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 imposter as I constantly want to wage war with his views. Admittedly, he comes across publicly as a very plausible academic but, that does not sway me.

Blind theorizing, 27 Jun 2008
Dawkins writes that "the argument of this book is that we, and all other animals, are machines created by our genes" (p.xxi) and that "We are survival machines - robot vehicles blindly programmed to preserve the selfish molecules known as genes" (p.xxi). Yet, according to him, this book "is not science fiction; it is science" (p.xxi)!

Dawkins contrives to overlook the twin discoveries that:
1. the observable traits of organisms are mostly conditioned by the interactions of many genes;
2. most genes have multiple effects on many of these traits.

Dawkins transfers characteristics with which he is familiar from human behaviour on the macro-level to the inanimate components, "genes", of which we are physically constructed. He then proceeds to argue that these impersonal entities, which he imagines to possess characteristically human traits, infallibly generate the same unpleasant traits in human behaviour on the macro-level. So he writes: "The gene is the basic unit of selfishness" (p.36).

The absurdity is evident in that genes or other nonconscious entities cannot be either selfish or unselfish. They cannot "compete" against anything or "choose" anything.

If Dawkins were right, what would be the point of declaring, as he does: "Let us try to *teach* generosity and altruism, because we are born selfish" (p.3)? For if we really were machines, as he believes, even these very concepts would be meaningless to us. And certainly his oratory could have no effect whatever on our actual behaviour.

In fact genes do not force us to behave in any particular way. Neither can they possess the ability to direct or to comprehend all that is required to adopt a course of either heartless selfishness or heartfelt, sacrificial compassion.

The arguments in this review have been challenged by the claim that Dawkins himself answers these charges. His claim is, in effect, that that "the evolution of behavioural reactions or patterns via natural selection" and "control by nonconscious mechanisms" are two vastly different ideas. Also it is said that Dawkins does not deny a freedom of choice as the very last lines in this book itself "celebrate the human ability to make choices that transcend genetic control and instinctive reactions." So it is said that Dawkins "repeatedly draws clear distinctions" to prevent his readers from jumping to the conclusions expressed above.

However, there is a vast difference between asserting that such distinctions exist and actually laying a solid theoretical foundation for such distinctions. To lay the kinds of foundations which Dawkins does and then to go on to insist that these foundations do not lead to their logical conclusion is nothing less than an act of faith on Dawkins' part. It certainly does not bestow any validity upon Dawkins alleged distinctions. The bottom line is that Dawkins' presuppositions simply do not lead logically to the sort of distinction which he asserts.

Essentially this debate is an argument not about data, but about underlying assumptions. Here is a example of what I mean:

ASSUMPTION: 1. "evolution is true";
DATUM: 2. "human beings have consciousness";
ASSUMPTION: 3. "therefore evolution is capable of generating consciousness".

Once again, it is a case of "garbage in, garbage out" (as Dawkins himself would say).



Scientifically sound but philosophically flawed, 29 May 2008
Darwin's theory of evolution is no doubt a successful scientific hypothesis, and Prof. Dawkins brings across this very clearly. However, I do have some doubts regarding his philosophical assertions.

Essentially Prof. Dawkins believes that:

1) Selfishness and competition is at the root of all biological phenomena - nature as "red in tooth and claw"
2) There is no basic "dis-continuity" between humanity and other animals - humans are not qualitatively different from other animals
3) There is however no ethical dilemma between this basic fact and the human desire for goodness - since descriptive and normative realities are intrinsically separate (what is and what should be are independent of each other)

Yet the basis for point 3) - the inherent seperation of "what is" and "what ought to be" is just a philosophical assertion. Prof. Dawkins is very correct in stating that the belief in God and all other religious assertions should be treated and critically analysed as scientific hypotheses. However, strictly speaking this should go beyond the subject of religion to include every other field of human intellectual activity, including of course philosophy itself. If we treat the assertion "'what is' is fundamentally separate from 'what ought to be'" as a strict scientific hypothesis in the same sense that "God exists" is treated as such a hypothesis, then it has to be said that it is no more than just a blank assertion without any kind of empirical justification.

In other words, Prof. Dawkins is mistaken in assuming that his particular view of evolution and Darwinism does not leave us with an ethical dilemma, because it evidently does. The only argument Prof. Dawkins has offered against this is the mere assertion that "what ought to be" must be seperate from "what is", yet this assertion, just like religious assertions regarding God, cannot be scientifically or empirically proven.

It's hard to talk about The Origin of Species without making statements that seem overwrought and fulsome. But it's true: this is indeed one of the most important and influential books ever written, and it is one of the very few groundbreaking works of science that is truly readable.

To a certain extent it suffers from the Hamlet problem--it's full of clichés! Or what are now clichés, but which Darwin was the first to pen. Natural selection, variation, the struggle for existence, survival of the fittest: it's all in here.

Darwin's friend and "bulldog" T. H. Huxley said upon reading the Origin, "How extremely stupid of me not to have thought of that." Alfred Russel Wallace had thought of the same theory of evolution Darwin did, but it was Darwin who gathered the mass of supporting evidence--on domestic animals and plants, on variability, on sexual selection, on dispersal--that swept most scientists before it. It's hardly necessary to mention that the book is still controversial: Darwin's remark in his conclusion that "Light will be thrown on the origin of man and his history" is surely the pinnacle of British understatement. --Mary Ellen Curtin, Amazon.com

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 imposter as I constantly want to wage war with his views. Admittedly, he comes across publicly as a very plausible academic but, that does not sway me.

Blind theorizing, 27 Jun 2008
Dawkins writes that "the argument of this book is that we, and all other animals, are machines created by our genes" (p.xxi) and that "We are survival machines - robot vehicles blindly programmed to preserve the selfish molecules known as genes" (p.xxi). Yet, according to him, this book "is not science fiction; it is science" (p.xxi)!

Dawkins contrives to overlook the twin discoveries that:
1. the observable traits of organisms are mostly conditioned by the interactions of many genes;
2. most genes have multiple effects on many of these traits.

Dawkins transfers characteristics with which he is familiar from human behaviour on the macro-level to the inanimate components, "genes", of which we are physically constructed. He then proceeds to argue that these impersonal entities, which he imagines to possess characteristically human traits, infallibly generate the same unpleasant traits in human behaviour on the macro-level. So he writes: "The gene is the basic unit of selfishness" (p.36).

