What do you think?
Rate this book
丕賱噩賷賳丞 丕賱兀賳丕賳賷丞
丕賱賮乇囟賷賾丞 丕賱鬲賷 鬲賯賵賱 廿賳 丕賱胤亘丕毓 丕賱賲鬲賵丕乇孬丞 噩賷賳賷丕賸 賷鬲毓匕賾乇 鬲毓丿賷賱賴丕貙 賴賷 禺丕胤卅丞. 賮賯丿 鬲購毓賱賾賲賳丕 噩賷賳丕鬲賳丕 兀賳 賳賰賵賳 兀賳丕賳賷賷賳貙 賱賰賳賾賳丕 賱爻賳丕 賲噩亘乇賷賳 毓賱賶 丕賱丕賲鬲孬丕賱 賱賴丕 胤賵丕賱 丨賷丕鬲賳丕.
賷乇賶 賲丐賱賾賮 賴匕丕 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 兀賳 賲噩鬲賲毓 丕賱廿賳爻丕賳 丕賱賲亘賳賷 毓賱賶 賯丕賳賵賳 丕賱噩賷賳丕鬲 丕賱兀賳丕賳賷貙 賲賳 丕賱賲賲賰賳 兀賳 賷賰賵賳 賲賳賮乇丕賸 賵賲夭毓噩丕賸 丕賱毓賷卮 賮賷賴. 賵賱爻賵亍 丕賱丨馗賾貙 賱賳 賷丐丿賾賷 丕爻鬲賳賰丕乇賳丕 匕賱賰 賰賱賾賴 廿賱賶 鬲毓丿賷賱賴. 賮賱賳丨丕賵賱 鬲毓賱賷賲 丕賱賰乇賲 賵丕賱睾賷賿乇賷丞 賱兀賳賳丕 賵賱丿賳丕 兀賳丕賳賷賷賳. 賵賱賳丨丕賵賱 兀賷囟丕賸 兀賳 賳賮賴賲 賲禺胤賾胤丕鬲 噩賷賳丕鬲賳丕 丕賱兀賳丕賳賷丞貙 賰賷 賳爻鬲胤賷毓 廿賮爻丕丿 禺胤胤賴丕.
賯丿 賷賰賵賳 賴匕丕 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 賲賲鬲毓丕賸貙 賵賱賰賳 廿賳賿 賵丿丿鬲 兀賳 鬲禺乇噩 亘毓亘乇丞 賲賳賴貙 賮丕賯乇兀賴 賰賲丕 賱賵 兀賳賴 廿賳匕丕乇.
賷乇賶 賲丐賱賾賮 賴匕丕 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 兀賳 賲噩鬲賲毓 丕賱廿賳爻丕賳 丕賱賲亘賳賷 毓賱賶 賯丕賳賵賳 丕賱噩賷賳丕鬲 丕賱兀賳丕賳賷貙 賲賳 丕賱賲賲賰賳 兀賳 賷賰賵賳 賲賳賮乇丕賸 賵賲夭毓噩丕賸 丕賱毓賷卮 賮賷賴. 賵賱爻賵亍 丕賱丨馗賾貙 賱賳 賷丐丿賾賷 丕爻鬲賳賰丕乇賳丕 匕賱賰 賰賱賾賴 廿賱賶 鬲毓丿賷賱賴. 賮賱賳丨丕賵賱 鬲毓賱賷賲 丕賱賰乇賲 賵丕賱睾賷賿乇賷丞 賱兀賳賳丕 賵賱丿賳丕 兀賳丕賳賷賷賳. 賵賱賳丨丕賵賱 兀賷囟丕賸 兀賳 賳賮賴賲 賲禺胤賾胤丕鬲 噩賷賳丕鬲賳丕 丕賱兀賳丕賳賷丞貙 賰賷 賳爻鬲胤賷毓 廿賮爻丕丿 禺胤胤賴丕.
賯丿 賷賰賵賳 賴匕丕 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 賲賲鬲毓丕賸貙 賵賱賰賳 廿賳賿 賵丿丿鬲 兀賳 鬲禺乇噩 亘毓亘乇丞 賲賳賴貙 賮丕賯乇兀賴 賰賲丕 賱賵 兀賳賴 廿賳匕丕乇.
440 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 1976
14263 people are currently reading
310778 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 30 of 5,244 reviews
June 24, 2023
- What some people seem to find hard to understand is that there's a part of you, in fact the most important part, that's immaterial and immortal. Your body is really no more than a temporary shell for the immortal part, and houses it for a little while until it dies. But what you do during that short time is very important. If you live well, the immortal part of you will become absorbed in something much bigger than you are. It will grow and change and achieve things that you can't even dream of. Start thinking of life in these terms, and you will have a completely new perspective on it.
- Hey, I didn't know you believed in鈥�
- In genes? Well of course I do. What did you think I was talking about?
- Hey, I didn't know you believed in鈥�
- In genes? Well of course I do. What did you think I was talking about?
October 3, 2007
Didactic, patronizing, condescending and arguably neo-intellectual twaddle. I do not believe in a God, certainly not any God that's been conceived by man, but I also believe Richard Dawkins is a self-satisfied thought-Nazi who is as fundamental in his view of religion as any right-wing minister. Fundamentalists of all faiths scare me, and atheism is just as much a faith as any religion. The existence or non-existence of a God cannot be proven, nor can the existence or non-existence of a soul, and faith is an abstract experience with implications that are fundamentally unresponsive to study. As such, pursuits like Dawkins' often boil down to one type of faith (in "reason") vs. another type of faith (in a "God"). Many people love Dawkins. He is certainly intelligent, and writes as such, but he lacks wisdom and imagination. To me, that's the flaw in all of his work, from The Selfish Gene to The God Delusion. The idea that one human being can know enough about the nature of the universe to make the sweeping declarations Dawkins' makes is preposterous to me, and no more credible than the sweeping declarations of Jerry Falwell or Pat Robertson.
NC
NC
December 24, 2022
If you are bored look up the Community Reviews, sort by 1-star. They are very entertaining. One of them as a uni professor advising a student to burn down the book store where they bought this book. Then we have the creationists, then the person who thinks it is all a capitalist manifesto. There are those who think he is arrogant, depraved, uses philistine language (!) ...
How can anyone be a creationist and not believe in dinosaurs and such? Do they believe that the earth is flat? Are they the sort of people who pay astrologers money to cast their charts because of course your fate is determined by the stars at the moment of your birth? Jesus wept. Or he would have. I'm reading Josephus at the moment, it seems that the only mention of Jesus at the time he was living was in Josephus but that it might have been added later... That's a whole other story, and one which Dawkins might have liked, but these one-star creationists certainly won't.
How can anyone be a creationist and not believe in dinosaurs and such? Do they believe that the earth is flat? Are they the sort of people who pay astrologers money to cast their charts because of course your fate is determined by the stars at the moment of your birth? Jesus wept. Or he would have. I'm reading Josephus at the moment, it seems that the only mention of Jesus at the time he was living was in Josephus but that it might have been added later... That's a whole other story, and one which Dawkins might have liked, but these one-star creationists certainly won't.
June 3, 2015
Although I consider myself a Jesus-loving, god-fearing, creationist, I simply LOVE reading about evolution. I'm not sure what it is, but I find the whole concept, when explained by a lucid and accessible author, fascinating. And Dawkins is nothing if not lucid and accessible. He presents the topic and various questions and scientific controversies in a way that anybody with a willingness to pay attention can follow it. Some of the chapters were a bit more of a slog as Dawkins has to resort to scary scary math and numbers to prove some of his points and set up for even more mindblowing stuff in future chapters. But most of the time, this book is chock full of insanely interesting examples and user-friendly analogies. Dawkins sure knows his way around language too. One of my favorite lines is: "Sex: that bizarre perversion of straightforward replication."
On the science of it all, as I said, I'm a creationist, but I like to read up on the other side and at least understand, if not appreciate, what their take on the matter is. And to read Dawkins is to realize, yes, this does sound like a very solid theory. My one stumbling block to getting onto the evolution train one hundred percent is time. Perhaps my comprehension of just how long hundred million years is is faulty, but I just can't wrap my mind around how all of these ACCIDENTAL mutations, with no conscious will on the part of the group, individual or gene itself, could possibly result in the complexity of life as we see it now. There is an adage that if you gave an infinite number of monkeys an infinite number of typewriters and an infinite amount of time, they would eventually produce the complete works of Shakespeare. To believe evolution is to believe that you now have a FINITE amount of monkeys and a FINITE amount of time and yet they STILL manage to produce the complete works of Shakespeare... and they do it OVER AND OVER AND OVER again. Just doesn't seem plausible. But perhaps further reading will sway me at a later date.
EDIT 6/3/15
I can't believe this review is still getting attention after all this time! And I love the thread that has developed in the comments. I should let you all know though that as of 2008 I have been living on the side of reason and rationality. I became an atheist after a LOT of reading and contemplating of the Bible (the link to my "de-conversion" story is down in the comments as well). I try these days to, as much as possible, follow the evidence wherever it leads. Additionally Dawkins' "The Ancestor's Tale" was one of THE most beautiful books I've ever read. Check out my review if you're interested.
On the science of it all, as I said, I'm a creationist, but I like to read up on the other side and at least understand, if not appreciate, what their take on the matter is. And to read Dawkins is to realize, yes, this does sound like a very solid theory. My one stumbling block to getting onto the evolution train one hundred percent is time. Perhaps my comprehension of just how long hundred million years is is faulty, but I just can't wrap my mind around how all of these ACCIDENTAL mutations, with no conscious will on the part of the group, individual or gene itself, could possibly result in the complexity of life as we see it now. There is an adage that if you gave an infinite number of monkeys an infinite number of typewriters and an infinite amount of time, they would eventually produce the complete works of Shakespeare. To believe evolution is to believe that you now have a FINITE amount of monkeys and a FINITE amount of time and yet they STILL manage to produce the complete works of Shakespeare... and they do it OVER AND OVER AND OVER again. Just doesn't seem plausible. But perhaps further reading will sway me at a later date.
EDIT 6/3/15
I can't believe this review is still getting attention after all this time! And I love the thread that has developed in the comments. I should let you all know though that as of 2008 I have been living on the side of reason and rationality. I became an atheist after a LOT of reading and contemplating of the Bible (the link to my "de-conversion" story is down in the comments as well). I try these days to, as much as possible, follow the evidence wherever it leads. Additionally Dawkins' "The Ancestor's Tale" was one of THE most beautiful books I've ever read. Check out my review if you're interested.
February 22, 2019
賳丨賳 賱爻賳丕 廿賱丕 賲乇賰亘丕鬲 鬲賳鬲賯賱 丕賱噩賷賳丕鬲 毓亘乇賴丕 賲賳 噩賷賱 廿賱賶 噩賷賱
鬲卮賴丿 鬲胤賵乇 丕賱禺賱賷賯丞 賲賳匕 亘丿卅賴丕 賵丨鬲賶 丕賳丿孬丕乇賴丕
賵鬲乇鬲亘胤 兀賴賲賷鬲賳丕 亘賲丕 賳爻鬲胤賷毓 鬲賯丿賷賲賴 賱鬲賱賰 丕賱噩賷賳丕鬲 賰賷 鬲賳鬲卮乇 賵鬲馗賱 賲賵噩賵丿丞
賵賰賱賲丕 賰丕賳鬲 賴匕賴 丕賱噩賷賳丕鬲 "兀賳丕賳賷丞" 亘賯鬲 賵丕爻鬲賲乇鬲 賵丕賳鬲卮乇鬲
賷鬲氐乇賮 丕賱噩賷賳 毓賲賵賲丕 亘胤乇賷賯丞 鬲毓夭夭 賮乇氐 賳噩丕鬲賴
毓賱賶 丨爻丕亘 丕賱噩賷賳丕鬲 丕賱兀禺乇賶 丕賱賲賳丕賮爻丞
賮賴賱 賴匕丕 賲丕 賷賵丿 丿賵賰賷賳夭 兀賳 賷丐賰丿賴 賱賳丕責
兀賴賵 賷丿毓賵 賱賱丿丕乇賵賷賳賷丞 丕賱廿噩鬲賲丕毓賷丞責
廿賳賴 賱丕 賷丿毓賵 賱兀賷 卮賷亍 賮賷 丕賱賵丕賯毓 爻賵賶 賲丨亘丞 丕賱毓賱賲 賵鬲氐丿賷賯賴
廿賳賴丕 丕賱丨賯賷賯丞 賱丕 睾賷乇
賵賴賵 賲噩乇丿 賳丕賯賱 賱賴丕 ...
兀賱丕 鬲氐丿賯賳賷
賮賰乇 賱賱丨馗丞 賮賷 乇丿丞 賮毓賱 兀睾賱亘賷丞 賲賳 丨賵賱賰 賱賵 兀禺亘乇鬲賴賲 亘兀賳賰 賱丕 鬲乇賷丿 丕賳噩丕亘 兀胤賮丕賱
賮賰乇 賮賷 鬲毓亘賷乇 丕賱氐丿賲丞 毓賱賶 賵噩賵賴賴賲 賵兀賳鬲 鬲賯賵賱 兀賳賰 賱丕 鬲乇賷丿 賱噩賷賳丕鬲賰 丕賱亘賯丕亍
賵爻鬲賮賴賲 賲賯氐丿賷
賲丐賱賲 兀賳 賳賮賰乇 兀賳 賲賳 賷毓賲賱 賱氐丕賱丨 賳賮爻賴 賲賳丕 -賵賱賵 毓賱賶 丨爻丕亘 睾賷乇賴- 賴賵 賲賳 賷毓賲乇 賴匕丕 丕賱賰賵賰亘
鬲兀賲賱賵丕 丕賱亘卮乇 賲賳 丨賵賱賰賲 賵賮賰乇賵丕
毓賱賶 兀賷 卮丕賰賱丞 賷賰賵賳 丕賱禺丕賱丿賷賳
賲賳 禺丕囟賵丕 丕賱丨乇賵亘 賵賰匕亘賵丕 賵禺丕賳賵丕 賵賯鬲賱賵丕 賵夭賵乇賵丕
賴賲 丕賱兀賰孬乇 丕丨鬲賲丕賱賷丞 賮賷 丕賱亘賯丕亍
賵鬲賵乇賷孬 噩賷賳丕鬲賴賲 鬲賱賰 賱匕乇賷丕鬲賴賲 丕賱鬲賷 爻乇毓丕賳 賲丕 鬲丨匕賵 丨匕賵賴賲
廿賳賴賲 丕賱兀賰孬乇賷丞 賱賱兀爻賮
賵賴匕賴 賴賷 丕賱丨賯賷賯丞 丕賱毓丕乇賷丞....
