From the Bookshelf of Science and Inquiry…

The Selfish Gene

Richard Dawkins

Start date: June 1, 2014

Finish date: June 30, 2014

Discussion: Book Club 2014

Find A Copy At

Libraries

Group Discussions About This Book

Showing 2 of 24 topics — 696 comments total

Book Club 2014

March 2014 - Epigenetics Revolution
By Betsy , co-mod · 13 posts · 147 views

last updated Nov 06, 2019 03:45AM

September 2014 - Sixth Extinction
By Betsy , co-mod · 62 posts · 168 views

last updated Jan 06, 2016 01:48AM

showing 10 of 13 topics view all »

What Members Thought

Jun 25, 2014 Steve Van Slyke rated it liked it

Shelves: science, kindle, evolution, genetics

I'm a fan of Dawkins' work both in biology and skepticism, so take my praise and criticism with that calibrating qualification. I've read, I think, five of his books. I did not like this one quite as much as The Ancestor's Tale. While I agreed with the premise and theory proposed, sometimes his style of writing got in the way. Normally, I like analogies and metaphors to help explain complex ideas, but in this case I think he went too far in that direction, at least in the first half of the book. I'm a fan of Dawkins' work both in biology and skepticism, so take my praise and criticism with that calibrating qualification. I've read, I think, five of his books. I did not like this one quite as much as The Ancestor's Tale. While I agreed with the premise and theory proposed, sometimes his style of writing got in the way. Normally, I like analogies and metaphors to help explain complex ideas, but in this case I think he went too far in that direction, at least in the first half of the book. Although he was careful to use quote marks when attributing 'feelings' to genes such as 'wanting' or 'trying' to do this or that, I still felt that it muddled the message. I think he could have found a better stylistic method to get his points across. I also felt he could have done a better job of explaining how genes, proteins and enzymes create different cell types. His description was a bit vague for my layman's ears, and other authors have done better.

Although he appears to want to totally rule out the possibility of group selection, I think there is still room for that possibility in some circumstances, particularly in small, cohesive groups, bands or tribes of humans; i.e., hunter-gatherers. He suggests that free-loaders, cheaters and selfish individuals would eventually invade and take over altruistic groups. I don't think this is what actually happens. I think such individuals would be banished, ostracized and thus their survival and reproductive opportunities would be limited. Such groups use taboos and tribal religions to minimize free-loading. And although I can't lay my hands on it at the moment, there was a recent research paper about group selection in microorganisms. Given that this book is more than 30 years old, it's possible that Dawkins' own views may have changed ever so slightly.

It is unfair to criticize a book of this age for ideas that have subsequently proven to be false, or most likely so. For example he describes surplus (junk) DNA as “a parasite, or at best a harmless but useless passenger...”. New research is suggesting that there may be no such thing as junk DNA, and it may have purposes we have yet to fully understand. Similarly, I wonder what changes he might make to a new edition in light of the recent “Epigenetics Revolution”.

One of my favorite passages of the book is when he asks “...will there be any principle that is true of all life? Obviously I do not know but, if I had to bet, I would put my money on one fundamental principle. This is the law that all life evolves by the differential survival of replicating entities.” And I loved when he says that “...Darwinism is too big a theory to be confined to the narrow context of the gene.” And he shows how it applies in his new (at that time) concept of memes, that can be used to help explain the evolution of languages, religions and other facets of human culture.

My criticisms should be taken in the context of 'friend' and admirer of Dawkins who wants him to keep on writing and making his ideas as clear as possible to people like me who aren't near as bright as he is. This was and still is an important, classic work. ...more

13 likes · Like · see review