The absurdity is evident in that genes or other nonconscious entities cannot be either selfish or unselfish. They cannot "compete" against anything or "choose" anything.

If Dawkins were right, what would be the point of declaring, as he does: "Let us try to *teach* generosity and altruism, because we are born selfish" (p.3)? For if we really were machines, as he believes, even these very concepts would be meaningless to us. And certainly his oratory could have no effect whatever on our actual behaviour.

In fact genes do not force us to behave in any particular way. Neither can they possess the ability to direct or to comprehend all that is required to adopt a course of either heartless selfishness or heartfelt, sacrificial compassion.

The arguments in this review have been challenged by the claim that Dawkins himself answers these charges. His claim is, in effect, that that "the evolution of behavioural reactions or patterns via natural selection" and "control by nonconscious mechanisms" are two vastly different ideas. Also it is said that Dawkins does not deny a freedom of choice as the very last lines in this book itself "celebrate the human ability to make choices that transcend genetic control and instinctive reactions." So it is said that Dawkins "repeatedly draws clear distinctions" to prevent his readers from jumping to the conclusions expressed above.

However, there is a vast difference between asserting that such distinctions exist and actually laying a solid theoretical foundation for such distinctions. To lay the kinds of foundations which Dawkins does and then to go on to insist that these foundations do not lead to their logical conclusion is nothing less than an act of faith on Dawkins' part. It certainly does not bestow any validity upon Dawkins alleged distinctions. The bottom line is that Dawkins' presuppositions simply do not lead logically to the sort of distinction which he asserts.

Essentially this debate is an argument not about data, but about underlying assumptions. Here is a example of what I mean:

ASSUMPTION: 1. "evolution is true";
DATUM: 2. "human beings have consciousness";
ASSUMPTION: 3. "therefore evolution is capable of generating consciousness".

Once again, it is a case of "garbage in, garbage out" (as Dawkins himself would say).



Scientifically sound but philosophically flawed, 29 May 2008
Darwin's theory of evolution is no doubt a successful scientific hypothesis, and Prof. Dawkins brings across this very clearly. However, I do have some doubts regarding his philosophical assertions.

Essentially Prof. Dawkins believes that:

1) Selfishness and competition is at the root of all biological phenomena - nature as "red in tooth and claw"
2) There is no basic "dis-continuity" between humanity and other animals - humans are not qualitatively different from other animals
3) There is however no ethical dilemma between this basic fact and the human desire for goodness - since descriptive and normative realities are intrinsically separate (what is and what should be are independent of each other)

Yet the basis for point 3) - the inherent seperation of "what is" and "what ought to be" is just a philosophical assertion. Prof. Dawkins is very correct in stating that the belief in God and all other religious assertions should be treated and critically analysed as scientific hypotheses. However, strictly speaking this should go beyond the subject of religion to include every other field of human intellectual activity, including of course philosophy itself. If we treat the assertion "'what is' is fundamentally separate from 'what ought to be'" as a strict scientific hypothesis in the same sense that "God exists" is treated as such a hypothesis, then it has to be said that it is no more than just a blank assertion without any kind of empirical justification.

In other words, Prof. Dawkins is mistaken in assuming that his particular view of evolution and Darwinism does not leave us with an ethical dilemma, because it evidently does. The only argument Prof. Dawkins has offered against this is the mere assertion that "what ought to be" must be seperate from "what is", yet this assertion, just like religious assertions regarding God, cannot be scientifically or empirically proven.

something every bookshelf should have, 02 Apr 2008
This is of corse the basis for modern evolutionary works ,that being so it's not quite acurate to todays knowlege so this book is more of a historical book.This particular book is of good quality and structure with detailed image of the different species used as examples.

A FANTASTIC CLASSIC, 05 Jan 2008
Yes, it's dense but a must for evolution buffs. A vastly more entertaining read: NATURAL SELECTION by Dave Freedman, all about the evolution of a new species of flying predator! What makes it fantastic is that while a work of fiction it's brilliantly researched, actually teaches you what evolution really is. It gets into the evolution of the brain, the lung, flight - really cool stuff - but unlike dry textbooks, does it at warp speed. I literally could not put this book down, read it cover to cover in 2 days. A tremendous "fictional complement" to Darwin's master work.

Great Scientist, 29 Dec 2005
Many people assume that Darwin's initial account of natural selection is so out of date that it is to be avoided in favour of more recent text books of evolutionary theory. While it is true that huge gains have been made in the one and a half centuries since the first publication of "The Origin", there is nothing in this work which is wrong. Darwin was too good a scientist and too cautious.

Some claim that Darwin admitted of the possibility of Lamarkian mechanisms. They have not read the original. Darwin knew nothing of the molecular basis of genetics, but knew that natural selection did not need a Lamarkian mechanism. He simply did not rule it out, although he found it improbable. Everything that is stated in this great classic is as true today as it was at the time of first publication.

It is also said that Charles Darwin was a lesser intellectual when compared to most other great names of science; that he was a plodder, a naturalist, a sort of gentleman stamp collector who pressed flowers into his books and barely a scientist in the contemporary sense. This is nonsense. Darwin was one of the giants of rigorous systematic thinking; the kind of rigorous thinking and critical attitude that asks the right questions and provides the capacity to answer them. Let me buttress this claim with one example.

At the end of chapter six Darwin noted that the theory of natural selection could not account for structures or behaviors found in one species that exist solely for the benefit of another unrelated species. In setting out the theoretical terms for the refutation of the theory in this way, he anticipated Karl Popper, that analytical non-nonsense philosopher of science, by more than a century.

I recommend you read this book with an attentive curious analytical mind. You will find yourself walking in the footsteps of an intellectual giant.

Can't tell a book by its cover, 18 Jun 2004
This is a review of ISBN: 0517123207, with a cover that was defiantly made to be provocative. It depicts an (ape) allying view of going from all fours to upright. If this is what you are looking for then you need to read " 2001 : A Space Odyssey" by Arthur Charles Clarke.
This is a quick review of the book not a dissertation on Darwin or any other subject loosely related. At first I did not know what to expect. I already read " The Voyage of the Beagle : Charles Darwin's Journal of Researches" ISBN: 014043268X (see my review May 24, 2000). I figured the book would be similar. However I found "Origin" to be more complex and detailed.
Taking in account that recent pieces of knowledge were not available to Charles Darwin this book could have been written last week. Having to look from the outside without the knowledge of DNA or Plate Tectonics, he pretty much nailed how the environment and crossbreeding would have an effect on natural selection. Speaking of natural selection, I thought his was going to be some great insight to a new concept. All it means is that species are not being mucked around by man (artificial selection).
If you picked up Time magazine today you would find all the things that Charles said would be near impossible to find or do. Yet he predicted that it is doable in theory. With an imperfect geological record many things he was not able to find at the writing of this book have been found (according to the possibilities described in the book.)
The only draw back to the book was his constant apologizing. If he had more time and space he could prove this and that. Or it looks like this but who can say at this time. Or the same evidence can be interpreted 180 degrees different.
In the end it is worth reading and you will never look at life the same way again.

