Absolutely Ingenious., 03 Jan 2009
This is Professor Dawkins' finest piece of work. Not only does he provide his own knowledge and ingenious thinking, but he also ties together the works of Darwin, Hamilton, Fisher, Trivers, and many other great revolutionary Evolutionary Biologists. As a Geneticist, I have studied many of the phenomena that Dawkins discusses, and it is amazing that science has uncovered many of them as late as 30 years after the first publication of this great book.

It is not just Genetics which has had components perfectly explained by this text, but also many other branches of Evolutionary Biology, such as Ethology and Molecular Evolution. A wonderful read, explained so simply and eloquently by arguably the world's greatest Popular Science writer; a book that Carl Sagan himself would have been proud of writing.

Dobzhansky once famously and correctly stated that 'Nothing in Biology makes sense except in the light of Evolution' ; I would go one step further, and state that 'Nothing in Evolution makes sense except in the light of Gene Selection'. Once one has read this book fully, and understood it properly, this statement can be fully appreciated.

I think Dawkins is wrong in his central argument. Here's why:, 29 Dec 2008
The first thing I want to say is how much respect I have for Richard Dawkins as a scientist, as a teacher, as a writer of fascinating prose, and as a person. He is a brilliant and courageous man who works hard to bring his knowledge and insights to all of us. For the record I have read six of his books and reviewed four of them. They are:

The God Delusion (2006)
The Ancestor's Tale: A Pilgrimage to the Dawn of Evolution (2004)
A Devil's Chaplain: Reflections on Hope, Lies, Science, and Love (2003)
The Extended Phenotype: The Long Reach of the Gene (1982; 1999)

The second thing I want to say is that The Selfish Gene is one of the landmark science books of the 20th century, and so I am pleased to see this 30th Anniversary Edition (from 2006) with a new introduction by Dawkins and some new footnotes.

Rather than review the book as a whole, however, as has been done many times, in this review I want to concentrate on the central issue of the book, namely the question of "at what level does natural selection work?"

Dawkins believes that the environment selects certain genes, or more properly speaking, suites of genes and therefore operates primarily at the level of the gene. I disagree and believe this is like saying that the public selects certain letters, or words, or sentences of words when buying a book. The words (or more properly the ideas represented by the words) are the reason the public selects a book, but what the public selects is nonetheless the book. Genes are like ideas in books. Ideas must appear in some medium, even if it is just word of mouth. Genes must appear in organisms, which are the products of both the genetic instructions and the environment in which they develop. Consequently genes help to produce individuals (or in the case of social insects, a group of individuals that can be seen as a single organism). Dawkins calls these individuals "survival machines." In turn the environment selects certain survival machines that contain certain genes.

Another way of expressing this is to say that the environment selects genes by proxy, that is, through the medium of the individual phenotype. The environment cannot directly affect the genes since the genes are safely encapsulated within the survival machine which does not in any Lamackian way communicate with them. The exception is when an electromagnetic particle hits the code and alters it, creating a mutation. The environment does not act on that altered code; instead it acts upon the individual that is born to carry that altered code or lack thereof.

The individual gene itself (if we can speak of such a thing which is just a section of code) doesn't work in isolation. It is always allied for better or for worse with other sections of code. Certain sections of code are reproduced again and again because they are handy or work well with other sections of code in a way that allows the survival machine to reproduce and its offspring to reproduce. But the environment cannot select certain selections of code. It can only select the individual containing that code (and a lot of other code besides). In fact, it cannot just select the individual, it must select its possible mates and even much of its environment as well, such as the plants and animals it uses for food and shelter. To speak of selecting genes or even individual organisms is just a convenient way of talking.

What is really selected is a group of organisms of some kind. Some consider an important group selected by the environment to be the species or the ecology. Giving a large enough perspective, I would go so far as to say (going beyond Lovecock and Gaia) that natural selection operates on the level of life itself.

Another point is that the genes never reproduce themselves by themselves. Nothing in this world that I know of actually reproduces itself by itself, except dividing cells, and they do this only most of the time. As is now known, occasionally bacteria trade genes with other bacteria and thereby reproduce not quite exact copies of themselves. A strand of DNA is replicated with the help of the machinery of the cell. Viruses need cells to replicate themselves. Anything that was one hundred percent effective in making exact copies of itself would not undergo Darwinian evolution and would in fact have died out long ago. The dreaded grey goo of nanobots replicating until they cover the earth is still just a fantasy of science fiction.

The problem with the current understanding of evolution and natural selection is the problem of not seeing that everything is connected. Any place we draw a boundary is artificial or arbitrary. Even at the skin. Franklin M. Harold, in his book, The Way of the Cell: Molecules, Organisms and the Order of Life (2001) writes, "Organisms process matter and energy as well as information; each represents a dynamic node in a whirlpool of several currents, and self-reproduction is a property of the collective, not of genes.... DNA is a peculiar sort of software, that can only be correctly interpreted by its own unique hardware....sending aliens the genome of a cat is no substitute for sending the cat itself--complete with mice." (op cit., p. 221)

For those of you who have read Dawkins' original edition from 1976, this edition is still to be recommended, particularly for the updated bibliography and for the 66 pages of endnotes where Dawkins graciously admits errors and points to new discoveries, most interestingly that of Zahavi's "handicap principle" which goes a long ways toward explaining some "altruistic" behavior. See my Amazon review of The Handicap Principle: A Missing Piece of Darwin's Puzzle (1997) by Amotz and Avishag Zahavi.

Turns life inside out, 28 Oct 2008
The author writes about living things as if the gene is the animal and the animal is simply a seed for the gene. He basically turns life inside out. It's a powerful mind tool to get a different perspective on life but don't get too carried away with the idea. The whole theory of evolution is valuable in understanding the world but like a lot of science it starts to become too difficult to use. So in conclusion I don't believe that the author has discovered the secret of life, he just has another way of looking at things that you may find useful. It should be one of the books you have read.

jean genie, 05 Oct 2008
Dawkins is excellent while he sticks to biology
however he may have lost the plot in the last chapter
as he has in thinking promoting science involves attacking
religion
If an evangalist is someone who does not leave people to work
it out for themselves but pushes his point of view Dawkins is one
Nutty Baptists and Dawkins looked similar on channel 4 for example
ie they both spin world events too far to promote a point of view

Imaginative guessing, 13 Sep 2008
I have attempted to read Dawkins's books on a few occasions but seldom get beyond the first 100 pages. I simply find his style of writing boring and his theories pure imaginative guesswork; I cannot take this author's ideas onboard yet biology fascinates me and especially that of epigenetics which seems to disprove all that this author advocates. I suspect that there is a snobbery value to those who support him. Irrespective of his academic standing I cannot avoid regarding the author as an impostor as I constantly want to wage war with his views. Admittedly, he comes across publicly as a very plausible academic but, this does not sway me.

PS (14/12/08) How interesting that a candid opinion should upset so many; one wonders why?

Absolutely Ingenious., 03 Jan 2009
This is Professor Dawkins' finest piece of work. Not only does he provide his own knowledge and ingenious thinking, but he also ties together the works of Darwin, Hamilton, Fisher, Trivers, and many other great revolutionary Evolutionary Biologists. As a Geneticist, I have studied many of the phenomena that Dawkins discusses, and it is amazing that science has uncovered many of them as late as 30 years after the first publication of this great book.

It is not just Genetics which has had components perfectly explained by this text, but also many other branches of Evolutionary Biology, such as Ethology and Molecular Evolution. A wonderful read, explained so simply and eloquently by arguably the world's greatest Popular Science writer; a book that Carl Sagan himself would have been proud of writing.

Dobzhansky once famously and correctly stated that 'Nothing in Biology makes sense except in the light of Evolution' ; I would go one step further, and state that 'Nothing in Evolution makes sense except in the light of Gene Selection'. Once one has read this book fully, and understood it properly, this statement can be fully appreciated.

I think Dawkins is wrong in his central argument. Here's why:, 29 Dec 2008
The first thing I want to say is how much respect I have for Richard Dawkins as a scientist, as a teacher, as a writer of fascinating prose, and as a person. He is a brilliant and courageous man who works hard to bring his knowledge and insights to all of us. For the record I have read six of his books and reviewed four of them. They are:

The God Delusion (2006)
The Ancestor's Tale: A Pilgrimage to the Dawn of Evolution (2004)
A Devil's Chaplain: Reflections on Hope, Lies, Science, and Love (2003)
The Extended Phenotype: The Long Reach of the Gene (1982; 1999)

The second thing I want to say is that The Selfish Gene is one of the landmark science books of the 20th century, and so I am pleased to see this 30th Anniversary Edition (from 2006) with a new introduction by Dawkins and some new footnotes.

Rather than review the book as a whole, however, as has been done many times, in this review I want to concentrate on the central issue of the book, namely the question of "at what level does natural selection work?"

Dawkins believes that the environment selects certain genes, or more properly speaking, suites of genes and therefore operates primarily at the level of the gene. I disagree and believe this is like saying that the public selects certain letters, or words, or sentences of words when buying a book. The words (or more properly the ideas represented by the words) are the reason the public selects a book, but what the public selects is nonetheless the book. Genes are like ideas in books. Ideas must appear in some medium, even if it is just word of mouth. Genes must appear in organisms, which are the products of both the genetic instructions and the environment in which they develop. Consequently genes help to produce individuals (or in the case of social insects, a group of individuals that can be seen as a single organism). Dawkins calls these individuals "survival machines." In turn the environment selects certain survival machines that contain certain genes.

Another way of expressing this is to say that the environment selects genes by proxy, that is, through the medium of the individual phenotype. The environment cannot directly affect the genes since the genes are safely encapsulated within the survival machine which does not in any Lamackian way communicate with them. The exception is when an electromagnetic particle hits the code and alters it, creating a mutation. The environment does not act on that altered code; instead it acts upon the individual that is born to carry that altered code or lack thereof.

