In which Dawkins trashes population control for the good of the group
This chapter is devoted to debunking the idea that animals regulate the size of their families for the good of the species and to prevent over population. He says instead that animals regulate the size of the children born in order to maximize the number of children successfully reared. If the mother spreads her resources too thin amongst her children then less may survive then if she'd had less children.
He claim there is simply no need for group population control because there is no welfare state in nature (I knew he'd talk about welfare states.) If the mother has to many children it won't hurt the species by leading to over population, they'll simply starve to death. A mother will have less children if she knows the population has large numbers not for the good of the group but because she realizes she and her children will be competing for fewer resources so she "optimizes" her litter amount.
He argues the reason why humanity suffers from such extreme over population is because we have departed from nature's model. If a woman has too many children the state will feed and care for the children instead of allowing them to starve as they would in nature. Of course, over population will eventually lead to the trimming down of the species through starvation, we're simply delaying the process.
Tuesday, September 29, 2009
Chapter 6 Genesmanship
In which Dawkins explains (away) altruism
So, the only way an altruistic gene could become frequent enough in the gene pool to exist in a large number in the species is if the sacrifice it made in the individual was able to save enough replicas of itself in other individuals. This would be best accomplished by being altruistic towards children and direct siblings as they share 50% of the survival machines genetic material. However, children are even better (for the mother at least) because you can be sure the children are genetically related to you while a sibling may simply be deceiving you. The reason why children don't usually altruistically sacrifice themselves for parents is because they're usually in a less capable position to do so and the Parents have already fulfilled there reproductive function and are nearing the end of the end of their live making them less valuable.
So Dawkins theory is that our genes make us behave in a way as if we calculate the worth of helping a sibling. This takes into account how much the action would harm us and whether its worth the help done towards other copies of the same genes. Killing yourself would easily be worth saving 5 brothers or children because 5 x 50% is 250% and you only contain 100% of your own genes, therefor the sacrifice is clearly beneficial. However taking a slight risk to yourself to help out one brother or child is okay as long as it isn't very detrimental to your survival.
In species where communities are normally close kin or someone in a position to reciprocate the favor the genes aren't as specific as "Help any family member" because its very difficult to distinguish family from non family without records, so the genes say something more like "Help any member of the same species."
This was the case with humans. We evolved living in very small, tight knit communities so any gene for same species altruism would have quickly spread throughout the gene pool because the gene would save more replicas of itself then it would sacrifice, and so humans behave altruistically towards other humans. This ends up misfiring in today's society where we are no longer restricted to small, tightly knit communities. Charity towards a stranger, a homeless man, charity organizations, Dawkins would say, are all misfiring of genes meant to help only relatives or those in a position to reciprocate the charity.
This may seem needlessly similar to many people (especially religious people) but it actually makes perfect sense and their bias is preventing them from seeing it. They wouldn't deny this explanation for another behavior that makes a better example. Why do humans have sex while using contraception? It doesn't make any sense evolutionary. Sex is a waste of resources (energy, nutrients, time) if it does not lead to reproduction. However are genes aren't "intelligent" enough to tell us not to have sex if it doesn't lead to reproduction, they simply tell us to have sex. Sex with contraception for recreation is a misfiring of the gene that helps us reproduce. We still continue the behavior even without the benefits. There are few that would say we shouldn't bother with sex anymore.
Charity towards someone who's not genetically related to the charitable is similar to sex with contraception. Satisfying to our urges and yet without any of the genetic benefit. A simple misfiring.
So, the only way an altruistic gene could become frequent enough in the gene pool to exist in a large number in the species is if the sacrifice it made in the individual was able to save enough replicas of itself in other individuals. This would be best accomplished by being altruistic towards children and direct siblings as they share 50% of the survival machines genetic material. However, children are even better (for the mother at least) because you can be sure the children are genetically related to you while a sibling may simply be deceiving you. The reason why children don't usually altruistically sacrifice themselves for parents is because they're usually in a less capable position to do so and the Parents have already fulfilled there reproductive function and are nearing the end of the end of their live making them less valuable.
