Season 1 episode 19 time 20:49 Gillian meets the Jungle Boy with young Kurt Russell
when I first saw Eric Smith was calling me to a challenge I thought it was the finally the moment when he was going to ask me about the most important selection principle in biology and the "unit of selection". The least action path is the "unit of selection" which is an ecological system property of reciprocal duals not the property of a selfish "half-witted" individual units of genes or groups. The dual system is full-witted :-) On Sun, Aug 3, 2025, 5:45 AM Santafe <[email protected]> wrote: > Steve G, I have a challenge for you: > > For those outside the U.S., I apologize for the waste of your time I am > about to commit. > > In the early 1960s, there was a sit-com TV series starring Bob Denver > called Gilligan’s Island. > > On one of the episodes, there is a problem making a decision about > something. The scene unfolds with Gilligan (Denver) commenting, in series, > that everyone who puts up the next disagreement with the foregoing speaker > “has a good point”. The Skipper, exasperated, shouts Gilligan, _everyone_ > can’t have a good point! To which Gilligan says Skipper has a good point. > > I found the episode, but not the sequence as filmed. My little recital > here isn’t funny, but the original was. If I could have put a link to the > youtube clip, I would have done that instead and not said anything. > > That scene has been in my head in response to so many things over the past > half-year or so. > > On the other hand, I am happy to acknowledge that the GPT summary gathers > a lot of things into one place, and does it a lot more compactly than I > could. Doesn’t hurt to have such summaries. > > Eric > > > > On Aug 3, 2025, at 17:42, Pieter Steenekamp <[email protected]> > wrote: > > Since I’m a big fan of Dawkins, I wanted to respond thoughtfully to the > criticisms he often faces. But I quickly realized I wasn’t quite up to the > task—so I turned to George for help. You’ll find George’s full reply in the > appendix. For ease of reading, I’m quoting only the conclusion here: > > Richard Dawkins’ gene-centric view, far from being a “radical genism” that > should be “stood off,” stands as a powerful and intellectually elegant > framework for understanding evolution. By identifying the gene as the > fundamental replicator, it offers a clear, consistent, and unifying > perspective on the core mechanisms of natural selection. This approach has > proven its explanatory power by illuminating phenomena such as altruism and > the intricate design of organisms. Its elegance lies in unifying a wide > range of observations under a single, coherent principle—a hallmark of > robust scientific theory. While ongoing debates over levels of selection > remain valuable, the gene’s-eye view provides a parsimonious and > foundational lens for understanding evolutionary biology. > > Beyond his theoretical contributions, Dawkins has also been a uniquely > gifted and articulate advocate for evolutionary science. His ability to > communicate complex ideas through vivid metaphors has inspired generations > and significantly advanced public understanding of evolution. This talent > for science communication complements, rather than competes with, the > formalism of population genetics. His public engagement constitutes a vital > contribution to science itself. > > In sum, the continuing dialogue between gene-centric and multi-level > selection theories—and between formal rigor and conceptual clarity—is not a > sign of scientific weakness, but of strength. It reflects the dynamic, > self-correcting nature of science. Through debate, interplay, and > synthesis, our understanding of evolution deepens and evolves. That, in > itself, is the essence of good science. > > > Appendix, George's full response: > > > A Friendly Defense of Richard Dawkins' Evolutionary Insights: Beyond > Misconceptions > > > I. Introduction: Setting the Stage for a Friendly Dialogue > > > > Evolutionary biology, far from being a static field, is a dynamic and > evolving discipline that thrives on vigorous intellectual debate and the > continuous refinement of ideas. The discussions surrounding Richard > Dawkins' gene-centric view and its relationship to other perspectives, such > as David Sloan Wilson's multi-level selection theory and Michael Lynch's > emphasis on formal population genetics, are prime examples of this healthy > scientific discourse. These