The individual gene itself (if we can speak of such a thing which is just a section of code) doesn't work in isolation. It is always allied for better or for worse with other sections of code. Certain sections of code are reproduced again and again because they are handy or work well with other sections of code in a way that allows the survival machine to reproduce and its offspring to reproduce. But the environment cannot select certain selections of code. It can only select the individual containing that code (and a lot of other code besides). In fact, it cannot just select the individual, it must select its possible mates and even much of its environment as well, such as the plants and animals it uses for food and shelter. To speak of selecting genes or even individual organisms is just a convenient way of talking.

What is really selected is a group of organisms of some kind. Some consider an important group selected by the environment to be the species or the ecology. Giving a large enough perspective, I would go so far as to say (going beyond Lovecock and Gaia) that natural selection operates on the level of life itself.

Another point is that the genes never reproduce themselves by themselves. Nothing in this world that I know of actually reproduces itself by itself, except dividing cells, and they do this only most of the time. As is now known, occasionally bacteria trade genes with other bacteria and thereby reproduce not quite exact copies of themselves. A strand of DNA is replicated with the help of the machinery of the cell. Viruses need cells to replicate themselves. Anything that was one hundred percent effective in making exact copies of itself would not undergo Darwinian evolution and would in fact have died out long ago. The dreaded grey goo of nanobots replicating until they cover the earth is still just a fantasy of science fiction.

The problem with the current understanding of evolution and natural selection is the problem of not seeing that everything is connected. Any place we draw a boundary is artificial or arbitrary. Even at the skin. Franklin M. Harold, in his book, The Way of the Cell: Molecules, Organisms and the Order of Life (2001) writes, "Organisms process matter and energy as well as information; each represents a dynamic node in a whirlpool of several currents, and self-reproduction is a property of the collective, not of genes.... DNA is a peculiar sort of software, that can only be correctly interpreted by its own unique hardware....sending aliens the genome of a cat is no substitute for sending the cat itself--complete with mice." (op cit., p. 221)

For those of you who have read Dawkins' original edition from 1976, this edition is still to be recommended, particularly for the updated bibliography and for the 66 pages of endnotes where Dawkins graciously admits errors and points to new discoveries, most interestingly that of Zahavi's "handicap principle" which goes a long ways toward explaining some "altruistic" behavior. See my Amazon review of The Handicap Principle: A Missing Piece of Darwin's Puzzle (1997) by Amotz and Avishag Zahavi.

Turns life inside out, 28 Oct 2008
The author writes about living things as if the gene is the animal and the animal is simply a seed for the gene. He basically turns life inside out. It's a powerful mind tool to get a different perspective on life but don't get too carried away with the idea. The whole theory of evolution is valuable in understanding the world but like a lot of science it starts to become too difficult to use. So in conclusion I don't believe that the author has discovered the secret of life, he just has another way of looking at things that you may find useful. It should be one of the books you have read.

jean genie, 05 Oct 2008
Dawkins is excellent while he sticks to biology
however he may have lost the plot in the last chapter
as he has in thinking promoting science involves attacking
religion
If an evangalist is someone who does not leave people to work
it out for themselves but pushes his point of view Dawkins is one
Nutty Baptists and Dawkins looked similar on channel 4 for example
ie they both spin world events too far to promote a point of view

Imaginative guessing, 13 Sep 2008
I have attempted to read Dawkins's books on a few occasions but seldom get beyond the first 100 pages. I simply find his style of writing boring and his theories pure imaginative guesswork; I cannot take this author's ideas onboard yet biology fascinates me and especially that of epigenetics which seems to disprove all that this author advocates. I suspect that there is a snobbery value to those who support him. Irrespective of his academic standing I cannot avoid regarding the author as an impostor as I constantly want to wage war with his views. Admittedly, he comes across publicly as a very plausible academic but, this does not sway me.

PS (14/12/08) How interesting that a candid opinion should upset so many; one wonders why?

A great very accessible book on evolution, 09 Mar 2008
I read this one after the 30th anniversary of The Selfish Gene, and though Dawkins states in his intro that he regards this as his best work, I personally prefer the slightly expanded Selfish Gene which takes into account his extended phenotype theory. I guess one further point on this is that there is a lot of repetition between the material in the two works too! He also states that this is aimed at his academic colleagues rather than as a book for the layman but I found the science to be pretty straightforward and commonsense and only needed to check the glossary at the back for about half a dozen words. However, other than those points its pretty much faultless and the plot will keep you gripped to the bitter denoument... I'm certainly looking forward to the sequel!

Difficult but eminently worthwhile, 29 Dec 2006
This is a long and difficult book, although not as long and difficult as it might be if it had been written by somebody without Richard Dawkins' gift for clarity of thought and expression.

The crux of Dawkins' thesis is expressed early on and much of what follows is a very detailed supporting argument. What he wants us to see is that the "selfish gene" has a reach that extends beyond the confines of the individual organism that houses the gene. The phenotype of our genes is the human organism in all its glory; however the extended phenotype of our genes is not only the human organism but part of the environment in which the organism finds itself. In other words, the gene has the power to influence not only our behavior but the behavior and structure of elements in the world in which we live.

This thesis is not as striking to me as it has been to many others mainly because I have studied Eastern religious views, and it is a tenant of such views that the distinction between ourselves (the "selfish organism," in Dawkins' terminology) and the environment is an artificial one, an illusion actually. We are part and parcel of all that is around us and within us, and the boundary of our skin is merely functional. We cannot be understood by looking at only our bodies. Dawkins makes the point that looking at a beaver and microscopically examining it and its genes is not sufficient to an understanding of what a beaver is. We have to also consider the dams that the beaver builds, the trees that it gnaws down and even the streams that it dams and turns into lakes.

Presenting a point of view somewhat at odds with that of Dawkins (and one that I think that Dawkins does not sufficiently appreciate) is Franklin M. Harold in his book, The Way of the Cell: Molecules, Organisms and the Order of Life (2001). He writes, "Organisms process matter and energy as well as information; each represents a dynamic node in a whirlpool of several currents, and self-reproduction is a property of the collective, not of genes.... DNA is a peculiar sort of software, that can only be correctly interpreted by its own unique hardware.... [S]ending aliens the genome of a cat is no substitute for sending the cat itself--complete with mice." (p. 221)

Dawkins tries to discount the view of those he calls "group selectionists" who see life from a "group benefit" viewpoint. Dawkins has, since writing this book, stepped back from this position to allow that some group selection may take place. I believe some day he may see the world not from a "selfish gene" point of view, and not from a "selfish organism" point of view, but from a "selfish ecosystem" perspective--well, more likely his successors will see this, since the work of a lifetime is not easily amended in one's later years.

Dawkins gives what he calls "our own 'central theorem' of the extended phenotype" on page 233: "An animal's behaviour tends to maximize the survival of the genes 'for' that behaviour, whether or not those genes happen to be in the body of the particular animal performing it."

This is a mouthful. Clearly we can say that the genes of the reed warbler code for behavior that benefits the genes of the cuckoo who has laid its egg in the warbler's nest. This is what Dawkins has in mind. But then arises the question, "how far afield can the phenotype extend?" Here Dawkins gets cautious and writes, "The farthest action at a distance I can think of is a matter of several miles." (p. 233) Note the chosen terminology, "action at a distance." This is from physics of course causing Dawkins to ask if there is "a sharp cut-off" of the genes' reach or "an inverse square law" at work?

It is here that I believe Dawkins has come so, so close to that which he will not see (or couldn't see then), namely that everything works toward an ecology and that the idea of selfish genes and selfish organisms is a limited view. In truth the reach of the genes should be governed by something like an inverse square law since humans are now reaching beyond the solar system.

When we look at such great distances we might want to credit the dreaded and verboten "group selection" that Dawkins is at pains to reject. Just as some see our earth as "Gaia," an organism itself, so too might we see those organisms that have the means to survive the destruction of the home planet by migrating to other planets as being selected by group as opposed to other groups who have no such ability. Planet A produces beings that extend beyond their solar system; planet B produces beings that do not. Both planets blow up. Who is "selected" by the (extended) environment and who is not?

Dawkins is one of the geniuses of science, and I don't mean to argue with the great insights he has brought to biology, but my point is that it is always something of an artificiality to speak of living systems as confined to one level of existence or expression. We may think of earth creatures as being completely separate from the rest of the universe, yet without the sun, 93 million miles away, we would not exist; and come a supernova even many light years away, we will be affected.

So all is one and one is all in some extended sense. And using the word "selfish" (as Dawkins knows) at any level of life is merely to be anthropomorphic.

Daniel Dennett, in a new afterword written in 1999, asks if this book is science or philosophy, and he answers both. I agree, and it is science and philosophy of the highest order, aimed equally at the professional and at the educated layperson.

Warning: very different from The Selfish Gene, 11 Mar 2006
This summary is primarily aimed as a warning to readers of the Selfish Gene and other books by Dawmins who are expecting more elaboration on the same theme. This is not the intention of The Extended Phenotype. Instead this book is aimed squarely at professional biologists and other life sciences professionals. The book presents very few down-to-earth examples or interesting facts that would suprise a reader with basic knowledge in the area. The bulk of the book is Dawkins' attempt to advocate his point of view on the subject and he does this by quoting other scientists and arquing his case both with and against these other views. The reader is assumed to know these arguments in advance, and unless you're prepared to read the references, in detail, the majority of the book's content will be remain a mystery.

The essentials of life's story, 15 Aug 2005
Biodiversity is more than a buzzword for ecologists. Variation gives life its grandeur, and Richard Dawkins gives us a description of the workings of variation. Fortunately, with a sharp mind and sharper wit, he has the ability to deliver this portrayal so that nearly everyone can understand it. That's not to say this book is an easy read. Although he delivers his narration as if sitting with you in a quiet study, you may still need to review his words more than once. That's not a challenge or a chore, it's a pleasure.

