember. As for the case of altruism mentioned, there's always an underlying reason why one would do ostensibly selfless acts. E.g., they might have considered the honour in doing so to provide a better climate for their genes in the next generation. That's not necessarily the case, only one possible explaination for it. Dawkins is explicit that one should always look for such explainations.
I don't think a bit of humility equals a confession, but no reason to mince words. Moving on:
"Dawkins is explicit that one should always look for such explainations [i.e. genetic ones]"
Yes, but in animals. Humans are often guided by our culture, which may well be contrary to our nature. Culture (or memes, as long as we are discussing The Selfish Gene) often demands that we act in biologically silly ways, like celibacy or true altruism.
"our ability to rebel against our selfish genes is one of the main points of the book"
I recall it being relegated to a single paragraph in the last chapter. A far more prevelant theme was explaining why altruism is simply an illusion created by occupying a individual selectoinist viewpoint rather than looking from the perspective of the gene.
Every human shares around 99.5% the same DNA. So it's not perfect altruism, far from it. In order to be tru altruism it would have to be humans trying to give their lives to save sponges, animals that are very very far from us.
Your definition of altruism seems to be an act that's irrational given the purpose of your genes (to multiply). This is also Dawkins' definition. I'm glad we're on the same page here.
If we exchange our life for a random stranger's, given that we're all 99.5% alike, that makes it .5% altruistic, so to speak. That's 99.5% neutral, .5% irrational and 0% rational.
A more altruistic act would be to give your life for the non-vital needs of others, like freedom, religion or art. It has been done.
Could you give some more specific examples? I wonder if the people they saved were younger, or perhaps children, or women (pregnant women particularly). All of these have more chances of survival and replication than the average person since they are either young or carrying a young "gene carrier"... in that sense it is not altruistic since the genes are strategically choosing to preserve the life of a better vessel.
"the genes are strategically choosing to preserve the life of a better vessel"
Not the genes communally. Biologically motivated "altruism" would be the result of a single altruism gene or gene complex. It would work to save itself, not all your other genes. The strategy of an altruism gene doesn't work unless there's a fair chance the other guy also has it. Dawkins shows in TSG how strategies like this are vulnerable to mutant freeloading genes and thus unstable.
You need no Bible to know the difference between right and wrong.
You DO need a Bible to convince others that wrong is right.
Religion in general provides a cure for the disease known as conscience. If your conscience tells you something is wrong, get religion to clear it all up for you, and suddenly, with properly applied religious doctrine, doing terrible things seems completely acceptable.
Oh really? Not only is slavery condoned in the Bible, instructions on how to beat your slave is nicely laid out- Ex.21:20. Deuteronomy orders that you drag a girl to her father's house to be stoned to death, if she is suspected of not being a virgin on her wedding night. Rape is justified in Numbers 31:17.
Matthew 7:1 "Judge not that ye be not judged"
If you're a true Christian then quit the hate and hypocrisy. Dawkins is a voice of reason in this world of excessive superstitious crap!
This guy is satan and the enemy of God, so he is teaching people its justified to rape and kill and steal because its part of our animal nature, I cannot wait till the Lord puts wrath on these devils, darwin on his death bed repented. I hope this satanic man repents also Amen
Psalm 23YHVH - tell me where in the book does dawkins quote "its ok to lie kill and rape"? dawkins is simply stating what he views as evolutanary facts in the animal kingdom. unfortunatley these facts may not always fit into the lovley fairy tale you want this world to be like, but hey have you ever heard the expression "thats life"?
"This brings me to the first point I want to make about what this book is not. I am not advocating a morality based on evolution. I am saying how things have evolved. I am not saying how we humans morally ought to behave...Let us try to teach generosity and altruism, because we are born selfish. Let us understand what our own selfish genes are up to, because we may then at least have a chance to upset their designs, something that no other species has ever aspired to do."
Numbers 31:17-18 (King James Version) Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.
When a slave-owner strikes a male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies immediately, the owner shall be punished. 21But if the slave survives for a day or two, there is no punishment; for the slave is the owner's property.
The selfish gene is an excellent book. It explains evolution from a gene-centered point of view and makes sense of altruism in the struggle for survival.
I highly recommend this book for anyone seeking a more detailed understanding of evolution.
Dont you have to know how to 'read' before you can criticize this book? I highly doubt 90% of these haters have actually read it without predetermined indoctrinated bias.
The selfish genes built us. We are the accumulation of the individual will of the genes. They all want to multiply. This is life. They use our body till we procreate, then they will to die and live on in our childeren. roughly 50% make it. another generation 25% are left another, and another and another till there is hardly any left. That is our lot. The flow of genes will cease to be. There is no heaven to hope for. No hell to fear. This is the truth that he brings to us and asks us to feel awe
yummmmmmmmm yummmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm there is only one god , one creator, only one believable religion,,, praise the Flying Spaghetti Monster,,, may we all be touched by his noodly apendages,,,,peace and meatballs to all,,,,,
k i've just started reading this book and i don't understand the method of how he expresses big numbers. A thousand million million? Why not just say "10 trillion" or whatever the number be.
