You can't think of an example of a chimp being a selfish asshole to another chimp? Jesus Christ, you find the most petty/uninteresting things to argue about.
A bacterium. A virus. Fine, I'll concede a small amount of anthropomorphism if it means we can get past this incredibly boring and tedious tangent.
You need everything spelled out, don't you. It's shorthand for all the shit it does to maintain itself, like EATING. Okay, forget I said homeostasis. Eating. I'm no longer replying to your inanities.
Yeah, which is why unscientific definitions are not given weight. Nothing can first of all, replicate itself. If you clone yourself, is your clone you? Why? Do you agree with the above statements?
I agree entirely that The Selfish Gene is a very important book. It's one of those books that can easily change your hold worldview.
SAM: Have you read the book, or is this another of Dawkin's books that you will be commenting on without having read it? Briefly, the only thing a gene "wants" is to make lots and lots of copies of itself. Human beings, on the other hand, have much more complex motivations. Yes. Particularly the last paragraph, which you did not bold.
It is a fantastic work of popular science. I would only point out that Nin' has it a little wrong. We are machines for propagating genes, but as long as we do that, we can also have any number of unexpected properties. For instance, we depend, more than any other animal, on learned behavior. There is a limit to the amount of information that can be accumulated in the genes. The longer the gene, and the more information, the more opportunities there are for mutation, which is more often than not, bad. As long as our creativity and uniqueness as individuals is paramount, we will never again be mere programmed devices with predictable responses. An individual can surpass their programming.
And in particular Sam, this one statement that pertains to you specifically. "I am in danger of being misunderstood by those people, all toll numerous, who cannot distinguish a statement of belief in what is the case from an advocacy of what ought to be the case." Of course, why would we expect anything different from Sam?
Yeah, because it contradicted the two statements I highlighted. I think Dawkins is falling back on his Anglican background of all people are born in sin. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