賵賱賰賳 賲丕 賮丕卅丿丞 廿禺亘丕乇賳丕 亘賴匕賴 丕賱丨賯賷賯丞 賮賷 賰鬲丕亘 毓賱賲賷責
兀賴賳丕賰 睾乇囟 丌禺乇 賱賴匕丕 丕賱匕賷 賯乇兀賳丕責
賴匕丕 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 亘噩丕賳亘 賲毓賱賵賲丕鬲賴 丕賱賲匕賴賱丞 賷匕賰乇賳丕 賰賲 賳丨賳 賲丨馗賵馗賷賳 賵賲賲賷夭賷賳
賳丨賳 賳丨馗賶 亘丕賱賯丿乇丞 毓賱賶 兀賳 賳乇賮囟 賲丕 賳丨賳 -兀賵 亘丕賱兀丨乇賶 噩賷賳丕鬲賳丕- 賲亘乇賲噩賵賳 毓賱賷賴
賳丨賳 賳亘睾囟 賵丕賯毓賳丕 賴匕丕 賵賳睾賷乇賴
賳丨賳 賳孬賵乇 囟丿賴 乇睾賲 丕賱氐毓丕亘 丕賱賰孬賷乇丞 丕賱鬲賷 鬲賵丕噩賴賳丕 兀丨賷丕賳丕
賵賲賳匕 亘丿亍 丕賱禺賱賷賯丞 賵噩丿 丕賱賲氐賱丨賵賳 賵丕賱胤賷亘賵賳 賵禺丕丿賲賵 丕賱廿賳爻丕賳賷丞
賲賳 賯丿賲賵丕 賱賳丕 禺賱丕氐丞 丕賱兀禺賱丕賯 賵兀賲鬲毓賵賳丕 亘丕賱賮賳 賵丕賱兀丿亘
賵鬲毓賲賯賵丕 賮賷 亘丨賵乇 丕賱毓賱賲
賱賷禺亘乇賵賳丕 亘丨賯賷賯丞 兀賳賮爻賳丕 賵丕賱賰賵賳 賲賳 丨賵賱賳丕
賴匕丕 丕賱鬲賳賵毓 賲賳毓賳丕 賲賳 丕賱丕賳賯乇丕囟
賳丨賳 賲丨馗賵馗賵賳 賮毓賱丕 亘丕賱丕賳鬲賯丕亍 丕賱胤亘賷毓賷 亘乇睾賲 賯爻賵鬲賴
賱兀賳賳丕 賱賲 賳爻鬲爻賱賲 賰賱賷丞 賱賴
賵賴匕丕 賲丕 賷氐賳毓 賰賱 丕賱賮丕乇賯
...
March 16, 2024
I kept this book on my TBR list for so long, it's time to read it!
I'm curious to learn how genes influence us.
Richard Dawkins argues that genes prioritize their replication, with organisms acting as vehicles for this process.
This focus on gene replication, according to Dawkins, can lead to significant evolutionary changes over time.
Could humans one day evolve to look like the E.T. from the 1982 film? I don't know. 馃
"The Selfish Gene" provides a framework for understanding how genes shape our existence and influence our survival.
The author's deep research and insights were truly impressive.
I'm curious to learn how genes influence us.
Richard Dawkins argues that genes prioritize their replication, with organisms acting as vehicles for this process.
This focus on gene replication, according to Dawkins, can lead to significant evolutionary changes over time.
Could humans one day evolve to look like the E.T. from the 1982 film? I don't know. 馃
"The Selfish Gene" provides a framework for understanding how genes shape our existence and influence our survival.
The author's deep research and insights were truly impressive.
June 19, 2014
I read the 30th anniversary edition of this book--it is a true "classic". I note that there are over 48,000 ratings and 1,400 reviews of this book on 欧宝娱乐! Richard Dawkins put an entirely original slant on Darwin's theory of natural selection. The book has turned people around, to the understanding that the gene plays the single most central role in natural selection, rather than the individual organism. Over the course of generations, evolution plays a role to ensure the survival of the genes, not the individual or "the species".
Although the book is 30 years old, it has stood the test of time. There are a few passages--primarily about computers--that are 30 years out of date. But the vast majority of the book seems to have held up quite well.
Dawkins' prose is very approachable by the layman. There is a bare minimum of technical jargon--quite different from most other books about genetics that I've been reading in recent years. Dawkins takes the time to explain things, often with appropriate metaphors. There are very few diagrams in the book--additional figures could help clarify some points, in my opinion.
Much of the book is really about the role of game theory, in understanding genetics. Dawkins devotes several chapters to describe how various traits controlled by genes are held in an ESS-- "Evolutionarily Stable Strategy"--a term that Dawkins uses quite often, that I think is a synonym for the game theory term "stable equilibrium". Dawkins shows how an ESS is approached over the course of "iterations" of a game, that is to same, over many generations. These chapters were especially interesting to me, as I recently took an online course on the subject of game theory.
It is in this book that Dawkins coined the now-famous term "meme". The meme is a cultural analog of the biological gene. A meme seeks to self-perpetuate, and mutates if that aids its self-preservation. Dawkins devotes an entire fascinating chapter to his concept of the meme.
Throughout the book, Dawkins deals with the dichotomy between the "selfishness" required for survival, and the "altruism" of human behavior. How do we explain altruism? Dawkins explores this dilemma over and over again, showing in virtually every case how the selfishness of genes can help to explain apparent altruistic behavior of the individual.
This is an absolutely fascinating book. I highly recommend it to anyone who is interested in genetics, evolution, or sociology.
Although the book is 30 years old, it has stood the test of time. There are a few passages--primarily about computers--that are 30 years out of date. But the vast majority of the book seems to have held up quite well.
Dawkins' prose is very approachable by the layman. There is a bare minimum of technical jargon--quite different from most other books about genetics that I've been reading in recent years. Dawkins takes the time to explain things, often with appropriate metaphors. There are very few diagrams in the book--additional figures could help clarify some points, in my opinion.
Much of the book is really about the role of game theory, in understanding genetics. Dawkins devotes several chapters to describe how various traits controlled by genes are held in an ESS-- "Evolutionarily Stable Strategy"--a term that Dawkins uses quite often, that I think is a synonym for the game theory term "stable equilibrium". Dawkins shows how an ESS is approached over the course of "iterations" of a game, that is to same, over many generations. These chapters were especially interesting to me, as I recently took an online course on the subject of game theory.
It is in this book that Dawkins coined the now-famous term "meme". The meme is a cultural analog of the biological gene. A meme seeks to self-perpetuate, and mutates if that aids its self-preservation. Dawkins devotes an entire fascinating chapter to his concept of the meme.
Throughout the book, Dawkins deals with the dichotomy between the "selfishness" required for survival, and the "altruism" of human behavior. How do we explain altruism? Dawkins explores this dilemma over and over again, showing in virtually every case how the selfishness of genes can help to explain apparent altruistic behavior of the individual.
This is an absolutely fascinating book. I highly recommend it to anyone who is interested in genetics, evolution, or sociology.
October 15, 2022
賱賲 兀乇 兀賰孬乇 兀賳丕賳賷丞 賲賳 毓亘丿丕賱亘丕爻胤 丨賲賵丿賴 丕賱匕賶 亘丿兀 兀睾賳賷丞 兀賳丕 賲卮 毓丕乇賮賳賶 賯丕卅賱丕
賲丕 賰賮丕賷丞 兀賳丕 賵丕丨丿賴 賷丕 兀爻鬲丕匕 毓亘丿丕賱亘丕爻胤 亘賱丕卮 丕賱廿爻乇丕賮 丿賴
兀賳丕 兀賳丕 兀賳丕 兀賳丕 兀賳丕 兀賳丕 兀賳丕 兀賳丕 兀賳丕 兀賳丕
兀賳丕 賲卮 毓丕乇賮賳賶 兀賳丕 鬲賴鬲 賲賳賶 兀賳丕 賲卮 兀賳丕
賲賳 賲賳丕 賱丕 賷丨亘 賳賮爻賴
賴賱 丨亘 丕賱賳賮爻 賴賵 兀賳丕賳賷丞 兀賲 兀賳 丕賱兀賳丕賳賷丞 賴賷 丕賱賲賷賱 廿賱賶 毓丿賲 丕賱鬲毓丕賵賳 賲毓 丕賱睾賷乇
賮賷 丕賱賵丕賯毓 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 賷賲賰賳 丕毓鬲亘丕乇賴 毓賳 賳賮賶 丕賱廿賷孬丕乇 賵 丨賷丕丞 丕賱鬲毓丕賵賳 兀賰孬乇 賲賳 丕孬亘丕鬲賴 锟斤拷氐賮丞 丕賱兀賳丕賳賷丞
賲賳 丕賱氐毓亘 噩丿丕 丕賱賯乇丕亍丞 賱賴匕丕 丕賱乇噩賱 賵 賴匕丕 爻亘亘 丕賱賳噩賲丕鬲 丕賱孬賱丕孬 賵 丕賱丕 賮廿賳 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 噩丿賷乇 亘賳噩賲丞 兀禺乇賶
胤賷亘 賳丿禺賱 賮賷 丕賱賲賵囟賵毓 賵 賳噩賷亘 賲賳 丕賱丌禺乇?
賱賲丕匕丕 毓丕卮 丕賱毓丕賱賲 孬賱丕孬丞 亘賱丕賷賷賳 爻賳丞 賱丕 賷毓賳賷賴 卮賷卅丕 賲賳 兀賲乇 丕賱毓賲賱 丕賱噩賷賳賶 丕賱噩賲丕毓賶 賵 賰丕賳鬲 丕賱爻賷丕丿丞 賮賯胤 賱賱亘賰鬲乇賷丕
丕賳 賰賳丕 賯丿 毓卮賳丕 賮賷 賴匕賴 丕賱氐賵乇丞 丕賱亘爻賷胤丞 賮賱賲丕 亘丿兀鬲 丕賱賰丕卅賳丕鬲 丕賱兀賰亘乇 賮賷 丕賱鬲賰賵賳 亘毓丿 匕賱賰
丕賳 賰丕賳 賴匕丕 賯丿 丨丿孬 賱囟乇賵乇丞 賮賱賲 亘賯賷鬲 丕賱亘賰鬲乇賷丕 丨鬲賶 丕賱兀賳 賵 賱賲 鬲鬲胤賵乇 賱賰丕卅賳丕鬲 兀乇賯賶 賵 兀賰亘乇
賲丕 丕丕賱睾乇囟 兀氐賱丕 賲賳 鬲毓丿丿 丕賱賰丕卅賳丕鬲 賵 賲丕 賴賵 賴丿賮賴丕 賮賷 丕賱丨賷丕丞
賮賰乇丞 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 賴賷 兀賳賴 賮賷 丕賱兀氐賱 賰丕賳鬲 丕賱噩賷賳丕鬲
賮賲丕 賴賷 丕賱噩賷賳丕鬲
丕賱噩賷賳丕鬲 賴賷 毓亘丕乇丞 毓賳 卮賮乇丞 賱氐賳毓 賳賵毓 兀賵 兀賰孬乇 賲賳 丕賱亘乇賵鬲賷賳 賵 賲賳 孬賲 賷賯賵賲 賴匕丕 丕賱亘乇賵鬲賷賳 亘亘賳丕亍 卮賷亍 賲毓賷賳 兀賵 鬲丨賮賷夭 兀卮賷丕亍 兀禺乇賶 賱鬲賮丕毓賱 賲丕 賷禺丿賲 賲氐賱丨丞 丕賱噩賷賳 丕賱匕賶 兀胤賱賯賴
賴賱 賷賵噩丿 賴匕丕 丕賱噩賷賳 賲賳賮乇丿丕責 賱丕 亘賱 賴賵 噩夭亍 賲賳 丕賱丨賲囟 丕賱賳賵賵賷 丕賱乇賷亘賵夭賶 賳丕賯氐 丕賱兀賰爻噩賷賳 丕賱賲毓乇賵賮 亘丕賱丿賶 丕賳 丕賷賴
賴賱 賱賴 廿丿乇丕賰 兀賵 廿乇丕丿丞 賵 賵毓賶責 賲噩丕夭丕 賷亘丿賵 匕賱賰 賵 賱賰賳 丨賯賷賯丞 賱丕 兀丨丿 賷毓賱賲 丨鬲賶 丕賱兀賳
賷毓鬲丿 丿賵丕賰賳夭 賳馗乇賷丞 兀賳 丕賱丨賲囟 丕賱賳賵賵賷 賲賰賵賳 賮賷 丕賱兀爻丕爻 賲賳 賲噩賲賵毓丞 賲賳 丕賱噩賷賳丕鬲 丕賱鬲賷 丕鬲丨丿鬲 賲毓丕 亘胤乇賷賯丞 賲丕 賱鬲賰賵賷賳 丕賱丨賲囟 丕賱賳賵賵賷 賳賮爻賴 賱兀賳賴丕 鬲賯賵賲 亘毓賲賱 噩賲丕毓賶 賷禺丿賲 賲噩賲賵毓丞 丕賱噩賷賳丕鬲 賲毓丕
丕賱禺胤賵丞 丕賱鬲丕賱賷丞 賰丕賳鬲 鬲賰賵賷賳 睾卮丕亍 丕賱禺賱賷丞 丕賱賵丕丨丿丞 賱丨賲丕賷丞 賵噩賵丿 賴匕丕 丕賱丨賲囟 丕賱賳賵賵賷 賵 賲賳 孬賲 毓賲賱賷丞 丕賳賯爻丕賲賴 賵 鬲囟丕毓賮賴 賲毓 賲丕 賷卮賲賱賴 匕賱賰 賲賳 鬲睾匕賷鬲賴
鬲毓賯丿鬲 丕賱毓賲賱賷丞 亘毓丿 匕賱賰 賱鬲氐亘丨 賱賱禺賱賷丞 賳賵丕丞 孬賲 賳卮兀鬲 丕賱賰丕卅賳丕鬲 毓丿賷丿丞 丕賱禺賱丕賷丕 賵 亘丕賯賶 丕賱賳馗乇賷丞 丕賱丿丕乇賵賷賳賷丞 丕賱賲毓乇賵賮丞
丕賱噩丿賷丿 賴賵 兀賳賴 亘丿賱丕 賲賳 賳賮賶 丕賱賵毓賶 毓賳 丕賱亘賰鬲乇賷丕 賵 丕賱賰丕卅賳丕鬲 丕賱鬲賷 賱丕 鬲賲鬲賱賰 噩賴丕夭 毓氐亘賶 賲鬲胤賵乇 兀乇噩毓 賴匕丕 丕賱賵毓賶 賱賱噩賷賳丕鬲 賳賮爻賴丕 賵 賲賳丨賴丕 卮乇賮 丕賱賯賷丕丿丞 賵 賱賲 賷毓鬲亘乇賴丕 賲噩乇丿 卮賮乇丞 賱廿乇丕丿丞 毓賱賷丕 兀禺乇賶 鬲爻鬲睾賱賴丕 賵 乇睾賲 匕賱賰 賱賲 賷賳賮 丕賱賵毓賶 毓賳 丕賱賲禺 賮賷 丕賱賰丕卅賳丕鬲 丕賱兀乇賯賶 兀賵 丕賱噩賴丕夭 丕賱毓氐亘賶 賰賰賱. 賵 賱匕賱賰 丨賰丕賷丞 兀馗賳賴丕 胤乇賷賮丞:
賮賷 賲賰丕賳 亘毓賷丿 賮賷 賮囟丕亍 丕賱賰賵賳 賰丕賳鬲 賲噩乇丞 兀賳丿乇賵賲賷丿丕 丕賱鬲賷 鬲亘毓丿 毓賳 丕賱兀乇囟 賲丕卅鬲丕賳 爻賳丞 囟賵卅賷丞 賵 賰丕賳 亘賴丕 丨囟丕乇丞 賲鬲胤賵乇丞 噩丿丕 兀乇丕丿鬲 丕賱爻賷胤乇丞 毓賱賶 丕賱毓丕賱賲 賵 賱賰賳 亘毓丿 丕賱賲爻丕賮丞 亘賷賳賴丕 賵 亘賷賳 丕賱賰賵丕賰亘 丕賱兀禺乇賶 丨丕賱 丿賵賳 匕賱賰 廿匕 賷丨鬲丕噩 睾夭賵 丕賱兀乇囟 賲孬賱丕 賱賲卅丕鬲 丕賱爻賳賷賳 賱賱爻賷胤乇丞 毓賱賷賴丕 賵 賴匕丕 賷鬲毓丿賶 毓賲乇 兀賷 賮乇丿 毓賱賶 丕賱賰賵賰亘 賮賲丕 丕賱毓賲賱.