aren't battles to be won, but ongoing > conversations that deepen our collective understanding of life's > complexity. The very existence of these debates signifies the robustness > and self-correcting nature of the scientific enterprise. It demonstrates > that evolutionary theory is not a rigid dogma but a flexible framework > capable of incorporating new evidence and diverse analytical approaches. > > Richard Dawkins' seminal 1976 work, *The Selfish Gene*, revolutionized > popular and scientific understanding by advocating for a gene-centric view > of evolution. This perspective argues that natural selection operates most > fundamentally at the level of the gene, rather than solely at the level of > the individual organism or species.1 Central to this view are the > concepts of "replicators" and "vehicles." Genes are the "replicators" – the > fundamental units of heredity that are copied with high fidelity across > generations, striving for their own perpetuation.2 Organisms, including > humans, are conceptualized as "vehicles" or "survival machines" – temporary > biological constructs built by genes to ensure their replication and > transmission to the next generation.2 Dawkins' primary contribution was a > shift in explanatory perspective, providing a powerful lens through which > to analyze evolutionary phenomena. This reorientation allowed for a more > consistent and parsimonious understanding of how evolutionary forces shape > life. > > This report aims to clarify common misconceptions about Dawkins' work, > demonstrating how his framework provides robust insights into evolutionary > phenomena, including those that appear paradoxical, such as altruism. It > will also explore the complementary roles of conceptual models and formal > mathematical approaches in evolutionary biology, showing how Dawkins' > contributions fit within this broader scientific landscape. This approach > seeks to inform and clarify, fostering understanding rather than > confrontation, and offering a friendly counter-narrative to the idea that > his profound contributions have been "stood off." > > II. The Gene's-Eye View: Precision, Not Reductionism > > > > > The "Selfish Gene" Explained: Clarifying the metaphorical nature of > "selfishness" and the gene as the fundamental unit of selection. > > > > A frequent and understandable misunderstanding of Dawkins' work arises > from the provocative title *The Selfish Gene*. It is crucial to recognize > that Dawkins explicitly states that "selfish" is a metaphor, and he "does > not intend to imply that they are driven by any motives or will".4 The > term is a pedagogical device to convey that genes are the "ultimate, > fundamental unit of natural selection".6 This means that alleles > (different versions of a gene) whose phenotypic effects successfully > promote their own propagation will, by definition, increase in frequency > within a population over generations.7 The "selfishness" therefore refers > to the > > *tendency* of a gene to maximize its own replication, an impersonal, > algorithmic outcome of natural selection, not a conscious intent or moral > judgment.5 This metaphorical usage, despite its potential for > misinterpretation, serves a vital conceptual purpose: it forces > evolutionary biologists and the public to consider the gene as the primary > unit of accounting in evolution. Its effectiveness lies in its ability to > simplify complex dynamics into an intuitive framework that highlights the > fundamental replicative imperative, thereby correcting prevalent "group > selectionist" fallacies.6 > > > Organisms as "Survival Machines": Elucidating the concept of "vehicles" > and the "extended phenotype." > > > > Dawkins famously describes organisms, including human beings, as "survival > machines" or "robot vehicles blindly programmed to preserve the selfish > molecules known as genes".2 This perspective does not diminish the > immense complexity, beauty, or emergent properties of living things; > rather, it offers a powerful analytical lens through which to understand > > *why* organisms are structured the way they are—as temporary, elaborate > vessels for the propagation of genetic information.2 Furthermore, Dawkins > later developed the concept of the "extended phenotype," arguing that a > gene's phenotypic effects are not necessarily limited to the organism's > physical body but can "stretch far into the environment, including the > bodies of other organisms".4 