Rating: 
Summary: An entertaining book, full of ideas with new way of thinking
Review: This is my second book by Dawkins, The Blind Watchmaker was my introduction. He seems to have an interesting illustration for everything. This book introduced me to ESS, Evolutionarily Stable Systems, which explains so much about why animals can't just keep cheating the system and how nature finds it's limits. His little asides turn into pages of interesting oddities and great examples for everything he talks about, every idea fits perfectly and one thing flows to the next. At the end you feel a little overwhelmed (in a good way) with ideas --- don't try and share it with people all at once. Also thinking of evolution on the genetic level gives you the ability to spot faulty evolution thinking (which dawkins gives plenty of examples of)... I never really enjoyed biology much(and you won't find anything to technical in it) but his stories about ant queens that enslave other colonies and lazy cuckoo birds that trick other birds into raising their family reads like fiction.
Never boring, completely lucid, and gives you a new way of thinking...
Rating: 
Summary: fascinating
Review: "Like many pseudoscience texts, this book starts out with an empty assertion that it really 'is science'. Unlike actual scientific theories which make no such assertion, and are formalised, systemized and then presented for correction in appropiate [sic] journals, this book is scantily referenced in the literature as 'Dawkins' intuition'."Oh, really? 1) "Actual scientific theories" don't claim to be scientific? What ARE you smoking? 2) This is a POPULAR science book for the LAYMAN. Get over it! "To call it selfish that a unit of selection has a chance of reproduction is a nonstandard use of selfish." The author is using the term "selfish" FIGURATIVELY! It makes a catchy title, okay? Go review "Batman" or something, will you?
Rating: 
Summary: Platonic pseudoscience
Review: Like many pseudoscience texts, this book starts out with an empty assertion that it really "is science". Unlike actual scientific theories which make no such assertion, and are formalised, systemized and then presented for correction in appropiate journals, this book is scantily referenced in the literature as "Dawkins' intuition". What is new about this intuition is not that Dawkins takes the gene as the unit of selection in stead of the individual, (...), but it is the qualifier selfish to the unit of selection. The rationale behind using this qualifier is to predict that a unit of selection does not contribute to the reproduction of another unit of selection without contributing to the reproduction of itself. This is of course false. Dawkins through not having formalised his theory any, mistakes a definition for an observation. While it is true by definition that a unit of selection has a chance of reproduction (like a chair by definition has a seat), it is observed not true that the effects of the unit of selection in the real world is solely to reproduce itself. To call it selfish that a unit of selection has a chance of reproduction is a nonstandard use of selfish. Comparitively in economic competition theory, it is not said to be selfish for a company to create a duplicate company which requires the same resources that the original company needs. In stead it is noted as altruistic to create a highly competitive duplicate company like that. Altruistic acts like that are the basis of the economy of nature. Dawkins goes some way into Platonic notions of loyalty, that all organisms/genes which look the same therefore also support each other (kinselection). Platonic notions like that have been disproved some centuries ago. There is no known special physcial bond between objects, organisms, molecules, or atoms that relates to their similarity. The metaphore of "nature red in tooth and claw" which Dawkins curiously identifies as defining of nature, should more appropiately read "nature wet in [male reproductive organ] and [female reproductive organ]" to emphasize reproduction as defining of nature, in stead of war. Dawkins assertion that science disproves the existence of "universal love" is a lie, science can never disprove or prove any such thing. Perhaps this assertion has some meaning in a cultural context, as a reaction to the 1970's prostitution of the word love.
Rating:
Summary: Don't think about evolution without this book
Review: Dawkins' clear (British) writing makes evolution accessible (plus it's short, with an attractive cover that won't scare pop-science readers away). Discover the meme, learn how simple and inevitable evolution must be, think about what it means to be a gene, and more. Dawkin's reasoning will particularly interest those fond of logic and games, but his playful examples will entertain while they explain. Invaluable to students and others iterested in life sciences. To geeks of all sorts, fascinating.
Rating:
Summary: Well Done
Review: In some ways, a new theory invents. Within this book, Dawkins creates a new reality by asking us to view evolution from the perspective of genes vying for their survival and showing us the merits of that perspective. One migth worry that after reading this book one might be led to believe that humans are really just elaborate protective shells for our genes. This is both right and wrong. One might say that this is one way to look at things, a way that allows us to predict and explain the behaviors of certain species well, such as male honey bees. But such a viewpoint has its limits and should not be adopted, for instance, as a guide for handling relationships. Dawkins realizes this and points out some of the limits of the applicability of his theory. With that said, this book is among the best popular science works and should be read by anyone who wishes to acquire a new perspective on evolution. And I can imagine no finer perspective endower than Dawkins, whose prose flows and who has wit as well as a good sense of how to frame an argument.