鬲賮鬲賯 匕賴賳賴賲 丕賱匕賰賶 毓賱賶 亘孬 卮賮乇丞 賮賷 兀乇噩丕亍 丕賱賰賵賳 亘丨賷孬 鬲賰賵賳 爻賴賱丞 賱兀賶 賰丕卅賳 匕賰賶 賮賷爻鬲胤賷毓 丨賱賴丕 賵 鬲囟賲賳鬲 賴匕賴 丕賱卮賮乇丞 乇爻丕賱丞 賱賱鬲賵丕氐賱 賲毓 丨囟丕乇鬲賴賲 賲毓 賵毓賵丿 亘丕賱乇禺丕亍 賵 丕賱鬲賳賲賷丞 賵 鬲囟賲賳鬲 兀賷囟丕 胤乇賷賯丞 氐賳毓 賰賲亘賷賵鬲乇 囟禺賲 賵 賲鬲胤賵乇 賱廿鬲賲丕賲 賴匕丕 丕賱廿鬲氐丕賱
亘毓丿 賲丕卅鬲賶 爻賳丞 賵氐賱鬲 丕賱乇爻丕賱丞 賱賱兀乇囟 賵 毓賲鬲 丕賱兀賮乇丕丨 賵 丕賱賱賷丕賱賶 丕賱賲賱丕丨 兀乇噩丕亍 丕賱賲毓賲賵乇丞 賵 賲賳 孬賲 亘丿兀鬲 賵賰丕賱丕鬲 丕賱毓賱賵賲 鬲氐賳賷毓 賴匕丕 丕賱賰賲亘賷賵鬲乇 丕賱囟禺賲 賵 賲丕 丕賳 丕鬲賲賵賴 丨鬲賶 賮賯丿賵 丕賱爻賷胤乇丞 毓賱賷賴 賵 兀氐亘丨 賴賵 賲賳 賷鬲丨賰賲 賮賷 賰賱 卮賷亍 賵 賷賵噩賴賴 賱賲氐賱丨鬲賴 賵 賲氐賱丨丞 氐丕賳毓賷賴 丕賱兀氐賱賷賷賳 賮賷 兀賳丿乇賵賲賷丿丕
丕賱爻丐丕賱 丕賱兀賳 .. 賴賱 毓乇賮 爻賰丕賳 兀賳丿乇賵賲賷丿丕 亘賲丕 丨丿孬責 亘丕賱胤亘毓 賱丕 賮丕賱賲毓賱賵賲丞 爻鬲氐賱賴賲 亘毓丿 賲丕卅鬲賶 爻賳丞 兀禺乇賶. 賴賱 賷爻賷胤乇賵賳 毓賱賶 丕賱賰賲亘賷賵鬲乇責 賱丕 兀賷囟丕 賵 廿賳賲丕 賴賵 賷爻賷胤乇 毓賱賶 賳賮爻賴 亘丕賱亘乇賳丕賲噩 丕賱匕賶 賵囟毓賵賴 賱賴 賵 乇丕毓賵丕 賮賷賴 兀賳 賷氐賱丨 賱兀賶 亘賷卅丞 賵 賷鬲毓丕賲賱 賲毓 兀賷 丨丿孬 亘鬲毓賱賷賲丕鬲 毓丕賲丞 賵 匕賰賷丞 賲毓 廿賲賰丕賳賷丞 鬲胤賵賷乇 賳賮爻賴 賵 鬲毓賱賲賴 賲賳 丕賱兀丨丿丕孬 亘卮乇胤 丕賱廿賱鬲夭丕賲 亘丕賱毓賲賱 賱氐丕賱丨賴賲.
賴匕丕 賲丕 賷禺氐賳丕 賲賳 丕賱丨賰丕賷丞 賵 賱賰賳 賵噩亘 兀賳 兀賯賵賱 賱賰賲 賰賷賮 丕賳鬲賴鬲 兀丨丿丕孬 丕賱賯氐丞 亘兀賳 丕爻鬲胤丕毓 丕賱兀乇囟賷賵賳 鬲丨胤賷賲 丕賱賰賲亘賷賵鬲乇 賵 丕爻鬲毓丕丿丞 爻賷胤乇鬲賴賲 毓賱賶 丕賱賰賵賰亘 丕賱兀夭乇賯 丕賱囟丕卅毓 賮賷 丕賱賮囟丕亍
賵 賱賰賳 丨賰丕賷鬲賳丕 賳丨賳 賱賲 鬲賳鬲賴 亘毓丿
丕賱噩賷賳丕鬲 賴賷 丕賱爻賷丿 丕賱兀賵賱 賵 賴賷 賱丕 鬲爻鬲胤賷毓 丕賱鬲賵丕氐賱 賲毓 丕賱毓丕賱賲 丕賱禺丕乇噩賷
賴賷 賮賯胤 噩賲毓賷丞 賲賳 丕賱兀氐丿賯丕亍 丕賱兀賳丕賳賷賷賳 丕賱賱匕賷賳 賱丕 賷賴賲賴賲 丕賱丕 丕賱鬲囟丕毓賮 賵 丕賱鬲賰丕孬乇 賵 丕賱禺賱賵丿
賮賷 丕賱亘丿丕賷丞 鬲噩賲毓賵丕 賲毓丕 孬賲 丕鬲禺匕賵 丕賱睾卮丕亍 丕賱禺賱賵賶 賵 賲賳 孬賲 鬲丨氐賳賵丕 亘丕賱賳賵丕丞 賵 亘丿兀賵丕 賮賷 鬲賰賵賷賳 丌賱丕鬲 囟禺賲丞 賱賱亘賯丕亍 毓賱賶 賴賷卅丞 賳亘丕鬲丕鬲 賵 丨賷賵丕賳丕鬲 賵氐賵賱丕 賱賱廿賳爻丕賳 賵 賱丕 賮乇賯 賱丿賷賴賲 亘賷賳 賴匕丕 賵 匕丕賰 賵 賱賰賳 丕賱毓亘乇丞 亘鬲賲乇賷乇 鬲賱賰 丕賱噩賷賳丕鬲 賲賳 噩賷賱 廿賱賶 噩賷賱 亘賴丿賮 丕賱亘賯丕亍 賵 丕賱禺賱賵丿 賮賯胤
賰賲丕 賯丕賱 賰賮丕乇 賯乇賷卮 賲賳 賯亘賱: 廿賳 賴賷 廿賱丕 兀乇丨丕賲 鬲丿賮毓 賵 兀乇囟 鬲亘賱毓
賲賳 賲賵賯毓賴丕 丕賱賲丨氐賳 鬲氐賳毓 丕賱噩賷賳丕鬲 丕賱亘乇賵鬲賷賳 丕賱匕賶 賷丨丕賮馗 毓賱賶 賵噩賵丿 丕賱噩爻賲 賵 賲賳 囟賲賳賴 丕賱噩賴丕夭 丕賱毓氐亘賶 賵 丕賱賲禺 丕賱匕賶 賷鬲賵丕氐賱 賲毓 丕賱毓丕賱賲 丕賱禺丕乇噩賷
賴賱 鬲爻賷胤乇 丕賱噩賷賳丕鬲 毓賱賶 丕賱賲禺責 賱丕
賴賱 賷爻賷胤乇 丕賱賲禺 毓賱賶 丕賱噩賷賳丕鬲責 賱丕
廿賳賴丕 賰賯氐丞 兀賳乇賵賲賷丿丕
丕賱噩賷賳丕鬲 賴賷 丕賱爻賷丿 丕賱賮囟丕卅賶 賵 丕賱賲禺 賴賵 丕賱賰賲亘賷賵鬲乇 丕賱毓賲賱丕賯 賵 兀乇囟 丕賱賲毓乇賰丞 賴賷 丕賱噩爻賲 兀賵 丌賱丞 丕賱亘賯丕亍 賰賲丕 賷賯賵賱 丿丕賵賰賳夭
賯丿乇 丕賱廿賲賰丕賳 丕禺鬲氐乇鬲 賵 丨丕賵賱鬲 鬲賵囟賷丨 丕賱賮賰乇丞 睾賱丕 兀賳 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 賲乇賴賯 賵 亘賴 兀噩夭丕亍 卮賷賯丞 噩丿丕 賵 賲賲鬲毓丞 賵 鬲賮鬲丨 丕賱賲噩丕賱 賱賱禺賷丕賱 丕賱禺氐亘 賵 兀噩夭丕亍 兀禺乇賶 賲賲賱丞 賵 孬賯賷賱丞 鬲噩賱亘 丕賱賳賵賲 賮賷 孬賵丕賳 賲毓丿賵丿丞
亘毓丿 兀賳 兀賳賴賷鬲 丕賱賰鬲丕亘 賮鬲丨鬲 丕賱鬲賱賮丕夭 賱兀噩丿 賮鬲丕丞 鬲鬲賱賵賶 賵 鬲睾賳賶 賴匕賴 丕賱兀睾賳賷丞 賵 賰兀賳 噩賷賳丕鬲賴丕 賴賷 賲賳 鬲鬲丨賰賲 賮賷賴丕 賵 鬲亘孬 賱賳丕 乇爻丕賱丞
乇賵丨 毓 丕賱兀卮乇丕賮賷丞 賵賱兀氐丨丕亘賰 兀卮賰賷
賯賵賱 兀賳賷 賳賰丿賷丞 賵卮賵 賲丕 亘丿賰 兀丨賰賷
賯賵賱 毓賳賷 兀賳丕賳賷丞 賯賵賱 賲卮 乇賵賲丕賳爻賷丞
听 听 賮卮 賰賱 禺賱賯賰 賮賷賷
兀賳丕 亘毓乇賮 廿賳賰 賲賯賴賵乇 賵賯賱亘賰 乇丕丨 賷賮賯毓 .!!
听
卮賵賮 丨丕賱賰 毓賱賷賷 鬲賰亘乇 賱丕 鬲卮亘毓
兀夭乇毓 賰賱 丨賯丿賰 賮賷丕 賮賱 賵賲丕 鬲乇噩毓
May 2, 2022
Richard Dawkins shot to celebrity in 1976 with this rabble-rousing book, which change the game by inventing the word "meme" and basically nothing else, the rest of his ideas range from "ehhh not exactly" to "yeah but so what." Fun to read though! The gist is that the essential unit of life is the gene; our bodies are just big fleshy protection robots for the gene. Dawkins says I'm a tool. Right? High five!
And you might be like "Okay, so who cares?" What difference does that make, right? Well, first of all I'm gonna go have some pie because fuck you, genes, you're not the boss of me. Woohoo! Other than that, no, no difference, carry on. It makes a difference to scientists, because when you look at it this way all kinds of behaviors make more sense, or make sense in a different way. Dawkins' particular focus is on behaviors we call "altruistic", like when an antelope warns his herd about an approaching lion. Dawkins would like to go through every altruistic behavior he can think of, which is a lot, and show you why it's actually not at all altruistic.
(The antelope is an easy one: he warns the herd by jumping up and down, which doubles as a sign to the lion that he is super bouncy and the lion should go chase someone less bouncy.)
So, no big surprise to those of us who know Dawkins in his latest incarnation as The World's Dickishest Atheist:* Dawkins does a lot of party pooping in this book. Did you think you were a nice guy? You are not. Your genes command you to behave nicely on occasion because in the end it will benefit you. (See: the also game theory. Or read this book, which will explain both to you.)
* which is more annoying to religious people, but also annoying to those of us who are atheists but don't feel the need to yell about it all the time
But Dawkins is a tremendously engaging writer. He's good at explaining technical concepts clearly. And he's funny! This book is fun to read. And it's full of the kind of fascinating tidbits that make you turn to your spouse and say "Holy moley, did you know saddleback birds on an island in New Zealand make up new songs that then spread through the population like a Pharrell Williams single until everyone's singing them?" And she's like "Sounds boring! I'm reading Jezebel, did you know Justin Bieber was racist when he was fourteen?" and then the two of you look at each other like who even are you? And your genes are like who cares, you two should make out.
And you might be like "Okay, so who cares?" What difference does that make, right? Well, first of all I'm gonna go have some pie because fuck you, genes, you're not the boss of me. Woohoo! Other than that, no, no difference, carry on. It makes a difference to scientists, because when you look at it this way all kinds of behaviors make more sense, or make sense in a different way. Dawkins' particular focus is on behaviors we call "altruistic", like when an antelope warns his herd about an approaching lion. Dawkins would like to go through every altruistic behavior he can think of, which is a lot, and show you why it's actually not at all altruistic.
(The antelope is an easy one: he warns the herd by jumping up and down, which doubles as a sign to the lion that he is super bouncy and the lion should go chase someone less bouncy.)
So, no big surprise to those of us who know Dawkins in his latest incarnation as The World's Dickishest Atheist:* Dawkins does a lot of party pooping in this book. Did you think you were a nice guy? You are not. Your genes command you to behave nicely on occasion because in the end it will benefit you. (See: the also game theory. Or read this book, which will explain both to you.)
* which is more annoying to religious people, but also annoying to those of us who are atheists but don't feel the need to yell about it all the time
But Dawkins is a tremendously engaging writer. He's good at explaining technical concepts clearly. And he's funny! This book is fun to read. And it's full of the kind of fascinating tidbits that make you turn to your spouse and say "Holy moley, did you know saddleback birds on an island in New Zealand make up new songs that then spread through the population like a Pharrell Williams single until everyone's singing them?" And she's like "Sounds boring! I'm reading Jezebel, did you know Justin Bieber was racist when he was fourteen?" and then the two of you look at each other like who even are you? And your genes are like who cares, you two should make out.
