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?

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?

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?

Directly Related To What You Already Know, 17 Dec 2002
The enjoyment, or perhaps the utility you'll find with this book, will be directly related to how much you know about Game Theory prior to this read. This book spends, as much time on history and biography as it does on what Game Theory is about, so this work would seem to be most appropriate to those who are new to the material. I had only basic understanding of Game Theory from other books I had read, within which this field of study was mentioned, so for me the book was very worthwhile. The historical and biographic aspects of the book were not new, so there were of less interest to me.

Math need not be a passion for this book to be understood and enjoyed. The various games that are explained and, "played", for the reader actually utilize little in the way of math. Game Theory in practice is about the number of participants, the choices they have, how the games should rationally be played, and how there are played when people replace theory. The results of these games are applicable to daily life, whether it explains how a network will decide the placement of their commercials, why a person will stand in a line of unknown length, or pay more than the true value of an item (like a dollar bill). Peoples behavior often crosses from the irrational to the absurd, and many of these games will point out courses of action almost all readers will have taken at one time or another, when the rational decision was the opposite of what they chose to do.

The book is also a good primer for further reading on Bertrand Russell, John Nash the subject of the movie, "A Beautiful Mind", and John von Neumann, who many considered the most brilliant man alive during his career, and many other great scientists of the 20th Century. There is also review of the development of both the atomic and hydrogen bombs, and the very surprising groups of people that either supported their development and use, and those that were diametrically opposed. There is also some discussion on how Game Theory was and is used to make decisions on a global scale, and also where Game Theory falls short of some of its initial promise.

You will most likely enjoy following "The Prisoner's Dilemma, The Stag Hunt, The Dollar Auction, and So Long Sucker", the last of which often was alleged to have spouses leave the scene of the game is separate cabs. Any one who is inquisitive will enjoy the book, and may be motivated to pursue a variety of its topics further.

An excellent book, introducing game theory effectively., 31 May 2000
This book has been a constant reference for me since I bought it in 1993. It complements such classics as Dawkins' "The Selfish Gene", and Axelrod's "The Evolution of Cooperation". Provides an analytical basis for understanding the development of "society".

The biographical notes on Von Neumann are historically interesting, and provide an elegant counterpoint to the technical material. The alternation of chapters between the two threads is well-done.

A great read, 13 May 2000
I read this a few years back. I found it a good mix of theory and history. After reading it I felt I knew John von Neumann better and also knew why TIT FOR TAT is such a good strategy for iterated games. The latter helped when reading texts on altruistic behaviour in animals.

It motivated me to buy a text book on game theory - so it must have been good.

A good introduction to both game theory and von Neumann, 27 Jul 1999
This should be of interest to both readers concerned with Cold War policy and the development of game theory. Poundstone is one of the more gifted writers (at least regarding narrative skills) to address game theory, an often perplexingly technical subject, offering an interesting, fairly comprehensive introduction to the subject without becoming mired in its more technical aspects. And his characterization of von Neumann, an interesting intellect, is able and compelling.

The life of von Neumann and applications of game theory, 18 Mar 1998
A clear presentation of the prisoner's and other dilemmas, as well as some basic components of game theory. It also provides insight into the life and times of John von Neumann.

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?

Directly Related To What You Already Know, 17 Dec 2002
The enjoyment, or perhaps the utility you'll find with this book, will be directly related to how much you know about Game Theory prior to this read. This book spends, as much time on history and biography as it does on what Game Theory is about, so this work would seem to be most appropriate to those who are new to the material. I had only basic understanding of Game Theory from other books I had read, within which this field of study was mentioned, so for me the book was very worthwhile. The historical and biographic aspects of the book were not new, so there were of less interest to me.

Math need not be a passion for this book to be understood and enjoyed. The various games that are explained and, "played", for the reader actually utilize little in the way of math. Game Theory in practice is about the number of participants, the choices they have, how the games should rationally be played, and how there are played when people replace theory. The results of these games are applicable to daily life, whether it explains how a network will decide the placement of their commercials, why a person will stand in a line of unknown length, or pay more than the true value of an item (like a dollar bill). Peoples behavior often crosses from the irrational to the absurd, and many of these games will point out courses of action almost all readers will have taken at one time or another, when the rational decision was the opposite of what they chose to do.

The book is also a good primer for further reading on Bertrand Russell, John Nash the subject of the movie, "A Beautiful Mind", and John von Neumann, who many considered the most brilliant man alive during his career, and many other great scientists of the 20th Century. There is also review of the development of both the atomic and hydrogen bombs, and the very surprising groups of people that either supported their development and use, and those that were diametrically opposed. There is also some discussion on how Game Theory was and is used to make decisions on a global scale, and also where Game Theory falls short of some of its initial promise.