So Dawkins theory is that our genes make us behave in a way as if we calculate the worth of helping a sibling. This takes into account how much the action would harm us and whether its worth the help done towards other copies of the same genes. Killing yourself would easily be worth saving 5 brothers or children because 5 x 50% is 250% and you only contain 100% of your own genes, therefor the sacrifice is clearly beneficial. However taking a slight risk to yourself to help out one brother or child is okay as long as it isn't very detrimental to your survival.
In species where communities are normally close kin or someone in a position to reciprocate the favor the genes aren't as specific as "Help any family member" because its very difficult to distinguish family from non family without records, so the genes say something more like "Help any member of the same species."
This was the case with humans. We evolved living in very small, tight knit communities so any gene for same species altruism would have quickly spread throughout the gene pool because the gene would save more replicas of itself then it would sacrifice, and so humans behave altruistically towards other humans. This ends up misfiring in today's society where we are no longer restricted to small, tightly knit communities. Charity towards a stranger, a homeless man, charity organizations, Dawkins would say, are all misfiring of genes meant to help only relatives or those in a position to reciprocate the charity.
This may seem needlessly similar to many people (especially religious people) but it actually makes perfect sense and their bias is preventing them from seeing it. They wouldn't deny this explanation for another behavior that makes a better example. Why do humans have sex while using contraception? It doesn't make any sense evolutionary. Sex is a waste of resources (energy, nutrients, time) if it does not lead to reproduction. However are genes aren't "intelligent" enough to tell us not to have sex if it doesn't lead to reproduction, they simply tell us to have sex. Sex with contraception for recreation is a misfiring of the gene that helps us reproduce. We still continue the behavior even without the benefits. There are few that would say we shouldn't bother with sex anymore.
Charity towards someone who's not genetically related to the charitable is similar to sex with contraception. Satisfying to our urges and yet without any of the genetic benefit. A simple misfiring.
Chapter 5 Agression: Stability and the Selfish Machine
In which Dawkins condemns Communism
This chapter is on aggression. To Dawkins however aggression is a misunderstood term, aggression can really mean any behavior in which two members of the same species are interacting. As one "survival macine" will always be looking for an opportunity to exploit any member of its own species in order to propogate its own genes then there is always a conflict of interest whenever two members of the same species interact. Dawkins explains that to a survival machine any other survival machine is a part of the environment and successful genes are the ones that can make the most use of their environment.
He claims that all species reach an Evolutionary Stable Strategy that cannot be bettered by the individual. For example, the gazelle run when attacked by lions. Maybe if all the gazelles stopped and fought instead they could defeat the lions and be better off but that's impossible because it would have to start with one gazelle deciding to stop and fight and he would be eaten once all of his companions "disappear over the horizon" to use Dawkins vernacular. ESS is, however, not the same as the benefits that could be achieved through group conspiracy. Group conspiracy is impossible because the temptation to take advantage of the group would prove to much for the individual (or actually their genes) and so the exploitationary genes would spread like wildfire through the population. Another strategy would arise and fight back until they once again reached equilibrium. Darkins has some complex mathematics that accompany this theory that I do not care to repeat. In essence Dawkins is saying that Lions dont hunt other Lions because the prospect offends their morality, its simply not a stable strategy. The fellow Lion can fight back far better then the Gazelle and any lions who attempt a cannibalistic strategy would be unable to reproduce and spread their cannibalistic genes.
I remember watching a video of a group of female lions take down a water buffalo with some friends and they all asked, "Why don't they all fight back? They're bigger then the lions!" My response then was that it would have to start with one of them fighting back and if his friends didn't join him then he'd be eaten as well so none of them want to risk it. I guess even then I had the fundamental understanding of ESS and it really does make perfect sense.
To me this all seems like a pretty strong condemnation of Marx's utopia. In a world wide, socialist society the temptation for the individual to exploit the group and not do his fair share of the work would be far too great. They would be able to reproduce copiously, not needing to waste time gathering resources, and their genes for exploiting would spread. Soon there would be so many people exploiting the system that the system would collapse.