May 25, 2017
丿賵爻鬲丕賳賽 诏乇丕賳賯丿乇 丕蹖賳 讴鬲丕亘 丕夭 500 氐賮丨賴 賵 13 賮氐賱 鬲卮讴蹖賱 卮丿賴 丕爻鬲
毓夭蹖夭丕賳賲貙 亘賴 跇賳蹖 丿乇 丕賳鬲禺丕亘賽 胤亘蹖毓蹖 亘乇鬲乇蹖 丿丕丿賴 賲蹖卮賵丿 讴賴 鬲噩賲毓賽 賴賲鬲丕賴丕蹖賽 丌賳 丿乇 禺夭丕賳踿 跇賳蹖 乇賵 亘賴 丕賮夭丕蹖卮 亘丕卮丿.鬲賵噩賴賽 賲丕 亘賴 跇賳 賴丕蹖蹖 丕爻鬲 讴賴 亘賴 賳馗乇 賲蹖乇爻丿 乇賵蹖賽 乇賮鬲丕乇賽 丕噩鬲賲丕毓蹖賽 丿丕乇賳丿诏丕賳卮 丕孬乇 賲蹖诏匕丕乇丿貙 倬爻 亘蹖丕蹖蹖丿 亘乇丕蹖賽 跇賳 賴丕 鬲丕 丨丿蹖 賴賵卮 賵 丌夭丕丿蹖 賯丕卅賱 卮賵蹖賲 鬲丕 丕蹖賳 賳賵卮鬲賴 賵 乇蹖賵蹖賵 亘乇丕蹖鬲丕賳 賲賱賲賵爻 鬲乇 亘丕卮丿
丿賵爻鬲丕賳賽 诏乇丕賲蹖貙 跇賳賽 禺賵丿禺賵丕賴貙 賮賯胤 蹖讴 賯胤毓踿 讴賵趩讴 丕夭 丿蹖 丕賽賳 丕賽蹖 賳蹖爻鬲. 亘賱讴賴 賴賲踿 賳爻禺賴 賴丕蹖賽 賯胤毓踿 禺丕氐蹖 丕夭 芦丿蹖 丕賽賳 丕賽蹖禄 賲賳鬲卮乇 卮丿賴 丿乇 爻乇丕爻乇賽 噩賴丕賳 丕爻鬲 賵 賴丿賮卮 丕蹖賳 丕爻鬲 讴賴 鬲毓丿丕丿賽 禺賵丿 乇丕 丿乇 禺夭丕賳踿 跇賳蹖 丕賮夭丕蹖卮 丿賴丿 賵 丕蹖賳 讴丕乇 乇丕 亘丕 亘乇賳丕賲賴 乇蹖夭蹖 亘乇丕蹖賽 亘賯丕 賵 鬲賵賱蹖丿賽 賲孬賱賽 亘丿賳 賴丕蹖蹖 讴賴 丿乇 丌賳 丕爻鬲貙 丕賳噩丕賲 賲蹖丿賴丿
賴賲踿 賲丕 賲賵噩賵丿丕鬲貙 賲丕卮蹖賳賽 亘賯丕 賴爻鬲蹖賲貙 亘乇丕蹖賽 蹖讴 賳賵毓 賴賲鬲丕爻丕夭 讴賴 丌賳 乇丕 芦丿蹖 丕賽賳 丕賽蹖禄 賲蹖賳丕賲蹖賲... 丕蹖賳 賴賲鬲丕爻丕夭賴丕 亘乇丕蹖賽 亘賯丕蹖賽 禺賵丿 賲丕卮蹖賳賴丕蹖賽 賲禺鬲賱賮蹖 乇丕 爻丕禺鬲賴 丕賳丿... 亘賴 毓賳賵丕賳賽 賲孬丕賱貙 賲蹖賲賵賳 賲丕卮蹖賳蹖 丕爻鬲 讴賴 跇賳 賴丕 乇丕 丿乇 亘丕賱丕蹖賽 丿乇禺鬲 丨賮馗 賲蹖讴賳丿.. 賲丕賴蹖 賲丕卮蹖賳蹖 丕爻鬲 讴賴 跇賳 乇丕 丿乇 丌亘 賳诏賴 賲蹖丿丕乇丿... 賵 讴乇賲 丿爻鬲诏丕賴蹖 丕爻鬲 讴賴 跇賳 乇丕 丿乇 夭蹖乇賽 禺丕讴 亘丕 ... 賳诏賴 賲蹖丿丕乇丿... 倬爻 丿賵爻鬲丕賳賽 賲賳貙 丿蹖 丕賽賳 丕賽蹖 毓賲賱讴乇丿賽 丕爻乇丕乇丌賲蹖夭蹖 丿丕乇丿
亘丿賳賽 賲丕 丕賳爻丕賳賴丕 賵 賲賵噩賵丿丕鬲賽 丿蹖诏乇貙 賲丕卮蹖賳蹖 丕爻鬲 讴賴 亘乇丕蹖賽 跇賳賴丕蹖卮 丕夭 賴蹖趩 讴賵卮卮蹖 賮乇賵诏匕丕乇 賳賲蹖讴賳丿.. 跇賳 丿乇 賴乇 亘丿賳 亘乇丕蹖賽 亘賯丕 丕夭 亘賴鬲乇蹖賳 賮乇氐鬲 賴丕 丕爻鬲賮丕丿賴 賲蹖讴賳丿貙 丕蹖賳 賮乇氐鬲 賴丕 亘爻鬲賴 亘賴 丌賳讴賴 亘丿賳 賳乇 亘丕卮丿 蹖丕 賲丕丿賴貙 亘丕 賴賲 賮乇賯 丿丕乇賳丿
禺賵亘 丿賵爻鬲丕賳賽 禺賵亘賲貙 亘乇丕蹖 丕蹖賳讴賴 丕蹖賳 乇蹖賵蹖賵 禺爻鬲賴 讴賳賳丿賴 賵 鬲禺氐氐蹖 賳亘丕卮丿.. 爻毓蹖 賲蹖讴賳賲 賲孬丕賱 賴丕蹖賽 噩丕賱亘 賵 賳讴鬲賴 賴丕蹖賽 賲賴賲 丿乇 丕蹖賳 讴鬲丕亘 賵 賴賲踿 賮氐賱 賴丕蹖卮貙 丿乇 賲賵乇丿賽 跇賳 乇丕 亘乇丕蹖賽 卮賲丕 丿賵爻鬲 丿丕乇丕賳賽 丿丕賳卮 賵 禺乇丿貙 丿乇 夭蹖乇 亘賳賵蹖爻賲
--------------------------------------------
毓夭蹖夭丕賳貙 跇賳 賴丕蹖賽 禺賵丿禺賵丕賴貙 诏丕賴蹖 亘丕 乇賵卮賽 丕蹖孬丕乇诏乇蹖 丿乇 亘蹖賳 賴賲賳賵毓丕賳貙 爻毓蹖 亘賴 亘賯丕蹖賽 禺賵丿 賲蹖讴賳賳丿: 賲孬賱丕賸 亘乇禺蹖 丕夭 亘丕亘賵賳 賴丕 跇賳蹖 賵噩賵丿 丿丕乇丿貙 亘賴 賳丕賲賽 芦 丕诏乇 蹖讴 賳乇賽 亘丕賱睾 賴爻鬲蹖貙 丕夭 诏乇賵賴 丿乇 賲賯丕亘賱賽 倬賱賳诏 丿賮丕毓 讴賳禄 ... 亘賴 丕蹖賳 鬲乇鬲蹖亘 亘丕亘賵賳賽 亘丕賱睾 噩丕賳賽 禺賵丿 乇丕 亘乇丕蹖賽 丿賮丕毓 丕夭 爻丕蹖乇蹖賳 亘賴 禺胤乇 賲蹖 丕賳丿丕夭丿
--------------------------------------------
诏丕賴蹖 丕賵賯丕鬲 丿乇 胤亘蹖毓鬲貙 亘乇 禺賱丕賮賽 禺賵丕爻鬲踿 跇賳賽 禺賵丿禺賵丕賴貙 毓賲賱 賲蹖卮賵丿
賲孬賱丕賸 丿蹖丿賴 卮丿賴 讴賴 蹖讴 賲蹖賲賵賳賽 賲丕丿乇 讴賴 丿丕睾 丿丕乇 丕爻鬲 賵 亘趩踿 禺賵丿 乇丕 丕夭 丿爻鬲 丿丕丿賴貙 亘賴 噩丕蹖賽 鬲賵賱蹖丿賽 賲孬賱 賵 鬲賱丕卮 亘乇丕蹖賽 亘賯丕蹖賽 跇賳 賴丕蹖賽 禺賵丿貙 亘趩踿 賲蹖賲賵賳賽 丿蹖诏乇蹖 乇丕 丕夭 丕賵 賲蹖丿夭丿 賵 亘夭乇诏 賲蹖讴賳丿... 亘丕 丕蹖賳讴丕乇 賳賴 鬲賳賴丕 亘賴 亘賯丕蹖賽 跇賳賽 禺賵丿 讴賲讴蹖 賳讴乇丿賴貙 亘賱讴賴 丕蹖賳 卮丕賳爻 乇丕 亘賴 乇賯蹖亘賽 跇賳蹖賽 禺賵丿 丿丕丿賴 鬲丕 鬲賵賱蹖丿賽 賲孬賱賽 丿賵亘丕乇賴 丿丕卮鬲賴 亘丕卮丿
蹖丕 丕蹖賳讴賴 亘乇禺蹖 丕夭 賲丕丿賴 賴丕 賵噩賵丿 丿丕乇賳丿 讴賴 亘趩踿 蹖鬲蹖賲蹖 乇丕 亘夭乇诏 賲蹖讴賳賳丿... 丿乇 氐賵乇鬲蹖讴賴 胤亘賯賽 賯賵丕毓丿賽 跇賳賽 禺賵丿禺賵丕賴锟斤拷 亘丕蹖丿 亘趩踿 蹖鬲蹖賲 丕夭 诏乇爻賳诏蹖 亘賲蹖乇丿
--------------------------------------------
诏丕賴蹖 丕賵賯丕鬲 跇賳賽 禺賵丿禺賵丕賴 亘丕 鬲賯賱亘 亘賴 亘賯丕蹖賽 禺賵丿 讴賲讴 賲蹖讴賳丿
亘賴 毓賳賵丕賳賽 賲孬丕賱貙 賮丕禺鬲賴 賴丕 爻毓蹖 賲蹖讴賳賳丿 鬲禺賲 賴丕蹖賽 禺賵丿 乇丕 亘賴 賱丕賳賴 賴丕蹖賽 倬乇賳丿诏丕賳賽 丿蹖诏乇 亘乇丿賴貙 鬲丕 丌賳賴丕 乇賵蹖賽 鬲禺賲 亘賳卮蹖賳賳丿... 丨丕賱 丕诏乇 倬乇賳丿踿 丿蹖诏乇 丕夭 鬲禺賲賴丕蹖卮 卮賳丕禺鬲 丿丕卮鬲賴 亘丕卮丿貙 亘丕 倬丕 鬲禺賲賽 丕囟丕賮賴 乇丕 亘賴 倬丕蹖蹖賳 賲蹖 丕賳丿丕夭丿... 丕賲丕 亘乇禺蹖 丕夭 倬乇賳丿诏丕賳 賲丕賳賳丿賽 讴丕讴丕蹖蹖 賴丕貙 亘賴 鬲禺賲蹖 讴賴 乇賵蹖賽 丌賳 賳卮爻鬲賴 丕賳丿貙 鬲賵噩賴 賳讴乇丿賴貙 賵 賮乇蹖亘 賲蹖禺賵乇賳丿
丨丕賱 丿乇 诏乇賵賴 賴丕蹖賽 诏賵賳丕诏賵賳 跇賳賽 乇丕爻鬲诏賵 賵 跇賳賽 丕蹖孬丕乇诏乇貙 賲鬲賮丕賵鬲 丕爻鬲
丕蹖孬丕乇诏乇丕賳貙 賵賯鬲蹖 賲鬲賵噩賴 賲蹖卮賵賳丿 蹖讴蹖 丕夭 鬲禺賲 賴丕 賲丕賱賽 禺賵丿卮丕賳 賳蹖爻鬲貙 亘丕夭賴賲 丌賳 乇丕 亘夭乇诏 賲蹖讴賳賳丿貙 亘丕 丕蹖賳讴丕乇 亘丕毓孬 賲蹖卮賵賳丿 鬲丕 跇賳賽 鬲賯賱亘 丿乇 诏乇賵賴 倬禺卮 卮賵丿.. 夭蹖乇丕 丌賳 倬乇賳丿踿 賲鬲賯賱亘 鬲賳丿 鬲賳丿 鬲禺賲 诏匕丕乇蹖 賲蹖讴賳丿 賵 丕蹖賳讴丕乇 乇丕 丕賳噩丕賲 賲蹖丿賴丿
--------------------------------------------
诏丕賴蹖 丕賵賯丕鬲 跇賳賽 禺賵丿禺賵丕賴 亘乇丕蹖賽 亘賯丕 亘賴 禺蹖丕賳鬲 乇賵 賲蹖 丌賵乇丿
賲孬賱丕賸 賵賯鬲蹖 賲丕丿賴 丕蹖 賲蹖亘蹖賳丿 讴賴 噩賮鬲卮 丿乇 賳亘乇丿 亘丕 賳乇賽 丿蹖诏乇 賲睾賱賵亘 卮丿賴貙 爻乇蹖毓 亘賴 爻賲鬲賽 賳乇賽 倬蹖乇賵夭 乇賮鬲賴 賵 亘丕 丕賵 噩賮鬲 诏蹖乇蹖 賲蹖讴賳丿 鬲丕 跇賳賽 亘乇鬲乇 丨丕氐賱 卮賵丿
诏丕賴蹖 丕賵賯丕鬲 跇賳賽 禺賵丿禺賵丕賴 亘丕 丿乇賵睾 亘賴 亘賯丕蹖賽 禺賵丿 讴賲讴 賲蹖讴賳丿
丿乇 倬乇賳丿诏丕賳貙 賵賯鬲蹖 賲丕丿乇 亘乇丕蹖賽 亘趩賴 賴丕 讴乇賲 蹖丕 丨卮乇賴 賲蹖 丌賵乇丿貙 亘趩賴 賴丕 丿賴丕賳賽 禺賵丿 乇丕 亘丕夭 賲蹖讴賳賳丿 賵 賲丕丿乇 亘賴 賲蹖夭丕賳賽 氐丿丕 丿賯鬲 讴乇丿賴 賵 亘賴 丌賳賴丕 禺賵乇丕讴 賲蹖丿賴丿貙 賴乇 讴丿丕賲 诏乇爻賳賴 鬲乇 亘丕卮丿 亘蹖卮鬲乇 氐丿丕 賲蹖夭賳丿.... 丨丕賱 賲賲讴賳 丕爻鬲 跇賳賽 禺賵丿禺賵丕賴 丿乇 蹖讴蹖 丕夭 噩賵噩賴 賴丕 亘蹖卮鬲乇 亘丕卮丿貙 丿乇 賳鬲蹖噩賴 噩賵噩賴 鬲賯賱亘 讴乇丿賴 賵 賵賯鬲蹖 爻蹖乇 卮丿賴 丿賵亘丕乇賴 氐丿丕蹖賽 亘賱賳丿 賲蹖丿賴丿貙 賴賲 賲丕丿乇 乇丕 诏賵賱 賲蹖夭賳丿 賵 賴賲 亘賴 禺賵丕賴乇 賵 亘乇丕丿乇丕賳卮 禺蹖丕賳鬲 賲蹖讴賳丿 賵 禺賵丕賴乇 賵 亘乇丕丿乇丕賳卮 丕夭 诏卮賳诏蹖 賲蹖賲蹖乇賳賳丿
--------------------------------------------
诏丕賴蹖 丕賵賯丕鬲 跇賳賽 禺賵丿禺賵丕賴 亘乇丕蹖賽 亘賯丕 亘賴 鬲賴丿蹖丿 乇賵 賲蹖 丌賵乇丿
賲孬賱丕賸 丿乇 倬乇賳丿诏丕賳 丿賵 丨丕賱鬲 丿丕乇丿貙 蹖讴蹖 丕夭 噩賵噩賴 賴丕 讴賴 亘夭乇诏鬲乇 賵 賯賵蹖 鬲乇 丕爻鬲貙 亘丕 氐丿丕蹖賽 噩蹖讴 噩蹖讴賽 夭蹖丕丿 鬲賵噩賴 卮讴丕乇趩蹖丕賳 乇丕 亘賴 丌賳賴丕 噩賱亘 賲蹖讴賳丿 賵 賲蹖诏賵蹖丿: 乇賵亘丕賴貙 乇賵亘丕賴 亘蹖丕 賲丕 乇丕 亘禺賵乇... 賱匕丕 賲丕丿乇卮 賲噩亘賵乇 丕爻鬲 丿賴丕賳卮 乇丕 亘亘賳丿 賵 丕賵 乇丕囟蹖 賳诏賴 丿丕乇丿
丕賲丕 夭賲丕賳蹖 賲蹖乇爻丿 讴賴 噩賵噩踿 囟毓蹖賮鬲乇貙 跇賳賽 賴賵卮賲賳丿蹖 丿丕乇丿貙 賵賯鬲蹖 賲蹖亘蹖賳丿 亘賴 丕賵 禺賵乇丕讴 賳賲蹖乇爻丿貙 卮讴丕乇趩蹖 乇丕 氐丿丕 賲蹖讴賳丿貙 鬲丕 賲丕丿乇 賮乇丕乇 讴乇丿賴貙 乇賵亘丕賴 亘蹖丕蹖丿 賵 丌賳 噩賵噩踿 亘夭乇诏鬲乇 賵 夭賵乇诏賵 乇丕 亘禺賵乇丿
--------------------------------------------
诏丕賴蹖 丕賵賯丕鬲 跇賳賽 禺賵丿禺賵丕賴 亘乇丕蹖賽 亘賯丕 亘賴 丿爻鬲賵乇 乇賵 賲蹖 丌賵乇丿
賲孬賱丕賸 丕诏乇 鬲賵賱賴 丕蹖 蹖丕 噩賵噩賴 丕蹖 亘賴 丿賳蹖丕 亘蹖丕蹖丿 賵 丕夭 禺賵丕賴乇丕賳 賵 亘乇丕丿乇丕賳賽 丿蹖诏乇卮 讴賵趩讴鬲乇 賵 囟毓蹖賮 鬲乇 賵 賳丨蹖賮 鬲乇 亘丕卮丿貙 跇賳蹖 亘賴 丕賵 丿爻鬲賵乇 賲蹖丿賴丿 讴賴: 芦 亘丿賳貙 丕诏乇 丕夭 丌賳賴丕蹖蹖 讴賴 亘丕賴賲 夭丕丿賴 卮丿賴 丕蹖丿貙 禺蹖賱蹖 讴賵趩讴鬲乇 賴爻鬲蹖貙 鬲賯賱丕 賳讴賳 賵 亘賲蹖乇禄... 賵 丨鬲蹖 亘賴鬲乇 丕爻鬲 禺賵乇丕讴賽 鬲賵賱賴 賴丕蹖賽 丿蹖诏乇 卮賵丿...亘賴 丕蹖賳 鬲乇鬲蹖亘 亘蹖卮鬲乇蹖賳 爻賵丿 乇丕 賳氐蹖亘賽 跇賳 賴丕蹖卮 賲蹖讴賳丿
