Levan
Gvelesiani Shared a post with you
Hi
David! Check here:
http://sandwalk.blogspot.de/2013/09/the-problems-with-selfish-gene.html
here: http://ericwedwards.wordpress.com/2013/07/06/the-fallacy-of-the-selfish-gene-theory/ and here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-23529849
here: http://ericwedwards.wordpress.com/2013/07/06/the-fallacy-of-the-selfish-gene-theory/ and here: http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-23529849
As
for other topics: the"Evolution theory" is no more science.
It has so much holes and problems, that you can not take it as
"scienific theory" Sorry but it is the reality: science
which checks the facts has conclusions which are against the
darwinistic model.
Read
more
David J Strumfels response
I've
read these references, and all are spurious or irrelevant. Moran
basically agrees with Dawkins, and only complains that selfish
alleles would be a better name than selfish gene. I have no quibble
here, and doubt Dawkins would either. Moran's other complaint is
Dawkins' alleged extreme reliance on natural selection, as if he
ignored all other forces on genes, such as luck. That is a false
characterization of Dawkins, who most certainly recognizes
non-natural selection in genes: read The
Blind Watchmaker for whole chapters on
genetic drift, and so forth. This is a false, but common criticism of
people who have not bothered to read Dawkins.
As
far as I can make out, Edwards uses a mix of incomprehensible
pseudophilosophy to claim Dawkins ideas are the equivalent to Social
Darwinism, a claim Dawkins has demolished many times himself. Then
there are statements like, "With regard to the ‘selfish’
gene concept where is the gene for selfishness?" so completely
misconstrues the Selfish Gene theory that they utterly miss Dawkins
point. Dawkins' has pointed out innumerable time that of course genes
don't have selfish intentions; it is just that in bodies and species,
it is a useful way of modeling their apparent intentions.
As
for Hogenboom, she simply goes all out in misunderstanding selfish
genes, without, apparently, a trace of serious though at all about
the subject. She actually thinks selfish genes must lead to selfish
individual behavior, and never to cooperation! I have to emphasize
this because the fact that selfish genes can lead to highly
cooperative behaviors (individuals in a species share a large number
of genes) has been well understood by scientists for decades and no
one seriously questions it. Dawkins would just shake his head at this
invincible ignorance, I suspect.
Your
"As for other topics: the"Evolution theory" is no more
science. It has so much holes and problems, that you can not take it
as "scienific theory" Sorry but it is the reality: science
which checks the facts has conclusions which are against the
darwinistic model." is itself merely a claim made without
reading Dawkins (at all, I'll wager), only his ill-informed critics,
and believing this is scientific research. But it is not. It is only
wishful thinking (there has to be an intelligent creator out there!),
with statements and claims cherry picked to appear to support your
preconceived believed, while science in full stubbornly refuses to
cooperate. Please, please Mr. Gvelesiani, stop deluding yourself.