Is this not what is happening to a degree in our welfare state? We give payments to people who are too poor to feed their children, we give unemployment to those who don't have jobs. Its true there are many people that don't abuse the system but its undeniable that there are those that do. The stereotypical "welfare queen" has lots of children and then lives off the welfare and unemployment she receives. Dawkins would say that then all of her children, seeing the success of their mothers strategy and the ripeness of the system waiting to be exploited, would then also have children and also live off welfare until the system collapses. Well, isn't that whats happening? How broke has medicare and social security made this country? 60% of our national budget is payment to individuals. Whether or not its moral its clearly not sustainable and thats the greatest difficulty facing our nation. I think its clear that Dawkins is a capitalist.
This chapter is on aggression. To Dawkins however aggression is a misunderstood term, aggression can really mean any behavior in which two members of the same species are interacting. As one "survival macine" will always be looking for an opportunity to exploit any member of its own species in order to propogate its own genes then there is always a conflict of interest whenever two members of the same species interact. Dawkins explains that to a survival machine any other survival machine is a part of the environment and successful genes are the ones that can make the most use of their environment.
He claims that all species reach an Evolutionary Stable Strategy that cannot be bettered by the individual. For example, the gazelle run when attacked by lions. Maybe if all the gazelles stopped and fought instead they could defeat the lions and be better off but that's impossible because it would have to start with one gazelle deciding to stop and fight and he would be eaten once all of his companions "disappear over the horizon" to use Dawkins vernacular. ESS is, however, not the same as the benefits that could be achieved through group conspiracy. Group conspiracy is impossible because the temptation to take advantage of the group would prove to much for the individual (or actually their genes) and so the exploitationary genes would spread like wildfire through the population. Another strategy would arise and fight back until they once again reached equilibrium. Darkins has some complex mathematics that accompany this theory that I do not care to repeat. In essence Dawkins is saying that Lions dont hunt other Lions because the prospect offends their morality, its simply not a stable strategy. The fellow Lion can fight back far better then the Gazelle and any lions who attempt a cannibalistic strategy would be unable to reproduce and spread their cannibalistic genes.
I remember watching a video of a group of female lions take down a water buffalo with some friends and they all asked, "Why don't they all fight back? They're bigger then the lions!" My response then was that it would have to start with one of them fighting back and if his friends didn't join him then he'd be eaten as well so none of them want to risk it. I guess even then I had the fundamental understanding of ESS and it really does make perfect sense.
To me this all seems like a pretty strong condemnation of Marx's utopia. In a world wide, socialist society the temptation for the individual to exploit the group and not do his fair share of the work would be far too great. They would be able to reproduce copiously, not needing to waste time gathering resources, and their genes for exploiting would spread. Soon there would be so many people exploiting the system that the system would collapse.
Is this not what is happening to a degree in our welfare state? We give payments to people who are too poor to feed their children, we give unemployment to those who don't have jobs. Its true there are many people that don't abuse the system but its undeniable that there are those that do. The stereotypical "welfare queen" has lots of children and then lives off the welfare and unemployment she receives. Dawkins would say that then all of her children, seeing the success of their mothers strategy and the ripeness of the system waiting to be exploited, would then also have children and also live off welfare until the system collapses. Well, isn't that whats happening? How broke has medicare and social security made this country? 60% of our national budget is payment to individuals. Whether or not its moral its clearly not sustainable and thats the greatest difficulty facing our nation. I think its clear that Dawkins is a capitalist.
Chapter 4 The Gene Machine
In which Dawkin's explains the psychology of a puppet
Dawkin's definition of behavior is a little different from any I've heard before. He explains it as "the trick of rapid movement largely exploited by the animal branch of survival machines." I understand that Dawkin's is trying to shake us up with his unique definitions, and I'm all for breaking things down into simpler forms to enhance understanding, but to me this seems a little too simplified. First of all, is behavior only movement? Isn't laying perfectly still also behavior? Or maybe that trully doesn't exist because the body is moving rapidly, transporting nutrients, beating the heart, all the minor movements that make life possible. Is behavior only possible from animals? Don't plants behave? They grow towards sunlight, they transport nutrients, isn't this movement and behavior? Is it not behavior for plants because they don't have a conscious mind directing them? Cockroaches don't have conscious mind and he's still classifying their movement as behavior. For me this definition seems to raise far more questions then its worth.