Dawkins, unlike other science writers, is forthright in declaring his advocacy in writing this book. It's a refreshing start to his most serious effort. After publication of The Selfish Gene led to a storm of fatuous criticism, Extended Phenotype comes in response with more detail of how the gene manifests itself in the organism and its environment. It's clear that Dawkins' critics, who label him an "Ultra-Darwinist" [whatever that is] haven't read this book. His critics frequently argue that The Selfish Gene doesn't operate in a vacuum, but must deal within some kind of environment, from an individual cell to global scenarios. Dawkins deftly responds to critics in describing how genes rely on their environment for successful replication. If the replication doesn't survive in the environment it finds itself, then it, and perhaps its species, will die out.

The child's favourite question, "why" is difficult enough for parents and teachers to answer. Yet, as thinking humans we've become trained to deal with that question nearly every context. So well drilled that we consider something for which that question has no answer to be suspicious if not insidious. Part of Dawkins presentation here reiterates that there is no "why" to either the process of evolution nor its results. It isn't predictable, inevitable or reasonable. It's a tough situation to cope with, but Dawkins describes the mechanism with such precision and clarity, we readily understand "how" if not "why" evolution works. We comprehend because Dawkins does such an outstanding job in presenting its mechanics.

This edition carries three fine finales: Dawkins well thought out bibliography, a glossary, and most prized, indeed, an Afterword by Daniel C. Dennett. If any defense of this book is needed, Dennett is a peerless champion for the task. Dennett's capabilities in logical argument are superbly expressed here. As he's done elsewhere {Darwin's Dangerous Idea], Dennett mourns the lack of orginality and logic among Dawkins' critics. Excepting the more obstinate ones, these seem to be falling by the wayside. It's almost worthwhile reading Dennett's brief essay before starting Dawkins. It would be a gift to readers beyond measure if these two ever collaborated on a book. [stephen a. haines - Ottawa, Canada]

excellent as always, 02 Aug 2005
As much as I love all Dawkins' books, this is probably my favourite. It explains how genes are not content to build organisms to ride around in - they also build structures like beaver dams, nests and so on, which are just as much an expression of genes as overtly biological traits and further perpetuate the genes' selfish 'desires'.

This is a really good treatment of that subject - you are unlikely to find any better.

Absolutely Ingenious., 03 Jan 2009
This is Professor Dawkins' finest piece of work. Not only does he provide his own knowledge and ingenious thinking, but he also ties together the works of Darwin, Hamilton, Fisher, Trivers, and many other great revolutionary Evolutionary Biologists. As a Geneticist, I have studied many of the phenomena that Dawkins discusses, and it is amazing that science has uncovered many of them as late as 30 years after the first publication of this great book.

It is not just Genetics which has had components perfectly explained by this text, but also many other branches of Evolutionary Biology, such as Ethology and Molecular Evolution. A wonderful read, explained so simply and eloquently by arguably the world's greatest Popular Science writer; a book that Carl Sagan himself would have been proud of writing.

Dobzhansky once famously and correctly stated that 'Nothing in Biology makes sense except in the light of Evolution' ; I would go one step further, and state that 'Nothing in Evolution makes sense except in the light of Gene Selection'. Once one has read this book fully, and understood it properly, this statement can be fully appreciated.

I think Dawkins is wrong in his central argument. Here's why:, 29 Dec 2008
The first thing I want to say is how much respect I have for Richard Dawkins as a scientist, as a teacher, as a writer of fascinating prose, and as a person. He is a brilliant and courageous man who works hard to bring his knowledge and insights to all of us. For the record I have read six of his books and reviewed four of them. They are:

The God Delusion (2006)
The Ancestor's Tale: A Pilgrimage to the Dawn of Evolution (2004)
A Devil's Chaplain: Reflections on Hope, Lies, Science, and Love (2003)
The Extended Phenotype: The Long Reach of the Gene (1982; 1999)

The second thing I want to say is that The Selfish Gene is one of the landmark science books of the 20th century, and so I am pleased to see this 30th Anniversary Edition (from 2006) with a new introduction by Dawkins and some new footnotes.

Rather than review the book as a whole, however, as has been done many times, in this review I want to concentrate on the central issue of the book, namely the question of "at what level does natural selection work?"

Dawkins believes that the environment selects certain genes, or more properly speaking, suites of genes and therefore operates primarily at the level of the gene. I disagree and believe this is like saying that the public selects certain letters, or words, or sentences of words when buying a book. The words (or more properly the ideas represented by the words) are the reason the public selects a book, but what the public selects is nonetheless the book. Genes are like ideas in books. Ideas must appear in some medium, even if it is just word of mouth. Genes must appear in organisms, which are the products of both the genetic instructions and the environment in which they develop. Consequently genes help to produce individuals (or in the case of social insects, a group of individuals that can be seen as a single organism). Dawkins calls these individuals "survival machines." In turn the environment selects certain survival machines that contain certain genes.

Another way of expressing this is to say that the environment selects genes by proxy, that is, through the medium of the individual phenotype. The environment cannot directly affect the genes since the genes are safely encapsulated within the survival machine which does not in any Lamackian way communicate with them. The exception is when an electromagnetic particle hits the code and alters it, creating a mutation. The environment does not act on that altered code; instead it acts upon the individual that is born to carry that altered code or lack thereof.

The individual gene itself (if we can speak of such a thing which is just a section of code) doesn't work in isolation. It is always allied for better or for worse with other sections of code. Certain sections of code are reproduced again and again because they are handy or work well with other sections of code in a way that allows the survival machine to reproduce and its offspring to reproduce. But the environment cannot select certain selections of code. It can only select the individual containing that code (and a lot of other code besides). In fact, it cannot just select the individual, it must select its possible mates and even much of its environment as well, such as the plants and animals it uses for food and shelter. To speak of selecting genes or even individual organisms is just a convenient way of talking.

What is really selected is a group of organisms of some kind. Some consider an important group selected by the environment to be the species or the ecology. Giving a large enough perspective, I would go so far as to say (going beyond Lovecock and Gaia) that natural selection operates on the level of life itself.

Another point is that the genes never reproduce themselves by themselves. Nothing in this world that I know of actually reproduces itself by itself, except dividing cells, and they do this only most of the time. As is now known, occasionally bacteria trade genes with other bacteria and thereby reproduce not quite exact copies of themselves. A strand of DNA is replicated with the help of the machinery of the cell. Viruses need cells to replicate themselves. Anything that was one hundred percent effective in making exact copies of itself would not undergo Darwinian evolution and would in fact have died out long ago. The dreaded grey goo of nanobots replicating until they cover the earth is still just a fantasy of science fiction.

The problem with the current understanding of evolution and natural selection is the problem of not seeing that everything is connected. Any place we draw a boundary is artificial or arbitrary. Even at the skin. Franklin M. Harold, in his book, The Way of the Cell: Molecules, Organisms and the Order of Life (2001) writes, "Organisms process matter and energy as well as information; each represents a dynamic node in a whirlpool of several currents, and self-reproduction is a property of the collective, not of genes.... DNA is a peculiar sort of software, that can only be correctly interpreted by its own unique hardware....sending aliens the genome of a cat is no substitute for sending the cat itself--complete with mice." (op cit., p. 221)

For those of you who have read Dawkins' original edition from 1976, this edition is still to be recommended, particularly for the updated bibliography and for the 66 pages of endnotes where Dawkins graciously admits errors and points to new discoveries, most interestingly that of Zahavi's "handicap principle" which goes a long ways toward explaining some "altruistic" behavior. See my Amazon review of The Handicap Principle: A Missing Piece of Darwin's Puzzle (1997) by Amotz and Avishag Zahavi.

Turns life inside out, 28 Oct 2008
The author writes about living things as if the gene is the animal and the animal is simply a seed for the gene. He basically turns life inside out. It's a powerful mind tool to get a different perspective on life but don't get too carried away with the idea. The whole theory of evolution is valuable in understanding the world but like a lot of science it starts to become too difficult to use. So in conclusion I don't believe that the author has discovered the secret of life, he just has another way of looking at things that you may find useful. It should be one of the books you have read.

jean genie, 05 Oct 2008
Dawkins is excellent while he sticks to biology
however he may have lost the plot in the last chapter
as he has in thinking promoting science involves attacking
religion
If an evangalist is someone who does not leave people to work
it out for themselves but pushes his point of view Dawkins is one
Nutty Baptists and Dawkins looked similar on channel 4 for example
ie they both spin world events too far to promote a point of view

Imaginative guessing, 13 Sep 2008
I have attempted to read Dawkins's books on a few occasions but seldom get beyond the first 100 pages. I simply find his style of writing boring and his theories pure imaginative guesswork; I cannot take this author's ideas onboard yet biology fascinates me and especially that of epigenetics which seems to disprove all that this author advocates. I suspect that there is a snobbery value to those who support him. Irrespective of his academic standing I cannot avoid regarding the author as an impostor as I constantly want to wage war with his views. Admittedly, he comes across publicly as a very plausible academic but, this does not sway me.

PS (14/12/08) How interesting that a candid opinion should upset so many; one wonders why?

A great very accessible book on evolution, 09 Mar 2008
I read this one after the 30th anniversary of The Selfish Gene, and though Dawkins states in his intro that he regards this as his best work, I personally prefer the slightly expanded Selfish Gene which takes into account his extended phenotype theory. I guess one further point on this is that there is a lot of repetition between the material in the two works too! He also states that this is aimed at his academic colleagues rather than as a book for the layman but I found the science to be pretty straightforward and commonsense and only needed to check the glossary at the back for about half a dozen words. However, other than those points its pretty much faultless and the plot will keep you gripped to the bitter denoument... I'm certainly looking forward to the sequel!