Just his way of speaking, plus 10trillion is a hard number for some to grasp, US gross national product is 13trillion. The local lottery is a few million, we understand that better. So it may be easier to say a thousand million million as opposed to what is actually one quadrillion.
I like Dawkin's eccentric method of speaking, it lends to his extraordinary ideas.
Yes, millions of years ago there was a huge explosion in the sky; the earth formed it was without void first, free matter in space and then gravity pulled it together; then a meteor crashed into Earth making water, then fish animals developed, followed by land animals, and then finally birds. Lastly humans. Sounds quite familiar?
Want to debate? you actually know your stuff so you might convince me of the theory being true. I've never heard it like that before. Message me if you want to debate.
For someone to tell me things happen simply because God wants them to seems and is false. Face it, religion from the beginning of time has been harnessed by those in power to inflict fear upon the lower class, keeping them dumbed down and that is how it has survived logic because in society power > logic.
He is one of the most knowledgeable biologists on the planet who has studied evolutionary biology and any alternative that may exist for 50 years. He is not a moron, actually an expert. The Bible says the earth 6,00 years old. Carbon dating ACCURATELY can reveal that a dinosaur fossil is millions of years old...This is accurate, there is no worry of messing this up. This is a fact.
Prove evolution? I can prove to you micro-evolution on a bacterial scale and forced evolution scale. That fact remains the natural selection DOES exist, there is absolutely no denying that. The theory part is full scale evolution. Prove to me an almighty diety exists...you can't. I know its called faith but faith is ignorant and it shuns logic and understanding of one's world.
how do you explain endosymbiotic theory then? did you even read Dawkins book? For that matter do you even know anything about molecular biology and the evolution of two different strands of DNA between the Nuclei and the Mitochondria? At least we are attempting to explain things rather than just saying some unseen entity of unrealistic power created everything from nothing and that's that, even though he has been completely inactive in the last two thousand years.
Richard claims in his book the selfish gene... "A particularly remarkable molecule was formed by accident." Richard dawkins later wrote about his book the selfish gene ... "This book should be read almost as though it were science fiction." This is faith and NOT science. God designed everything...this is logic and faith.
Selfish Gene is one of the best books I have ever read, it's gene-centered view of evolution is a great leap forward from the traditional unit-centered view.
Models are *never* "facts". Facts are: do this experiment and you'll get this result. The underlying model can never be said to be fact. And I share Lam1ngton's opinion on this matter. The "selfish gene" idea borders on pseudo-science at best.
Wrong! Because the gene acts in a way which would be selfish if it was self conscious! An atom does not behave in a way which would be considered jealous if it was self conscious and understood these terms!!!! A poor stab at intellect my friend!!!!
On the contrary Dawkins is for those who know a little bit of science and have heard enough about religion to satisfy their impatient search for truth. I would say he is precisely for the uneducated people.
Anyone who says Richard Dawkins is a fool, is a fool themselves. The guy is an Oxford Professor Biology and Evolutionary Biology. I'd like to see these fools get a Professorship from Oxford in ANY SUBJECT!!!!!
peteq1972 2 months ago in playlist Evolution 2
This has been flagged as spam show
Dead-to-the-spirit deluded "God Delusion" author & blithering fool scientist goon Richard Dawkins another "leader" given 2 the profane masses is another useful idiot 4 Jesuit machinations
Jesuitical; pertaining to the Jesuits or their principals; designing; cunning; deceitful; prevaricating
The Jesuit Order completely altered the education system 2 suit their Evo-Hoax Agenda to discredit the Bible
Papal Rome cant have their Counter Reformation 2nd Dark Age DESPOTISM until Bible is destroyed
SpencerBenedict2nd 3 months ago
@PutridNature EVOLUTION, FUCK YEAH!!!
PaperSoapy 6 months ago
If you participated in the carnage in Afghanistan, Iraq, or any number of places around the planet, then you MUST be tried for murder, and publicly executed (by hanging) upon conviction. I will, if requested to, put the rope about your neck. American soldiers are nightly brutalizing, ravishing & ritualistically slaughtering Iraqi women & children in house-to-house sweeps. This is happening now, tonight, and every night.
CelestialEmbodiment 6 months ago
read about VMAT2 and dopamine, VMAT2 is what he calls the god gene even though its not a gene. he is not a scientist he is an activist trying to justify his homosexual atheist lifestyle and make a buck at the same time off anyone incapable of doing research on his many non- peer review discredited theories
1971texas 7 months ago
@1971texas Your argument is a bit silly. Dawkins is not a homosexual. He's married and has children. Not much of a homosexual lifestyle there.
backwoodsninja 7 months ago
@backwoodsninja I agree. Besides, if Dawkins were gay, he would just admit it. Unlike Ted Haggard.
FundiesGetLost 6 months ago
@1971texas
Steers, beers and queers, man... steers, beers and queers.