Dawkin's theorizes that the brain was developed by the genes in order to control muscle movements and interpret sensory information because if the genes tried to directly control the "survival machine" the time lag would be too great to function. While its undeniably true that the main function of the brain is to control the muscles and react to stimulus I don't know if its even possible to prove why the genes don't control these things themselves. There could be a million reasons why genes don't take control of these functions. They may simply be incapable or a gene capable of doing it may simple have not evolved yet. It seems like pointless posturing to try and guess the why here.
The genes extremely simplistic "programming" of our brains has some interesting consequences. Yes, you can get a rush from a job well done, an orgasm with a mate, a healthy meal, or exercise. This is how the genes enforce our survival. There are a lot of people that want to skip the middle man however. Why go for that jog? Why not just inject yourself with heroin? Do you not get the same end result? In fact, in Dawkins term you could say that the heroin addict is living no less of a fulfilling life then a "normal", "sane" person so long as they're able to reproduce. So why should we jump through the hurdles that our genes create for us in order to benefit from our pre-programmed rewards? If the executive decision maker has grown to be independent of the genes why not rejoice in that independence by telling our genes to get stuffed and rewarding ourselves with ingested chemicals? Life that exists solely to propagate its genes is extremely rewarding to the genes and entirely futile to the organism. Who is more the slave, the heroin addict or the puppet of the genes?
Dawkin's also theorizes that for as long as there has been communication there have been entities that exploit that communication. This is part of a larger point that any system will be exploited as the temptation to not exploit it will be impossible to resist.
Dawkin's definition of behavior is a little different from any I've heard before. He explains it as "the trick of rapid movement largely exploited by the animal branch of survival machines." I understand that Dawkin's is trying to shake us up with his unique definitions, and I'm all for breaking things down into simpler forms to enhance understanding, but to me this seems a little too simplified. First of all, is behavior only movement? Isn't laying perfectly still also behavior? Or maybe that trully doesn't exist because the body is moving rapidly, transporting nutrients, beating the heart, all the minor movements that make life possible. Is behavior only possible from animals? Don't plants behave? They grow towards sunlight, they transport nutrients, isn't this movement and behavior? Is it not behavior for plants because they don't have a conscious mind directing them? Cockroaches don't have conscious mind and he's still classifying their movement as behavior. For me this definition seems to raise far more questions then its worth.
Dawkin's theorizes that the brain was developed by the genes in order to control muscle movements and interpret sensory information because if the genes tried to directly control the "survival machine" the time lag would be too great to function. While its undeniably true that the main function of the brain is to control the muscles and react to stimulus I don't know if its even possible to prove why the genes don't control these things themselves. There could be a million reasons why genes don't take control of these functions. They may simply be incapable or a gene capable of doing it may simple have not evolved yet. It seems like pointless posturing to try and guess the why here.
The genes extremely simplistic "programming" of our brains has some interesting consequences. Yes, you can get a rush from a job well done, an orgasm with a mate, a healthy meal, or exercise. This is how the genes enforce our survival. There are a lot of people that want to skip the middle man however. Why go for that jog? Why not just inject yourself with heroin? Do you not get the same end result? In fact, in Dawkins term you could say that the heroin addict is living no less of a fulfilling life then a "normal", "sane" person so long as they're able to reproduce. So why should we jump through the hurdles that our genes create for us in order to benefit from our pre-programmed rewards? If the executive decision maker has grown to be independent of the genes why not rejoice in that independence by telling our genes to get stuffed and rewarding ourselves with ingested chemicals? Life that exists solely to propagate its genes is extremely rewarding to the genes and entirely futile to the organism. Who is more the slave, the heroin addict or the puppet of the genes?