Buy this book and decide for your self!!, 18 Mar 2003
The Origin of Species is a great read and of interest to anyone who would like to make there own mind up about Darwinism rather than take for granted some ones else's opinion. Darwin makes this book very readable to the masses I my self am not I Biology student but managed to understand the book with relative ease and Darwin helps this along by using everyday language. This book is also of particular interest to any one who is interested in ideas and philosophies of the period since Darwin frequently referees to the ideas of his peers and fellow "naturalists".

I would also like to say that maybe this book might not have all the up-to-date scientific information in it (after all it was published in the 1850's) and yes it is true we know allot more about evolution than Darwin did but for the average person like my self who has little education the Biology field I can say I learnt allot about evolution, ideas of the time and of Darwin himself.

I urge everyone to read this book whether Atheist, Christian, Buddhist or anything else because this book is not the devilish attack on religion it has been distorted to be over the years but simply an ordinary guy who liked to watch his pigeons and flowers grow and change between generations. He then came up with the idea that creatures and plants evolved between generations to suit there environment and were not all created by god in there current forms. I also believe Darwin to be a very tasteful writer who took care to upset as few people as possible and wrote in a very humble way in fact he dedicates a whole chapter to the problems of his theory.

A great read what ever you believe buy this book and make your own mind up about evolution!!

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 imposter as I constantly want to wage war with his views. Admittedly, he comes across publicly as a very plausible academic but, that does not sway me.

Blind theorizing, 27 Jun 2008
Dawkins writes that "the argument of this book is that we, and all other animals, are machines created by our genes" (p.xxi) and that "We are survival machines - robot vehicles blindly programmed to preserve the selfish molecules known as genes" (p.xxi). Yet, according to him, this book "is not science fiction; it is science" (p.xxi)!

Dawkins contrives to overlook the twin discoveries that:
1. the observable traits of organisms are mostly conditioned by the interactions of many genes;
2. most genes have multiple effects on many of these traits.

Dawkins transfers characteristics with which he is familiar from human behaviour on the macro-level to the inanimate components, "genes", of which we are physically constructed. He then proceeds to argue that these impersonal entities, which he imagines to possess characteristically human traits, infallibly generate the same unpleasant traits in human behaviour on the macro-level. So he writes: "The gene is the basic unit of selfishness" (p.36).

The absurdity is evident in that genes or other nonconscious entities cannot be either selfish or unselfish. They cannot "compete" against anything or "choose" anything.

If Dawkins were right, what would be the point of declaring, as he does: "Let us try to *teach* generosity and altruism, because we are born selfish" (p.3)? For if we really were machines, as he believes, even these very concepts would be meaningless to us. And certainly his oratory could have no effect whatever on our actual behaviour.

In fact genes do not force us to behave in any particular way. Neither can they possess the ability to direct or to comprehend all that is required to adopt a course of either heartless selfishness or heartfelt, sacrificial compassion.

The arguments in this review have been challenged by the claim that Dawkins himself answers these charges. His claim is, in effect, that that "the evolution of behavioural reactions or patterns via natural selection" and "control by nonconscious mechanisms" are two vastly different ideas. Also it is said that Dawkins does not deny a freedom of choice as the very last lines in this book itself "celebrate the human ability to make choices that transcend genetic control and instinctive reactions." So it is said that Dawkins "repeatedly draws clear distinctions" to prevent his readers from jumping to the conclusions expressed above.

However, there is a vast difference between asserting that such distinctions exist and actually laying a solid theoretical foundation for such distinctions. To lay the kinds of foundations which Dawkins does and then to go on to insist that these foundations do not lead to their logical conclusion is nothing less than an act of faith on Dawkins' part. It certainly does not bestow any validity upon Dawkins alleged distinctions. The bottom line is that Dawkins' presuppositions simply do not lead logically to the sort of distinction which he asserts.

Essentially this debate is an argument not about data, but about underlying assumptions. Here is a example of what I mean:

ASSUMPTION: 1. "evolution is true";
DATUM: 2. "human beings have consciousness";
ASSUMPTION: 3. "therefore evolution is capable of generating consciousness".

Once again, it is a case of "garbage in, garbage out" (as Dawkins himself would say).



Scientifically sound but philosophically flawed, 29 May 2008
Darwin's theory of evolution is no doubt a successful scientific hypothesis, and Prof. Dawkins brings across this very clearly. However, I do have some doubts regarding his philosophical assertions.

Essentially Prof. Dawkins believes that:

1) Selfishness and competition is at the root of all biological phenomena - nature as "red in tooth and claw"
2) There is no basic "dis-continuity" between humanity and other animals - humans are not qualitatively different from other animals
3) There is however no ethical dilemma between this basic fact and the human desire for goodness - since descriptive and normative realities are intrinsically separate (what is and what should be are independent of each other)

Yet the basis for point 3) - the inherent seperation of "what is" and "what ought to be" is just a philosophical assertion. Prof. Dawkins is very correct in stating that the belief in God and all other religious assertions should be treated and critically analysed as scientific hypotheses. However, strictly speaking this should go beyond the subject of religion to include every other field of human intellectual activity, including of course philosophy itself. If we treat the assertion "'what is' is fundamentally separate from 'what ought to be'" as a strict scientific hypothesis in the same sense that "God exists" is treated as such a hypothesis, then it has to be said that it is no more than just a blank assertion without any kind of empirical justification.

In other words, Prof. Dawkins is mistaken in assuming that his particular view of evolution and Darwinism does not leave us with an ethical dilemma, because it evidently does. The only argument Prof. Dawkins has offered against this is the mere assertion that "what ought to be" must be seperate from "what is", yet this assertion, just like religious assertions regarding God, cannot be scientifically or empirically proven.

something every bookshelf should have, 02 Apr 2008
This is of corse the basis for modern evolutionary works ,that being so it's not quite acurate to todays knowlege so this book is more of a historical book.This particular book is of good quality and structure with detailed image of the different species used as examples.

