[ExI] The Selfish Gene? Maybe not----

John Clark johnkclark at gmail.com
Wed Mar 18 15:05:46 UTC 2015

On Tue, Mar 17, 2015  BillK <pharos at gmail.com> wrote:

> I think the new reasoning is that the selfish gene is too simplistic.
> It ignores too many exceptions. The selfish gene is a lovely story and
> very appealing. That's why it has lasted for 30 years. But new genetics

has found that genes don't stand alone.

Are you trying to tell me with a straight face that Richard Dawkins and the
other selfish gene people thought that genes acted in isolation and the
expression of genes into actual traits that an animal had was *simple*??
Read Dawkins wonderful book  "The Extended Phenotype" and then tell me
Dawkins believed Evolution was simple.  And from his very first book whose
very title introduced the term "The Selfish Gene" Dawkins made it crystal
clear that a successful gene was one that fit in well with it's
environment, and he made it even more clear that no aspect of a gene's
environment is more important than other genes.

If there is anything revolutionary or surprising or even particularly
interesting in Dyson's paper I don't see it.

  John K Clark
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.extropy.org/pipermail/extropy-chat/attachments/20150318/976ada8a/attachment.html>

More information about the extropy-chat mailing list