Dawkin's also theorizes that for as long as there has been communication there have been entities that exploit that communication. This is part of a larger point that any system will be exploited as the temptation to not exploit it will be impossible to resist.
Chapter 3 The Immortal Coil
In which Dawkins begins to explain his theory
This is the first trully interesting chapter of the book. It really begins with Dawkin's definition of a gene as a portion of chromosonal material that last long enough to become a unit of natural selection. It is Dawkins theory that the DNA's purpose is simply to exist and that from the first days of the primordial soup it has built more and more complex survival machines which is now all forms of life. For one who's familiar with evolution, this is kind of obvious and yet he states it in a way I've never thought of before. I've taken human biology and anatomy and physiology so I am familiar with the details of how DNA is the blueprint for the human body so much of what he's explaining I'm already familiar with. Before reading this chapter my personal definition of evolution would have been more along the lines of, "The process by which an organism becomes more suited to survival in its environment through mutation and natural selection." While I guess this is accurate, it is kind of limiting. Dawkin's definition of evolution as "The process by which a gene becomes more or less frequent in the gene pool" is much more functional. When looking at the organism as the unit of natural selection many behaviors simply don't make sense, such as charity or self sacrifice. However if you can change the question you're asking when observing behavior too, "How does this effect the amount of this gene in the gene pool?" The answers can become a lot more clearer. It is amazing how slightly retooling a definition it can make it much more powerful.
I've never believed that organisms did what was best for the group or the species. I hear this theory from a lot of people that don't know very much about evolution or biology. I usually try and explain to them that the individual does whats best for the individual and this simply happens to benefit the species (in most cases). They usually retort with that the organism is doing it specifically too better the species. I think humans have a habit of anthropomorphizing everything and a problem with trying to assign motivation or meaning where there may be none. But I realize now that I have been mistaking in placing the opus on the organism when trully it is the gene that is the functional unit of natural selection.
I think some people would be bothered by this theory, that they are a machine crafted by genes to serve their own purpose - slaves to their gene masters. They might deny the idea right out because it offends their sense of free will, individuality, I'm not sure how to put it. I think these may be people who don't know much about biology because for anyone who studies the human body its trully impossible to question the fact that the DNA creates us, gives us structure, gives us function, and gives us purpose. I think where Dawkin's trully diverges from theists is that he sees DNA as originating as replicating molecules (this theory has yet to be proven and I'm very skeptical though I'll accept it as a given for the purpose of this book) that slowly become more and more complex as survival becomes increasingly more challenging. Theists believe that DNA is coded by God. I find that hard to believe but I think no matter where you think DNA comes from or how it was formed (or evolved) you'd be hard pressed to try and argue that it doesn't dictate everything about the creation, function, and purpose of an organism. Also, on a side not, for the sake of Dawkin's theory it doesn't matter where you think DNA comes from. Whether formed by accident or the hand of God, genes are still competing to be sent on into the next generation, and the next, and the next, spiraling into infinity or extinction.
This is the first trully interesting chapter of the book. It really begins with Dawkin's definition of a gene as a portion of chromosonal material that last long enough to become a unit of natural selection. It is Dawkins theory that the DNA's purpose is simply to exist and that from the first days of the primordial soup it has built more and more complex survival machines which is now all forms of life. For one who's familiar with evolution, this is kind of obvious and yet he states it in a way I've never thought of before. I've taken human biology and anatomy and physiology so I am familiar with the details of how DNA is the blueprint for the human body so much of what he's explaining I'm already familiar with. Before reading this chapter my personal definition of evolution would have been more along the lines of, "The process by which an organism becomes more suited to survival in its environment through mutation and natural selection." While I guess this is accurate, it is kind of limiting. Dawkin's definition of evolution as "The process by which a gene becomes more or less frequent in the gene pool" is much more functional. When looking at the organism as the unit of natural selection many behaviors simply don't make sense, such as charity or self sacrifice. However if you can change the question you're asking when observing behavior too, "How does this effect the amount of this gene in the gene pool?" The answers can become a lot more clearer. It is amazing how slightly retooling a definition it can make it much more powerful.