A FANTASTIC CLASSIC, 05 Jan 2008
Yes, it's dense but a must for evolution buffs. A vastly more entertaining read: NATURAL SELECTION by Dave Freedman, all about the evolution of a new species of flying predator! What makes it fantastic is that while a work of fiction it's brilliantly researched, actually teaches you what evolution really is. It gets into the evolution of the brain, the lung, flight - really cool stuff - but unlike dry textbooks, does it at warp speed. I literally could not put this book down, read it cover to cover in 2 days. A tremendous "fictional complement" to Darwin's master work.

Great Scientist, 29 Dec 2005
Many people assume that Darwin's initial account of natural selection is so out of date that it is to be avoided in favour of more recent text books of evolutionary theory. While it is true that huge gains have been made in the one and a half centuries since the first publication of "The Origin", there is nothing in this work which is wrong. Darwin was too good a scientist and too cautious.

Some claim that Darwin admitted of the possibility of Lamarkian mechanisms. They have not read the original. Darwin knew nothing of the molecular basis of genetics, but knew that natural selection did not need a Lamarkian mechanism. He simply did not rule it out, although he found it improbable. Everything that is stated in this great classic is as true today as it was at the time of first publication.

It is also said that Charles Darwin was a lesser intellectual when compared to most other great names of science; that he was a plodder, a naturalist, a sort of gentleman stamp collector who pressed flowers into his books and barely a scientist in the contemporary sense. This is nonsense. Darwin was one of the giants of rigorous systematic thinking; the kind of rigorous thinking and critical attitude that asks the right questions and provides the capacity to answer them. Let me buttress this claim with one example.

At the end of chapter six Darwin noted that the theory of natural selection could not account for structures or behaviors found in one species that exist solely for the benefit of another unrelated species. In setting out the theoretical terms for the refutation of the theory in this way, he anticipated Karl Popper, that analytical non-nonsense philosopher of science, by more than a century.

I recommend you read this book with an attentive curious analytical mind. You will find yourself walking in the footsteps of an intellectual giant.

Can't tell a book by its cover, 18 Jun 2004
This is a review of ISBN: 0517123207, with a cover that was defiantly made to be provocative. It depicts an (ape) allying view of going from all fours to upright. If this is what you are looking for then you need to read " 2001 : A Space Odyssey" by Arthur Charles Clarke.
This is a quick review of the book not a dissertation on Darwin or any other subject loosely related. At first I did not know what to expect. I already read " The Voyage of the Beagle : Charles Darwin's Journal of Researches" ISBN: 014043268X (see my review May 24, 2000). I figured the book would be similar. However I found "Origin" to be more complex and detailed.
Taking in account that recent pieces of knowledge were not available to Charles Darwin this book could have been written last week. Having to look from the outside without the knowledge of DNA or Plate Tectonics, he pretty much nailed how the environment and crossbreeding would have an effect on natural selection. Speaking of natural selection, I thought his was going to be some great insight to a new concept. All it means is that species are not being mucked around by man (artificial selection).
If you picked up Time magazine today you would find all the things that Charles said would be near impossible to find or do. Yet he predicted that it is doable in theory. With an imperfect geological record many things he was not able to find at the writing of this book have been found (according to the possibilities described in the book.)
The only draw back to the book was his constant apologizing. If he had more time and space he could prove this and that. Or it looks like this but who can say at this time. Or the same evidence can be interpreted 180 degrees different.
In the end it is worth reading and you will never look at life the same way again.

Buy this book and decide for your self!!, 18 Mar 2003
The Origin of Species is a great read and of interest to anyone who would like to make there own mind up about Darwinism rather than take for granted some ones else's opinion. Darwin makes this book very readable to the masses I my self am not I Biology student but managed to understand the book with relative ease and Darwin helps this along by using everyday language. This book is also of particular interest to any one who is interested in ideas and philosophies of the period since Darwin frequently referees to the ideas of his peers and fellow "naturalists".

I would also like to say that maybe this book might not have all the up-to-date scientific information in it (after all it was published in the 1850's) and yes it is true we know allot more about evolution than Darwin did but for the average person like my self who has little education the Biology field I can say I learnt allot about evolution, ideas of the time and of Darwin himself.

I urge everyone to read this book whether Atheist, Christian, Buddhist or anything else because this book is not the devilish attack on religion it has been distorted to be over the years but simply an ordinary guy who liked to watch his pigeons and flowers grow and change between generations. He then came up with the idea that creatures and plants evolved between generations to suit there environment and were not all created by god in there current forms. I also believe Darwin to be a very tasteful writer who took care to upset as few people as possible and wrote in a very humble way in fact he dedicates a whole chapter to the problems of his theory.

A great read what ever you believe buy this book and make your own mind up about evolution!!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Few scientific theories have been as influential or controversial in the past few centuries as Darwin's thoughts on natural selection; even now, laymen and scientists find fault with Darwin's argument. Richard Dawkins, the chair of the communication of science at Oxford University, has delivered a well-researched book supporting and supplementing Darwin's theories. Although not a work of Darwinian proportions, Climbing Mount Improbable is an advancement of those theories for scientists and general readers alike.

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 imposter as I constantly want to wage war with his views. Admittedly, he comes across publicly as a very plausible academic but, that does not sway me.

Blind theorizing, 27 Jun 2008
Dawkins writes that "the argument of this book is that we, and all other animals, are machines created by our genes" (p.xxi) and that "We are survival machines - robot vehicles blindly programmed to preserve the selfish molecules known as genes" (p.xxi). Yet, according to him, this book "is not science fiction; it is science" (p.xxi)!

Dawkins contrives to overlook the twin discoveries that:
1. the observable traits of organisms are mostly conditioned by the interactions of many genes;
2. most genes have multiple effects on many of these traits.

Dawkins transfers characteristics with which he is familiar from human behaviour on the macro-level to the inanimate components, "genes", of which we are physically constructed. He then proceeds to argue that these impersonal entities, which he imagines to possess characteristically human traits, infallibly generate the same unpleasant traits in human behaviour on the macro-level. So he writes: "The gene is the basic unit of selfishness" (p.36).

The absurdity is evident in that genes or other nonconscious entities cannot be either selfish or unselfish. They cannot "compete" against anything or "choose" anything.