AngeloNiklis 4 months ago
Dick Dawkins (et al) is a filthy, abominable, no-good, corrupt fool, who doesn't seek God or understand, but has gone aside.
Psa 14:1 The fool hath said in his heart, There is no God. They are corrupt, they have done abominable works, there is none that doeth good.
2 The LORD looked down from heaven upon the children of men, to see if there were any that did understand, and seek God.
3 They are all gone aside, they are all together become filthy: there is none that doeth good, no, not one.
Mooiplaats 7 months ago
@Mooiplaats
So you believe everything you read? Especially when the texts are really freakin old? Dont you have a mind of your own? Dawkins has. Now who is corrupt, no-good, yak yak yak? YOU!
dirkschuitsma 3 months ago
Dawkins rules
theGroveMan 8 months ago
Why do people care if someone is religious or not? As long as they stay on their side of the fence why should it matter. Everyone is trying to prove or disprove, just let it go. The Dawkins Religion is the same as many others. He preaches and teaches and believes in what he is saying. What should that matter to anyone. This is just another way to divide everyone into groups to label them. Pft... same old crap, just a different spin.
soulmage11 9 months ago
@soulmage11 Like you said, "as long as they stay on their side of the fence, why should it matter?". The fact is that the faithful wont stay on their side of the fence, the want to change the laws of countries to fit into their perception of reality, that is the problem, and that's what many of us are no longer willing to put up with.
If you want to place your hope in some faith, FINE, do it, but don't expect the rest of us to follow simply because you want us to. It is beyond infantile!
coercingcoexistence 9 months ago
@coercingcoexistence Influencing the world around you is everyone's desire in some way or another. I still don't get it. Everyone, both religious people and those like Dawkins seem to be pushing their agenda no matter what. Religious and Anti-Religious people all seem to have the same goal, "to Influence the world around them". I just don't get the hostility.
soulmage11 9 months ago
@theattackrat seems you know little about either Dawkins , the selfish gene,altruism, or indeed religion. Oh my god you are a dinosaur and we all know what happened to them.
TheJonfletcher 1 year ago
i think richard gets aroused anytime anyone says the word altruism
tophernates 1 year ago
Dawkins has the giant ego gene
Treefrogs2 1 year ago
Can someone briefly summarize the chapters
baller4life59 1 year ago
Anyone interested in the Selfish gene should look up W.D Hamilton, it was his ideas which were the basis for much of the selfish gene. Also look up R.A Fisher, a brilliant evolutionary geneticist and statistican.
STEPHENWRAYSFORD33 1 year ago
The man is brilliant. Anyone with the slightest interest in human psychology, genetics, or evolution needs to read it. Be critical of it, obviously, but also give it a chance.
StabbyRaccoon 1 year ago 2
I read his book and now I'm more confused than before.
kelloggcerealxoxo 1 year ago
Richard Dawkins has the idiot gene.
bootybootybooty27 1 year ago 2
@bootybootybooty27 No, sounds like you do.
TheAttackRat 1 year ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
He writes a book called the selfish gene, I have a sugestion that he write a book on his sefish or his sinful heart. His heart is a sink of sin, or a cesspool of sin, or a sewage of sin. The wrath of God burns against him. "He that beliveth on the son hath everlasting life but he that believeth not the son shall not see lif but the wrath of God abidith on him." John 3:36 Gods wrath was poured out on Christ when he died in his place but he has no interest in Christ.
freesalvation7 1 year ago
@freesalvation7 Me thinketh you stupideth for believeth this shiteth. Asshole.
MrAbolishReligion 1 year ago
Cant god just get over himself and his wrath. Maybe he could even come to visit his beloved earth and give us sinful stupid humans abit of advice on how to live.
DutchNordic 1 year ago
@freesalvation7 religion, a badge of ignorance. To the educated among us, you are pretty much shouting out:
"look at me i'm intellectually disabled and do not understand, so i'll mindlessly criticize with religious nonsense."
TheAttackRat 1 year ago
Liquid Snake speaks of the Selfish Gene Theory in Metal Gear Solid
jmm1233 1 year ago 6
This book is such an eyeopener. My view on nature will never be the same after i came to understand evolutionary game theory and the gene centered point of view. Dawkins does an excellent job explaining it.
DutchNordic 1 year ago 3
I hope to think I get the point, I'm about halfway through.
It's probably the best book I've ever read.
Everyone who studies animal or human behavior should read it. Therapists, etc.
Philanderers, hawks, coy females, it's got it all.
ThePipersNicks 2 years ago
I forgot my favorite term... "survival machines"
Mine's not in perfect harmony!!
ThePipersNicks 2 years ago
@ThePipersNicks i agree man, if you're aspiring career is to be in any scientific or medical field, you should read this, it will really change your life. everything i do now i think 'is this selfish of me to take this seat, maybe i shall allow someone else who wants to sit'
it is a book that will stay with you forever, permitting you to think 3 times before doing everything hopefully.
varoujanx666 2 years ago
I am genuinely shocked at the number of people who have read The Selfish Gene and (whether they understood it or not) have completely missed the point. All I will say is that whether or not the metaphors that Dawkins uses are good ones is besides the point: they are just a descriptive tool; the argument he makes does not depend on its corresponding metaphors for its veracity.
