[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next][Date Index][Thread Index][Subject Index][Author Index]

Re: Richard Dawkins



On Wed, 20 Dec 1995 anatomy@acl.nyit.edu wrote:

> Quite right, Tom; the gentleman's name is Richard Dawkins. However, I'm not 
> sure of the wisdom of recommending his work to anyone. Several eminent 
> scientists, such as Richard Lewontin, have demonstrated that the ideas and 
> theories in "The Selfish Gene" and Dawkins' subsequent works in the same 
> vein comprise nothing more than a palpable fantasy.

I think you may be wrong in "stamping" all of the "Selfish Gene" as a 
'palpable fantasy' because he does show some strong evidence toward most of 
his theories, Yet I must admit there are some questionable theories in which 
he has proposed. The 'selfish gene theory' does make sense if you think 
about it, because help to explain all the unused DNA in which there is 
very little that is functional towards structural purposes but is still 
replicates. It does explain parasitic DNA like PCR(sp), which 
is a fragment of DNA that is found in alot of insects (wasps) anyway,
 the fragment can attach towards the end of the chromosome which can
 disable important genes therefor killing the organism. PCR does 
not affect the females who are carriers, it only affects the males, 
therefore giving an uneven sex ratio.   

 
> Des Maxwell
> New York College of Osteopathic Medicine
 

Aaron Feuk
Preparator,Dept. of Earth Sciences
Pacific Lutheran University
Tacoma, Wa, 98447
e-mail: feukac@plu.edu