Rating:
Summary: Far beyond Adam and Eve?
Review: If you think you will make significant progress in your knowledge after you have read this book,analize this. The book assumes a XIX century positivist "forma mentis", that starts from naturalistic assumptions of the worst kind. The main idea underlying the book is that matter, random mutations and natural selection are able to explain all there is. However, this premisse is flawed from the begining, compromizing all of Dawkins effort. What you get in the end is a logical mess that compares to: "All monkeys speak english; Darwin spoke english; so, Darwin was a monkey". It may sound logical, but it's all dead wrong!. So is the case with The Selfish Gene. As far as fundamental questions are concerned, this book in particular and Richard Dawkins's work generally never really took off. How did nothing "mutate" to become something? What "selected" beeing from non-beeing? How did matter evolve from non-matter? What was the mechanism? Here, Dawkins is still in ground zero. So, there is nothing but ignorance to support all that follows. That is why Richard Dawkins keeps resorting to "leaps of faith" that would cause Soren Keerkegard to blush. The only plausible stratagy seems to be to extrapolate from micro to macroevolution, and from here to a cosmological evolutionary mechanism, even if all that is done without any conection whatsoever to empirical evidence. Here just-so stories command and control. I think that is all he can get from the mithological "pre-biotic soup". Besides, the kind of "metaphysical naturalism" that constitutes the "ideological design" behind Richard Dawkins' work, is an outdated form of positivism that has long been proven useless to deal with "origins and nature of life" questions,where all clues, indications, facts and ideas are worthy of investigation because these questions are too important to be subjected to a naturalistic reduction, just because Dawkins says so (out of his own prejudices). What's more, Dawkins version of metaphysucal and methodological naturalism begs the question, because it assumes that intelligent design is not a structutural part of nature, along with matter, mutations and natural selection (and this, only at a microlevel, as all evidence seems to suggest). But that remains yet to be seen. It happens that this assumption is getting harder and harder to sustain, in the presence of what we now know about DNA and RNA mechanism, the Cambrian explosion, the irreducible complexity of molecular life (Michael Behe), the fine-tuning of the universe, the conditions for life in our galaxy, etc. From the point of view of design theory, probabilities theory, information theory and complexity theory we have to conclude that information is as natural as matter. To deny this is as nonsensical, from a truly scientific perspective (not just a philosophical one) as to deny that an automobile is much more that its material components. In fact, the intelligent design movement has demonstrated that once we leave behind arbitrarly imposed naturalistic ontological and epistemological constrains, we can detect and measure intelligent design in nature through the category of "complex-specified information" (William Dembski), much beyond reasonable doubt. It also happens that it is a mistake (unworthy of a true homo sapiens) to sustain that our minds are just casual a bunch-of-particles, and then to try to use them as the sole foundation for grand generalizations about the universe, and even this without any strong empirical basis!! This is and can only be hilarious! The fact is that Richard Dawkins has been leaking out here his true "not so scientific" and "not so hidden" agenda: attacking the existence of God, of morality, of the difference between good and evil and of the transcendent nature, meaning and dignity of human life. Notice that he considers the account of the book of Genesis as a fairy tale. While I think that this book is not to be taken litterally as source of a scientific description of events, I can't help noticing the similarities that occur between Dawkins's agenda and the one of the Serpent of the Garden of Eden. One may say that this is just another sterile coincidence. But it seems to me that we can say here also that there is nothing new under the sun. Be careful, then, even if you don't believe in Adam and Eve, because Dawkins can get you well into their place.
Rating:
Summary: Lacks Scientific Evidence
Review: Genes competed with each other for survival, and with a vast amount of time, replicated themselves into more complex, more organized material. This happened time and time again until billions of years later you get the biosphere we have today. Genes experience the same struggle for survival that organisms go through, and since Darwinism is good enough to explain the existence of living organisms, it must be good enough to explain the existence of genes. We know all of this because science tells us so, right, or at least that is what Dawkins tells us. Truth is that story is a myth. The Selfish Gene should have been published in the fiction section. Dawkins believes in improbabilities, that life could have arisen by unguided forces. Yet, statistically it is impossible that live could have arisen undirected and unguided (see the works of Lee Spetner). Dawkins is a firm believer in reductionism, but even the most simple forms of life are so complex and sophisticated that they dwarf any man made device (see the works of Michael Behe). In short, Dawkins believes in fairy tales.