Difficult but eminently worthwhile, 29 Dec 2006
This is a long and difficult book, although not as long and difficult as it might be if it had been written by somebody without Richard Dawkins' gift for clarity of thought and expression.

The crux of Dawkins' thesis is expressed early on and much of what follows is a very detailed supporting argument. What he wants us to see is that the "selfish gene" has a reach that extends beyond the confines of the individual organism that houses the gene. The phenotype of our genes is the human organism in all its glory; however the extended phenotype of our genes is not only the human organism but part of the environment in which the organism finds itself. In other words, the gene has the power to influence not only our behavior but the behavior and structure of elements in the world in which we live.

This thesis is not as striking to me as it has been to many others mainly because I have studied Eastern religious views, and it is a tenant of such views that the distinction between ourselves (the "selfish organism," in Dawkins' terminology) and the environment is an artificial one, an illusion actually. We are part and parcel of all that is around us and within us, and the boundary of our skin is merely functional. We cannot be understood by looking at only our bodies. Dawkins makes the point that looking at a beaver and microscopically examining it and its genes is not sufficient to an understanding of what a beaver is. We have to also consider the dams that the beaver builds, the trees that it gnaws down and even the streams that it dams and turns into lakes.

Presenting a point of view somewhat at odds with that of Dawkins (and one that I think that Dawkins does not sufficiently appreciate) is Franklin M. Harold in his book, The Way of the Cell: Molecules, Organisms and the Order of Life (2001). He writes, "Organisms process matter and energy as well as information; each represents a dynamic node in a whirlpool of several currents, and self-reproduction is a property of the collective, not of genes.... DNA is a peculiar sort of software, that can only be correctly interpreted by its own unique hardware.... [S]ending aliens the genome of a cat is no substitute for sending the cat itself--complete with mice." (p. 221)

Dawkins tries to discount the view of those he calls "group selectionists" who see life from a "group benefit" viewpoint. Dawkins has, since writing this book, stepped back from this position to allow that some group selection may take place. I believe some day he may see the world not from a "selfish gene" point of view, and not from a "selfish organism" point of view, but from a "selfish ecosystem" perspective--well, more likely his successors will see this, since the work of a lifetime is not easily amended in one's later years.

Dawkins gives what he calls "our own 'central theorem' of the extended phenotype" on page 233: "An animal's behaviour tends to maximize the survival of the genes 'for' that behaviour, whether or not those genes happen to be in the body of the particular animal performing it."

This is a mouthful. Clearly we can say that the genes of the reed warbler code for behavior that benefits the genes of the cuckoo who has laid its egg in the warbler's nest. This is what Dawkins has in mind. But then arises the question, "how far afield can the phenotype extend?" Here Dawkins gets cautious and writes, "The farthest action at a distance I can think of is a matter of several miles." (p. 233) Note the chosen terminology, "action at a distance." This is from physics of course causing Dawkins to ask if there is "a sharp cut-off" of the genes' reach or "an inverse square law" at work?

It is here that I believe Dawkins has come so, so close to that which he will not see (or couldn't see then), namely that everything works toward an ecology and that the idea of selfish genes and selfish organisms is a limited view. In truth the reach of the genes should be governed by something like an inverse square law since humans are now reaching beyond the solar system.

When we look at such great distances we might want to credit the dreaded and verboten "group selection" that Dawkins is at pains to reject. Just as some see our earth as "Gaia," an organism itself, so too might we see those organisms that have the means to survive the destruction of the home planet by migrating to other planets as being selected by group as opposed to other groups who have no such ability. Planet A produces beings that extend beyond their solar system; planet B produces beings that do not. Both planets blow up. Who is "selected" by the (extended) environment and who is not?

Dawkins is one of the geniuses of science, and I don't mean to argue with the great insights he has brought to biology, but my point is that it is always something of an artificiality to speak of living systems as confined to one level of existence or expression. We may think of earth creatures as being completely separate from the rest of the universe, yet without the sun, 93 million miles away, we would not exist; and come a supernova even many light years away, we will be affected.

So all is one and one is all in some extended sense. And using the word "selfish" (as Dawkins knows) at any level of life is merely to be anthropomorphic.

Daniel Dennett, in a new afterword written in 1999, asks if this book is science or philosophy, and he answers both. I agree, and it is science and philosophy of the highest order, aimed equally at the professional and at the educated layperson.

Warning: very different from The Selfish Gene, 11 Mar 2006
This summary is primarily aimed as a warning to readers of the Selfish Gene and other books by Dawmins who are expecting more elaboration on the same theme. This is not the intention of The Extended Phenotype. Instead this book is aimed squarely at professional biologists and other life sciences professionals. The book presents very few down-to-earth examples or interesting facts that would suprise a reader with basic knowledge in the area. The bulk of the book is Dawkins' attempt to advocate his point of view on the subject and he does this by quoting other scientists and arquing his case both with and against these other views. The reader is assumed to know these arguments in advance, and unless you're prepared to read the references, in detail, the majority of the book's content will be remain a mystery.

The essentials of life's story, 15 Aug 2005
Biodiversity is more than a buzzword for ecologists. Variation gives life its grandeur, and Richard Dawkins gives us a description of the workings of variation. Fortunately, with a sharp mind and sharper wit, he has the ability to deliver this portrayal so that nearly everyone can understand it. That's not to say this book is an easy read. Although he delivers his narration as if sitting with you in a quiet study, you may still need to review his words more than once. That's not a challenge or a chore, it's a pleasure.

Dawkins, unlike other science writers, is forthright in declaring his advocacy in writing this book. It's a refreshing start to his most serious effort. After publication of The Selfish Gene led to a storm of fatuous criticism, Extended Phenotype comes in response with more detail of how the gene manifests itself in the organism and its environment. It's clear that Dawkins' critics, who label him an "Ultra-Darwinist" [whatever that is] haven't read this book. His critics frequently argue that The Selfish Gene doesn't operate in a vacuum, but must deal within some kind of environment, from an individual cell to global scenarios. Dawkins deftly responds to critics in describing how genes rely on their environment for successful replication. If the replication doesn't survive in the environment it finds itself, then it, and perhaps its species, will die out.

The child's favourite question, "why" is difficult enough for parents and teachers to answer. Yet, as thinking humans we've become trained to deal with that question nearly every context. So well drilled that we consider something for which that question has no answer to be suspicious if not insidious. Part of Dawkins presentation here reiterates that there is no "why" to either the process of evolution nor its results. It isn't predictable, inevitable or reasonable. It's a tough situation to cope with, but Dawkins describes the mechanism with such precision and clarity, we readily understand "how" if not "why" evolution works. We comprehend because Dawkins does such an outstanding job in presenting its mechanics.

This edition carries three fine finales: Dawkins well thought out bibliography, a glossary, and most prized, indeed, an Afterword by Daniel C. Dennett. If any defense of this book is needed, Dennett is a peerless champion for the task. Dennett's capabilities in logical argument are superbly expressed here. As he's done elsewhere {Darwin's Dangerous Idea], Dennett mourns the lack of orginality and logic among Dawkins' critics. Excepting the more obstinate ones, these seem to be falling by the wayside. It's almost worthwhile reading Dennett's brief essay before starting Dawkins. It would be a gift to readers beyond measure if these two ever collaborated on a book. [stephen a. haines - Ottawa, Canada]

excellent as always, 02 Aug 2005
As much as I love all Dawkins' books, this is probably my favourite. It explains how genes are not content to build organisms to ride around in - they also build structures like beaver dams, nests and so on, which are just as much an expression of genes as overtly biological traits and further perpetuate the genes' selfish 'desires'.

This is a really good treatment of that subject - you are unlikely to find any better.

A lengthy telling of facts that does not enlighten., 30 Jul 2008
I was very disappointed by this book. I had expected a detective story, like the sub-title, and I had expected to get a wider understanding of the topic. With the mention of DNA analysis on the cover, I had expected to get some science, hopefully like Brian Sykes' very readable informative books.

This is not what happens. The author does not _show_ the reader, the author _tells_ the reader, at great length, many many many historical facts. If you are very interested in this part of ancient history and like having a great many facts recited at you, then maybe you will enjoy this book. The facts may well be true but they are not woven into a story and as the reader you don't get to see _why_ these facts are true. For example, why did such-and-such a gene originate in this area and then spread to that area, how do we know it wasn't the other way round? The book doesn't say, it just pompously tells you. And that's just one of the few dozen facts on that page.

Like one of the other reviewers said,

AVOID.

(makes mental note to self to read the Amazon reviews more thoroughly in future before buying books)

Disagree !, 13 Jul 2008
Unlike several of the reviewers, I have found this work very readable, and well presented. I was totally captivated.
Dr. Stephen Oppenheimer by his own admission is not by background an expert in linguistics, archaeology or history. But he is an expert in genetics who has been exasperated at the entrenched dogma in these disciplines, and has extended his research into these areas.
His results are plausible, very lucidly prfesented and a benchmark.
A great read, and very thought provocing !

An in depth re-analyis of 200 years of misinformation on English British roots., 13 Apr 2008
Oppenheimer gives a very convincing new look at pre-Roman Britain. Gone is the simplistic idea of an entirely Celtic people from John O Groats to Kent as perpetuated by the mis-understanding of Bede as propagated since the 1700s. In comes the far more likely idea of several cultures and languages occupying these shores including pre-English and probably pre-Indo-European peoples. With regard to the doubters I would say they doth protest too much. Oppenheimer destroys the idea of an Anglo Saxon genocide of a mythical Celtic England using DNA. He then points out that English has almost no Celt in it and yet is full of Latin. That entirely fits the idea of an already existing pre-English language adopting the words of the Superstrate language of Latin during Roman times. Traditionalists would have us believe that all latin came into English during Norman times. Certainly the Anglo Saxons were invited over to England, but as allies of their kin Vortigern, who was not a Celtic traitor as the Welsh Gildas would have us believe, but was himself Germanic with a latinised name.