If Dawkins were right, what would be the point of declaring, as he does: "Let us try to *teach* generosity and altruism, because we are born selfish" (p.3)? For if we really were machines, as he believes, even these very concepts would be meaningless to us. And certainly his oratory could have no effect whatever on our actual behaviour.

In fact genes do not force us to behave in any particular way. Neither can they possess the ability to direct or to comprehend all that is required to adopt a course of either heartless selfishness or heartfelt, sacrificial compassion.

The arguments in this review have been challenged by the claim that Dawkins himself answers these charges. His claim is, in effect, that that "the evolution of behavioural reactions or patterns via natural selection" and "control by nonconscious mechanisms" are two vastly different ideas. Also it is said that Dawkins does not deny a freedom of choice as the very last lines in this book itself "celebrate the human ability to make choices that transcend genetic control and instinctive reactions." So it is said that Dawkins "repeatedly draws clear distinctions" to prevent his readers from jumping to the conclusions expressed above.

However, there is a vast difference between asserting that such distinctions exist and actually laying a solid theoretical foundation for such distinctions. To lay the kinds of foundations which Dawkins does and then to go on to insist that these foundations do not lead to their logical conclusion is nothing less than an act of faith on Dawkins' part. It certainly does not bestow any validity upon Dawkins alleged distinctions. The bottom line is that Dawkins' presuppositions simply do not lead logically to the sort of distinction which he asserts.

Essentially this debate is an argument not about data, but about underlying assumptions. Here is a example of what I mean:

ASSUMPTION: 1. "evolution is true";
DATUM: 2. "human beings have consciousness";
ASSUMPTION: 3. "therefore evolution is capable of generating consciousness".

Once again, it is a case of "garbage in, garbage out" (as Dawkins himself would say).



Scientifically sound but philosophically flawed, 29 May 2008
Darwin's theory of evolution is no doubt a successful scientific hypothesis, and Prof. Dawkins brings across this very clearly. However, I do have some doubts regarding his philosophical assertions.

Essentially Prof. Dawkins believes that:

1) Selfishness and competition is at the root of all biological phenomena - nature as "red in tooth and claw"
2) There is no basic "dis-continuity" between humanity and other animals - humans are not qualitatively different from other animals
3) There is however no ethical dilemma between this basic fact and the human desire for goodness - since descriptive and normative realities are intrinsically separate (what is and what should be are independent of each other)

Yet the basis for point 3) - the inherent seperation of "what is" and "what ought to be" is just a philosophical assertion. Prof. Dawkins is very correct in stating that the belief in God and all other religious assertions should be treated and critically analysed as scientific hypotheses. However, strictly speaking this should go beyond the subject of religion to include every other field of human intellectual activity, including of course philosophy itself. If we treat the assertion "'what is' is fundamentally separate from 'what ought to be'" as a strict scientific hypothesis in the same sense that "God exists" is treated as such a hypothesis, then it has to be said that it is no more than just a blank assertion without any kind of empirical justification.

In other words, Prof. Dawkins is mistaken in assuming that his particular view of evolution and Darwinism does not leave us with an ethical dilemma, because it evidently does. The only argument Prof. Dawkins has offered against this is the mere assertion that "what ought to be" must be seperate from "what is", yet this assertion, just like religious assertions regarding God, cannot be scientifically or empirically proven.

something every bookshelf should have, 02 Apr 2008
This is of corse the basis for modern evolutionary works ,that being so it's not quite acurate to todays knowlege so this book is more of a historical book.This particular book is of good quality and structure with detailed image of the different species used as examples.

A FANTASTIC CLASSIC, 05 Jan 2008
Yes, it's dense but a must for evolution buffs. A vastly more entertaining read: NATURAL SELECTION by Dave Freedman, all about the evolution of a new species of flying predator! What makes it fantastic is that while a work of fiction it's brilliantly researched, actually teaches you what evolution really is. It gets into the evolution of the brain, the lung, flight - really cool stuff - but unlike dry textbooks, does it at warp speed. I literally could not put this book down, read it cover to cover in 2 days. A tremendous "fictional complement" to Darwin's master work.

Great Scientist, 29 Dec 2005
Many people assume that Darwin's initial account of natural selection is so out of date that it is to be avoided in favour of more recent text books of evolutionary theory. While it is true that huge gains have been made in the one and a half centuries since the first publication of "The Origin", there is nothing in this work which is wrong. Darwin was too good a scientist and too cautious.

Some claim that Darwin admitted of the possibility of Lamarkian mechanisms. They have not read the original. Darwin knew nothing of the molecular basis of genetics, but knew that natural selection did not need a Lamarkian mechanism. He simply did not rule it out, although he found it improbable. Everything that is stated in this great classic is as true today as it was at the time of first publication.

It is also said that Charles Darwin was a lesser intellectual when compared to most other great names of science; that he was a plodder, a naturalist, a sort of gentleman stamp collector who pressed flowers into his books and barely a scientist in the contemporary sense. This is nonsense. Darwin was one of the giants of rigorous systematic thinking; the kind of rigorous thinking and critical attitude that asks the right questions and provides the capacity to answer them. Let me buttress this claim with one example.

At the end of chapter six Darwin noted that the theory of natural selection could not account for structures or behaviors found in one species that exist solely for the benefit of another unrelated species. In setting out the theoretical terms for the refutation of the theory in this way, he anticipated Karl Popper, that analytical non-nonsense philosopher of science, by more than a century.

I recommend you read this book with an attentive curious analytical mind. You will find yourself walking in the footsteps of an intellectual giant.

Can't tell a book by its cover, 18 Jun 2004
This is a review of ISBN: 0517123207, with a cover that was defiantly made to be provocative. It depicts an (ape) allying view of going from all fours to upright. If this is what you are looking for then you need to read " 2001 : A Space Odyssey" by Arthur Charles Clarke.
This is a quick review of the book not a dissertation on Darwin or any other subject loosely related. At first I did not know what to expect. I already read " The Voyage of the Beagle : Charles Darwin's Journal of Researches" ISBN: 014043268X (see my review May 24, 2000). I figured the book would be similar. However I found "Origin" to be more complex and detailed.
Taking in account that recent pieces of knowledge were not available to Charles Darwin this book could have been written last week. Having to look from the outside without the knowledge of DNA or Plate Tectonics, he pretty much nailed how the environment and crossbreeding would have an effect on natural selection. Speaking of natural selection, I thought his was going to be some great insight to a new concept. All it means is that species are not being mucked around by man (artificial selection).
If you picked up Time magazine today you would find all the things that Charles said would be near impossible to find or do. Yet he predicted that it is doable in theory. With an imperfect geological record many things he was not able to find at the writing of this book have been found (according to the possibilities described in the book.)
The only draw back to the book was his constant apologizing. If he had more time and space he could prove this and that. Or it looks like this but who can say at this time. Or the same evidence can be interpreted 180 degrees different.
In the end it is worth reading and you will never look at life the same way again.

