Richard Dawkins - The Selfish Gene - Meet the author
Top Comments
All Comments (277)
-
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!!!!!
-
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!
-
Steers, beers and queers, man... steers, beers and queers.
-
@backwoodsninja I agree. Besides, if Dawkins were gay, he would just admit it. Unlike Ted Haggard.
-
@PutridNature EVOLUTION, FUCK YEAH!!!
-
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.
-
@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.
-
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
-
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.
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
Liquid Snake speaks of the Selfish Gene Theory in Metal Gear Solid
jmm1233 1 year ago 6