The book backs up many ideas which have already been covered by Theo Venneman who believes English to be far older than Roman Britain, and by Colin Renfrew who moved away from the old school idea of all language being carried merely by conquest.

Celtic confusions, 10 Apr 2008
While we in North America have a distressing tendency to lump most of the inhabitants of the British Isles together, those living there are aware of their diversity. That awareness has been carried rather to extremes by some scholars and politicians. "What is a Celt?" has been a key question, as has been its follow-up "What really happened to the Celts?" Tied in with these queries is the problem of finding an origin for the Celts and just what language they spoke. Stephen Oppenheimer addresses these and related issues in a comprehensive "detective story" incorporating history, analytical genetics and linguistic studies. His conclusions, well depicted in this provocative study, will prove surprising to some, and perhaps distressing to a few.

The British Isles, he begins, have the advantage of being invaders of a "terra nullius" [uninhabited land] some fifteen thousand years ago. As the Last Glacial Maximum retreated before the rise of a revived warm period, humans were able to enter a land they'd been driven from thousands of years previously. While this situation offers nothing to the historian, archaeologists and geneticists have a clear starting point for placing and dating the migration. Not an island then, Britain was a peninsula jutting out from the European land mass. That provided an easy route from the Mediterranean shoreline, around what is now Iberia to the southern and western coasts of Britain. Since "western" here now means Eire, it's clear the first adjustment of opinion must accommodate Ireland and Britain. Clearly, there were later population movements, but where did they originate, how long did they last and what numbers of people were involved? Most significantly, what languages did they speak?

From his introductory survey, Oppenheimer proceeds to tease out the answers to these questions. The origins are traced back in time using genetic markers. Mitochondrial DNA, carried down the generations only through female inheritance factors provides one scenario. The Y chromosome, the genetic marker for men is analysed separately, then compared. In most, although not all cases, the matches are mutually supportive. Archaeological finds are used as further indicators which have the advantage of solid dating techniques to support them, unlike the DNA tests which rest on a calculation based on presumed mutation rates. The language question remains contentious. Oppenheimer links it with the spread of farming entering Europe from Anatolia introducing early forms of Celtic into Western Europe. The author's genetic analysis also overturns the idea that farmers "displaced" earlier hunter-gatherer societies in Europe and Britain. Instead, farming was adapted by the resident population and farmers' larger families added some population pressure, but hardly "displacement". The same holds true for the Roman occupation, which was more interested in social stability and tax collecting than genocide.

The post-Roman era has also led to the establishment of displacement myths and their more recent overturning. History, partly thanks to reliance on "Saint" Gildas, has stoked the fires of national sentiments by depicting the Angles and Saxons as a barbarian horde bent on ethnic cleansing of the indigenous "Celtic" peoples. Oppenheimer rejects this tradition, arguing instead that a "warrior elite" may have entered Britain, but this was a small population and a continuation of British-Continental ties in any case. Just who those "barbarians" were is problematic in any case, since the author sees ongoing contact with the Frisian and near shore of Europe rather than a conquering horde emerging from northern Germany. It is now generally accepted that the Norman "Conquest" was only slightly more intrusive than the Roman one, with an elite doing the ruling and the long-lasting indigenous population doing everything else like farming, herding and trading.

A major issue here is language. Linguists, Oppenheimer argues have been keen to avoid dating of language branching, mostly because early attempts came to grief. He goes so far as to separate "Celtic" populations from "celtic" languages. Part of the reason for this is the lack of a written base of celtic to use as a foundation. The Classical Period commentators in Greece and Rome wrote of "Celts" in a vague sort of way, and even a man on the ground, Julius Caesar was unable to make definitive comments about either the people or their languages. More precise cultural details were omitted entirely. Oppenheimer's path through the language issues is inevitably a tortured one, but he makes a serious effort at simplification. Whatever his success is due to a paucity of real data. For him, the genes speak louder than words. [stephen a. haines - Ottawa, Canada]

Next time Stephen, check the text for errors before sending it to the publisher!, 20 Feb 2008
Stephen Oppenheimer should be ashamed of himself. There's interesting stuff trying to escape from his impossibly all-over-the-place, convoluted drafting, but I'm really looking forward to someone else writing a decent book on the subject.

Not least, the second of the three sections is an appalling mess. Where I used to work, if you'd sent out even the most initial, first, provisional draft to a close colleague in this state (repeated or near repeated paragraphs only a page or two apart, mis-labelled diagrams, etc) you'd have been taken out and shot. It isn't just that this middle section hasn't been proof read, the author doesn't appear to have done the barest minimum of reading it down for mistakes.

If I didn't know better, I'd think three sections had been written by different authors!

I also found myself thinking quite a bit about the tiny sample sizes.

That said, I am pretty much convinced by his central argument. However, it's more a matter of applying a bit of common sense to the random splatter of facts and quotes rather than as a result of persuasive, CLEAR argument on Oppenheimer's part. For goodness sake, the next time you set pen to paper, READ IT DOWN before publishing it!

Science writer Matt Ridley's Genome: The Autobiography of a Species in 23 Chapters is an elegant reflection on the significance of being able, for the first time in history, to read our own genes. The book is loosely organised around the stories of one gene per chromosome, rather than the whole genome. This enables Ridley to take in most of the usual topics associated with genes--our relations with other species, the nature of intelligence, the origins of behaviour--and add some new ones. Ridley is a fine writer and explains his selection of genetic stories exceptionally well. This is especially helpful when he is dealing with the intricacies of evolutionary theory or the tangled webs of genes influencing biochemistry influencing behaviour, influencing biochemistry influencing genes. His libertarian-right politics (state intervention bad, individual choice good) cut through many traditional worries about screening, testing and eugenics. The generally even tone only deserts him in a rather bad- tempered discussion of BSE (which starts with the gene for the protein implicated in the disease) and public attitudes to beef-eating. Otherwise, he is almost always persuasive, always interesting. By the time they finish cataloguing all our DNA, there look like being as many books on the subject as there are human genes. This is one of the ones worth having. --John Turney

Absolutely Ingenious., 03 Jan 2009
This is Professor Dawkins' finest piece of work. Not only does he provide his own knowledge and ingenious thinking, but he also ties together the works of Darwin, Hamilton, Fisher, Trivers, and many other great revolutionary Evolutionary Biologists. As a Geneticist, I have studied many of the phenomena that Dawkins discusses, and it is amazing that science has uncovered many of them as late as 30 years after the first publication of this great book.

It is not just Genetics which has had components perfectly explained by this text, but also many other branches of Evolutionary Biology, such as Ethology and Molecular Evolution. A wonderful read, explained so simply and eloquently by arguably the world's greatest Popular Science writer; a book that Carl Sagan himself would have been proud of writing.

Dobzhansky once famously and correctly stated that 'Nothing in Biology makes sense except in the light of Evolution' ; I would go one step further, and state that 'Nothing in Evolution makes sense except in the light of Gene Selection'. Once one has read this book fully, and understood it properly, this statement can be fully appreciated.

I think Dawkins is wrong in his central argument. Here's why:, 29 Dec 2008
The first thing I want to say is how much respect I have for Richard Dawkins as a scientist, as a teacher, as a writer of fascinating prose, and as a person. He is a brilliant and courageous man who works hard to bring his knowledge and insights to all of us. For the record I have read six of his books and reviewed four of them. They are:

The God Delusion (2006)
The Ancestor's Tale: A Pilgrimage to the Dawn of Evolution (2004)
A Devil's Chaplain: Reflections on Hope, Lies, Science, and Love (2003)
The Extended Phenotype: The Long Reach of the Gene (1982; 1999)

The second thing I want to say is that The Selfish Gene is one of the landmark science books of the 20th century, and so I am pleased to see this 30th Anniversary Edition (from 2006) with a new introduction by Dawkins and some new footnotes.

Rather than review the book as a whole, however, as has been done many times, in this review I want to concentrate on the central issue of the book, namely the question of "at what level does natural selection work?"

Dawkins believes that the environment selects certain genes, or more properly speaking, suites of genes and therefore operates primarily at the level of the gene. I disagree and believe this is like saying that the public selects certain letters, or words, or sentences of words when buying a book. The words (or more properly the ideas represented by the words) are the reason the public selects a book, but what the public selects is nonetheless the book. Genes are like ideas in books. Ideas must appear in some medium, even if it is just word of mouth. Genes must appear in organisms, which are the products of both the genetic instructions and the environment in which they develop. Consequently genes help to produce individuals (or in the case of social insects, a group of individuals that can be seen as a single organism). Dawkins calls these individuals "survival machines." In turn the environment selects certain survival machines that contain certain genes.

Another way of expressing this is to say that the environment selects genes by proxy, that is, through the medium of the individual phenotype. The environment cannot directly affect the genes since the genes are safely encapsulated within the survival machine which does not in any Lamackian way communicate with them. The exception is when an electromagnetic particle hits the code and alters it, creating a mutation. The environment does not act on that altered code; instead it acts upon the individual that is born to carry that altered code or lack thereof.

The individual gene itself (if we can speak of such a thing which is just a section of code) doesn't work in isolation. It is always allied for better or for worse with other sections of code. Certain sections of code are reproduced again and again because they are handy or work well with other sections of code in a way that allows the survival machine to reproduce and its offspring to reproduce. But the environment cannot select certain selections of code. It can only select the individual containing that code (and a lot of other code besides). In fact, it cannot just select the individual, it must select its possible mates and even much of its environment as well, such as the plants and animals it uses for food and shelter. To speak of selecting genes or even individual organisms is just a convenient way of talking.

What is really selected is a group of organisms of some kind. Some consider an important group selected by the environment to be the species or the ecology. Giving a large enough perspective, I would go so far as to say (going beyond Lovecock and Gaia) that natural selection operates on the level of life itself.