WillGaudoin 2 years ago 2
This comment has received too many negative votes show
If C.S. Lewis was still alive, I bet he'd be able to correct Dawkins on a number of things.
Eye2EyeIIIV 2 years ago
Comment removed
STEPHENWRAYSFORD33 2 years ago 2
@Eye2EyeIIIV Hitchens massacres him.
MaxwellBennett 2 years ago
The word selfish means that something has a knowledge about self. Genes don't have knoweldge or feelings about themselves. They are just chemicals. The word "selfish" is a poorly chosen anthropomorphism chosen by Dawkins which has nothing to do with chemical science.
tiptiptapable 2 years ago
It is only a metaphor --- a token of literary license. I think Dawkins in his wildest dreams could not imagine anyone being so stupid as to interpret the phrase literally: as an attribution of sentient agency to a string of molecules. This lack of realism about the intelligence of his fellow mammals is the only thing I can fault him for. My point is that Dawkins would certainly agree that genes can be understood at a technical level only in terms of their chemistry. He was trying for a metaphor.
josephjstern 2 years ago 9
Metaphors have no place in a serious scientific topic. It's like calling your computer electrons "sexy" since they are always dancing. Without sexy electrons, we wouldn't have computers - the electrons would just be dormant an unsexy, not dancers in the disco. His book even wastes a lot of words explaining and justifying the title and the word "selfish" instead of just getting on with the fucking point. I suggest you look up anthropomorphism and the troubles it causes.
tiptiptapable 2 years ago
The book was a popular exposition. It was not a textbook in technical evolutionary biology. Dawkins was trying to urge the educated public --- including fellow biologists, but by no means limited to them --- to accept the relocation of the focus of natural selection to the gene pool rather than the organism. In a popular book, if one hopes to be effective, metaphors are sometimes necessary and productive. I agree with you that this particular metaphor was not a very successful one.
josephjstern 2 years ago
The fact that I like a girl with blonde hair and medium sized breasts has nothing to do with genes. It's my own selfish desire for pleasure. Genes also do not distinguish between fat and slim people - brains do. Natural selfish selection doesn't centre around genes but minds. In fact our minds can get us into trouble and cause us to choose people that are worse off in the pool. For example medium breasts are more of a risk for cancer, but people still pick them.
tiptiptapable 2 years ago
@tiptiptapable what do you think programed your brain, your genes "wired" it to be naturaly selfish
willjpsmith 1 year ago
In simple creatures such as bacteria that do not have selfish minds, the genes play a more chemical role in that the most successful bacteria strand continues to replicate. With complex organisms it becomes much less and less close to the way bacteria works. I would never call bacteria "selfish" because it succeeded. I treat bacteria similar to a glass of water, in that it is much simpler. A glass of water is not "selfish" if it spills on to the floor and spreads out the most it can.
tiptiptapable 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"Atheist Girl vs Christian Girl" - Check it out on my channel.
atheistfriends 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
paulwilfridhunt 2 years ago
why you talk like that? are you stupid?
dumbnetworks 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Sick of Christians and Atheists arguing?
atheistfriends 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"The God Debate" is on my channel.
atheistfriends 2 years ago
I like richard dawkins a lot-what he is saying! he uses COMMON SENSE & logic, trying 2 figure things out, questioning things 2 try& make it better. he doesnt stick 2 a belief. beliefs r suppose 2 change as we gain new knowledge or info, just like a CSI has 2 adjust the theory on who the suspect is based off EVIDENCE. science actually brought me closer to GOD, belief in GOD alone never changes, but beliefs on many issues in life DO. I despise RELIGION & church 2 btw. go here:
truthknowledge. com
MopDMTBARTL 2 years ago 3
I'm reading the book right now. if u think u understand evolution, try reading this book. it will really change your understanding.
mistermuffin420 2 years ago
creation ? who created the creator ?
qaplatlhinganmaH 2 years ago
Creation fits the science no matter how unpopular it is. Creation explains everything, accident explains nothing.
warriorprince1010 2 years ago
Who said accident? Not 1 scientist!! Who says, 'god did it' for anything they don't understand? YOU!!!
kusalaviro 2 years ago
Laughing at people who are desperately trying to sell you bullshit as "life saving truth" is not showing disrespect. It's a natural reaction to a joke.
I know it must be frustrating to believe in something that can't be proven to be the wonderful fantasy it promises, and see so many people not buy into it. Your preaching is yielding no desired results (recruitment into your cult), so you're disappointed.
Been there, done that. Now I'm free from all that Jazz and my life is wonderful!
thursdaysrecords 2 years ago
whuut.....
I expected him to be about objectivist scientific ethics....
not promoting religious ethics..
BeHereNow21 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@-(-(-
click on my name for the u r l to see how we stopped the Million Dollar Paranormal Challenge forever...