Buy this book and decide for your self!!, 18 Mar 2003
The Origin of Species is a great read and of interest to anyone who would like to make there own mind up about Darwinism rather than take for granted some ones else's opinion. Darwin makes this book very readable to the masses I my self am not I Biology student but managed to understand the book with relative ease and Darwin helps this along by using everyday language. This book is also of particular interest to any one who is interested in ideas and philosophies of the period since Darwin frequently referees to the ideas of his peers and fellow "naturalists".

I would also like to say that maybe this book might not have all the up-to-date scientific information in it (after all it was published in the 1850's) and yes it is true we know allot more about evolution than Darwin did but for the average person like my self who has little education the Biology field I can say I learnt allot about evolution, ideas of the time and of Darwin himself.

I urge everyone to read this book whether Atheist, Christian, Buddhist or anything else because this book is not the devilish attack on religion it has been distorted to be over the years but simply an ordinary guy who liked to watch his pigeons and flowers grow and change between generations. He then came up with the idea that creatures and plants evolved between generations to suit there environment and were not all created by god in there current forms. I also believe Darwin to be a very tasteful writer who took care to upset as few people as possible and wrote in a very humble way in fact he dedicates a whole chapter to the problems of his theory.

A great read what ever you believe buy this book and make your own mind up about evolution!!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Laborious, boring, and discouraging., 09 Nov 2005
I abandoned this book as it is utterly boring. It is certainly not a page-turner. Its author has a patronising and discouraging attitude. He underestimates the intellect of his readers. His major fault, however, is over-elaboration and particularly when it is so unnecessary. Anyone taking up the career of biology would be best advised to avoid this book. The author's communication skill is appalling. How anyone could find the book interesting is beyond my comprehension. It almost slayed my interest in biology. On reading it, it became apparent why the used editions are low in price! My copy too will be added to this heap.

Have questions about life? Try natural selection, 16 Jun 2005
Of the many fine books Dawkins has given us, this one stands out as possibly the best. Although the importance of The Selfish Gene still transcends it, Climbing Mount Improbable has unique value. Dawkins has an exceptional ability to explain the immense spectrum of life's complexities. He demonstrates that skill admirably here in a volume that's proven timeless. Having bought this book when first published, it was particularly delightful to pick it up again and discover it's lost nothing since then.

He begins this collection of essays with a new label: the "designoid". Designoids are those elements in life that seem designed; beyond the caprice of the apparent random natural forces. Dawkins quickly points out that evolution is not "random" nor are any of the complex aspects of living things the result of a designer. Dawkins uses the title of this review, attributed to Henry Bennet-Clark, as the basis for the rest of the book. Natural selection can, and does, explain it all.

Using the theme of climbing a mountain, Dawkins shows the true path to the peak is by means of gentle slopes, not attempting a great leap. Too many people accept the steep precipice of divine origins as the explanation of complex phenomena in life. Dawkins explains how gradual steps are required for life to manifest spider webs, wings, and the Christian obstructionist's favourite, the eye. Each of these wonders is examined critically with the best scientific logic, explaining its development with clarity and wit. He frequently reminds us that such complex organs as the elephant's trunk have progressed through numerous stages, each of which was successful within its own environment. As environments changed, the trunk responded with new adaptations. Modern animals, such as the tapir, elephant shrew, proboscis monkey or seals, all exhibit nasal trunks that likely represent the stages the elephant's ancestors passed through to produce today's

Computer models have become a favourite analytical tool for tracking likely paths in evolution. Dawkins has written his own and applauds others' successful efforts. The computer has the capacity to accelerate the likely steps life has taken in producing designoids. He's careful to warn us that mathematical models don't duplicate life's processes, but simply provide situations that could have happened under certain conditions. Even with that caution in mind, his relation of the study of possible evolutionary paths of the eye is one of the most captivating accounts in biology. It's not even his own work. Two Swedish researchers programmed the most pessimistic conditions for the evolution of a workable eye and deduced it would take less than half a million years.

The essay "A Garden Enclosed" might have brought a tear to the eye of E.O. Wilson, biology's greatest exponent of biodiversity. Dawkins takes us through the life cycles of the figs and their wasp pollinators. The beauty of this essay is almost staggering both in his superb presentation and in the implications it raises. Wasps inhabit the interior of figs, drawing on them for nourishment and residence, but pollinating them with almost human dedication. Dawkins' description of the complex interaction between plant and insect raises again the issue of how little we know about life's interactions. And how much we're intruding on them in our ignorance.

Dawkins has never hidden his advocacy role in describing how evolution works and how poorly our culture understands what's going on around us. More than simply anticipating obstructionists such as Michael Behe in Darwin's Black Box, Dawkins aims his criticism at all who adhere to the Judeo-Christian assertion that humanity has some divine mandate to exercise "dominion over the earth". Clearly, that belief will be the undoing of the species and perhaps life itself if it isn't shed and a better understanding of the interaction of life attained. The best place to start attaining that understanding starts with this book. Buy it, loan it, give it to those who need to learn what life's all about - our children. [stephen a. haines - Ottawa, Canada]

Not his best - by a long shot., 27 Sep 2003
With all respect to Prof. Dawkins, this reads like either an early draft of the Blind Watchmaker or a later revision of it. It seems to me that Dawkins came up with the - admittedly brilliant - metaphor of Mount Improbable, and rather than losing it to the obscurity of his notebooks, decided to reinterpret everything he has written up to that point through it. Which is fine, for those who are unfamiliar with his works, but those who are not can expect to find little more than further examples which support the grand theories he, and many neo-Darwinists, are well known for. Climbing Mount Improbable is really a collection of fascinating Zoological tales (such as species mimicry, interactive symbiosis, and a wonderful insight into spider web building) which leave the reader amazed at the intricacies of the natural world, but seeing as evolution as explanation seems understated and undeveloped, the possibility of theistic creation as explanation still remains and the subject matter does not really hang together with the title of the book. The book, to put it in another way, comes across as an anthology of essays, and does not do what it sets out to do: that is, illustrate with examples the irrefutability of evolution through natural selection, natural selection which pressures living beings, inch by inch and generation by generation, up the sloped surface of Mount Improbable.