I've never believed that organisms did what was best for the group or the species. I hear this theory from a lot of people that don't know very much about evolution or biology. I usually try and explain to them that the individual does whats best for the individual and this simply happens to benefit the species (in most cases). They usually retort with that the organism is doing it specifically too better the species. I think humans have a habit of anthropomorphizing everything and a problem with trying to assign motivation or meaning where there may be none. But I realize now that I have been mistaking in placing the opus on the organism when trully it is the gene that is the functional unit of natural selection.
I think some people would be bothered by this theory, that they are a machine crafted by genes to serve their own purpose - slaves to their gene masters. They might deny the idea right out because it offends their sense of free will, individuality, I'm not sure how to put it. I think these may be people who don't know much about biology because for anyone who studies the human body its trully impossible to question the fact that the DNA creates us, gives us structure, gives us function, and gives us purpose. I think where Dawkin's trully diverges from theists is that he sees DNA as originating as replicating molecules (this theory has yet to be proven and I'm very skeptical though I'll accept it as a given for the purpose of this book) that slowly become more and more complex as survival becomes increasingly more challenging. Theists believe that DNA is coded by God. I find that hard to believe but I think no matter where you think DNA comes from or how it was formed (or evolved) you'd be hard pressed to try and argue that it doesn't dictate everything about the creation, function, and purpose of an organism. Also, on a side not, for the sake of Dawkin's theory it doesn't matter where you think DNA comes from. Whether formed by accident or the hand of God, genes are still competing to be sent on into the next generation, and the next, and the next, spiraling into infinity or extinction.
In a way Dawkin's is trying to be the Jared Diamond of human nature and explain how such a complex structure (for Diamond society and for Dawkin's the human animal) is built upon and entirely reliant upon all the tiny bricks that make it up and that understanding the structure is impossible without understanding it from the foundation up.
Chapter 2 The Replicators
In which Dawkins attempts to explain the origin of life
Dawkins begins this chapter by stating that the universe is inhabited by stable things. This is fairly obvious and "true by its definition" in Dawkins words. He then goes on to explain his theory on the origin of life.
First he mentioned an experiment preformed by chemists in which simple molecules are placed in a solution, energized, and then studied. He didn't mention the name of this experiment which made it a little difficult to find but I did find it. It was the Miller-Urey experiment. They were able to create 22 amino acids, the building blocks of proteins which in turn are the building blocks of life. Dawkins theory is that these amino acids, which formed in ancient Earth's oceans, randomly formed replicators, or molecules that were able to copy themselves. Well, as soon as you have a molecule copying itself there are bound to be transcription errors which will then lead to competition for resources, also known as evolution. As these replicators get better at competing they develop "survival machines" which Dawkins theorize are the first cell membranes and eventually organisms.
I really like this theory for its simplicity and scope. It explains a massive question with an extremely simple answer and I believe its the simple answers that are most commonly accurate. It all makes sense logically however its very far from being proven. The only thing I could think of that would validate this theory is if another Miller-Urey experiment were performed and a replicator were synthesized. The odds of this happening, Dawkins admits, are astronomically low but, of course, not impossible. Dawkins seems to be making the argument that because you can't prove that, that isn't how it happened then its safe to run on the assumption that it is. Humorously this seems analogous to the argument "God did it, you can't prove he didn't" towards which Dawkins feels so vehemently. I will admit it is a rung higher up on the ladder of what's probable. I'd like to mention that even in this chapter he made an attack on religion. He literally can not talk on any subject for any amount of time without attacking religion.
Dawkins begins this chapter by stating that the universe is inhabited by stable things. This is fairly obvious and "true by its definition" in Dawkins words. He then goes on to explain his theory on the origin of life.
First he mentioned an experiment preformed by chemists in which simple molecules are placed in a solution, energized, and then studied. He didn't mention the name of this experiment which made it a little difficult to find but I did find it. It was the Miller-Urey experiment. They were able to create 22 amino acids, the building blocks of proteins which in turn are the building blocks of life. Dawkins theory is that these amino acids, which formed in ancient Earth's oceans, randomly formed replicators, or molecules that were able to copy themselves. Well, as soon as you have a molecule copying itself there are bound to be transcription errors which will then lead to competition for resources, also known as evolution. As these replicators get better at competing they develop "survival machines" which Dawkins theorize are the first cell membranes and eventually organisms.