--------------------------------------------
诏丕賴蹖 丕賵賯丕鬲 跇賳賽 禺賵丿禺賵丕賴 亘乇丕蹖賽 亘賯丕 亘賴 讴卮鬲賳 賵 賯鬲賱 乇賵 賲蹖 丌賵乇丿
賲孬賱丕賸 倬乇賳丿踿 芦乇丕賴賳賲丕蹖賽 讴賳丿賵蹖賽 毓爻賱禄貙 賲孬賱賽 賮丕禺鬲賴 賴丕 賲鬲賯賱亘 丕爻鬲 賵 鬲禺賲賽 禺賵丿 乇丕 丿乇 賱丕賳踿 倬乇賳丿诏丕賳賽 丿蹖诏乇 賲蹖诏匕丕乇丿... 丕蹖賳 賳賵毓 倬乇賳丿賴貙 賳賵讴賽 鬲蹖夭 賵 禺賲蹖丿賴 丕蹖 丿丕乇丿... 賵賯鬲蹖 丕夭 鬲禺賲 亘蹖乇賵賳 賲蹖 丌蹖丿.. 爻乇蹖毓 噩賵噩賴 賴丕蹖賽 丿蹖诏乇 乇丕 爻賵乇丕禺 爻賵乇丕禺 讴乇丿賴 賵 賲蹖讴卮丿貙 鬲丕 亘乇丕蹖賽 诏乇賮鬲賳賽 禺賵乇丕讴 丕夭 丿賴丕賳賽 賲丕丿乇賽 賳丕鬲賳蹖賽 禺賵丿貙 亘丕 丕賵 乇賯丕亘鬲 賳讴賳賳丿
蹖丕 賳賵毓蹖 倬乇爻鬲賵貙 鬲禺賲賽 禺賵丿 乇丕 丿乇 賱丕賳踿 夭丕睾 賲蹖诏匕丕乇丿... 噩賵噩賴 夭賵丿鬲乇 爻乇 丕夭 鬲禺賲 丿乇丌賵乇丿賴. 賵 鬲禺賲賽 夭丕睾 乇丕 賲蹖丕賳賽 亘乇噩爻鬲诏蹖 賴丕蹖賽 亘丕賱卮 诏匕丕卮鬲賴 賵 丌賳 乇丕 亘賴 倬丕蹖蹖賳 倬乇鬲 賲蹖讴賳丿
--------------------------------------------
诏丕賴蹖 丕賵賯丕鬲 跇賳賽 禺賵丿禺賵丕賴 亘乇丕蹖賽 亘賯丕 亘賴 丕賳鬲禺丕亘 乇賵 賲蹖 丌賵乇丿
賲孬賱丕賸 丕诏乇 亘亘蹖賳丿 鬲毓丿丕丿 賳乇賴丕 夭蹖丕丿 卮丿賴 丕賳丿... 賳賲蹖诏匕丕乇丿 鬲禺賲丿丕賳 賴丕 丕爻倬乇賲賽 賳乇爻丕夭 乇丕 丿乇蹖丕賮鬲 讴賳賳丿... 丿乇 丨丕賱鬲賽 毓丕丿蹖貙 跇賳賽 禺賵丿禺賵丕賴 鬲乇噩蹖賴 賲蹖丿賴丿貙賵丕賱丿貙 賲丕丿賴 亘賴 丿賳蹖丕 亘蹖丕賵乇丿
--------------------------------------------
诏丕賴蹖 丕賵賯丕鬲 跇賳賽 禺賵丿禺賵丕賴 亘乇丕蹖賽 亘賯丕 亘賴 亘乇丿賴 丿丕乇蹖 乇賵 賲蹖 丌賵乇丿
賲孬賱丕賸 诏賵賳賴 丕蹖 丕夭 賲賵乇趩賴 賴丕 賴爻鬲賳丿 讴賴 亘賴 賲賵乇趩賴 賴丕蹖賽 丿蹖诏乇 丨賲賱賴 讴乇丿賴 賵 爻乇亘丕夭丕賳 乇丕 賲蹖讴卮賳丿貙 賵 鬲禺賲賴丕蹖賽 賲賱讴賴 乇丕 丿夭丿蹖丿賴 賵 亘賴 賱丕賳踿 禺賵丿 賲蹖 丌賵乇賳丿... 賵賯鬲蹖 亘趩賴 賴丕 亘賴 丿賳蹖丕 賲蹖 丌蹖賳丿貙 丕夭 丌賳賴丕 亘賴 毓賳賵丕賳賽 亘乇丿賴 丕爻鬲賮丕丿賴 賲蹖讴賳賳丿
--------------------------------------------
诏丕賴蹖 丕賵賯丕鬲 跇賳賽 禺賵丿禺賵丕賴 亘乇丕蹖賽 亘賯丕 亘賴 賴賲夭蹖爻鬲蹖 乇賵 賲蹖 丌賵乇丿
賲孬賱丕賸 诏賵賳賴 丕蹖 丕夭 賲賵乇趩賴 賴丕 賵噩賵丿 丿丕乇賳丿 讴賴 丕夭 卮鬲賴 賴丕 亘賴 毓賳賵丕賳賽 丨蹖賵丕賳賽 禺丕賳诏蹖 丕爻鬲賮丕丿賴 賲蹖讴賳賳丿貙 蹖毓賳蹖 卮鬲賴 賴丕 卮蹖乇踿 诏蹖丕賴丕賳 乇丕 賲蹖賲讴賳丿貙 爻倬爻 賲賵乇趩賴 賴丕 卮鬲賴 賴丕 乇丕 賲蹖丿賵卮賳丿 賵 丕蹖賳 卮蹖乇賴 乇丕 丕夭 倬卮鬲卮丕賳 丿乇 賲蹖 丌賵乇賳丿... 丿乇 丕夭丕蹖賽 丌賳 賲賵乇趩賴 賴丕 丕夭 禺丕賳踿 卮鬲賴 賴丕 賴賲趩賵賳 爻乇亘丕夭丕賳 賲丨丕賮馗鬲 賲蹖讴賳賳丿
賲丕 丕賳爻丕賳 賴丕貙 丿乇 爻賱賵賱 賴丕蹖賲丕賳 趩蹖夭賴丕蹖賽 乇蹖夭蹖 賵噩賵丿 丿丕乇丿 亘賴 賳丕賲賽 芦賲蹖鬲賵讴賳丿乇蹖禄... 芦賲蹖鬲賵讴賳丿乇蹖禄 讴丕乇禺丕賳賴 賴丕蹖賽 卮蹖賲蹖丕蹖蹖賽 讴賵趩讴蹖 賴爻鬲賳丿 讴賴 賵馗蹖賮踿 鬲賵賱蹖丿賽 丕賳乇跇蹖 乇丕 丿丕乇賳丿... 芦賲蹖鬲賵讴賳丿乇蹖禄 賴丕 丿乇 丕氐賱 亘丕讴鬲乇蹖 賴丕蹖賽 賴賲夭蹖爻鬲蹖 賴爻鬲賳丿 讴賴 丕夭 丕亘鬲丿丕蹖賽 鬲讴丕賲賱 亘丕 爻賱賵賱 賴丕蹖賽 賲丕 倬蹖賵賳丿 蹖丕賮鬲賴 丕賳丿 賵 丿丕丿 賵 爻鬲丿 賲蹖讴賳賳丿
--------------------------------------------
诏丕賴蹖 丕賵賯丕鬲 蹖讴 跇賳 亘蹖 噩賴鬲 跇賳 賴丕蹖賽 丿蹖诏乇 乇丕 丕夭 亘蹖賳 賲蹖亘乇丿... 丕蹖賳 跇賳賴丕 丿爻鬲诏丕賴 乇丕 亘賴賲 賲蹖乇蹖夭賳丿... 賲丕賳賳丿賽 芦跇賳賽 鬲蹖禄... 賲孬賱丕賸 丿乇 賲賵卮 賴丕 丕诏乇 賲賵卮蹖 丿乇 讴賵丿讴蹖 丿賵 跇賳賽 鬲蹖 丿丕卮鬲賴 亘丕卮丿貙 丿乇 讴賵丿讴蹖 賲蹖賲蹖乇丿
--------------------------------------------
丿賵爻鬲丕賳賽 毓夭蹖夭賲貙 鬲賳賴丕 趩蹖夭蹖 讴賴 跇賳 賴丕 亘賴 胤賵乇賽 賲爻鬲賯蹖賲 賲蹖鬲賵丕賳賳丿 丌賳 乇丕 鬲丨鬲賽 鬲兀孬蹖乇 賯乇丕乇 丿賴賳丿貙 鬲乇讴蹖亘賽 倬乇賵鬲卅蹖賳 丕爻鬲
丕賲蹖丿賵丕乇賲 丕蹖賳 賲胤丕賱亘 亘乇丕蹖賽 卮賲丕 丿賵爻鬲丿丕乇丕賳賽 丿丕賳卮貙 賲賮蹖丿 亘賵丿賴 亘丕卮賴
芦倬蹖乇賵夭 亘丕卮蹖丿 賵 丕蹖乇丕賳蹖禄
毓夭蹖夭丕賳賲貙 亘賴 跇賳蹖 丿乇 丕賳鬲禺丕亘賽 胤亘蹖毓蹖 亘乇鬲乇蹖 丿丕丿賴 賲蹖卮賵丿 讴賴 鬲噩賲毓賽 賴賲鬲丕賴丕蹖賽 丌賳 丿乇 禺夭丕賳踿 跇賳蹖 乇賵 亘賴 丕賮夭丕蹖卮 亘丕卮丿.鬲賵噩賴賽 賲丕 亘賴 跇賳 賴丕蹖蹖 丕爻鬲 讴賴 亘賴 賳馗乇 賲蹖乇爻丿 乇賵蹖賽 乇賮鬲丕乇賽 丕噩鬲賲丕毓蹖賽 丿丕乇賳丿诏丕賳卮 丕孬乇 賲蹖诏匕丕乇丿貙 倬爻 亘蹖丕蹖蹖丿 亘乇丕蹖賽 跇賳 賴丕 鬲丕 丨丿蹖 賴賵卮 賵 丌夭丕丿蹖 賯丕卅賱 卮賵蹖賲 鬲丕 丕蹖賳 賳賵卮鬲賴 賵 乇蹖賵蹖賵 亘乇丕蹖鬲丕賳 賲賱賲賵爻 鬲乇 亘丕卮丿
丿賵爻鬲丕賳賽 诏乇丕賲蹖貙 跇賳賽 禺賵丿禺賵丕賴貙 賮賯胤 蹖讴 賯胤毓踿 讴賵趩讴 丕夭 丿蹖 丕賽賳 丕賽蹖 賳蹖爻鬲. 亘賱讴賴 賴賲踿 賳爻禺賴 賴丕蹖賽 賯胤毓踿 禺丕氐蹖 丕夭 芦丿蹖 丕賽賳 丕賽蹖禄 賲賳鬲卮乇 卮丿賴 丿乇 爻乇丕爻乇賽 噩賴丕賳 丕爻鬲 賵 賴丿賮卮 丕蹖賳 丕爻鬲 讴賴 鬲毓丿丕丿賽 禺賵丿 乇丕 丿乇 禺夭丕賳踿 跇賳蹖 丕賮夭丕蹖卮 丿賴丿 賵 丕蹖賳 讴丕乇 乇丕 亘丕 亘乇賳丕賲賴 乇蹖夭蹖 亘乇丕蹖賽 亘賯丕 賵 鬲賵賱蹖丿賽 賲孬賱賽 亘丿賳 賴丕蹖蹖 讴賴 丿乇 丌賳 丕爻鬲貙 丕賳噩丕賲 賲蹖丿賴丿
賴賲踿 賲丕 賲賵噩賵丿丕鬲貙 賲丕卮蹖賳賽 亘賯丕 賴爻鬲蹖賲貙 亘乇丕蹖賽 蹖讴 賳賵毓 賴賲鬲丕爻丕夭 讴賴 丌賳 乇丕 芦丿蹖 丕賽賳 丕賽蹖禄 賲蹖賳丕賲蹖賲... 丕蹖賳 賴賲鬲丕爻丕夭賴丕 亘乇丕蹖賽 亘賯丕蹖賽 禺賵丿 賲丕卮蹖賳賴丕蹖賽 賲禺鬲賱賮蹖 乇丕 爻丕禺鬲賴 丕賳丿... 亘賴 毓賳賵丕賳賽 賲孬丕賱貙 賲蹖賲賵賳 賲丕卮蹖賳蹖 丕爻鬲 讴賴 跇賳 賴丕 乇丕 丿乇 亘丕賱丕蹖賽 丿乇禺鬲 丨賮馗 賲蹖讴賳丿.. 賲丕賴蹖 賲丕卮蹖賳蹖 丕爻鬲 讴賴 跇賳 乇丕 丿乇 丌亘 賳诏賴 賲蹖丿丕乇丿... 賵 讴乇賲 丿爻鬲诏丕賴蹖 丕爻鬲 讴賴 跇賳 乇丕 丿乇 夭蹖乇賽 禺丕讴 亘丕 ... 賳诏賴 賲蹖丿丕乇丿... 倬爻 丿賵爻鬲丕賳賽 賲賳貙 丿蹖 丕賽賳 丕賽蹖 毓賲賱讴乇丿賽 丕爻乇丕乇丌賲蹖夭蹖 丿丕乇丿
亘丿賳賽 賲丕 丕賳爻丕賳賴丕 賵 賲賵噩賵丿丕鬲賽 丿蹖诏乇貙 賲丕卮蹖賳蹖 丕爻鬲 讴賴 亘乇丕蹖賽 跇賳賴丕蹖卮 丕夭 賴蹖趩 讴賵卮卮蹖 賮乇賵诏匕丕乇 賳賲蹖讴賳丿.. 跇賳 丿乇 賴乇 亘丿賳 亘乇丕蹖賽 亘賯丕 丕夭 亘賴鬲乇蹖賳 賮乇氐鬲 賴丕 丕爻鬲賮丕丿賴 賲蹖讴賳丿貙 丕蹖賳 賮乇氐鬲 賴丕 亘爻鬲賴 亘賴 丌賳讴賴 亘丿賳 賳乇 亘丕卮丿 蹖丕 賲丕丿賴貙 亘丕 賴賲 賮乇賯 丿丕乇賳丿
禺賵亘 丿賵爻鬲丕賳賽 禺賵亘賲貙 亘乇丕蹖 丕蹖賳讴賴 丕蹖賳 乇蹖賵蹖賵 禺爻鬲賴 讴賳賳丿賴 賵 鬲禺氐氐蹖 賳亘丕卮丿.. 爻毓蹖 賲蹖讴賳賲 賲孬丕賱 賴丕蹖賽 噩丕賱亘 賵 賳讴鬲賴 賴丕蹖賽 賲賴賲 丿乇 丕蹖賳 讴鬲丕亘 賵 賴賲踿 賮氐賱 賴丕蹖卮貙 丿乇 賲賵乇丿賽 跇賳 乇丕 亘乇丕蹖賽 卮賲丕 丿賵爻鬲 丿丕乇丕賳賽 丿丕賳卮 賵 禺乇丿貙 丿乇 夭蹖乇 亘賳賵蹖爻賲
--------------------------------------------
毓夭蹖夭丕賳貙 跇賳 賴丕蹖賽 禺賵丿禺賵丕賴貙 诏丕賴蹖 亘丕 乇賵卮賽 丕蹖孬丕乇诏乇蹖 丿乇 亘蹖賳 賴賲賳賵毓丕賳貙 爻毓蹖 亘賴 亘賯丕蹖賽 禺賵丿 賲蹖讴賳賳丿: 賲孬賱丕賸 亘乇禺蹖 丕夭 亘丕亘賵賳 賴丕 跇賳蹖 賵噩賵丿 丿丕乇丿貙 亘賴 賳丕賲賽 芦 丕诏乇 蹖讴 賳乇賽 亘丕賱睾 賴爻鬲蹖貙 丕夭 诏乇賵賴 丿乇 賲賯丕亘賱賽 倬賱賳诏 丿賮丕毓 讴賳禄 ... 亘賴 丕蹖賳 鬲乇鬲蹖亘 亘丕亘賵賳賽 亘丕賱睾 噩丕賳賽 禺賵丿 乇丕 亘乇丕蹖賽 丿賮丕毓 丕夭 爻丕蹖乇蹖賳 亘賴 禺胤乇 賲蹖 丕賳丿丕夭丿
--------------------------------------------
诏丕賴蹖 丕賵賯丕鬲 丿乇 胤亘蹖毓鬲貙 亘乇 禺賱丕賮賽 禺賵丕爻鬲踿 跇賳賽 禺賵丿禺賵丕賴貙 毓賲賱 賲蹖卮賵丿
賲孬賱丕賸 丿蹖丿賴 卮丿賴 讴賴 蹖讴 賲蹖賲賵賳賽 賲丕丿乇 讴賴 丿丕睾 丿丕乇 丕爻鬲 賵 亘趩踿 禺賵丿 乇丕 丕夭 丿爻鬲 丿丕丿賴貙 亘賴 噩丕蹖賽 鬲賵賱蹖丿賽 賲孬賱 賵 鬲賱丕卮 亘乇丕蹖賽 亘賯丕蹖賽 跇賳 賴丕蹖賽 禺賵丿貙 亘趩踿 賲蹖賲賵賳賽 丿蹖诏乇蹖 乇丕 丕夭 丕賵 賲蹖丿夭丿 賵 亘夭乇诏 賲蹖讴賳丿... 亘丕 丕蹖賳讴丕乇 賳賴 鬲賳賴丕 亘賴 亘賯丕蹖賽 跇賳賽 禺賵丿 讴賲讴蹖 賳讴乇丿賴貙 亘賱讴賴 丕蹖賳 卮丕賳爻 乇丕 亘賴 乇賯蹖亘賽 跇賳蹖賽 禺賵丿 丿丕丿賴 鬲丕 鬲賵賱蹖丿賽 賲孬賱賽 丿賵亘丕乇賴 丿丕卮鬲賴 亘丕卮丿
蹖丕 丕蹖賳讴賴 亘乇禺蹖 丕夭 賲丕丿賴 賴丕 賵噩賵丿 丿丕乇賳丿 讴賴 亘趩踿 蹖鬲蹖賲蹖 乇丕 亘夭乇诏 賲蹖讴賳賳丿... 丿乇 氐賵乇鬲蹖讴賴 胤亘賯賽 賯賵丕毓丿賽 跇賳賽 禺賵丿禺賵丕賴锟斤拷 亘丕蹖丿 亘趩踿 蹖鬲蹖賲 丕夭 诏乇爻賳诏蹖 亘賲蹖乇丿
--------------------------------------------
诏丕賴蹖 丕賵賯丕鬲 跇賳賽 禺賵丿禺賵丕賴 亘丕 鬲賯賱亘 亘賴 亘賯丕蹖賽 禺賵丿 讴賲讴 賲蹖讴賳丿