You will most likely enjoy following "The Prisoner's Dilemma, The Stag Hunt, The Dollar Auction, and So Long Sucker", the last of which often was alleged to have spouses leave the scene of the game is separate cabs. Any one who is inquisitive will enjoy the book, and may be motivated to pursue a variety of its topics further.

An excellent book, introducing game theory effectively., 31 May 2000
This book has been a constant reference for me since I bought it in 1993. It complements such classics as Dawkins' "The Selfish Gene", and Axelrod's "The Evolution of Cooperation". Provides an analytical basis for understanding the development of "society".

The biographical notes on Von Neumann are historically interesting, and provide an elegant counterpoint to the technical material. The alternation of chapters between the two threads is well-done.

A great read, 13 May 2000
I read this a few years back. I found it a good mix of theory and history. After reading it I felt I knew John von Neumann better and also knew why TIT FOR TAT is such a good strategy for iterated games. The latter helped when reading texts on altruistic behaviour in animals.

It motivated me to buy a text book on game theory - so it must have been good.

A good introduction to both game theory and von Neumann, 27 Jul 1999
This should be of interest to both readers concerned with Cold War policy and the development of game theory. Poundstone is one of the more gifted writers (at least regarding narrative skills) to address game theory, an often perplexingly technical subject, offering an interesting, fairly comprehensive introduction to the subject without becoming mired in its more technical aspects. And his characterization of von Neumann, an interesting intellect, is able and compelling.

The life of von Neumann and applications of game theory, 18 Mar 1998
A clear presentation of the prisoner's and other dilemmas, as well as some basic components of game theory. It also provides insight into the life and times of John von Neumann.

A groundbreaking study on effective cooperation, 05 Jan 2009
Every so often a book comes along that is so groundbreaking it changes the popular worldview. This book, written in 1984 by Robert Axelrod, is just such a seminal work, an original analysis that changed the way experts view cooperation. Its ramifications apply to individuals, organizations, countries and even nonthinking - but nevertheless cooperative - biological life forms, such as bacteria. Axelrod based his book on the famous Prisoner's Dilemma, a classic game created in 1950 by Merrill Flood and Melvin Dresher of the Rand Corporation. Canadian mathematician Albert W. Tucker added the prison sentence payoffs and gave the game its colorful name. Players have two choices: cooperation or betrayal. Axelrod organized two repeating Prisoner's Dilemma tournaments played by computer programs devised by game theorists, scientists and other experts. His analysis of the tournaments' results confirmed that cooperation is always a better long-term strategy than betrayal and, thus, evolution has favored it. This book, based on that analysis, has become a true classic. getAbstract suggests that anyone who wants to understand the dynamics of cooperation should start by reading this pivotal, illuminating study.

An "ah ha" type read. A game-theoretical analysis of how co-operation can defeat selfishness. , 23 Jul 2008
I have to admit this is not a riveting read. It is largely a factual description of experiments Axelrod carried out over a number of years, with a variety of experts competing to find the most successful tactics in games of iterated prisoner's dilemma.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prisoner%27s_dilemma

However the outcome of the research is truly eye-opening and fascinating. Unlike a single round game of prisoner's dilemma (where co-operation is, to say the least, dangerous), the most successful tactics were to co-operate rather than act selfishly, unless that co-operative behaviour was abused by the other player (in which case neither player would do very well). Axelrod also shows how co-operation can spread through a network squeezing out selfish behaviour.

You know the book has to be worth a read when Richard Dawkin's, author of the Selfish Gene, writes in the introduction:

"THIS IS A book of optimism. But it is believable, realistic optimism... As Darwinians we start pessimistically by assuming deep selfishness, pitiless indifference to suffering, ruthless heed to individual success. And yet from such warped beginnings, something that is in effect, if not necessarily in intention, close to amicable brotherhood and sisterhood can come. This is the uplifting message of Robert Axelrod's remarkable book."

There we are, a book to save Dawkins from himself - has to be good.

A warming book, for all those pessimists and misanthropists!, 25 Aug 2007
Axelrod lays out his findings with patience and a kind pace - it is all thoroughly graspable, referenceable in ones memory, and excitingly comparable when held up against real world models and events, some of which he analyses in the book itself, including a fascinating account of the cooperation that emerged - apparently against all odds - in WW2.

Its an exciting continuation to the synopsis written in 'The Selfish Gene' (revised edition) by Richard Dawkins, and satisfied my intrigue in the subject! Axelrod grounds the books central theories in biology with the help of John Maynard Smith.