I really like this theory for its simplicity and scope. It explains a massive question with an extremely simple answer and I believe its the simple answers that are most commonly accurate. It all makes sense logically however its very far from being proven. The only thing I could think of that would validate this theory is if another Miller-Urey experiment were performed and a replicator were synthesized. The odds of this happening, Dawkins admits, are astronomically low but, of course, not impossible. Dawkins seems to be making the argument that because you can't prove that, that isn't how it happened then its safe to run on the assumption that it is. Humorously this seems analogous to the argument "God did it, you can't prove he didn't" towards which Dawkins feels so vehemently. I will admit it is a rung higher up on the ladder of what's probable. I'd like to mention that even in this chapter he made an attack on religion. He literally can not talk on any subject for any amount of time without attacking religion.
Chapter 1 Why Are People?
In which Richard Dawkins lives up to my expectations.
This book begins with what can be expected from Dawkins in my humble experience, an arrogant assumption.
"If superior creatures from space ever visit Earth, the first
question they will ask, in order to asses our civilization is,
"Have they discovered evolution?"
I took a minute and stopped here. I went into this book expecting to fight my own bias against Dawkins. I've personally been shocked at his arrogant assumptions and short sighted judgments on religion and the level of hypocrisy he can exhibit and remain blissfully unaware so it is humorous, in a way, this was the first sentence. Let's just look at the assumptions;
- There is a clear measure for the superiority of creatures
- Visitors from space are interested in assessing civilization, especially that of humans.
- Aliens would be first and foremost interested in learning whether or not we've discovered evolution. This is by shear coincidence the field of Richard Dawkin's study. Aliens don't want to know if we've grasped physics, or language, or any number of things. Nope, just evolution.
Now, normally, I would totally write this off as an attempt to create a hook for his book but I've heard Dawkins theorize that aliens seeded life on Earth, stating it was entirely possible, and then immediately claim it was completely impossible that a God might have done it. Because Aliens are far more realistic then God.
I was determined not to let this ruin the book however. Dawkins is obviously a complete ass but that had little relevance to the ideas he was presenting. So I charged on! And immediately hit another one of these arrogant assumptions. Dawkins claimed that living organisms have existed on Earth never knowing why until the truth dawned on Darwin, the genius who first put together a reasonable account of why we exist. I'm sorry? Maybe I have a vast misunderstanding of the eminent Charles Darwin's work (I'll admit I've never read it) but I'm fairly sure his book was entitled Origin of Species and not Origin of Life. As far as I am aware no one has ever been able to explain the origin of life. Darwin has a wonderful theory for how single celled life became the vast array of species we now have on Earth but I can't recall anyone ever proving where the first cell came from or how the breath of life was given to the inanimate.
Dawkins outlined his theory that any successful gene's predominant quality will be selfishness and that the unit of selection evolution is not the group, as many theorize or even the individual, but the gene.
I was determined not to let this ruin the book however. Dawkins is obviously a complete ass but that had little relevance to the ideas he was presenting. So I charged on! And immediately hit another one of these arrogant assumptions. Dawkins claimed that living organisms have existed on Earth never knowing why until the truth dawned on Darwin, the genius who first put together a reasonable account of why we exist. I'm sorry? Maybe I have a vast misunderstanding of the eminent Charles Darwin's work (I'll admit I've never read it) but I'm fairly sure his book was entitled Origin of Species and not Origin of Life. As far as I am aware no one has ever been able to explain the origin of life. Darwin has a wonderful theory for how single celled life became the vast array of species we now have on Earth but I can't recall anyone ever proving where the first cell came from or how the breath of life was given to the inanimate.
Dawkins outlined his theory that any successful gene's predominant quality will be selfishness and that the unit of selection evolution is not the group, as many theorize or even the individual, but the gene.