This concept significantly broadens the > explanatory reach of the gene-centric view, demonstrating its capacity to > account for interactions beyond the individual organism. The "survival > machine" metaphor, coupled with the extended phenotype, demonstrates that > Dawkins' gene-centric view is not a crude reductionism that ignores complex > interactions or emergent properties. Instead, it offers a causal framework > for understanding how gene-level selection can manifest in intricate, > multi-level biological phenomena, extending beyond individual bodies to > influence the environment and other organisms. > > Explaining Altruism: Demonstrating how gene-level selection, particularly > kin selection, elegantly accounts for cooperative behaviors. > > > > One of the most significant triumphs of the gene-centric view is its > elegant explanation for altruism—behaviors that appear to decrease an > individual's own fitness for the benefit of others.4 Dawkins, building > upon the foundational work of W.D. Hamilton, demonstrates how altruistic > acts directed towards relatives (known as kin selection) make perfect sense > from a gene's perspective, as relatives are statistically likely to share > copies of the same genes.2 This means that "selfish genes can program > altruistic behavior in organisms".3 Furthermore, the concept of > Evolutionarily Stable Strategies (ESS), developed by John Maynard Smith and > popularized by Dawkins, provides a mathematical framework to predict how > cooperative and competitive behaviors can arise and stabilize within > populations, depending on the strategies adopted by the majority.6 The > successful explanation of altruism, a behavior that initially appears to > contradict individual-level natural selection, through a gene-level > framework (kin selection) provides compelling evidence for the explanatory > power and parsimony of Dawkins' approach. This demonstrates how a > "reductionist" starting point can yield profound insights into complex > social phenomena, showcasing its robustness against criticisms of > oversimplification. > > Addressing "Radical Genism": Arguing that Dawkins' view is a powerful > explanatory framework, not an oversimplification that ignores biological > complexity. > > > > The "gene-centered view" is not, as some critics imply, a denial of the > complexity of organisms or their intricate interactions. Dawkins himself > acknowledges that "there is a very great deal of complication, and indeed > beauty in being a gene machine".3 His framework provides a fundamental > perspective on > > *what* is ultimately being selected for over evolutionary time (the > replicator), rather than claiming that genes operate in isolation.10 > Indeed, genes "must interact well with the majority of the fellow gene > travelers they meet in individual survival machines" 2 to ensure the > survival and reproduction of the vehicle. The focus on the gene as the unit > of selection provides a "simple, scalable metric: replicative fitness" 10, > which is a powerful analytical tool for understanding evolutionary change, > not a dismissal of other biological levels or their emergent properties. > The criticism of "radical genism" often conflates the > > *unit of selection* (the gene as the replicator) with the *level of > biological organization* at which selection manifests (the organism or > group). Dawkins' view clarifies that while selection *acts* on the > phenotypic expression of vehicles (organisms, groups), the *ultimate > beneficiary* and the entity that is faithfully copied and accumulates > advantageous changes over generations is the gene. This distinction allows > for a powerful, non-simplistic understanding of how complex systems arise > from fundamental replicative dynamics, without reducing the complexity of > those systems themselves. > > III. Dawkins and the Levels of Selection: A Nuanced Perspective > > > > > The Core Debate with David Sloan Wilson: Delineating the differing > perspectives on the unit of selection (gene-level vs. multi-level > selection). > > > > The debate over the "unit of selection" is one of the most enduring and > intellectually stimulating discussions in evolutionary biology. While > Richard Dawkins is a staunch proponent of the gene as the fundamental > replicator 1, David Sloan Wilson (often in collaboration with philosopher > Elliott Sober) is a prominent advocate for "multi-level selection" (MLS) > theory. MLS argues that