@-(-(-
felixmab66 2 years ago
Well that's one excellent definition of self contradiction if I ever saw one.
juniorsti 2 years ago
why?
wowsa0 2 years ago
you just din't understand it yet...
evenflow771 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
People who are sociopathic, cynical or angry will always see a con man instead of a saint.
If somebody tells you that Mother Teresa is an egomaniac, RUN.
bhweller 2 years ago
If somebody tells you Mother Teresa was a saint LAUGH.
MartinJWillett 2 years ago
Comment removed
switchblade1800 2 years ago
Ever heard the saying, one delusional person is insane, lots of delusion people are religious :)
You sir, are delusional
PcKSnipE 2 years ago 6
I bet switchblade1800 doesn't even know that he has to proof his assumption, or else it will always stay an assumption. Therefore he will stay the same dogmatic idiot that he is...
makedonas86 2 years ago 2
This comment has received too many negative votes show
dawkins is a-goin to where they rain fire and brimestone for all eternity
NathanBForrest1776 2 years ago
If only you knew..........
tommybhoy1975 2 years ago
Obvious troll is obvious
Malecaust666 2 years ago
obvious 4chan user is obvious
types10000 2 years ago
Rule 1 and 2 faggot
Malecaust666 2 years ago
i got pwned :'(
types10000 2 years ago
What an argument, truly we are in the presence of a master wordsmith!!
j0kerman2 2 years ago
I read the book a few months ago, it gives you such an understanding of the subject. i always say if you want to know about a certain subject read books about it, and this book is one of those that should be read if you want to know about evolution and biology. then i read the blind watchmaker and climbing mount improbable. Excellent, first class reading!
peteq1972 2 years ago
Im really tempted to buy The Selfish Gene. However I have not studied biology for many years and even then it was at a pretty basic level.
Does someone have to be very proficient with scientific terminology to get the best out of this book? Or would it be ok for a curious amateur?
Wonkylenny 2 years ago
No thats just the thing, things are explained as if you know nothing anyway (like me lol) and i grasp it. so yeah read it. And you`ll so recomend it after.
peteq1972 2 years ago
That's the beauty of Dawkins's books: he writes them with such clarity that you don't have to be an expert on the subject or know complex terminology to understand them, yet at the same time he doesn't treat the readers like they're retarded either.
oneeyednarn 2 years ago
I read this for the first time last week and it's miraculous (I'm pretty sure Dawkins wouldn't like that word used). It's a revelation (ok that either). In fact, hard to describe the emotions I felt without envoking religious language. Suffice to say it was amamzing. REALLY good.
theguinnessofdarwin 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Dawkins is a fraud. The gene is not the unit of selection.
notreason 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Old Queer!
getoutinit 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
so that it . if your are stronge you get what ever you want it. dosent matter if you rigth or wrong, but if you are weak you will lose everything, because that how the world works survival for the fittest. If that is true then we live in a cruel world dont you think.
BigBox609 2 years ago
Clearly you didn't read the book.
dreamdewil 2 years ago 6
So your'e the one who read simply answer the question.
TAXILA76 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
sounds like a horrible book
pitt234567 3 years ago
sounds like you are just another retard who doesn't read book
blahblah7949 2 years ago 6
This comment has received too many negative votes show
I find that funny coming from a person who can't write a grammatically correct sentence. I do read a lot of BOOK(s). Here's a tip: next time you call someone a retard, make sure you don't sound like one yourself.
pitt234567 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
For men will be lovers of themselves, lovers of money, boasters, proud, blasphemers, disobedient to parents, unthankful, unholy,
nonsecular7 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Amen!!
creebefu 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@}-,-`-
Click on my name for the U R L to see how we **WON** the Million Dollar Paranormal Challenge
@}-,-`-
felixmabus99 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
I think Richard Dawkins has selfish homosexual genes.
1carlosf 3 years ago
A letter published in Nature in 1998 reported a survey suggesting that belief in a personal god was at an all-time low among the members of the U.S. National Academy of Science, only 7.0% of whom believed in a personal god as compared with more than 85% of the general U.S. population. A correlation indicating that religious conviction diminished with education level. An inverse correlation between religiosity and intelligence has been found by 39 studies carried out between 1927 and 2002.
TeslaSagan 3 years ago 26
Read his book before spouting opinions...
It is about the selfish "gene" not the selfish "organism".
He does not propose that humans are selfish but that genes "behave" selfishly by the process of natural selection.
It's a great book and has some very interesting points.
TSchellhous 3 years ago 4
The Selfish Gene is amazing.
Punksual 3 years ago 7
It is true that humans, and other apes as well, are naturally selfish due to the fact that this is advantagous to survival. However, Humans have shown that they have a strong sense of community and will help other humans without the offer of a reward in exchange for their help.
shrikechan 3 years ago
If you were to drop a pen and couldn`t reach it, anyone, even a human baby (without the order to do so) might automatically try to help by picking it up and handing it to you. We have become this way by living in groups for so long; we can read each other well and know what is trying to be accomplished an if our help is needed in it.
shrikechan 3 years ago 2
Yes but it is ultimately because group collaboration is beneficial. If a human refused to help other humans, or didn't feel the impulse to help others, he would be an outcast and his probabilities of survival would decrease without a group to support him.