亘賴 毓賳賵丕賳賽 賲孬丕賱貙 賮丕禺鬲賴 賴丕 爻毓蹖 賲蹖讴賳賳丿 鬲禺賲 賴丕蹖賽 禺賵丿 乇丕 亘賴 賱丕賳賴 賴丕蹖賽 倬乇賳丿诏丕賳賽 丿蹖诏乇 亘乇丿賴貙 鬲丕 丌賳賴丕 乇賵蹖賽 鬲禺賲 亘賳卮蹖賳賳丿... 丨丕賱 丕诏乇 倬乇賳丿踿 丿蹖诏乇 丕夭 鬲禺賲賴丕蹖卮 卮賳丕禺鬲 丿丕卮鬲賴 亘丕卮丿貙 亘丕 倬丕 鬲禺賲賽 丕囟丕賮賴 乇丕 亘賴 倬丕蹖蹖賳 賲蹖 丕賳丿丕夭丿... 丕賲丕 亘乇禺蹖 丕夭 倬乇賳丿诏丕賳 賲丕賳賳丿賽 讴丕讴丕蹖蹖 賴丕貙 亘賴 鬲禺賲蹖 讴賴 乇賵蹖賽 丌賳 賳卮爻鬲賴 丕賳丿貙 鬲賵噩賴 賳讴乇丿賴貙 賵 賮乇蹖亘 賲蹖禺賵乇賳丿
丨丕賱 丿乇 诏乇賵賴 賴丕蹖賽 诏賵賳丕诏賵賳 跇賳賽 乇丕爻鬲诏賵 賵 跇賳賽 丕蹖孬丕乇诏乇貙 賲鬲賮丕賵鬲 丕爻鬲
丕蹖孬丕乇诏乇丕賳貙 賵賯鬲蹖 賲鬲賵噩賴 賲蹖卮賵賳丿 蹖讴蹖 丕夭 鬲禺賲 賴丕 賲丕賱賽 禺賵丿卮丕賳 賳蹖爻鬲貙 亘丕夭賴賲 丌賳 乇丕 亘夭乇诏 賲蹖讴賳賳丿貙 亘丕 丕蹖賳讴丕乇 亘丕毓孬 賲蹖卮賵賳丿 鬲丕 跇賳賽 鬲賯賱亘 丿乇 诏乇賵賴 倬禺卮 卮賵丿.. 夭蹖乇丕 丌賳 倬乇賳丿踿 賲鬲賯賱亘 鬲賳丿 鬲賳丿 鬲禺賲 诏匕丕乇蹖 賲蹖讴賳丿 賵 丕蹖賳讴丕乇 乇丕 丕賳噩丕賲 賲蹖丿賴丿
--------------------------------------------
诏丕賴蹖 丕賵賯丕鬲 跇賳賽 禺賵丿禺賵丕賴 亘乇丕蹖賽 亘賯丕 亘賴 禺蹖丕賳鬲 乇賵 賲蹖 丌賵乇丿
賲孬賱丕賸 賵賯鬲蹖 賲丕丿賴 丕蹖 賲蹖亘蹖賳丿 讴賴 噩賮鬲卮 丿乇 賳亘乇丿 亘丕 賳乇賽 丿蹖诏乇 賲睾賱賵亘 卮丿賴貙 爻乇蹖毓 亘賴 爻賲鬲賽 賳乇賽 倬蹖乇賵夭 乇賮鬲賴 賵 亘丕 丕賵 噩賮鬲 诏蹖乇蹖 賲蹖讴賳丿 鬲丕 跇賳賽 亘乇鬲乇 丨丕氐賱 卮賵丿
诏丕賴蹖 丕賵賯丕鬲 跇賳賽 禺賵丿禺賵丕賴 亘丕 丿乇賵睾 亘賴 亘賯丕蹖賽 禺賵丿 讴賲讴 賲蹖讴賳丿
丿乇 倬乇賳丿诏丕賳貙 賵賯鬲蹖 賲丕丿乇 亘乇丕蹖賽 亘趩賴 賴丕 讴乇賲 蹖丕 丨卮乇賴 賲蹖 丌賵乇丿貙 亘趩賴 賴丕 丿賴丕賳賽 禺賵丿 乇丕 亘丕夭 賲蹖讴賳賳丿 賵 賲丕丿乇 亘賴 賲蹖夭丕賳賽 氐丿丕 丿賯鬲 讴乇丿賴 賵 亘賴 丌賳賴丕 禺賵乇丕讴 賲蹖丿賴丿貙 賴乇 讴丿丕賲 诏乇爻賳賴 鬲乇 亘丕卮丿 亘蹖卮鬲乇 氐丿丕 賲蹖夭賳丿.... 丨丕賱 賲賲讴賳 丕爻鬲 跇賳賽 禺賵丿禺賵丕賴 丿乇 蹖讴蹖 丕夭 噩賵噩賴 賴丕 亘蹖卮鬲乇 亘丕卮丿貙 丿乇 賳鬲蹖噩賴 噩賵噩賴 鬲賯賱亘 讴乇丿賴 賵 賵賯鬲蹖 爻蹖乇 卮丿賴 丿賵亘丕乇賴 氐丿丕蹖賽 亘賱賳丿 賲蹖丿賴丿貙 賴賲 賲丕丿乇 乇丕 诏賵賱 賲蹖夭賳丿 賵 賴賲 亘賴 禺賵丕賴乇 賵 亘乇丕丿乇丕賳卮 禺蹖丕賳鬲 賲蹖讴賳丿 賵 禺賵丕賴乇 賵 亘乇丕丿乇丕賳卮 丕夭 诏卮賳诏蹖 賲蹖賲蹖乇賳賳丿
--------------------------------------------
诏丕賴蹖 丕賵賯丕鬲 跇賳賽 禺賵丿禺賵丕賴 亘乇丕蹖賽 亘賯丕 亘賴 鬲賴丿蹖丿 乇賵 賲蹖 丌賵乇丿
賲孬賱丕賸 丿乇 倬乇賳丿诏丕賳 丿賵 丨丕賱鬲 丿丕乇丿貙 蹖讴蹖 丕夭 噩賵噩賴 賴丕 讴賴 亘夭乇诏鬲乇 賵 賯賵蹖 鬲乇 丕爻鬲貙 亘丕 氐丿丕蹖賽 噩蹖讴 噩蹖讴賽 夭蹖丕丿 鬲賵噩賴 卮讴丕乇趩蹖丕賳 乇丕 亘賴 丌賳賴丕 噩賱亘 賲蹖讴賳丿 賵 賲蹖诏賵蹖丿: 乇賵亘丕賴貙 乇賵亘丕賴 亘蹖丕 賲丕 乇丕 亘禺賵乇... 賱匕丕 賲丕丿乇卮 賲噩亘賵乇 丕爻鬲 丿賴丕賳卮 乇丕 亘亘賳丿 賵 丕賵 乇丕囟蹖 賳诏賴 丿丕乇丿
丕賲丕 夭賲丕賳蹖 賲蹖乇爻丿 讴賴 噩賵噩踿 囟毓蹖賮鬲乇貙 跇賳賽 賴賵卮賲賳丿蹖 丿丕乇丿貙 賵賯鬲蹖 賲蹖亘蹖賳丿 亘賴 丕賵 禺賵乇丕讴 賳賲蹖乇爻丿貙 卮讴丕乇趩蹖 乇丕 氐丿丕 賲蹖讴賳丿貙 鬲丕 賲丕丿乇 賮乇丕乇 讴乇丿賴貙 乇賵亘丕賴 亘蹖丕蹖丿 賵 丌賳 噩賵噩踿 亘夭乇诏鬲乇 賵 夭賵乇诏賵 乇丕 亘禺賵乇丿
--------------------------------------------
诏丕賴蹖 丕賵賯丕鬲 跇賳賽 禺賵丿禺賵丕賴 亘乇丕蹖賽 亘賯丕 亘賴 丿爻鬲賵乇 乇賵 賲蹖 丌賵乇丿
賲孬賱丕賸 丕诏乇 鬲賵賱賴 丕蹖 蹖丕 噩賵噩賴 丕蹖 亘賴 丿賳蹖丕 亘蹖丕蹖丿 賵 丕夭 禺賵丕賴乇丕賳 賵 亘乇丕丿乇丕賳賽 丿蹖诏乇卮 讴賵趩讴鬲乇 賵 囟毓蹖賮 鬲乇 賵 賳丨蹖賮 鬲乇 亘丕卮丿貙 跇賳蹖 亘賴 丕賵 丿爻鬲賵乇 賲蹖丿賴丿 讴賴: 芦 亘丿賳貙 丕诏乇 丕夭 丌賳賴丕蹖蹖 讴賴 亘丕賴賲 夭丕丿賴 卮丿賴 丕蹖丿貙 禺蹖賱蹖 讴賵趩讴鬲乇 賴爻鬲蹖貙 鬲賯賱丕 賳讴賳 賵 亘賲蹖乇禄... 賵 丨鬲蹖 亘賴鬲乇 丕爻鬲 禺賵乇丕讴賽 鬲賵賱賴 賴丕蹖賽 丿蹖诏乇 卮賵丿...亘賴 丕蹖賳 鬲乇鬲蹖亘 亘蹖卮鬲乇蹖賳 爻賵丿 乇丕 賳氐蹖亘賽 跇賳 賴丕蹖卮 賲蹖讴賳丿
--------------------------------------------
诏丕賴蹖 丕賵賯丕鬲 跇賳賽 禺賵丿禺賵丕賴 亘乇丕蹖賽 亘賯丕 亘賴 讴卮鬲賳 賵 賯鬲賱 乇賵 賲蹖 丌賵乇丿
賲孬賱丕賸 倬乇賳丿踿 芦乇丕賴賳賲丕蹖賽 讴賳丿賵蹖賽 毓爻賱禄貙 賲孬賱賽 賮丕禺鬲賴 賴丕 賲鬲賯賱亘 丕爻鬲 賵 鬲禺賲賽 禺賵丿 乇丕 丿乇 賱丕賳踿 倬乇賳丿诏丕賳賽 丿蹖诏乇 賲蹖诏匕丕乇丿... 丕蹖賳 賳賵毓 倬乇賳丿賴貙 賳賵讴賽 鬲蹖夭 賵 禺賲蹖丿賴 丕蹖 丿丕乇丿... 賵賯鬲蹖 丕夭 鬲禺賲 亘蹖乇賵賳 賲蹖 丌蹖丿.. 爻乇蹖毓 噩賵噩賴 賴丕蹖賽 丿蹖诏乇 乇丕 爻賵乇丕禺 爻賵乇丕禺 讴乇丿賴 賵 賲蹖讴卮丿貙 鬲丕 亘乇丕蹖賽 诏乇賮鬲賳賽 禺賵乇丕讴 丕夭 丿賴丕賳賽 賲丕丿乇賽 賳丕鬲賳蹖賽 禺賵丿貙 亘丕 丕賵 乇賯丕亘鬲 賳讴賳賳丿
蹖丕 賳賵毓蹖 倬乇爻鬲賵貙 鬲禺賲賽 禺賵丿 乇丕 丿乇 賱丕賳踿 夭丕睾 賲蹖诏匕丕乇丿... 噩賵噩賴 夭賵丿鬲乇 爻乇 丕夭 鬲禺賲 丿乇丌賵乇丿賴. 賵 鬲禺賲賽 夭丕睾 乇丕 賲蹖丕賳賽 亘乇噩爻鬲诏蹖 賴丕蹖賽 亘丕賱卮 诏匕丕卮鬲賴 賵 丌賳 乇丕 亘賴 倬丕蹖蹖賳 倬乇鬲 賲蹖讴賳丿
--------------------------------------------
诏丕賴蹖 丕賵賯丕鬲 跇賳賽 禺賵丿禺賵丕賴 亘乇丕蹖賽 亘賯丕 亘賴 丕賳鬲禺丕亘 乇賵 賲蹖 丌賵乇丿
賲孬賱丕賸 丕诏乇 亘亘蹖賳丿 鬲毓丿丕丿 賳乇賴丕 夭蹖丕丿 卮丿賴 丕賳丿... 賳賲蹖诏匕丕乇丿 鬲禺賲丿丕賳 賴丕 丕爻倬乇賲賽 賳乇爻丕夭 乇丕 丿乇蹖丕賮鬲 讴賳賳丿... 丿乇 丨丕賱鬲賽 毓丕丿蹖貙 跇賳賽 禺賵丿禺賵丕賴 鬲乇噩蹖賴 賲蹖丿賴丿貙賵丕賱丿貙 賲丕丿賴 亘賴 丿賳蹖丕 亘蹖丕賵乇丿
--------------------------------------------
诏丕賴蹖 丕賵賯丕鬲 跇賳賽 禺賵丿禺賵丕賴 亘乇丕蹖賽 亘賯丕 亘賴 亘乇丿賴 丿丕乇蹖 乇賵 賲蹖 丌賵乇丿
賲孬賱丕賸 诏賵賳賴 丕蹖 丕夭 賲賵乇趩賴 賴丕 賴爻鬲賳丿 讴賴 亘賴 賲賵乇趩賴 賴丕蹖賽 丿蹖诏乇 丨賲賱賴 讴乇丿賴 賵 爻乇亘丕夭丕賳 乇丕 賲蹖讴卮賳丿貙 賵 鬲禺賲賴丕蹖賽 賲賱讴賴 乇丕 丿夭丿蹖丿賴 賵 亘賴 賱丕賳踿 禺賵丿 賲蹖 丌賵乇賳丿... 賵賯鬲蹖 亘趩賴 賴丕 亘賴 丿賳蹖丕 賲蹖 丌蹖賳丿貙 丕夭 丌賳賴丕 亘賴 毓賳賵丕賳賽 亘乇丿賴 丕爻鬲賮丕丿賴 賲蹖讴賳賳丿
--------------------------------------------
诏丕賴蹖 丕賵賯丕鬲 跇賳賽 禺賵丿禺賵丕賴 亘乇丕蹖賽 亘賯丕 亘賴 賴賲夭蹖爻鬲蹖 乇賵 賲蹖 丌賵乇丿
賲孬賱丕賸 诏賵賳賴 丕蹖 丕夭 賲賵乇趩賴 賴丕 賵噩賵丿 丿丕乇賳丿 讴賴 丕夭 卮鬲賴 賴丕 亘賴 毓賳賵丕賳賽 丨蹖賵丕賳賽 禺丕賳诏蹖 丕爻鬲賮丕丿賴 賲蹖讴賳賳丿貙 蹖毓賳蹖 卮鬲賴 賴丕 卮蹖乇踿 诏蹖丕賴丕賳 乇丕 賲蹖賲讴賳丿貙 爻倬爻 賲賵乇趩賴 賴丕 卮鬲賴 賴丕 乇丕 賲蹖丿賵卮賳丿 賵 丕蹖賳 卮蹖乇賴 乇丕 丕夭 倬卮鬲卮丕賳 丿乇 賲蹖 丌賵乇賳丿... 丿乇 丕夭丕蹖賽 丌賳 賲賵乇趩賴 賴丕 丕夭 禺丕賳踿 卮鬲賴 賴丕 賴賲趩賵賳 爻乇亘丕夭丕賳 賲丨丕賮馗鬲 賲蹖讴賳賳丿
賲丕 丕賳爻丕賳 賴丕貙 丿乇 爻賱賵賱 賴丕蹖賲丕賳 趩蹖夭賴丕蹖賽 乇蹖夭蹖 賵噩賵丿 丿丕乇丿 亘賴 賳丕賲賽 芦賲蹖鬲賵讴賳丿乇蹖禄... 芦賲蹖鬲賵讴賳丿乇蹖禄 讴丕乇禺丕賳賴 賴丕蹖賽 卮蹖賲蹖丕蹖蹖賽 讴賵趩讴蹖 賴爻鬲賳丿 讴賴 賵馗蹖賮踿 鬲賵賱蹖丿賽 丕賳乇跇蹖 乇丕 丿丕乇賳丿... 芦賲蹖鬲賵讴賳丿乇蹖禄 賴丕 丿乇 丕氐賱 亘丕讴鬲乇蹖 賴丕蹖賽 賴賲夭蹖爻鬲蹖 賴爻鬲賳丿 讴賴 丕夭 丕亘鬲丿丕蹖賽 鬲讴丕賲賱 亘丕 爻賱賵賱 賴丕蹖賽 賲丕 倬蹖賵賳丿 蹖丕賮鬲賴 丕賳丿 賵 丿丕丿 賵 爻鬲丿 賲蹖讴賳賳丿
--------------------------------------------
诏丕賴蹖 丕賵賯丕鬲 蹖讴 跇賳 亘蹖 噩賴鬲 跇賳 賴丕蹖賽 丿蹖诏乇 乇丕 丕夭 亘蹖賳 賲蹖亘乇丿... 丕蹖賳 跇賳賴丕 丿爻鬲诏丕賴 乇丕 亘賴賲 賲蹖乇蹖夭賳丿... 賲丕賳賳丿賽 芦跇賳賽 鬲蹖禄... 賲孬賱丕賸 丿乇 賲賵卮 賴丕 丕诏乇 賲賵卮蹖 丿乇 讴賵丿讴蹖 丿賵 跇賳賽 鬲蹖 丿丕卮鬲賴 亘丕卮丿貙 丿乇 讴賵丿讴蹖 賲蹖賲蹖乇丿
--------------------------------------------
丿賵爻鬲丕賳賽 毓夭蹖夭賲貙 鬲賳賴丕 趩蹖夭蹖 讴賴 跇賳 賴丕 亘賴 胤賵乇賽 賲爻鬲賯蹖賲 賲蹖鬲賵丕賳賳丿 丌賳 乇丕 鬲丨鬲賽 鬲兀孬蹖乇 賯乇丕乇 丿賴賳丿貙 鬲乇讴蹖亘賽 倬乇賵鬲卅蹖賳 丕爻鬲
丕賲蹖丿賵丕乇賲 丕蹖賳 賲胤丕賱亘 亘乇丕蹖賽 卮賲丕 丿賵爻鬲丿丕乇丕賳賽 丿丕賳卮貙 賲賮蹖丿 亘賵丿賴 亘丕卮賴
芦倬蹖乇賵夭 亘丕卮蹖丿 賵 丕蹖乇丕賳蹖禄
September 22, 2020
The Selfish Gene (1976) is exactly how I prefer my non-fiction science books to be written. Richard Dawkins is clear, stays on topic, and explains the necessary details and complexities using simple everyday life examples. Dawkins, is entertaining, and gives you a hand when you get lost in his genetic pool analysis.