If you have read his better known books, and like myself find Dawkins style of writing infectious for its clarity and poetic colour, then this could be considered as a summary of all that he has written before, which is thus well worth reading for its consequent accessibility and for the the extra, incredibly fascinating insights into the depths of the natural world it provides. If you have not read Dawkins before, then I suggest you start with his more substantial works: which will not only leave your stunned at the wonder of the world we inhabit, but, unlike this book, will explain where you, the world, and everything that craweth upon it, came from.

Give this to anyone that doubts evolution., 15 Sep 2003
I've read a number of Dawkins' books as I find his books such a stimulating read given its subject matter and his writing style. Of those I've read (Blind Watchmaker, River out of Eden, Unweaving the Rainbow, and Climbing Mt Improbable), I found this the best. Indeed, I would actually say it was 'exciting' to read as it uncovers details in nature that I would never have thought existed, yet beautifully suggests how all can be explained by Darwin's simple gradual mechanism of random change and non-random (but still natural) selection.
Excellent book. Give it to anyone that doubts evolution.

Illuminating and astonishing, 23 Jun 2000
Those who refuse to believe in evolution hold up examples such as the eye or the flight of birds - peaks of Mount Improbable - and ask how they could possibly have evolved. Dawkins goes a long way towards explaining just how these things could have happened, over a shorter time period than might be expected. He always bears his audience in mind and so the arguments are very easy to follow. And there are some facts presented which are even more surprising than those he sets out to prove. Who would have thought that figs represented one of the peaks?

In Consciousness Explained, Daniel C Dennett insists on the importance of considering consciousness from the evolutionary point of view. Darwin's Dangerous Idea elaborates upon his theory of the evolution of consciousness, but also compendiously presents his views on the nature and significance of evolutionary thinking. The eponymous dangerous idea is, of course, the idea of evolution by natural selection, which Dennett esteems as "the single best idea anyone has ever had." When the theory is applied to Homo sapiens, however, the result threatens to be "the universal acid" eating through everything of value and leaving nothing in its place. One of Dennett's prime concerns is to argue that evolutionary explanations can demystify without destroying.

Darwin's Dangerous Idea is divided into three parts. In the first part, "Starting in the Middle", Dennett places the idea of evolution by natural selection in its historical context, then explains it in his characteristically vivacious style. In the second part, "Darwinian Thinking in Biology", he critically examines challenges to Darwin's idea. Connoisseurs of intellectual controversy will especially relish chapter 10 ("Bully for Brontosaurus"), in which Stephen Jay Gould is castigated for misleadingly presenting his views as radical and anti-Darwinian. Finally, in the third part, Dennett discusses the implications of Darwinian thinking for "Mind, Meaning, Mathematics, and Morality." Among the luminaries targeted here are Noam Chomsky and Roger Penrose. Throughout, Dennett manages to synthesise information from many different fields into one unified view of life and its meaning. Writing with style and wit, he again shows that he merits his reputation as one of the best popularisers of science. --Glenn Branch

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 imposter as I constantly want to wage war with his views. Admittedly, he comes across publicly as a very plausible academic but, that does not sway me.

Blind theorizing, 27 Jun 2008
Dawkins writes that "the argument of this book is that we, and all other animals, are machines created by our genes" (p.xxi) and that "We are survival machines - robot vehicles blindly programmed to preserve the selfish molecules known as genes" (p.xxi). Yet, according to him, this book "is not science fiction; it is science" (p.xxi)!

Dawkins contrives to overlook the twin discoveries that:
1. the observable traits of organisms are mostly conditioned by the interactions of many genes;
2. most genes have multiple effects on many of these traits.

Dawkins transfers characteristics with which he is familiar from human behaviour on the macro-level to the inanimate components, "genes", of which we are physically constructed. He then proceeds to argue that these impersonal entities, which he imagines to possess characteristically human traits, infallibly generate the same unpleasant traits in human behaviour on the macro-level. So he writes: "The gene is the basic unit of selfishness" (p.36).

The absurdity is evident in that genes or other nonconscious entities cannot be either selfish or unselfish. They cannot "compete" against anything or "choose" anything.

If Dawkins were right, what would be the point of declaring, as he does: "Let us try to *teach* generosity and altruism, because we are born selfish" (p.3)? For if we really were machines, as he believes, even these very concepts would be meaningless to us. And certainly his oratory could have no effect whatever on our actual behaviour.

In fact genes do not force us to behave in any particular way. Neither can they possess the ability to direct or to comprehend all that is required to adopt a course of either heartless selfishness or heartfelt, sacrificial compassion.

The arguments in this review have been challenged by the claim that Dawkins himself answers these charges. His claim is, in effect, that that "the evolution of behavioural reactions or patterns via natural selection" and "control by nonconscious mechanisms" are two vastly different ideas. Also it is said that Dawkins does not deny a freedom of choice as the very last lines in this book itself "celebrate the human ability to make choices that transcend genetic control and instinctive reactions." So it is said that Dawkins "repeatedly draws clear distinctions" to prevent his readers from jumping to the conclusions expressed above.

However, there is a vast difference between asserting that such distinctions exist and actually laying a solid theoretical foundation for such distinctions. To lay the kinds of foundations which Dawkins does and then to go on to insist that these foundations do not lead to their logical conclusion is nothing less than an act of faith on Dawkins' part. It certainly does not bestow any validity upon Dawkins alleged distinctions. The bottom line is that Dawkins' presuppositions simply do not lead logically to the sort of distinction which he asserts.

Essentially this debate is an argument not about data, but about underlying assumptions. Here is a example of what I mean:

ASSUMPTION: 1. "evolution is true";
DATUM: 2. "human beings have consciousness";
ASSUMPTION: 3. "therefore evolution is capable of generating consciousness".

Once again, it is a case of "garbage in, garbage out" (as Dawkins himself would say).



Scientifically sound but philosophically flawed, 29 May 2008
Darwin's theory of evolution is no doubt a successful scientific hypothesis, and Prof. Dawkins brings across this very clearly. However, I do have some doubts regarding his philosophical assertions.