It's also helpful because the humans he is helping also carry some of his genes, so he's basicly helping some of his own genes (present in the other human) to survive.
darfunkelidas 3 years ago
In theory his closing point is valid, but untrue. True altruism is impossible, and in the book, Dawkins was naive (somewhat self-confessedly) in thinking that there is a possible quality in humans of rebelling against our biological nature and behaving in a truly altruistic way.
Uxoriouswidow 3 years ago
"True altruism is impossible"
No, examples of truly altruistic behaviour do exist. Take for instance people during WWII who volunteered for being executed in the place of perfect strangers.
"Dawkins was naive (somewhat self-confessedly) in thinking that there is a possible quality in humans of rebelling against our biological nature"
He confessed to no such thing; our ability to rebel against our selfish genes is one of the main points of the book. And examples like the above prove him right.
thekure42 3 years ago
He did confess that he was perhaps being naive in thinking that true altruism was possible, I distinctly remember. As for the case of altruism mentioned, there's always an underlying reason why one would do ostensibly selfless acts. E.g., they might have considered the honour in doing so to provide a better climate for their genes in the next generation. That's not necessarily the case, only one possible explaination for it. Dawkins is explicit that one should always look for such explainations.
Uxoriouswidow 3 years ago
"He did confess that he was perhaps being naive"
I don't think a bit of humility equals a confession, but no reason to mince words. Moving on:
"Dawkins is explicit that one should always look for such explainations [i.e. genetic ones]"
Yes, but in animals. Humans are often guided by our culture, which may well be contrary to our nature. Culture (or memes, as long as we are discussing The Selfish Gene) often demands that we act in biologically silly ways, like celibacy or true altruism.
thekure42 3 years ago
"our ability to rebel against our selfish genes is one of the main points of the book"
I recall it being relegated to a single paragraph in the last chapter. A far more prevelant theme was explaining why altruism is simply an illusion created by occupying a individual selectoinist viewpoint rather than looking from the perspective of the gene.
Uxoriouswidow 3 years ago
Every human shares around 99.5% the same DNA. So it's not perfect altruism, far from it. In order to be tru altruism it would have to be humans trying to give their lives to save sponges, animals that are very very far from us.
darfunkelidas 3 years ago
Your definition of altruism seems to be an act that's irrational given the purpose of your genes (to multiply). This is also Dawkins' definition. I'm glad we're on the same page here.
If we exchange our life for a random stranger's, given that we're all 99.5% alike, that makes it .5% altruistic, so to speak. That's 99.5% neutral, .5% irrational and 0% rational.
A more altruistic act would be to give your life for the non-vital needs of others, like freedom, religion or art. It has been done.
thekure42 3 years ago
Could you give some more specific examples? I wonder if the people they saved were younger, or perhaps children, or women (pregnant women particularly). All of these have more chances of survival and replication than the average person since they are either young or carrying a young "gene carrier"... in that sense it is not altruistic since the genes are strategically choosing to preserve the life of a better vessel.
darfunkelidas 3 years ago
"the genes are strategically choosing to preserve the life of a better vessel"
Not the genes communally. Biologically motivated "altruism" would be the result of a single altruism gene or gene complex. It would work to save itself, not all your other genes. The strategy of an altruism gene doesn't work unless there's a fair chance the other guy also has it. Dawkins shows in TSG how strategies like this are vulnerable to mutant freeloading genes and thus unstable.
thekure42 3 years ago
That makes sense, it's good to know thanks, now I understand it better.
darfunkelidas 3 years ago
You need no Bible to know the difference between right and wrong.
You DO need a Bible to convince others that wrong is right.
Religion in general provides a cure for the disease known as conscience. If your conscience tells you something is wrong, get religion to clear it all up for you, and suddenly, with properly applied religious doctrine, doing terrible things seems completely acceptable.
polkadotbox2 3 years ago 3
Oh really? Not only is slavery condoned in the Bible, instructions on how to beat your slave is nicely laid out- Ex.21:20. Deuteronomy orders that you drag a girl to her father's house to be stoned to death, if she is suspected of not being a virgin on her wedding night. Rape is justified in Numbers 31:17.
Matthew 7:1 "Judge not that ye be not judged"
If you're a true Christian then quit the hate and hypocrisy. Dawkins is a voice of reason in this world of excessive superstitious crap!
Betelgeuse3000 3 years ago 6
This has been flagged as spam show
This guy is satan and the enemy of God, so he is teaching people its justified to rape and kill and steal because its part of our animal nature, I cannot wait till the Lord puts wrath on these devils, darwin on his death bed repented. I hope this satanic man repents also Amen
Psalm23YHVH 3 years ago
"he is teaching people its justified to rape and kill and steal because it[']s part of our animal nature"
Is he?