Another point is that the genes never reproduce themselves by themselves. Nothing in this world that I know of actually reproduces itself by itself, except dividing cells, and they do this only most of the time. As is now known, occasionally bacteria trade genes with other bacteria and thereby reproduce not quite exact copies of themselves. A strand of DNA is replicated with the help of the machinery of the cell. Viruses need cells to replicate themselves. Anything that was one hundred percent effective in making exact copies of itself would not undergo Darwinian evolution and would in fact have died out long ago. The dreaded grey goo of nanobots replicating until they cover the earth is still just a fantasy of science fiction.

The problem with the current understanding of evolution and natural selection is the problem of not seeing that everything is connected. Any place we draw a boundary is artificial or arbitrary. Even at the skin. Franklin M. Harold, in his book, The Way of the Cell: Molecules, Organisms and the Order of Life (2001) writes, "Organisms process matter and energy as well as information; each represents a dynamic node in a whirlpool of several currents, and self-reproduction is a property of the collective, not of genes.... DNA is a peculiar sort of software, that can only be correctly interpreted by its own unique hardware....sending aliens the genome of a cat is no substitute for sending the cat itself--complete with mice." (op cit., p. 221)

For those of you who have read Dawkins' original edition from 1976, this edition is still to be recommended, particularly for the updated bibliography and for the 66 pages of endnotes where Dawkins graciously admits errors and points to new discoveries, most interestingly that of Zahavi's "handicap principle" which goes a long ways toward explaining some "altruistic" behavior. See my Amazon review of The Handicap Principle: A Missing Piece of Darwin's Puzzle (1997) by Amotz and Avishag Zahavi.

Turns life inside out, 28 Oct 2008
The author writes about living things as if the gene is the animal and the animal is simply a seed for the gene. He basically turns life inside out. It's a powerful mind tool to get a different perspective on life but don't get too carried away with the idea. The whole theory of evolution is valuable in understanding the world but like a lot of science it starts to become too difficult to use. So in conclusion I don't believe that the author has discovered the secret of life, he just has another way of looking at things that you may find useful. It should be one of the books you have read.

jean genie, 05 Oct 2008
Dawkins is excellent while he sticks to biology
however he may have lost the plot in the last chapter
as he has in thinking promoting science involves attacking
religion
If an evangalist is someone who does not leave people to work
it out for themselves but pushes his point of view Dawkins is one
Nutty Baptists and Dawkins looked similar on channel 4 for example
ie they both spin world events too far to promote a point of view

Imaginative guessing, 13 Sep 2008
I have attempted to read Dawkins's books on a few occasions but seldom get beyond the first 100 pages. I simply find his style of writing boring and his theories pure imaginative guesswork; I cannot take this author's ideas onboard yet biology fascinates me and especially that of epigenetics which seems to disprove all that this author advocates. I suspect that there is a snobbery value to those who support him. Irrespective of his academic standing I cannot avoid regarding the author as an impostor as I constantly want to wage war with his views. Admittedly, he comes across publicly as a very plausible academic but, this does not sway me.

PS (14/12/08) How interesting that a candid opinion should upset so many; one wonders why?

A great very accessible book on evolution, 09 Mar 2008
I read this one after the 30th anniversary of The Selfish Gene, and though Dawkins states in his intro that he regards this as his best work, I personally prefer the slightly expanded Selfish Gene which takes into account his extended phenotype theory. I guess one further point on this is that there is a lot of repetition between the material in the two works too! He also states that this is aimed at his academic colleagues rather than as a book for the layman but I found the science to be pretty straightforward and commonsense and only needed to check the glossary at the back for about half a dozen words. However, other than those points its pretty much faultless and the plot will keep you gripped to the bitter denoument... I'm certainly looking forward to the sequel!

Difficult but eminently worthwhile, 29 Dec 2006
This is a long and difficult book, although not as long and difficult as it might be if it had been written by somebody without Richard Dawkins' gift for clarity of thought and expression.

The crux of Dawkins' thesis is expressed early on and much of what follows is a very detailed supporting argument. What he wants us to see is that the "selfish gene" has a reach that extends beyond the confines of the individual organism that houses the gene. The phenotype of our genes is the human organism in all its glory; however the extended phenotype of our genes is not only the human organism but part of the environment in which the organism finds itself. In other words, the gene has the power to influence not only our behavior but the behavior and structure of elements in the world in which we live.

This thesis is not as striking to me as it has been to many others mainly because I have studied Eastern religious views, and it is a tenant of such views that the distinction between ourselves (the "selfish organism," in Dawkins' terminology) and the environment is an artificial one, an illusion actually. We are part and parcel of all that is around us and within us, and the boundary of our skin is merely functional. We cannot be understood by looking at only our bodies. Dawkins makes the point that looking at a beaver and microscopically examining it and its genes is not sufficient to an understanding of what a beaver is. We have to also consider the dams that the beaver builds, the trees that it gnaws down and even the streams that it dams and turns into lakes.

Presenting a point of view somewhat at odds with that of Dawkins (and one that I think that Dawkins does not sufficiently appreciate) is Franklin M. Harold in his book, The Way of the Cell: Molecules, Organisms and the Order of Life (2001). He writes, "Organisms process matter and energy as well as information; each represents a dynamic node in a whirlpool of several currents, and self-reproduction is a property of the collective, not of genes.... DNA is a peculiar sort of software, that can only be correctly interpreted by its own unique hardware.... [S]ending aliens the genome of a cat is no substitute for sending the cat itself--complete with mice." (p. 221)

Dawkins tries to discount the view of those he calls "group selectionists" who see life from a "group benefit" viewpoint. Dawkins has, since writing this book, stepped back from this position to allow that some group selection may take place. I believe some day he may see the world not from a "selfish gene" point of view, and not from a "selfish organism" point of view, but from a "selfish ecosystem" perspective--well, more likely his successors will see this, since the work of a lifetime is not easily amended in one's later years.

Dawkins gives what he calls "our own 'central theorem' of the extended phenotype" on page 233: "An animal's behaviour tends to maximize the survival of the genes 'for' that behaviour, whether or not those genes happen to be in the body of the particular animal performing it."

This is a mouthful. Clearly we can say that the genes of the reed warbler code for behavior that benefits the genes of the cuckoo who has laid its egg in the warbler's nest. This is what Dawkins has in mind. But then arises the question, "how far afield can the phenotype extend?" Here Dawkins gets cautious and writes, "The farthest action at a distance I can think of is a matter of several miles." (p. 233) Note the chosen terminology, "action at a distance." This is from physics of course causing Dawkins to ask if there is "a sharp cut-off" of the genes' reach or "an inverse square law" at work?

It is here that I believe Dawkins has come so, so close to that which he will not see (or couldn't see then), namely that everything works toward an ecology and that the idea of selfish genes and selfish organisms is a limited view. In truth the reach of the genes should be governed by something like an inverse square law since humans are now reaching beyond the solar system.

When we look at such great distances we might want to credit the dreaded and verboten "group selection" that Dawkins is at pains to reject. Just as some see our earth as "Gaia," an organism itself, so too might we see those organisms that have the means to survive the destruction of the home planet by migrating to other planets as being selected by group as opposed to other groups who have no such ability. Planet A produces beings that extend beyond their solar system; planet B produces beings that do not. Both planets blow up. Who is "selected" by the (extended) environment and who is not?

Dawkins is one of the geniuses of science, and I don't mean to argue with the great insights he has brought to biology, but my point is that it is always something of an artificiality to speak of living systems as confined to one level of existence or expression. We may think of earth creatures as being completely separate from the rest of the universe, yet without the sun, 93 million miles away, we would not exist; and come a supernova even many light years away, we will be affected.

So all is one and one is all in some extended sense. And using the word "selfish" (as Dawkins knows) at any level of life is merely to be anthropomorphic.

Daniel Dennett, in a new afterword written in 1999, asks if this book is science or philosophy, and he answers both. I agree, and it is science and philosophy of the highest order, aimed equally at the professional and at the educated layperson.

Warning: very different from The Selfish Gene, 11 Mar 2006
This summary is primarily aimed as a warning to readers of the Selfish Gene and other books by Dawmins who are expecting more elaboration on the same theme. This is not the intention of The Extended Phenotype. Instead this book is aimed squarely at professional biologists and other life sciences professionals. The book presents very few down-to-earth examples or interesting facts that would suprise a reader with basic knowledge in the area. The bulk of the book is Dawkins' attempt to advocate his point of view on the subject and he does this by quoting other scientists and arquing his case both with and against these other views. The reader is assumed to know these arguments in advance, and unless you're prepared to read the references, in detail, the majority of the book's content will be remain a mystery.

The essentials of life's story, 15 Aug 2005
Biodiversity is more than a buzzword for ecologists. Variation gives life its grandeur, and Richard Dawkins gives us a description of the workings of variation. Fortunately, with a sharp mind and sharper wit, he has the ability to deliver this portrayal so that nearly everyone can understand it. That's not to say this book is an easy read. Although he delivers his narration as if sitting with you in a quiet study, you may still need to review his words more than once. That's not a challenge or a chore, it's a pleasure.

Dawkins, unlike other science writers, is forthright in declaring his advocacy in writing this book. It's a refreshing start to his most serious effort. After publication of The Selfish Gene led to a storm of fatuous criticism, Extended Phenotype comes in response with more detail of how the gene manifests itself in the organism and its environment. It's clear that Dawkins' critics, who label him an "Ultra-Darwinist" [whatever that is] haven't read this book. His critics frequently argue that The Selfish Gene doesn't operate in a vacuum, but must deal within some kind of environment, from an individual cell to global scenarios. Dawkins deftly responds to critics in describing how genes rely on their environment for successful replication. If the replication doesn't survive in the environment it finds itself, then it, and perhaps its species, will die out.