Essentially Prof. Dawkins believes that:

1) Selfishness and competition is at the root of all biological phenomena - nature as "red in tooth and claw"
2) There is no basic "dis-continuity" between humanity and other animals - humans are not qualitatively different from other animals
3) There is however no ethical dilemma between this basic fact and the human desire for goodness - since descriptive and normative realities are intrinsically separate (what is and what should be are independent of each other)

Yet the basis for point 3) - the inherent seperation of "what is" and "what ought to be" is just a philosophical assertion. Prof. Dawkins is very correct in stating that the belief in God and all other religious assertions should be treated and critically analysed as scientific hypotheses. However, strictly speaking this should go beyond the subject of religion to include every other field of human intellectual activity, including of course philosophy itself. If we treat the assertion "'what is' is fundamentally separate from 'what ought to be'" as a strict scientific hypothesis in the same sense that "God exists" is treated as such a hypothesis, then it has to be said that it is no more than just a blank assertion without any kind of empirical justification.

In other words, Prof. Dawkins is mistaken in assuming that his particular view of evolution and Darwinism does not leave us with an ethical dilemma, because it evidently does. The only argument Prof. Dawkins has offered against this is the mere assertion that "what ought to be" must be seperate from "what is", yet this assertion, just like religious assertions regarding God, cannot be scientifically or empirically proven.

something every bookshelf should have, 02 Apr 2008
This is of corse the basis for modern evolutionary works ,that being so it's not quite acurate to todays knowlege so this book is more of a historical book.This particular book is of good quality and structure with detailed image of the different species used as examples.

A FANTASTIC CLASSIC, 05 Jan 2008
Yes, it's dense but a must for evolution buffs. A vastly more entertaining read: NATURAL SELECTION by Dave Freedman, all about the evolution of a new species of flying predator! What makes it fantastic is that while a work of fiction it's brilliantly researched, actually teaches you what evolution really is. It gets into the evolution of the brain, the lung, flight - really cool stuff - but unlike dry textbooks, does it at warp speed. I literally could not put this book down, read it cover to cover in 2 days. A tremendous "fictional complement" to Darwin's master work.

Great Scientist, 29 Dec 2005
Many people assume that Darwin's initial account of natural selection is so out of date that it is to be avoided in favour of more recent text books of evolutionary theory. While it is true that huge gains have been made in the one and a half centuries since the first publication of "The Origin", there is nothing in this work which is wrong. Darwin was too good a scientist and too cautious.

Some claim that Darwin admitted of the possibility of Lamarkian mechanisms. They have not read the original. Darwin knew nothing of the molecular basis of genetics, but knew that natural selection did not need a Lamarkian mechanism. He simply did not rule it out, although he found it improbable. Everything that is stated in this great classic is as true today as it was at the time of first publication.

It is also said that Charles Darwin was a lesser intellectual when compared to most other great names of science; that he was a plodder, a naturalist, a sort of gentleman stamp collector who pressed flowers into his books and barely a scientist in the contemporary sense. This is nonsense. Darwin was one of the giants of rigorous systematic thinking; the kind of rigorous thinking and critical attitude that asks the right questions and provides the capacity to answer them. Let me buttress this claim with one example.

At the end of chapter six Darwin noted that the theory of natural selection could not account for structures or behaviors found in one species that exist solely for the benefit of another unrelated species. In setting out the theoretical terms for the refutation of the theory in this way, he anticipated Karl Popper, that analytical non-nonsense philosopher of science, by more than a century.

I recommend you read this book with an attentive curious analytical mind. You will find yourself walking in the footsteps of an intellectual giant.

Can't tell a book by its cover, 18 Jun 2004
This is a review of ISBN: 0517123207, with a cover that was defiantly made to be provocative. It depicts an (ape) allying view of going from all fours to upright. If this is what you are looking for then you need to read " 2001 : A Space Odyssey" by Arthur Charles Clarke.
This is a quick review of the book not a dissertation on Darwin or any other subject loosely related. At first I did not know what to expect. I already read " The Voyage of the Beagle : Charles Darwin's Journal of Researches" ISBN: 014043268X (see my review May 24, 2000). I figured the book would be similar. However I found "Origin" to be more complex and detailed.
Taking in account that recent pieces of knowledge were not available to Charles Darwin this book could have been written last week. Having to look from the outside without the knowledge of DNA or Plate Tectonics, he pretty much nailed how the environment and crossbreeding would have an effect on natural selection. Speaking of natural selection, I thought his was going to be some great insight to a new concept. All it means is that species are not being mucked around by man (artificial selection).
If you picked up Time magazine today you would find all the things that Charles said would be near impossible to find or do. Yet he predicted that it is doable in theory. With an imperfect geological record many things he was not able to find at the writing of this book have been found (according to the possibilities described in the book.)
The only draw back to the book was his constant apologizing. If he had more time and space he could prove this and that. Or it looks like this but who can say at this time. Or the same evidence can be interpreted 180 degrees different.
In the end it is worth reading and you will never look at life the same way again.

Buy this book and decide for your self!!, 18 Mar 2003
The Origin of Species is a great read and of interest to anyone who would like to make there own mind up about Darwinism rather than take for granted some ones else's opinion. Darwin makes this book very readable to the masses I my self am not I Biology student but managed to understand the book with relative ease and Darwin helps this along by using everyday language. This book is also of particular interest to any one who is interested in ideas and philosophies of the period since Darwin frequently referees to the ideas of his peers and fellow "naturalists".

I would also like to say that maybe this book might not have all the up-to-date scientific information in it (after all it was published in the 1850's) and yes it is true we know allot more about evolution than Darwin did but for the average person like my self who has little education the Biology field I can say I learnt allot about evolution, ideas of the time and of Darwin himself.

I urge everyone to read this book whether Atheist, Christian, Buddhist or anything else because this book is not the devilish attack on religion it has been distorted to be over the years but simply an ordinary guy who liked to watch his pigeons and flowers grow and change between generations. He then came up with the idea that creatures and plants evolved between generations to suit there environment and were not all created by god in there current forms. I also believe Darwin to be a very tasteful writer who took care to upset as few people as possible and wrote in a very humble way in fact he dedicates a whole chapter to the problems of his theory.

A great read what ever you believe buy this book and make your own mind up about evolution!!

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

It is here that I believe Dawkins has come so, so close to that which he will not see (or couldn't see then), namely that everything works toward an ecology and that the idea of selfish genes and selfish organisms is a limited view. In truth the reach o