His writing talks to me. His argumentation challenge and encourage me to think and feel that I am gaining knowledge. It's a rewarding read. The author discusses the plants, animals, and humans selfish gene and their evolution by means of natural selection. There is no moral of the story as morals are not considered in the natural selection process.
What roll did natural selection have on primordial Earth? It selected to retain the stable forms of molecules and throw out the unstable forms. During the same period, simple replicating molecules were present with a capability to replicate themselves. Today we have a far more sophisticated self-replicating molecule, containing a complex recipe, called the DNA. Such stable molecules started to compete with one another in a struggle for existence. In order to increase their chances of survival and reproduction, these stable replicating molecules built machines for survival in which they would be accommodated. Those stable molecules today are our genes, and the machines for their survival, our bodies.
What is a selfish gene? The selfish gene is a short or rather small piece of a chromosome that lasts for many generations and has an extremely low probability to split up. It collaborates well with other genes and does not allow anything to penetrate it. The long lasting life of the selfish gene makes it an important unit of evolution by means of natural selection, and the replicating molecule (gene) a fundamental unit of natural selection.
The selfish gene created us to be self-centered and not altruistic. Our genes created us for their well-being and to fight for their survival and reproduce them through procreation. The selfish gene in living organisms is concerned for itself and individual in which they are housed. Therefore, our genes have a more egocentric approach for self-survival rather than an altruistic one that would benefit the group. Altruism is not the most stable evolutionary strategy for the genes and individuals, unless reciprocal altruism is at hand that would benefit each variety (of course there are exceptions). Parental altruism towards children can be viewed as genes investing in themselves as their genes are now found in their offspring. That is why it is important to teach altruism to our children, as it doesn't necessarily come naturally.
But our brain has developed up to a point that we are in a position to reject or rebel against our own selfish gene. Many people choose not to have children or use contraceptives and this way disobey the selfish gene. Others sacrifice themselves for the benefit of a group, for an ideal or a cause. In one chapter we see how a "meme" (idea or behavior), a unit of culture, acts as a replicator that is transmitted from individual to individual.
Since humans are conscious beings and aware that a future exists, it gives us the power to simulate and plan ahead. Also, we have written accounts of the past events - history. I would certainly hope that with our increasing knowledge about our genes, our finer capability of forecasting, and written history from different points of view, can act as tools to help us find a better balance between the common good of a society and the individuals interest i.e. balancing altruism and selfishness.
His writing talks to me. His argumentation challenge and encourage me to think and feel that I am gaining knowledge. It's a rewarding read. The author discusses the plants, animals, and humans selfish gene and their evolution by means of natural selection. There is no moral of the story as morals are not considered in the natural selection process.
What roll did natural selection have on primordial Earth? It selected to retain the stable forms of molecules and throw out the unstable forms. During the same period, simple replicating molecules were present with a capability to replicate themselves. Today we have a far more sophisticated self-replicating molecule, containing a complex recipe, called the DNA. Such stable molecules started to compete with one another in a struggle for existence. In order to increase their chances of survival and reproduction, these stable replicating molecules built machines for survival in which they would be accommodated. Those stable molecules today are our genes, and the machines for their survival, our bodies.
