Rating: 
Summary: Fundamentally flawed
Review: All what the word selfish means in Dawkins formulation of Natural Selection, is that genes have a chance to contribute to their own reproduction. It absolutely doesn't matter how much a gene contributes to any other genes reproduction, it could make a million of them, it would still be noted as selfish in Dawkins definition if it normally contributed to it's own reproduction. So the use of the word selfish, which Dawkins wants to use as a technical term, not as metaphore, is misleading by standard uses of selfish. The general view of Nature that results from applying Dawkins formula is what he metaphorically calls "a nature red in tooth and claw" which he says "sums up modern understanding of Natural Selection admirably. This is simply wrong because it is reproduction, and not competition or struggle, that sums up Natural Selection. A short working out of all theoretically possible scenario's of evolution, shows that competition is not required at all for either Natural Selection or evolution to take place. For example when a mutation applies to a different sort of resource then it's ancestor, then it can inhabit a partially or completely different environment then it's ancestor. So then there is less, or no meaningful competition involved in the evolution.
Dawkins use of the word selfish is similar to the wordusage of other highly influential Darwinists Lorenz and Haeckel. Lorenz used the term "innate aggression", while Haeckel went to talk about the "soul" of atoms and whatnot. The link between politics and science becomes much easier when the language in science is filled with emotive and messy terminology. Lorenz which Dawkins mentions in the beginning of his book, used Darwinism to actively promote Nazism and consequently participated in the ethnic cleansing in Poland during the Nazi-regime. Haeckel actively promoted the use of Darwinism to statelaw, and is generally known as one of the main proto-nazi's.
While Dawkins does not openly promote these particular ideas, he does make statements suggestive of needing to recast morality in view of Darwinian findings. He says for instance that people must look upon their children as selfish, and that we must learn to overcome our selfish genes and become altruistic adults. While Dawkins does not himself openly promote racism, his theory leads to it just like it did with his forebearers Lorenz and Haeckel. If it is true as Dawkins proposes, that we have an inherent selfish drive, a drive to be altruist to those genetically similar to us, then we are all racists.
Rating: 
Summary: Fascinating and Profound
Review: This book concerns the evolution of life from simple beginnings and provides a fascinating and profound discussion of the role of genes as being fundamental units of stability subject to simple principles from which one can explain a great deal of the enormous complexity of life. I came at this book with a good knowledge of evolution, but I had always wondered what was the first leap from non-living to living systems. I think the evolutionary steps are not understood in full detail at the molecular level, but the author gives a very plausible and compelling general idea of how things probably evolved and how this is consistent with observations in biology. For example the author offers an explanation of altruism in nature, and several other behaviours. I believe this book is very important for anyone who is intellectually curious about the meaning and origins of life. Admittedly the implications may clash with a religous point of view, which can be disturbing for some, but that can't be helped. This is real science ! (Hopefully I should be qualified to recognize it as such, since I'm trained as a physicist.) Yet the book is written in a clear, logical, and entertaining style accessible to the layman.
Rating:
Summary: Good Science and Good Writing
Review: Dawkins reads like a novel. His books are fascinating, enlightening and entertaining and The Selfish Gene is perhaps his best. This book was recommended to me years ago. I have in turn recommended it to dozens of non-science wonks. It explains the workings and the meaning of evolution and genetics in a way no other book has. Buy it or borrow it, but READ it!