The Selfish Gene should be read, not because of any scientific contribution, but because of its philosophical base. Dawkins views on life, his belief in reductionism and his unyielding faith in the naturalistic world are the basis for his loyalty to evolution, NOT SCIENCE. He may use science as a scapegoat to try to justify his philosophical views, but don't be fooled. Science does not support his views, nor could it. IF Dawkins Selfish Genes acted in the past, it was a one time, unrepeatable, unobservable event. Furthermore, there is no empirical evidence to substantiate the theory. Science deals with the repeatable, the observable, and the empirical. Dawkins Selfish Gene theory is none of those things. Don't be fooled into believing what could have happened. Yes, it COULD have happened exactly the way Dawkins envisioned. But statistically it is impossible (the chance of the event happening is so minute it is statistically zero). Don't sallow this philosophical garb masquerading around as science. Science has been sacrificed long enough. It is time for science to be set free from ALL DOGMA. Dogma from both the religious and philosophical sect. Read the book for yourself and look for the evidence. Be prepared. You'll find plenty examples of why Dawkins believes in the selfish gene, but all the examples come from a particular philosophical view, not from science.
Rating:
Summary: Birth of the Meme
Review: In a supreme irony, Dawkins' book has entered the annals of the Law of Unintended Consequences, in that it is now best celebrated as giving birth to the idea of the "Meme," the self-perpetuating idea whose characteristics are akin to the title role the Selfish Gene. In this popular guide to biological fate, Dawkins blends his particular brand of purist Darwinism (actually his interpretation of the doctrine is straight-down-the-line orthodox) with a wonderful gift for communicating ideas. I took particular joy in reading about genetic nasties like the cuckoo (which preys on its adoptive parent's genes' selfish desire to perpetuate their young by laying eggs which impersonate the "genuine" offspring) and about the dire consequences of trying to "stack" the genetic deck (many lab mice have died proving that it's unwise to try and pre-vet the chromosones passed on in one's seed and egg). Unlike Dawkins, I don't share his rather uncharitable conclusion that there is nothing in life but DNA and its carriers: at least on this level, Einstein was right when he said that God doesn't play dice with the Universe.
Rating: 
Summary: The Selfish Scientist
Review: This is a classic text of science writing for the layman. It is about biology and more particulary about the role of the gene in evolution, reproduction, and human and natural affairs generally. Richard Dawkin's main thesis is that the principal, in fact the only reason for the existance of the gene is to insure its own survival. This a little like the role Copenicus played when he debunked Ptolemy's view of the universe. Rather than a man-centered biological universe, the biological universe is gene centered, according to Dawkins. "The Selfish Gene" is extremely readible and is very helpful in providing the layman with some background material in the genetic revolution. Written in 1976, it is, rather than outdated, as I said before, a classic, and worth reading. My copy was given to me by my brother, a PhD in Microbiology, in 1980, I was a young patent attorney, without even a basic college course in biology to my credit, and writing a scholarly paper on the famous Harvard mouse case. Since then I have become an expert in the ethics of biotechnology, and I recommend this book as background reading, with one caveat to be explained later. Also, if you have ever wondered about the term "meme" this is where it was coined, Dawkins devoting a whole chapter to introducing this concept of socibiology. (...)
Rating:
Summary: Pure brain candy
Review: Dawkin's "The Selfish Gene" is a wonderful non-fiction book. It was a joy to read from cover to cover, and leaves the reader with revolutionary new insights into the evolution of nature and man.The simple premise of the book is that self-replicating genes are what matter - bodies, and even minds, are tools they have constructed to further aid in their reproduction. "Altruistic" acts - acts that aid other replicating genes at the expense of the gene committing the deed, would gradually be removed from the pool. Some people object to this line of reasoning - and this book for having proposed such - fearing that it reduces man to selfish automatons. It does not, for two reasons that Dawkins discusses in detail. The first is an analysis of game theory, drawn from Axelrod's "The Evolution of Cooperation". Dawkins soundly demonstrates that many apparently "altruistic" acts are actually a form of mutual cooperation, benefitting both parties. Dawkins shows that many of these cooperative behavior strategies would be expected to arise spontaneously in nature, and remain stable in the population after doing so. Dawkin's second line of reasoning, dealing almost exclusively with humans, is perhaps the most revolutionary part of the book. According to Dawkins, humans have another type of replicator besides our genes - our ideas. Dawkins names such replicators "memes" ("memory + gene"). Dawkins dicusses the (dis)similarity of the replication of genes and memes, and how memes might well explain a great deal of altruism. Overall, this was one of the most insightful and exciting works I have read in some time. I looked forward to the moments when I could set down and read another chapter, and was sorely disappointed when I reached the final pages. Highly recommended.
|