Can cooperation emerge among egoistic individuums?, 02 May 2000
Sometimes, the individual benefit seems to conflict with the benefit of the community as a whole, even though the community includes this very individuum. One such example has been formulated as the Prisonner's Dilemma: two suspects, A and B, are arrested, and kept separated so that they cannot communicate. If they continue to cooperate, they will be both sentenced to one year. However, if suspect A cooperates, but suspect B defects, A is going to be sentenced to five years, and suspect B will be released. Vice versa, if B cooperates and A defects, A will be released and B sentenced to five years. Finally, if both defect, they will both be sentenced to three years each.

It is clear that the best solution for both of them is cooperation. On the other hand, each individual is also tempted to maximize his own individual benefit. And each of them benefits most if he decides to defect, which in turn brings the worst possible outcome for both (six years total). So one-shot Prisonner's Dilemma rarely leads to cooperation. Now, what if the very two chaps are later arrested again? Will they cooperate when given another chance? And if they know they will face the same situation every five years? Professor Axelrod tested the iterated Prisonner's Dilemma with computer programs, and investigated under which circumstances cooperation can emerge.

The book is nicely scattered with fragments of game theory and examples from world politics. All in all, as Richard Dawkins has commented in the foreword to the Penguin edition of this book, in breathes with optimism, and is a delight to read. Still, it has one problem, and actually shares it with Dawkins: the book reaches its climax right at the beginning. The book starts with a strong and very convincing idea, but later fails to keep the same pace of dynamic. The idea is splendid, but the structure of the book could be improved.

A Beautiful Mind in some ways could join the ranks of stories of famously eccentric Princetonians--such as that of chemist Hubert Alyea, the model for The Absent-Minded Professor, or Ralph Nader, said to have had his own key to the library as an undergraduate. Another much-related story on campus concerns the "Phantom of Fine Hall", a figure many students had seen shuffling around the corridors of the maths and physics building wearing purple sneakers and writing numerology treatises on the blackboards. This was in fact John Nash, one of the most brilliant mathematicians of his generation, who had spiralled into schizophrenia in the 1950s. His most important work had been in game theory, which by the 1980s was underpinning a large part of economics. When the Nobel Prize committee began debating a prize for game theory, Nash's name inevitably came up--only to be dismissed, since the prize clearly could not go to a madman. But in 1994 Nash, in remission from schizophrenia, shared the Nobel Prize in economics for work done some 45 years previously.

Economist and journalist Sylvia Nasar has written a biography of Nash that looks at all sides of his life. She gives an intelligent, understandable exposition of his mathematical ideas and a picture of schizophrenia that is evocative but decidedly unromantic. Her story of the machinations behind Nash's Nobel is fascinating and one of very few such accounts available in print (the CIA could learn a thing or two from the Nobel committees). This highly recommended book is indeed "a story about the mystery of the human mind, in three acts: genius, madness, reawakening". --Mary Ellen Curtin, Amazon.comStories of famously eccentric Princetonians abound--such as that of chemist Hubert Alyea, the model for The Absent-Minded Professor, or Ralph Nader, said to have had his own key to the library as an undergraduate. Or the "Phantom of Fine Hall", a figure many students had seen shuffling around the corridors of the maths and physics building wearing purple sneakers and writing numerology treatises on the blackboards. The Phantom was John Nash, one of the most brilliant mathematicians of his generation, who had descended into schizophrenia in the 1950s. His most important work had been in game theory, which by the 1980s was underpinning much current economic theory. When the Nobel Prize committee began debating a prize for game theory, Nash's name inevitably came up-- only to be dismissed, since the prize clearly could not go to a madman. But in 1994 Nash, in remission from schizophrenia, shared the Nobel Prize in Economics for work done some 45 years previously.

Economist and journalist Sylvia Nasar has written a biography of Nash that looks at all sides of his life. She gives an intelligent, understandable exposition of his mathematical ideas and a picture of schizophrenia that is evocative but decidedly unromantic. Her story of the machinations behind Nash's Nobel Prize is fascinating and one of very few such accounts available in print (the CIA could learn a thing or two from the Nobel committees). This highly recommended book is indeed "a story about the mystery of the human mind, in three acts: genius, madness, reawakening." -- Mary Ellen Curtin

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?

Directly Related To What You Already Know, 17 Dec 2002
The enjoyment, or perhaps the utility you'll find with this book, will be directly related to how much you know about Game Theory prior to this read. This book spends, as much time on history and biography as it does on what Game Theory is about, so this work would seem to be most appropriate to those who are new to the material. I had only basic understanding of Game Theory from other books I had read, within which this field of study was mentioned, so for me the book was very worthwhile. The historical and biographic aspects of the book were not new, so there were of less interest to me.

Math need not be a passion for this book to be understood and enjoyed. The various games that are explained and, "played", for the reader actually utilize little in the way of math. Game Theory in practice is about the number of participants, the choices they have, how the games should rationally be played, and how there are played when people replace theory. The results of these games are applicable to daily life, whether it explains how a network