The child's favourite question, "why" is difficult enough for parents and teachers to answer. Yet, as thinking humans we've become trained to deal with that question nearly every context. So well drilled that we consider something for which that question has no answer to be suspicious if not insidious. Part of Dawkins presentation here reiterates that there is no "why" to either the process of evolution nor its results. It isn't predictable, inevitable or reasonable. It's a tough situation to cope with, but Dawkins describes the mechanism with such precision and clarity, we readily understand "how" if not "why" evolution works. We comprehend because Dawkins does such an outstanding job in presenting its mechanics.

This edition carries three fine finales: Dawkins well thought out bibliography, a glossary, and most prized, indeed, an Afterword by Daniel C. Dennett. If any defense of this book is needed, Dennett is a peerless champion for the task. Dennett's capabilities in logical argument are superbly expressed here. As he's done elsewhere {Darwin's Dangerous Idea], Dennett mourns the lack of orginality and logic among Dawkins' critics. Excepting the more obstinate ones, these seem to be falling by the wayside. It's almost worthwhile reading Dennett's brief essay before starting Dawkins. It would be a gift to readers beyond measure if these two ever collaborated on a book. [stephen a. haines - Ottawa, Canada]

excellent as always, 02 Aug 2005
As much as I love all Dawkins' books, this is probably my favourite. It explains how genes are not content to build organisms to ride around in - they also build structures like beaver dams, nests and so on, which are just as much an expression of genes as overtly biological traits and further perpetuate the genes' selfish 'desires'.

This is a really good treatment of that subject - you are unlikely to find any better.

A lengthy telling of facts that does not enlighten., 30 Jul 2008
I was very disappointed by this book. I had expected a detective story, like the sub-title, and I had expected to get a wider understanding of the topic. With the mention of DNA analysis on the cover, I had expected to get some science, hopefully like Brian Sykes' very readable informative books.

This is not what happens. The author does not _show_ the reader, the author _tells_ the reader, at great length, many many many historical facts. If you are very interested in this part of ancient history and like having a great many facts recited at you, then maybe you will enjoy this book. The facts may well be true but they are not woven into a story and as the reader you don't get to see _why_ these facts are true. For example, why did such-and-such a gene originate in this area and then spread to that area, how do we know it wasn't the other way round? The book doesn't say, it just pompously tells you. And that's just one of the few dozen facts on that page.

Like one of the other reviewers said,

AVOID.

(makes mental note to self to read the Amazon reviews more thoroughly in future before buying books)

Disagree !, 13 Jul 2008
Unlike several of the reviewers, I have found this work very readable, and well presented. I was totally captivated.
Dr. Stephen Oppenheimer by his own admission is not by background an expert in linguistics, archaeology or history. But he is an expert in genetics who has been exasperated at the entrenched dogma in these disciplines, and has extended his research into these areas.
His results are plausible, very lucidly prfesented and a benchmark.
A great read, and very thought provocing !

An in depth re-analyis of 200 years of misinformation on English British roots., 13 Apr 2008
Oppenheimer gives a very convincing new look at pre-Roman Britain. Gone is the simplistic idea of an entirely Celtic people from John O Groats to Kent as perpetuated by the mis-understanding of Bede as propagated since the 1700s. In comes the far more likely idea of several cultures and languages occupying these shores including pre-English and probably pre-Indo-European peoples. With regard to the doubters I would say they doth protest too much. Oppenheimer destroys the idea of an Anglo Saxon genocide of a mythical Celtic England using DNA. He then points out that English has almost no Celt in it and yet is full of Latin. That entirely fits the idea of an already existing pre-English language adopting the words of the Superstrate language of Latin during Roman times. Traditionalists would have us believe that all latin came into English during Norman times. Certainly the Anglo Saxons were invited over to England, but as allies of their kin Vortigern, who was not a Celtic traitor as the Welsh Gildas would have us believe, but was himself Germanic with a latinised name.

The book backs up many ideas which have already been covered by Theo Venneman who believes English to be far older than Roman Britain, and by Colin Renfrew who moved away from the old school idea of all language being carried merely by conquest.

Celtic confusions, 10 Apr 2008
While we in North America have a distressing tendency to lump most of the inhabitants of the British Isles together, those living there are aware of their diversity. That awareness has been carried rather to extremes by some scholars and politicians. "What is a Celt?" has been a key question, as has been its follow-up "What really happened to the Celts?" Tied in with these queries is the problem of finding an origin for the Celts and just what language they spoke. Stephen Oppenheimer addresses these and related issues in a comprehensive "detective story" incorporating history, analytical genetics and linguistic studies. His conclusions, well depicted in this provocative study, will prove surprising to some, and perhaps distressing to a few.

The British Isles, he begins, have the advantage of being invaders of a "terra nullius" [uninhabited land] some fifteen thousand years ago. As the Last Glacial Maximum retreated before the rise of a revived warm period, humans were able to enter a land they'd been driven from thousands of years previously. While this situation offers nothing to the historian, archaeologists and geneticists have a clear starting point for placing and dating the migration. Not an island then, Britain was a peninsula jutting out from the European land mass. That provided an easy route from the Mediterranean shoreline, around what is now Iberia to the southern and western coasts of Britain. Since "western" here now means Eire, it's clear the first adjustment of opinion must accommodate Ireland and Britain. Clearly, there were later population movements, but where did they originate, how long did they last and what numbers of people were involved? Most significantly, what languages did they speak?

From his introductory survey, Oppenheimer proceeds to tease out the answers to these questions. The origins are traced back in time using genetic markers. Mitochondrial DNA, carried down the generations only through female inheritance factors provides one scenario. The Y chromosome, the genetic marker for men is analysed separately, then compared. In most, although not all cases, the matches are mutually supportive. Archaeological finds are used as further indicators which have the advantage of solid dating techniques to support them, unlike the DNA tests which rest on a calculation based on presumed mutation rates. The language question remains contentious. Oppenheimer links it with the spread of farming entering Europe from Anatolia introducing early forms of Celtic into Western Europe. The author's genetic analysis also overturns the idea that farmers "displaced" earlier hunter-gatherer societies in Europe and Britain. Instead, farming was adapted by the resident population and farmers' larger families added some population pressure, but hardly "displacement". The same holds true for the Roman occupation, which was more interested in social stability and tax collecting than genocide.

The post-Roman era has also led to the establishment of displacement myths and their more recent overturning. History, partly thanks to reliance on "Saint" Gildas, has stoked the fires of national sentiments by depicting the Angles and Saxons as a barbarian horde bent on ethnic cleansing of the indigenous "Celtic" peoples. Oppenheimer rejects this tradition, arguing instead that a "warrior elite" may have entered Britain, but this was a small population and a continuation of British-Continental ties in any case. Just who those "barbarians" were is problematic in any case, since the author sees ongoing contact with the Frisian and near shore of Europe rather than a conquering horde emerging from northern Germany. It is now generally accepted that the Norman "Conquest" was only slightly more intrusive than the Roman one, with an elite doing the ruling and the long-lasting indigenous population doing everything else like farming, herding and trading.

A major issue here is language. Linguists, Oppenheimer argues have been keen to avoid dating of language branching, mostly because early attempts came to grief. He goes so far as to separate "Celtic" populations from "celtic" languages. Part of the reason for this is the lack of a written base of celtic to use as a foundation. The Classical Period commentators in Greece and Rome wrote of "Celts" in a vague sort of way, and even a man on the ground, Julius Caesar was unable to make definitive comments about either the people or their languages. More precise cultural details were omitted entirely. Oppenheimer's path through the language issues is inevitably a tortured one, but he makes a serious effort at simplification. Whatever his success is due to a paucity of real data. For him, the genes speak louder than words. [stephen a. haines - Ottawa, Canada]

Next time Stephen, check the text for errors before sending it to the publisher!, 20 Feb 2008
Stephen Oppenheimer should be ashamed of himself. There's interesting stuff trying to escape from his impossibly all-over-the-place, convoluted drafting, but I'm really looking forward to someone else writing a decent book on the subject.

Not least, the second of the three sections is an appalling mess. Where I used to work, if you'd sent out even the most initial, first, provisional draft to a close colleague in this state (repeated or near repeated paragraphs only a page or two apart, mis-labelled diagrams, etc) you'd have been taken out and shot. It isn't just that this middle section hasn't been proof read, the author doesn't appear to have done the barest minimum of reading it down for mistakes.

If I didn't know better, I'd think three sections had been written by different authors!

I also found myself thinking quite a bit about the tiny sample sizes.

That said, I am pretty much convinced by his central argument. However, it's more a matter of applying a bit of common sense to the random splatter of facts and quotes rather than as a result of persuasive, CLEAR argument on Oppenheimer's part. For goodness sake, the next time you set pen to paper, READ IT DOWN before publishing it!

Which bit of the genome makes us so indifferent to our treatment of those species that share 94% of our DNA, 01 Feb 2008
Read for interest rather than serious study.
Can't say I enjoyed it as much as some other reviewers - it is good in parts.

Loosely structured as a romp through the 23 chromosomes of the human genome - the author takes one gene from each chromosome and examines its function. At times the author seems happy to slip the bonds of this literary structure to follow his enthusiasms and interests.

The best bits are the chapters on junk DNA, cancer, and gene therapy.

The worst bit - I still find it odd that scientists can talk dispassionately about the statistical results of procedures which involve injecting diseased tissue into monkey's brains. Indeed the author gets most excited when defending the `rights' of individuals to chose to eat potentially prion-infected meat products (or medicines) produced by an industry which has fed cattle on rendered recycled and infected bovine brain matter. He argues that the low number of human deaths from new variant CJD is an acceptable loss. Really?

Which bit of the genome makes us so indifferent to our treatment of those species that we are initially told share 94% of our DNA?