Are you really saying that the only reason you do NOT rape and kill and steal, is that you have a 'god' to punish you, should you ever misbehave?
"darwin on his death bed repented"
A tired myth perptuated only by desperate creationists.
Go home, give up, and MOVE ON like everybody else. And for the sake of humanity, buy some textbooks.
01smitw 3 years ago 3
Psalm 23YHVH - tell me where in the book does dawkins quote "its ok to lie kill and rape"? dawkins is simply stating what he views as evolutanary facts in the animal kingdom. unfortunatley these facts may not always fit into the lovley fairy tale you want this world to be like, but hey have you ever heard the expression "thats life"?
buling999 3 years ago 2
"This brings me to the first point I want to make about what this book is not. I am not advocating a morality based on evolution. I am saying how things have evolved. I am not saying how we humans morally ought to behave...Let us try to teach generosity and altruism, because we are born selfish. Let us understand what our own selfish genes are up to, because we may then at least have a chance to upset their designs, something that no other species has ever aspired to do."
read and get educated.
crocop60 3 years ago 2
Numbers 31:17-18 (King James Version) Now therefore kill every male among the little ones, and kill every woman that hath known man by lying with him. But all the women children, that have not known a man by lying with him, keep alive for yourselves.
NitesnDays 3 years ago
Ex 21:20-21
When a slave-owner strikes a male or female slave with a rod and the slave dies immediately, the owner shall be punished. 21But if the slave survives for a day or two, there is no punishment; for the slave is the owner's property.
NitesnDays 3 years ago
Not once has he said that it's OK to rape, kill or steal.
DaiMer82 3 years ago
So I'm trying to figure out what he's saying: God is a gene? Cool!
edbingey 3 years ago
I know what I'm reading next.
anishinaabe 3 years ago
Theists tend to do away with logic when wanting to beleive in something.
Atheists tend to do away with ego so the truth may present itself with as much clarity as possible, regardless of the answer.
tysonheffer 3 years ago 9
The selfish gene is an excellent book. It explains evolution from a gene-centered point of view and makes sense of altruism in the struggle for survival.
I highly recommend this book for anyone seeking a more detailed understanding of evolution.
majorvoltage 3 years ago 4
Dont you have to know how to 'read' before you can criticize this book? I highly doubt 90% of these haters have actually read it without predetermined indoctrinated bias.
SpaceCarnivora 3 years ago 3
I got this book signed yesterday :) I adore Richard.
SpaceCarnivora 3 years ago
He is plain realistic
PhDErvin 3 years ago 4
This has been flagged as spam show
The selfish genes built us. We are the accumulation of the individual will of the genes. They all want to multiply. This is life. They use our body till we procreate, then they will to die and live on in our childeren. roughly 50% make it. another generation 25% are left another, and another and another till there is hardly any left. That is our lot. The flow of genes will cease to be. There is no heaven to hope for. No hell to fear. This is the truth that he brings to us and asks us to feel awe
Erren1234 4 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
yummmmmmmmm yummmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm there is only one god , one creator, only one believable religion,,, praise the Flying Spaghetti Monster,,, may we all be touched by his noodly apendages,,,,peace and meatballs to all,,,,,
jubbster 4 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
k i've just started reading this book and i don't understand the method of how he expresses big numbers. A thousand million million? Why not just say "10 trillion" or whatever the number be.
EmpyreanExile 4 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Just his way of speaking, plus 10trillion is a hard number for some to grasp, US gross national product is 13trillion. The local lottery is a few million, we understand that better. So it may be easier to say a thousand million million as opposed to what is actually one quadrillion.
I like Dawkin's eccentric method of speaking, it lends to his extraordinary ideas.
humanistfuture 4 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Dawkin's crowning achievement.
Uxoriouswidow 4 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
What is this guy smokin anyway?
MaximusMcc 4 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
your brain did
robotaholic 4 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
hahaha
notToast 4 years ago
So we came from a rock?
samuraizkd 4 years ago 6
This has been flagged as spam show
Yes, millions of years ago there was a huge explosion in the sky; the earth formed it was without void first, free matter in space and then gravity pulled it together; then a meteor crashed into Earth making water, then fish animals developed, followed by land animals, and then finally birds. Lastly humans. Sounds quite familiar?
Let there be light
Earth created
Firmament created
Fish created
Land animals Created
Humans...
PeacefulParadox 4 years ago
Want to debate? you actually know your stuff so you might convince me of the theory being true. I've never heard it like that before. Message me if you want to debate.
samuraizkd 4 years ago 2
This has been flagged as spam show
so you are retarded?
NikitaLion 4 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
lets debate, unless you're afraid. you shouldn't comment in a rude way.
samuraizkd 4 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
There are no holes in the creation theory. It is as much as fact as gravity. Creation answers everything.
warriorprince1010 4 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Because its the simplest and stupidest answer! Who needs to think?!
mytoeismissindarnit 4 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
there are holes in fossils though.
AquaFight 4 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Holes for eyes, holes for ears, holes for spinal columns. Yes.