natural selection can operate effectively at > various nested levels of biological organization, from genes within > individuals, to individuals within groups, and even groups within larger > populations.8 Wilson and Sober contend that groups, much like > individuals, can exhibit functional organization and compete, leading to > group-level adaptations.8 The apparent conflict between Dawkins and > Wilson is often oversimplified as an "either/or" choice. More accurately, > it is a debate about the > > *primary* or *most fundamental* level of selection, and the *utility* and > *parsimony* of different explanatory frameworks for various evolutionary > phenomena. Both sides acknowledge that selection occurs at multiple levels, > but their emphasis on where the *ultimate* selective pressure lies, and > the causal arrows they draw, differ significantly. This highlights a > healthy divergence in scientific emphasis rather than a fundamental > theoretical contradiction. > > Replicators vs. Vehicles: Reaffirming the conceptual distinction and why > the gene is considered the ultimate replicator. > > > > Central to Dawkins' gene-centric argument is the critical distinction > between "replicators" and "vehicles".10 Genes are defined as the > "replicators"—entities that make copies of themselves with sufficient > fidelity and persist across generations, thereby serving as the fundamental > units of inheritance and long-term evolutionary change.2 Organisms, > including individuals and potentially groups, are "vehicles"—temporary > survival machines or "phenotypic effects" built by replicators to ensure > their own propagation.2 Dawkins argues that "individuals never replicate > themselves. Bodies don't create copies of themselves" 11; rather, genes > are copied, and bodies are merely the means by which those copies are made > and transmitted. This makes the gene the true, ultimate unit of selection > in the long term. This distinction is not merely semantic or a > philosophical preference; it is a profound conceptual tool that clarifies > the > > *locus of evolutionary change* over deep time. While natural selection > *acts* on the observable phenotypic expression of vehicles (organisms, > groups), the *information* that is faithfully copied and accumulates > advantageous changes over generations resides in the replicator (the gene). > This provides a robust foundation for understanding evolution that avoids > common pitfalls of focusing solely on higher levels, which might overlook > the fundamental dynamics of inheritance and the "free-rider" problem. > > The Price Equation and Equivalence: Discussing the mathematical frameworks > that can reconcile different levels of selection, highlighting areas of > consensus. > > > > While the debate between gene-centric and multi-level selection can often > appear as a fundamental theoretical schism, many evolutionary biologists, > including those who have engaged in extensive debate with both Dawkins and > Wilson, acknowledge a significant degree of "mathematical equivalence" > between these frameworks, particularly when analyzing evolutionary dynamics > through the Price equation.14 The Price equation is a powerful > mathematical tool that can rigorously partition selection into within-group > and between-group components. This framework demonstrates that kin > selection (a core gene-centric explanation for altruism) can, in fact, be > understood as a special case that > > *includes* elements of multi-level selection within its own structure.14 > This mathematical compatibility suggests that different conceptual > perspectives can often describe the > > *same underlying evolutionary dynamics* using alternative, yet formally > equivalent, mathematical or conceptual tools. The concept of mathematical > equivalence is critical because it transforms what appears to be a deep > theoretical schism into a discussion about *explanatory convenience*, > *preferred > modeling approach*, or the *most parsimonious level of analysis*. It > implies that Dawkins' gene-centric view, while emphasizing a particular > level, is not necessarily *contradictory* to multi-level selection in all > cases, but rather a powerful and often more parsimonious way to model the > same evolutionary outcomes. > > Why Dawkins Remains Skeptical of Group Selection's Primacy: Examining the > challenges of "cheaters" and the robust explanatory power of gene-level > explanations for apparent group