Rating: 
Summary: A fascinating journey inside the world of Animals
Review: I doubt that there are many scientists that can convey great scientific ideas to the layperson as easily and interestingly as Professor Dawkins can. He takes the reader inside the world of animals which fascinates him, and longs to make them see his points clearly. He leaves very few room for questions, for he tries to cover as much of them as he could. If you think of a question while reading, it is more likely that you find Dawkins' answer for that very question in the next paragraph or page. What bothers and saddens me though, is the degree to which Dr. Dawkins attacks the idea or the belief of God. A scientist is supposed to leave room for other options and not advocate something as an absolute Truth that has no alternative. Many of the things he wrote about, though fascinating, can be regarded as mere conjectures, yet, he presents them as a definite truth that no 2 people can, or should, argue about. Granted that fanaticism is wrong, and granted that Hypocrisy is nasty, but that is not what Christianity in particular and religion in general is all about. A person in my opinion can be open to both, religion and science. I can be convinced that the world started from the Big Bang, but I can also ask the question: What sparked the Big Bang? What made that blast to happen?. I asked this question to a diehard atheist professor of Geology in my University and his answer was "It is energy". But when I asked "Where did this energy come from ?" he said "I have no idea". If religious fanaticism is bad, scientific fanatisicm is AS BAD. Fanaticism is also applied to Atheism. Another point concerning this matter is the following. The theory of evolution (also Darwinian evolution) claims that Mankind was the last to evolve (on planet Earth of course). But if we read Genesis (written 5000 years ago), we find that it also tells us that Mankind was created last. Is this resemlance a coincidence??. Also, did we have to wait for science, 2000 years after Christ, to tell us that being nice and Cooperative is the best strategy ?? Personally, Dr. Dawkins is one of few scientists that I highly admire, but I find no point in offending readers who still believe in spirituality. A scientist is supposed to be humble, open-minded, and not dogmatic.
Rating:
Summary: We can get no satisfaction
Review: I am very disapointed with evolutionary theory these days. As we read books such as the Selfish Gene, we notice that behind the appearence of scientific discourse there is always a just-so story and a naturalistic question begging assumption. In the end, if you remove just-so stories and naturalistic assumptions from evolutionary theory you get very little indeed. More than 140 year after Charles Darwin we notice that evolutionary theory suffers from a serious promise v. performance problem. It has simply failed to deliver. It has failed to account convincingly for the origins of matter and the universe, prebiotic soup and abiogenesis, the cambrian explosion, the polystrata fossils, the origins, sequencing and replication of DNA and cellular life, macroevolution, the origins of complex specified information, for the function of "vestigial organs" and "junk-DNA", for the flaws and evolutionary assumptions that underly the various uraniun-helium, potassium-argon and radiocarbon dating methods. We can get no satisfaction when we read all the circular and tautological responses that darwinists have to all these questions. Not to mention the faked "Icons of Evolution",as demonsttrated by Jonathan Wells, and the surrealistic debates between men like Richard Dawkins and the late Steven Jay Gould. The more I read Richard Dawkins "vestigial positivism" the more I am interested in creationism of the Douhane Gish, John and Henry Morris and Russell Humphreys kind. At least it is able to give a more complete account of human physical, emotional, moral and spiritual existence of Man, as well as of the fine-tuning of the universe. Many non-creationists are having this same feeling that something is terribly wrong with the dominant evolutionary paradigms. The emergence of self-organization and complexity theories (v.g. Stuart Kaufman), of cellular automata theories (v.g. Stephen Wolfram) and of intelligent design theories (v.g. Michael Behe, William Dembski and Phillip Johnson) are more than enough to demonstrate that many more people can get no satisfaction with darwinism either. Even english journalist and writer Graham Hancock, author of (among other best sellers) the recent book Underworld, has a strong case against the dominant paradigms in history, geology, archeology, anthropology and evolutionary theory. John Stuart Mill he wrote, as a part of his arguments in is essay On Liberty, that "If even Newtonian philosophy were not permitted to be questioned mankind could not feel as complete assurance of its truth as they do now". Many things seem to have changed since John Stuart Mill. Newtonian philosophy has been displaced long ago by general relativity and quantum mechanics. But what is troubling is that Darwinism wants to secure the "assurance of its truth" not by being questioned, but by avoiding question and dissent. This is not scientific nor liberal in the true sense of word. As Mark Twain would say, that is not english, that is not american... that's french!
Rating:
Summary: ...