TheeYeti 4 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
yes, that's what i meant. those are real holes instead of the vague random ones "pointed out" by creationists.
AquaFight 4 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The creation theory looks like it has no holes, because it really is just one big hole! One big fat zero!
ticnatz 4 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
If it answers everything then why did God create Earth?
hydralisk125 4 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
creation is a whole itself = nonsense. you cannot have holes in a hole lol
ANDRE7MONK 4 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
creation is a hole itself = nonsense. you cannot have holes in a hole lol
ANDRE7MONK 4 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
For someone to tell me things happen simply because God wants them to seems and is false. Face it, religion from the beginning of time has been harnessed by those in power to inflict fear upon the lower class, keeping them dumbed down and that is how it has survived logic because in society power > logic.
bd593 4 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
He is one of the most knowledgeable biologists on the planet who has studied evolutionary biology and any alternative that may exist for 50 years. He is not a moron, actually an expert. The Bible says the earth 6,00 years old. Carbon dating ACCURATELY can reveal that a dinosaur fossil is millions of years old...This is accurate, there is no worry of messing this up. This is a fact.
bd593 4 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Evolutionist...fantasist, God hater, liar, science hater, logic hater, cynical, immoral.
warriorprince1010 4 years ago
I don't try to refute a hypothesis, evolutionists have to prove evolution has happened. I wish you the best.
warriorprince1010 4 years ago 6
This comment has received too many negative votes show
and you think they havent???.....go get an education
newchap1234 4 years ago
what the fuck is an evolutionist?
InfoJunkieHolland 4 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Prove evolution? I can prove to you micro-evolution on a bacterial scale and forced evolution scale. That fact remains the natural selection DOES exist, there is absolutely no denying that. The theory part is full scale evolution. Prove to me an almighty diety exists...you can't. I know its called faith but faith is ignorant and it shuns logic and understanding of one's world.
bd593 4 years ago
" everything that appears designed came by accident." LOL you clearly are the nut.
warriorprince1010 4 years ago 7
This has been flagged as spam show
╔╩╔╗╔═╦╦╦╦
╚╩║╚╣║║║║║
╚╩╚═╩═╩══╩
FlappyDraws 4 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
how do you explain endosymbiotic theory then? did you even read Dawkins book? For that matter do you even know anything about molecular biology and the evolution of two different strands of DNA between the Nuclei and the Mitochondria? At least we are attempting to explain things rather than just saying some unseen entity of unrealistic power created everything from nothing and that's that, even though he has been completely inactive in the last two thousand years.
Mondayn 4 years ago
Richard claims in his book the selfish gene... "A particularly remarkable molecule was formed by accident." Richard dawkins later wrote about his book the selfish gene ... "This book should be read almost as though it were science fiction." This is faith and NOT science. God designed everything...this is logic and faith.
warriorprince1010 4 years ago 4
This has been flagged as spam show
God designed everything...this is logic and faith.
<b>╔╗╔═╦╗
║╚╣║║╚╗
╚═╩═╩═╝
you nut,
tieIntercept0r 4 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I do not see any logic in your final sentence. I see way too much misguided and misdirected faith.
musidiablo 4 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Love you Richard!
SuperArcticFox 4 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I wanna read it as well as 'The Origin Of Species'.
deadpisser88 4 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Selfish Gene is one of the best books I have ever read, it's gene-centered view of evolution is a great leap forward from the traditional unit-centered view.
Sonny502 4 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
GENE ABOVE ALL
THERE IS NO GOD
Sonny502 4 years ago
A selfish gene is as nonsensical as a jealous atom.
Lam1ngton 4 years ago 4
This comment has received too many negative votes show
You've taken it too literally.
emphaticapathy 4 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Sure, Lami1ngton, lets try to disprove a universally accepted fact with rhetoric.
"Don't confuse me with the facts; I've made up my mind."
seanmd80 4 years ago
That would all be very nice if that was what I actually said wouldn't it.
Lam1ngton 4 years ago 4
Models are *never* "facts". Facts are: do this experiment and you'll get this result. The underlying model can never be said to be fact. And I share Lam1ngton's opinion on this matter. The "selfish gene" idea borders on pseudo-science at best.
blake121666 4 years ago 4
Wrong! Because the gene acts in a way which would be selfish if it was self conscious! An atom does not behave in a way which would be considered jealous if it was self conscious and understood these terms!!!! A poor stab at intellect my friend!!!!
zephyrboys 2 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
One of best books ever. This man changed my view of this world.
PolarisCZ 4 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
On the contrary Dawkins is for those who know a little bit of science and have heard enough about religion to satisfy their impatient search for truth. I would say he is precisely for the uneducated people.
taxzby 4 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
You probably have a vagina in your genes.
arusebud 4 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
You sound like a smart guy, I'm gonna reject evolutionary theory cus you're such a 'genous' it would be dumb not to believe in what you believe.
emphaticapathy 4 years ago
This has been flagged as spam show
What are you talking about?
Bandhu