adaptations. > > > > Despite the theoretical possibility and mathematical equivalence of > multi-level selection, Dawkins has consistently expressed skepticism about > the *practical importance* or *primacy* of group selection as a general > basis for understanding altruism, especially when compared to the robust > explanatory power of gene-level explanations like kin selection.6 A > central challenge for group selection models is the pervasive "free-rider" > or "cheater" problem: within any altruistic group, selfish individuals who > benefit from the altruism of others without reciprocating will have a > reproductive advantage, eventually outcompeting altruists and undermining > the group's cohesiveness.16 While group selection is theoretically > possible under very specific, often stringent, conditions (e.g., strong > between-group competition and effective mechanisms to suppress within-group > selfishness), Dawkins and many others argue that within-group selection > (favoring selfish individuals) is "almost invariably weak compared to > within-group selection in nature".14 This makes gene-level explanations, > particularly kin selection, a more parsimonious and empirically supported > account for many instances of cooperation. Dawkins' skepticism is not a > dogmatic rejection of multi-level selection's possibility but a > scientifically grounded preference for explanations that are more robust to > the "cheater" problem and have demonstrated greater empirical support and > predictive power across a wider range of phenomena. It highlights a > methodological preference for parsimony and explanatory breadth, favoring > the most robust and widely applicable explanation. > > Table 1: Key Concepts in Gene-Centric vs. Multi-Level Selection > > > > > Feature > > Gene-Centric View (Richard Dawkins) > > Multi-Level Selection Theory (David Sloan Wilson) > > *Primary Unit of Selection* > Gene (Replicator) 1 > Nested Hierarchy (Genes, Individuals, Groups, Species) 8 > > *Organism's Role* > Vehicle/Survival Machine for genes 2 > Functional Unit/Group of Traits, potentially a "group organism" 13 > > *Explanation for Altruism* > Kin Selection, Reciprocity, Evolutionarily Stable Strategies (ESS) 2 > Group-level adaptation where "Altruistic groups beat selfish groups" 8 > > *Key Challenge Addressed* > Apparent altruism, intragenomic conflict 7 > Emergence of complex sociality, human civilization, religion 8 > > *Mathematical Basis* > Population Genetics, Price Equation (gene-centric interpretation) 7 > Price Equation (multi-level partitioning) 14 > > *Metaphorical Language* > "Selfish gene," "survival machines," "extended phenotype" 1 > "Selfishness beats altruism within groups. Altruistic groups beat selfish > groups." 12 > > > IV. Formalism, Metaphor, and the Language of Science > > > > > The Indispensable Role of Metaphor: Exploring how Dawkins effectively uses > vivid metaphors to communicate complex scientific ideas to a broad audience. > > > > The user's query, referencing "hand waving" and "metaphor" in evolutionary > biology, touches upon a common point of discussion. However, Richard > Dawkins is widely celebrated as a "master of the vivid metaphor, the witty > aside, the apt analogy".18 His strategic use of terms like "selfish > gene," "survival machines," and "memes" 1 is not a substitute for > scientific rigor but a highly effective pedagogical and communicative > strategy. These metaphors serve to make complex, often counter-intuitive, > abstract biological concepts intuitive and accessible to a broad audience, > including non-specialists.6 While any metaphor can be "misleading" if > taken too literally 21, Dawkins' metaphors are carefully crafted to > illuminate underlying scientific realities and facilitate understanding. > The critique of Dawkins' "metaphorical" approach often misunderstands the > > *purpose* and *power* of his communication. His metaphors are not > "hand-waving" but rather precise conceptual tools designed to *aid > understanding* of complex scientific principles that are themselves > deeply rooted in population genetics. They bridge the crucial gap between > technical formalism and public comprehension, a role that is invaluable in > science communication and contributes significantly to scientific literacy. > > Population Genetics as a Formalism: Discussing Michael Lynch's emphasis on > population genetics as a formal theory and its scope. > > > > The post highlights Michael Lynch's