Review: This is my first book from Dawkins and yes, I am impressed !! What I liked most about this book is that it questions your most basic assumptions about life and morality and provokes and shakes you. And you do not have to agree with anything in book to do this thinking !! Admittedly, creationists (which at least USA is full of) will not find anything useful in this book for it challenges and intimidates even those who consider themselves modern and with an open mind, ... ...:-) For every one else who has an open mind, however, there is plenty to think over and provoke you while reading this book. The book does not attempt to create a theory of life, universe and everything nor try to answer any moral issues (like many reviews might like you to believe). But that is something that you cannot do without attempting - after and during reading it. And, yes, evalution is still a theory in its infancy and while we know so much about how life grew, there is still so much more that we need to find out. This book shows, brilliantly, the direction it CAN take!!
Rating:
Summary: Excellent but depressing.
Review: I think a lot of people don't like Dawkins because he tells a truth which shatters our beliefs about the world. After I had a sort of "peak experience" of the inherent wonder and truth of evolution, I ran across this book. I felt foreboding about it after reading the back cover because I had a feeling about what his point would be.
It is an excellent book, a truth and a heresy because of it. I think his take is very negative though, he perhaps has a sort of "I'm going to show everyone what a bunch of stupid deluded robotic monkeys they are" tendency.
If you are care about life being meaningful but aren't good at denying truths that aren't comfortable, don't read it. No book has ever bummed me out more.
Rating:
Summary: Seminal
Review: One of the most important books in evolutionary biology - just a joy.
Rating:
Summary: Single best book I have ever read
Review: Packed with information. Not one vague sentence. Not one logical fallacy. I was doubtful but open minded about evolution, and this was the perfect introduction. It talks only to those with open minds. It is not trying to convert anyone.
Although the subject has political and philosophical implications. The book itself is not at all political or philosophical. As a well educated person who also pursues independent study, I was surprised to learn that I did not yet understand the basics of evolution and genetics. Sometimes it is accurate enough to think of evolution from the perspective of the species, or the individual, but these perspectives can lead to mistakes which Dawkins avoids because he explains evolution from the perspective of individual genes.
I only noticed one mistake in the entire book, and it was corrected in the notes. Be sure to read all of the notes as you go. The notes are in the back and will slow your pace, but they are definitely worth it. The second edition also includes two chapters from The Extended Phenotype. One of them is where Dawkins coins the word "meme".
Rating:
Summary: So you're looking for testable hypotheses?
Review: > Why does he make the "gene" the fundamental unit of survival rather than the carbon atom, and why the "meme" instead of the "phoneme"? (-A reader) "What, after all, is special about genes? The answer is that they are replicators." -Dawkins (p 191 in my edition) A carbon atom is created in the heart of a star and has very little influence over the creation or destruction of any other carbon atom. Phonemes are a fundamental unit of speech, and likewise have very little control over their own production.
Genes (and memes) are by definition things that can be copied, and that have some influence on the copying process (number of copies, accuracy, or longevity). > It would have sufficed had he asserted simply that it tends to be in the enlightened self-interest of individuals to form adaptive, synergistic groups. (-A reader) What would the characteristics of an "adaptive, synergistic group" be? On what evidence would you base your answer?
Sometimes it is instead in the best interests of individuals to cheat or freeload (Taxes? Speeding?). Dawkins extends the Prisoner's Dilemma (in game theory, a framework for predicting behavior from the costs and benefits of different possible actions by two or more people) to predict which behaviors or mix of behaviors will be adopted in a given environment. This simple model allows populations of interactors using various strategies to be simulated, with at least some realistic-looking results. (Overfishing?)
For example, should you take treats for your office mates, or simply freeload from others? If everyone freeloads, there is nothing to share; if most share, the office is nicer. Any person that is regularly spending (in time or effort or money) more [or less] than they feel they receive (in similar items, or compliments, or social interaction) will tend to adjust their offerings to match their perceived benefits.
| 