A great overview of chromosomes and the genome, 07 Oct 2007
A popular science book subtitled "The autobiography of a species in 23 chapters". It goes through the 23 pairs of chromosomes of the human body (including the sex chromosomes X and Y) and discusses one or two of the genes found on each. Topics covered include Life (where human DNA came from and its discovery by Watson and Crick), Intelligence, Disease (although he frequently reminds us that genes do not cause disease), Stress, Memory and Death (programmed cell death called "apoptosis" and it's relation to cancer).

The chapter on Eugenics was perhaps my favourite talking about chromosome 21 and Down symdrome (found when a person has 3 copies of the chromosome compared to the usual 2). It also discussed the idea of sterilising mentally retarded people and criminals which went on in America and Germany, but interestingly not the UK although Winton Churchill was a big fan. Interestingly the chromosomes on the front cover are a photograph of the authors which I didn't realise until I read the note after finishing the book.

You definately need a basic understanding of genetics to appreciate this book. The author does try to explain things without too much terminology, but it's pretty impossible in some places. I really enjoyed it and was surprised to find it is the first science book I have read voluntarily since graduating in 2004. It was a lot to take in and I will definately be reading it again in the future. I am really pleased I finally got around to reading it and although some of it is already out of date (it was published in 2000 and genetics has made so many advances in the last few years) I definately recommend it.


A Good and Informative Read, 02 Jan 2006
This is an excellent book about the genome. It is simple to read even if you only have basic background knowledge of the subject - as the preface explains all the background science you need to know prior to reading the book. However, even if you have a background of science, it is not dumbed down enough to make it dull, as most popular science books are - I found that it contains many interesting facts about the genome that I hadn't known prior to reading it. I highly recommend this book to anyone with an interest in science.

A very effective format for Matt Ridley, 03 Mar 2005
Matt Ridley proves here once again that he is a terrific writer. He has the easy style of a confident journalist and the wide knowledge of an accomplished scholar. He is learned without being stuffy. He proves too that he is a master of analogy and metaphor, understanding that we learn through comparison. I have the sense that he spent a fair amount of his free time looking for apt comparisons to illuminate the ideas of genetics for the general reader. Some examples:

On page 276 he describes the idea that there is a living thing with no DNA as "about as welcome in biology as Luther's principles in Rome."

Or on page 241 talking about apoptosis, in which our cells are programmed to commit suicide: "the body is a totalitarian place."

He even asserts on page 174 that we cannot hope to understand the process of embryotic development without "the handrail of analogy."

My favorite is this from pages 247-248 where he is talking about gene therapy and an engineered retrovirus that doesn't work: "it lands at random...and often fails to get switched on; and the body's immune system, primed by the crack troops of infectious disease, does not miss a clumsy, home-made retrovirus."

Add a sharp wit and an infectious enthusiasm for understanding human behavior and one can see the reasons for his success as an interpreter of the biological sciences. In Genome, Ridley has found a structure and an approach that allows him to wax speculative and philosophical about matters of particular interest to him and to most people. The result is that the reader is treated to a lively mind at work trying to understand ourselves and this world we live in. He uses the 23 chapters, each emphasizing one aspect or our genetic makeup and each dedicated to one of our 23 pairs of chromosomes, to explore such matters as intelligence, instinct, the nature of disease, the effect of stress, the development of personality, memory, death and immortality, etc., and of course sex and--always an important question for Ridley--free will.

Some highlights:

The chapter on stress includes two startling assertions: One, that low status in the pecking order (instead of high cholesterol), lowers our resistence to microbes in our systems, and is the prime mover in making some of us more susceptible to heart attacks (p. 155); and two, that aggression is not caused by high testosterone levels but the other way around (p. 157). On page 171 he makes a similar assertion, namely that serotonin levels (as found in monkeys) are the result of dominate behavior, not the other way around, as has always been thought. These are exciting ideas since they suggest that we can improve our condition through our behavior (akin to "method acting," I suppose). Ridley's arguments strike me as convincing, but see for yourself.

In Chapter 21, he gives us a brief history of eugenics, noting, by the way, that during its heyday the name "Eugene" became popular in England. He spares eugenics practitioners and true believers not at all. He rips them up in true (and uncharacteristic) PC style, and then gets to his point. He likes eugenics but not the way it was practiced with the state coercing the individual. Instead Ridley would like (quoting James Watson on page 299) "to see genetic decisions put in the hands of users" instead of governments. He calls this "genetic screening" and cites the virtual elimination of cystic fibrosis from the Jewish population in the United States as a positive employment of screening from the private sector.

In Chapter 22 he tackles free will, beginning with a joke about there being a gene for free will. Clearly Ridley is in favor of free will, but reading between the lines one see that he knows he is on shaky scientific ground. He quotes the Oxford Dictionary of Philosophy on (David) "Hume's Fork: Either our actions are determined, in which case we are not responsible for them, or they are the result of random events, in which case we are not responsible for them." Ridley believes it is better to imagine the we are guided in our actions by our genes than by our conditioning. He sees nurture as being a more tyrannical dictator, if dictators we have, than our genes. This is not surprising since politically speaking Ridley hates the collective. He would love to have proof of the existence of free will since that is where his heart lies, but I hope that someday he will be comfortable with the understanding that whether we have free will or not (or whether "free will" is even a meaningful concept), one thing is clear: we have the ILLUSION of free will, and that illusion is all compelling. Also, as Ridley notes, society must treat its members as having the ability to make free choices or the whole system of law collapses.

Perhaps the most amazing feat of our genome is the one Ridley writes about in Chapter 12, that of "Self-Assembly." To me that is the really stupefying trick of our genes, to assemble themselves from the code. The twists and turns of such an enormously complex undertaking is, to me, as remote from our understanding and experience as the many dimensions of super string theory.

Other popular writers on science looking for the secret of Matt Ridley's success should note that he gives the reader value both in terms of knowledge and entertainment. He works hard at meaningful communication. He wants the reader above all to understand what he is saying.

Even though I sometimes disagree with him, I always learn something new and interesting from reading his books.

very accessible to all, 28 Jan 2005
Fascinating, a good read for scientists and general readers alike.
NOTE to Alice from UK, we don't have anywhere near 100 million genes! More like ~30,000.

Absolutely Ingenious., 03 Jan 2009
This is Professor Dawkins' finest piece of work. Not only does he provide his own knowledge and ingenious thinking, but he also ties together the works of Darwin, Hamilton, Fisher, Trivers, and many other great revolutionary Evolutionary Biologists. As a Geneticist, I have studied many of the phenomena that Dawkins discusses, and it is amazing that science has uncovered many of them as late as 30 years after the first publication of this great book.

It is not just Genetics which has had components perfectly explained by this text, but also many other branches of Evolutionary Biology, such as Ethology and Molecular Evolution. A wonderful read, explained so simply and eloquently by arguably the world's greatest Popular Science writer; a book that Carl Sagan himself would have been proud of writing.

Dobzhansky once famously and correctly stated that 'Nothing in Biology makes sense except in the light of Evolution' ; I would go one step further, and state that 'Nothing in Evolution makes sense except in the light of Gene Selection'. Once one has read this book fully, and understood it properly, this statement can be fully appreciated.

I think Dawkins is wrong in his central argument. Here's why:, 29 Dec 2008
The first thing I want to say is how much respect I have for Richard Dawkins as a scientist, as a teacher, as a writer of fascinating prose, and as a person. He is a brilliant and courageous man who works hard to bring his knowledge and insights to all of us. For the record I have read six of his books and reviewed four of them. They are:

The God Delusion (2006)
The Ancestor's Tale: A Pilgrimage to the Dawn of Evolution (2004)
A Devil's Chaplain: Reflections on Hope, Lies, Science, and Love (2003)
The Extended Phenotype: The Long Reach of the Gene (1982; 1999)

The second thing I want to say is that The Selfish Gene is one of the landmark science books of the 20th century, and so I am pleased to see this 30th Anniversary Edition (from 2006) with a new introduction by Dawkins and some new footnotes.

Rather than review the book as a whole, however, as has been done many times, in this review I want to concentrate on the central issue of the book, namely the question of "at what level does natural selection work?"

Dawkins believes that the environment selects certain genes, or more properly speaking, suites of genes and therefore operates primarily at the level of the gene. I disagree and believe this is like saying that the public selects certain letters, or words, or sentences of words when buying a book. The words (or more properly the ideas represented by the words) are the reason the public selects a book, but what the public selects is nonetheless the book. Genes are like ideas in books. Ideas must appear in some medium, even if it is just word of mouth. Genes must appear in organisms, which are the products of both the genetic instructions and the environment in which they develop. Consequently genes help to produce individuals (or in the case of social insects, a group of individuals that can be seen as a single organism). Dawkins calls these individuals "survival machines." In turn the environment selects certain survival machines that contain certain genes.

Another way of expressing this is to say that the environment selects genes by proxy, that is, through the medium of the individual phenotype. The environment cannot directly affect the genes since the genes are safely encapsulated within the survival machine which does not in any Lamackian way communicate with them. The exception is when an electromagnetic particle hits the code and alters it, creating a mutation. The environment does not act on that altered code; instead it acts upon the individual that is born to carry that altered code or lack thereof.

The individual gene itself (if we can speak of such a thing which is just a section of code) doesn't work in isolation. It is always allied for better or for worse with other sections of code. Certain sections of code are reproduced again and again because they are handy or work well with other sections of code in a way that allows the survival machine to reproduce and its offspring to reproduce. But the environment cannot select certain selections of code. It can only select the individual containing that code (and a lot of other code besides). In fact, it cannot just select the individual, it must select its possible mates and even much of its environment as well, such as the plants and animals it uses for food and shelter. To speak of selecting genes or even individual organisms is just a convenient way of talking.

What is really selected is a group of organisms of some kind. Some consider an important group selected by the environment to be the species or the ecology. Giving a large enough perspective, I would go so far as to say (going beyond Lovecock and Gaia) that natural selection operates on the level of life itself.

Another point is that the genes never reproduce themselves by themselves. Nothing in this world that I know of actually reproduces itself by itself