perspective, where he asserts that > population genetics "is" "the formal theory of evolution" [User Query]. > Lynch's research exemplifies this focus, heavily relying on > "population-genetic principles" to understand phenomena like genome > architecture and the evolution of duplicate genes, emphasizing the profound > influence of "drift and mutation".22 His underlying philosophy is that > "nothing in evolution makes sense except in the light of population > genetics".22 This perspective correctly emphasizes the quantitative, > mathematical underpinnings of evolutionary theory, focusing on changes in > allele frequencies and the impact of factors like genetic effective > population sizes.23 Lynch's emphasis on population genetics as > > *the* formal theory is a valid and critically important perspective > within evolutionary biology, highlighting the quantitative rigor and > predictive power of the field. However, it represents a particular *focus* > within the broader discipline, not necessarily a contradiction to Dawkins' > conceptual framework. Indeed, Dawkins' gene-centric view is itself deeply > rooted in population genetics principles, providing a conceptual lens > through which to interpret and apply these formal models. > > Dawkins' Engagement with Formalism and Conceptual Clarity: Highlighting > Dawkins' focus on testable hypotheses and logical coherence, even when his > primary mode of communication is not mathematical. > > > > While it is true that Dawkins' "métier is metaphor—not mathematics" 24, > his work is fundamentally rooted in the principles of population genetics > and rigorous logical inference. His gene-centric view provides a clear > framework for understanding "differential survival among genes" 3, which > is the very essence of population genetics. He consistently champions > "testable predictions" and "logical coherence" in scientific hypotheses.25 > His famous thought experiments, such as the origin of a self-replicating > molecule 3, are designed to demonstrate the logical sufficiency of > Darwinian evolution to explain life's complexity without recourse to > supernatural explanations.3 The "selfish gene" framework itself, though > conceptual, has been "instrumental to make sense of new empirical > observations and to the generation of new hypotheses" 28, a key function > of any robust scientific theory. The perceived dichotomy between "metaphor" > and "formalism" is often a false one. Dawkins' conceptual clarity, achieved > through powerful metaphors, serves to make the > > *implications* of formal population genetics models understandable and to > generate testable hypotheses. His work is not devoid of rigor but expresses > it in a different, equally valuable, form. He focuses on the *underlying > logic* and *causal mechanisms* of evolution, which can be expressed > mathematically but also profoundly understood through clear conceptual > frameworks. > > The "A-semantic" Layer and Causal Reasoning: Briefly touching upon the > philosophical discussion regarding formal systems and their interpretation > in capturing biological causality. > > > > The query mentions "a-semantic layers of formal representations" and > references philosophers like Neurath, Carnap, and Quine. This points to a > deeper philosophical discussion about how abstract formal systems (such as > mathematical models in population genetics) relate to and capture > real-world causality. While a formal system might be considered > "a-semantic" in its pure mathematical structure, its application to biology > inherently requires "semantic bindings"—interpretations that connect the > abstract symbols and rules to observable biological phenomena and their > causal relationships [User Query]. Dawkins' strength lies precisely in > providing compelling semantic bindings through his clear conceptual > frameworks and vivid metaphors, making the causal implications of gene > dynamics explicit and intuitively understandable, rather than leaving them > "black-boxed" as the query suggests Lynch might do for certain aspects of > biology. The philosophical point about "a-semantic" formalisms versus > semantic interpretations highlights that even the most rigorous > mathematical models require conceptual frameworks to be biologically > meaningful and to provide causal explanations. Dawkins, through his > powerful conceptual tools, provides precisely this semantic bridge, making > the "evolutionary" aspect of phenomena clear and accessible. > > Table 2: Richard Dawkins' Key Metaphors and Their Scientific Purpose > > > > > Metaphor/Concept > > Scientific Purpose/Meaning > > Counter-Critique Addressed > > "Selfish Gene" > Emphasizes the gene as the fundamental unit of selection, acting to > maximize its own replication; provides a framework for explaining apparent > altruism 1 > > Accusations of "radical genism," anthropomorphism of genes, or > oversimplification of motivation. > > "Survival Machine" / "Vehicle" > Describes organisms (bodies) as temporary instruments or complex systems > built by genes to ensure their propagation across generations 2 > > Claims of reductionism, ignoring organismal complexity, or denying the > organism's agency. > > "Meme" > A unit of cultural transmission and evolution, analogous to a gene, > explaining how ideas and behaviors spread and evolve in human culture 1 > > Criticisms regarding the lack of cultural or environmental influences in > evolutionary theory. > > "Extended Phenotype" > The concept that a gene's phenotypic effects can extend beyond the > individual organism's body to influence the external environment, including > the bodies of other organisms 4 > > Perceived limitations of gene action confined solely to the individual > body. > > "Blind Watchmaker" > Explains how the appearance of complex design in living organisms can > arise through unguided, iterative natural selection, without the need for a > conscious, supernatural designer 9 > > Arguments for intelligent design or a creator deity based on biological > complexity. > > V. Conclusion: Dawkins' Enduring Legacy > > > > Richard Dawkins' gene-centric view, far from being a "radical genism" to > be "stood off," stands as a powerful and intellectually elegant framework > for understanding evolution. By focusing on the gene as the fundamental > replicator, it provides a clear, consistent, and unifying perspective on > the ultimate unit of selection.6 This framework has demonstrated > remarkable explanatory power, capable of illuminating complex phenomena > such as altruism 3 and the intricate design of organisms.2 The "elegance" > and "explanatory power" refer to the framework's ability to unify diverse > observations under a single, coherent principle, a hallmark of a robust and > successful scientific theory. While debates on the precise levels of > selection continue to enrich the field, the gene's-eye view offers a robust > and often more parsimonious explanation for many evolutionary puzzles, > providing a foundational understanding that underpins much of modern > evolutionary biology. > > Beyond his profound theoretical contributions and rigorous scientific > arguments, Richard Dawkins has been an unparalleled "gifted and articulate > spokesman for evolutionary biology".20 His exceptional ability to > translate complex scientific ideas into accessible and engaging language > through vivid metaphors has inspired generations of students and the > general public, significantly advancing the public understanding of science. > 6 This crucial role in science communication is distinct from, yet > entirely complementary to, the formal mathematical work of population > geneticists. Dawkins' impact extends significantly beyond academic theory; > his role as a public educator is a crucial contribution to science itself, > fostering widespread scientific literacy and a deeper appreciation for > evolutionary principles. > > In conclusion, the ongoing dialogue between gene-centric and multi-level > selection perspectives, and the discussions about the optimal balance of > formalism versus conceptual clarity in scientific explanation, are not > signs of weakness or irresolution. Rather, they are vibrant indicators of a > healthy, self-correcting, and evolving scientific enterprise. Each > perspective offers valuable insights and analytical tools, and it is > precisely through their interplay, rigorous debate, and eventual synthesis > that our understanding of evolution continues to deepen, refine, and > expand. This continuous process of inquiry and refinement is the true > strength of science, ensuring that our models and explanations become ever > more precise and comprehensive. > Works cited > 1. www.britannica.com, accessed August 3, 2025, > https://www.britannica.com/topic/The-Selfish-Gene#:~:text=misunderstanding%20of%20Darwinism.-,Dawkins%20argued%20that%20natural%20selection%20takes%20place%20at%20the%20genetic,the%20cultural%20equivalent%20of%20genes. > 2. Forty years of The Selfish Gene are not enough - PMC, accessed > August 3, 2025, https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC4774003/ > <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fpmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov%2farticles%2fPMC4774003%2f&c=E,1,N9UslSsfMbCFvf_iVu-ibZE6Sl-AAspOKB_eqSWr3qE42H8WZsXb6TrFB-drFQlUblyR3npLMCJsWQyvpKO6CY4oe0_eB-trM33chl-4SbjAadZUKRd5kZKtDA,,&typo=1> > 3. Richard Dawkins - PBS, accessed August 3, 2025, > https://www.pbs.org/faithandreason/transcript/dawk-frame.html > <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fwww.pbs.org%2ffaithandreason%2ftranscript%2fdawk-frame.html&c=E,1,19D_4537e1FJ-j8BAEM_DAZ0iFTrZin_aNe7g7inKzpZXohiDt5wt5IGX0zmR5LnMaFvj17OhwD5pIUVIUM9cl2_OcIjYhvPZNWDPipSbbSJXw,,&typo=1> > 4. The Selfish Gene - Wikipedia, accessed August 3, 2025, > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Selfish_Gene > 5. What is Richard Dawkins trying to say in this paragraph from 'The > Selfish Gene'? - Quora, accessed August 3, 2025, > https://www.quora.com/What-is-Richard-Dawkins-trying-to-say-in-this-paragraph-from-The-Selfish-Gene-1 > 6. Understanding Evolution: Gene Selection vs. Group Selection - > University of Hawaii at Hilo, accessed August 3, 2025, > https://hilo.hawaii.edu/campuscenter/hohonu/volumes/documents/Vol07x23UnderstandingEvolution.pdf > <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fhilo.hawaii.edu%2fcampuscenter%2fhohonu%2fvolumes%2fdocuments%2fVol07x23UnderstandingEvolution.pdf&c=E,1,dGqi9QftGQgdqUieKZUnywuifzzJ6d1O7E4xVbrCUcxIA6-PkWbrDfOO0J4pBaWJWFL_FAb4OYI3mD_gXnTdrmXaMDp8nTzxEIuO6_buHGBdP2p5xQ,,&typo=1> > 7. Gene-centered view of evolution - Wikipedia, accessed August 3, > 2025, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gene-centered_view_of_evolution > 8. Group selection - Wikipedia, accessed August 3, 2025, > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Group_selection > 9. Richard Dawkins - Wikipedia, accessed August 3, 2025, > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Richard_Dawkins > 10. Beyond Richard Dawkins' “Selfish” Genes and E.O. Wilson's Groups - > Medium, accessed August 3, 2025, > https://medium.com/@bill.giannakopoulos/beyond-richard-dawkins-selfish-genes-and-e-o-wilson-s-groups-53e00db8bf5f > <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fmedium.com%2f%40bill.giannakopoulos%2fbeyond-richard-dawkins-selfish-genes-and-e-o-wilson-s-groups-53e00db8bf5f&c=E,1,n67YDFLfHwBYreTjxTvWKQbRZNnCwdCwNcXr9owoLrgSp8_sf-Yk4z89Aeln9SkQ13wenBahDWUHfqC68jzv-7ZnIq41bwJpq_9kQ8JrkJ2E&typo=1> > 11. A Crash Course in Multi-Level Selection Theory: Part 1-The > Groundwork Laid by Dawkins and Gould - Dennis Junk's Author Site, accessed > August 3, 2025, > https://www.dennisjunk.com/readingsubtly/2012/07/a-crash-course-in-multi-level-selection.html > <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fwww.dennisjunk.com%2freadingsubtly%2f2012%2f07%2fa-crash-course-in-multi-level-selection.html&c=E,1,jtBq62Bhpj7CCVc5cFOYNzynOC1puBnCl6HZWZeA6q2k1bI0gNnd-ysBLOHAlWbcwOu6UoQL-JHMLmRYuU6XlchTPwJJ6-krgpCPUWMSU75m-gJq9vt8&typo=1> > 12. David Sloan Wilson - Wikipedia, accessed August 3, 2025, > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/David_Sloan_Wilson > 13. Unit of selection - Wikipedia, accessed August 3, 2025, > https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unit_of_selection > 14. Richard Dawkins, Edward O. Wilson, and the Consensus of the Many - > ProSocial World, accessed August 3, 2025, > https://www.prosocial.world/posts/richard-dawkins-edward-o-wilson-and-the-consensus-of-the-many > <https://linkprotect.cudasvc.com/url?a=https%3a%2f%2fwww.prosocial.world%2fposts%2frichard-dawkins-edward-o-wilson-and-the-consensus-of-the-many&c=E,1,QGKq60bbASkBW_vyX1s2HMT2pqm4-PXbUjI3XF1_TVsjLUOq7a7fethNF39HM7moVvL0eKnO3EZWFM2J5iKNZumMKQGTmVqTQ9QRqra4knRZQgNyxKT-HSE,&typo=1> > 15. > >
.- .-.. .-.. / ..-. --- --- - . .-. ... / .- .-. . / .-- .-. --- -. --. / ... --- -- . / .- .-. . / ..- ... . ..-. ..- .-.. FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Fridays 9a-12p Friday St. Johns Cafe / Thursdays 9a-12p Zoom https://bit.ly/virtualfriam to (un)subscribe http://redfish.com/mailman/listinfo/friam_redfish.com FRIAM-COMIC http://friam-comic.blogspot.com/ archives: 5/2017 thru present https://redfish.com/pipermail/friam_redfish.com/ 1/2003 thru 6/2021 http://friam.383.s1.nabble.com/