What is a selfish gene? The selfish gene is a short or rather small piece of a chromosome that lasts for many generations and has an extremely low probability to split up. It collaborates well with other genes and does not allow anything to penetrate it. The long lasting life of the selfish gene makes it an important unit of evolution by means of natural selection, and the replicating molecule (gene) a fundamental unit of natural selection.
The selfish gene created us to be self-centered and not altruistic. Our genes created us for their well-being and to fight for their survival and reproduce them through procreation. The selfish gene in living organisms is concerned for itself and individual in which they are housed. Therefore, our genes have a more egocentric approach for self-survival rather than an altruistic one that would benefit the group. Altruism is not the most stable evolutionary strategy for the genes and individuals, unless reciprocal altruism is at hand that would benefit each variety (of course there are exceptions). Parental altruism towards children can be viewed as genes investing in themselves as their genes are now found in their offspring. That is why it is important to teach altruism to our children, as it doesn't necessarily come naturally.
But our brain has developed up to a point that we are in a position to reject or rebel against our own selfish gene. Many people choose not to have children or use contraceptives and this way disobey the selfish gene. Others sacrifice themselves for the benefit of a group, for an ideal or a cause. In one chapter we see how a "meme" (idea or behavior), a unit of culture, acts as a replicator that is transmitted from individual to individual.
Since humans are conscious beings and aware that a future exists, it gives us the power to simulate and plan ahead. Also, we have written accounts of the past events - history. I would certainly hope that with our increasing knowledge about our genes, our finer capability of forecasting, and written history from different points of view, can act as tools to help us find a better balance between the common good of a society and the individuals interest i.e. balancing altruism and selfishness.
April 2, 2017
Color me very impressed. I can now see why this is considered to be one of those hugely popular science books I keep hearing about and the reason why Dawkins has become so widely known and/or respected with or without his notoriety.
Indeed, the pure science bits were pretty much awesome. We, or at least I, have heard of this theory in other contexts before and none of it really comes as much surprise to see that genes, themselves, have evolved strategies that are exactly the same as Game Theory in order to find the best possible outcome for continued replication. Hence: the selfish gene.
Enormous simple computers running through the prisoner's dilemma with each other, rival genes, and especially within whole organisms which could just be seen as gigantic living spacecraft giving the genes an evolutionary advantage of finding new and more prosperous adaptations.
Yup! That's us!
I honestly don't see the problem. I love the idea that we are just galaxies of little robots running complicated Game Theories that eventually turn into a great cooperative machine where everyone (mostly) benefits, with plenty of complicated moves going way beyond hawks and doves and straight into the horribly complicated multi-defectors, forgivers, and other evolutionary styles that depend on the events that have gone before and the pre-knowledge (or lack of) a set end-date for the entire experiment... in other words, our deaths, whether pre-planned or simply the entire mass of genes just coming to realize that it's no longer in their best interest to keep pushing this jalopy around any longer if they're not getting anything out of it... like further replication. :)
Even when it's not precisely sex, it's still all about sex. :)
Of course, what I've just mentioned isn't the entire book, because, as a matter of fact, the book walks us through so many stages of thought, previous research, developments, mistakes, and upgraded theories and surprising conclusions based on soooooo much observable data that any of us might be rightfully confounded with the weight of it unless we were in the heart of the research, ourselves.
It's science, baby.
Make sure you don't make the data conform to your theory. Build your theory from observable data. Improve upon it as the building blocks are proved or disproved, keep going until it is so damn robust until nothing but a true miracle could topple it, and then keep asking new questions.
The fact is, this theory has nothing (or everything) to do with our lives. We play Game Theory, too, in exactly the same way every gene everywhere does, but we just happen to be able to make models on top of the situations and we're able to choose whether to see through the lies, the hawk strategies, or when to stop cooperating if the advantages work out much better for us if we did. We, like our genes, can choose long-term cooperative strategies or play everything like a Bear market. :)
Even this book says that it's very likely that Nice Guys can win, but just like our lives, the gene lives keep discovering ever more complicated strategies and all eventual strategies become more and more situational.
Isn't that us, to a tea? I wonder if most complaints about this book stem from complaints about Game Theory rather than the perceived conclusion (much better spelled out, not in this book, but in later books)... that atheism rules the day. It really isn't evident here. Instead, we have a macrocosm mimicking the microcosm and no one wants to challenge their comfortable world view.
Things aren't simple. All choices to betray or cooperate are then met with situation and memory and ever complex meta-contexts, the difference between us and genes being that we're self-aware and the genes are not.
Yes, yes, I see where the arguments can start coming out of the closet about self-determination and such, but that's not really the point of this book at all. The point is that it's a successful model that accurately describes reality. It has nothing at all to do with the macro-world except obliquely, and makes no value judgments on our art, our beliefs, or how we think about ourselves except in our uniquely stubborn and self-delusional ways that love to take things out of context and apply misunderstood concepts to our general lives and wonder why everything gets so screwed up. :)
But then, maybe I'm just applying my own incomplete models to yet another and we lousy humans still lack WAY TOO MUCH data to build a really impressively improved model. :)
Come on, Deep Thought. Where are you? :)
Indeed, the pure science bits were pretty much awesome. We, or at least I, have heard of this theory in other contexts before and none of it really comes as much surprise to see that genes, themselves, have evolved strategies that are exactly the same as Game Theory in order to find the best possible outcome for continued replication. Hence: the selfish gene.
Enormous simple computers running through the prisoner's dilemma with each other, rival genes, and especially within whole organisms which could just be seen as gigantic living spacecraft giving the genes an evolutionary advantage of finding new and more prosperous adaptations.
Yup! That's us!
I honestly don't see the problem. I love the idea that we are just galaxies of little robots running complicated Game Theories that eventually turn into a great cooperative machine where everyone (mostly) benefits, with plenty of complicated moves going way beyond hawks and doves and straight into the horribly complicated multi-defectors, forgivers, and other evolutionary styles that depend on the events that have gone before and the pre-knowledge (or lack of) a set end-date for the entire experiment... in other words, our deaths, whether pre-planned or simply the entire mass of genes just coming to realize that it's no longer in their best interest to keep pushing this jalopy around any longer if they're not getting anything out of it... like further replication. :)
Even when it's not precisely sex, it's still all about sex. :)
Of course, what I've just mentioned isn't the entire book, because, as a matter of fact, the book walks us through so many stages of thought, previous research, developments, mistakes, and upgraded theories and surprising conclusions based on soooooo much observable data that any of us might be rightfully confounded with the weight of it unless we were in the heart of the research, ourselves.
It's science, baby.
Make sure you don't make the data conform to your theory. Build your theory from observable data. Improve upon it as the building blocks are proved or disproved, keep going until it is so damn robust until nothing but a true miracle could topple it, and then keep asking new questions.
The fact is, this theory has nothing (or everything) to do with our lives. We play Game Theory, too, in exactly the same way every gene everywhere does, but we just happen to be able to make models on top of the situations and we're able to choose whether to see through the lies, the hawk strategies, or when to stop cooperating if the advantages work out much better for us if we did. We, like our genes, can choose long-term cooperative strategies or play everything like a Bear market. :)
Even this book says that it's very likely that Nice Guys can win, but just like our lives, the gene lives keep discovering ever more complicated strategies and all eventual strategies become more and more situational.
Isn't that us, to a tea? I wonder if most complaints about this book stem from complaints about Game Theory rather than the perceived conclusion (much better spelled out, not in this book, but in later books)... that atheism rules the day. It really isn't evident here. Instead, we have a macrocosm mimicking the microcosm and no one wants to challenge their comfortable world view.
Things aren't simple. All choices to betray or cooperate are then met with situation and memory and ever complex meta-contexts, the difference between us and genes being that we're self-aware and the genes are not.
Yes, yes, I see where the arguments can start coming out of the closet about self-determination and such, but that's not really the point of this book at all. The point is that it's a successful model that accurately describes reality. It has nothing at all to do with the macro-world except obliquely, and makes no value judgments on our art, our beliefs, or how we think about ourselves except in our uniquely stubborn and self-delusional ways that love to take things out of context and apply misunderstood concepts to our general lives and wonder why everything gets so screwed up. :)
But then, maybe I'm just applying my own incomplete models to yet another and we lousy humans still lack WAY TOO MUCH data to build a really impressively improved model. :)
Come on, Deep Thought. Where are you? :)
April 16, 2025
Last night, while watching a fusillade of pyrotechnic spermatozoa ejaculated from gaudy tubes of erectile aspect, I saw the whole of human desire captured in Incarusian defiance. With shells striving to pierce the black ovum of space, but having their motility sapped by the deformational geometries which encircle our terrestrial biosphere. Disclosing their metal salts and iron filings with violent punctuations of barometric pressure and visual amplitude, only to be completely consumed, mere seconds later, by silence and darkness. A stranger, perhaps sensing the melancholy which had gripped me by the haunches, innocently inquired, 鈥淚s something bothering you, sweetie?鈥� To which I hissed, 鈥淚 sometimes fantasize about blasting a champagne cork into someone鈥檚 mouth, mid sentence, then impaling them with the bill of sword fish.鈥� I then turned back to the show, shaking my head, 鈥淵ou didn鈥檛 deserve that. I鈥檓 just thinking about the relationship between senescence and antagonistic pleiotropy and how you can鈥檛 make sense of certain biological realities unless your conceptual efforts proceed from the optimal level of granularity. For instance, when I, as a little girl, had the distinct terror of being chased by a Somali ostrich, and was subsequently trampled by said flightless bird, with my large strawberry milkshake pinned beneath me and exploding all over my white dress like a bazooka bubblegum claymore, (which appeared to onlookers as my ever loving guts being mashed out of my tiny body), it did not behoove me to attempt to understand its behavior at the level of quantum physics. I鈥檓 sure the whole dreary affair transgressed no physical laws, up to and including my mother screaming; 鈥淪aints be with us! The little idiot has finally done herself in!鈥� I鈥檓 not saying that. But it was a far better use of attentional resources to focus on my behavior prior to the incident, wherein I was strangely compelled to harangue the temperamental bird about the dimorphic condition of its tiny head relative to its large body.鈥� Laughing and turning to ask the man for a light, I realized that he had fled silently back into the crowd.
Not to be thwarted in mid rant, I singled out an attractive woman and stormed towards her, gesturing wildly as if the Cesar of my ego was experiencing bloody death curtesy of white hot senatorial stabbings administered by psychedelics. Shouting, 鈥淚n precisely this way, it is difficult to make much sense of our ephemeral existence without the concept of antagonistic pleiotropy.鈥� Drawing painfully close and smelling her hair. 鈥淎re you single? Don鈥檛 answer that! First, observe, at the proper level of magnification, the center of evolution鈥檚 dramas, not the individual, but the gene. Now, if we are going to attempt to understand death, this inability of ours to achieve the escape velocity of our mortality, like those mortars which currently spunk the night sky with their rainbow smithereens. To understand this spectral Bukkake, we must cudgel the knees of our tired frameworks and streak madly into the arms of lusty new paradigms. Observe! If we were going to ask the obvious question; why do we perish amongst abundance? Why must we bust a fat, prismatic nut, and never be heard again? If we have food sufficient to meet our caloric needs, should we not be able to repair the damage we incur indefinitely? I say unto you; Let us suppose that there was a gene, in our ancestral past, which controlled for more than one phenotypic trait (i.e the protein expression of the genotype under influence of environment factors). One of these traits was quite beneficial early in life and ensured that the humans who possessed it were more likely to take it to pound town, but the same gene was also responsible for one or more defects which would manifest outside of prime reproductive years. You would end up with a proliferation of these genes irregardless of their ultimate cost, (i.e the eventual demise of the screaming mortar as it goes ungently into that good night) because reproduction is key. The mystery of senescence now seems tractable, doesn鈥檛 it?鈥�
Silently she takes my hand and leads me away from the crowd. Once we鈥檝e made it to the top of a small hill overlooking the celebration, she turns to me and says;
"S矛, abbiamo un'anima. Ma 猫 fatta di tanti piccoli robot.鈥�
This book is an account of one of the most successful science metaphors ever created, of how immortal genes are winnowed through the game theoretic calculus of natural selection into evolutionary stable states. About how the non-random survival of randomly varying replicators can produce all the various strategies which enable the carriers of this encoded information to survive and send it into the future. The Selfish Gene is one of the best books on evolution ever written. It profoundly communicates just what evolution is all about: the replication of genetic units of information, by whatever means possible. Viruses, retroviruses, parasitic insects, gut bacteria, mitochondria, the grotesque nuptial gifts of scorpion flies, and motorcycle accidents caused by toxoplasmosis - they are all successful cases of genes replicating in varied "survival machines," giving zero shits about how quaint their respective venues appear. It's an amazing, well-proved idea, wonderfully communicated by a passionate writer. It requires no advanced training or technical background to understand, and will reward your attention by permanently enriching your understanding of the natural world.
Not to be thwarted in mid rant, I singled out an attractive woman and stormed towards her, gesturing wildly as if the Cesar of my ego was experiencing bloody death curtesy of white hot senatorial stabbings administered by psychedelics. Shouting, 鈥淚n precisely this way, it is difficult to make much sense of our ephemeral existence without the concept of antagonistic pleiotropy.鈥� Drawing painfully close and smelling her hair. 鈥淎re you single? Don鈥檛 answer that! First, observe, at the proper level of magnification, the center of evolution鈥檚 dramas, not the individual, but the gene. Now, if we are going to attempt to understand death, this inability of ours to achieve the escape velocity of our mortality, like those mortars which currently spunk the night sky with their rainbow smithereens. To understand this spectral Bukkake, we must cudgel the knees of our tired frameworks and streak madly into the arms of lusty new paradigms. Observe! If we were going to ask the obvious question; why do we perish amongst abundance? Why must we bust a fat, prismatic nut, and never be heard again? If we have food sufficient to meet our caloric needs, should we not be able to repair the damage we incur indefinitely? I say unto you; Let us suppose that there was a gene, in our ancestral past, which controlled for more than one phenotypic trait (i.e the protein expression of the genotype under influence of environment factors). One of these traits was quite beneficial early in life and ensured that the humans who possessed it were more likely to take it to pound town, but the same gene was also responsible for one or more defects which would manifest outside of prime reproductive years. You would end up with a proliferation of these genes irregardless of their ultimate cost, (i.e the eventual demise of the screaming mortar as it goes ungently into that good night) because reproduction is key. The mystery of senescence now seems tractable, doesn鈥檛 it?鈥�
Silently she takes my hand and leads me away from the crowd. Once we鈥檝e made it to the top of a small hill overlooking the celebration, she turns to me and says;
"S矛, abbiamo un'anima. Ma 猫 fatta di tanti piccoli robot.鈥�
This book is an account of one of the most successful science metaphors ever created, of how immortal genes are winnowed through the game theoretic calculus of natural selection into evolutionary stable states. About how the non-random survival of randomly varying replicators can produce all the various strategies which enable the carriers of this encoded information to survive and send it into the future. The Selfish Gene is one of the best books on evolution ever written. It profoundly communicates just what evolution is all about: the replication of genetic units of information, by whatever means possible. Viruses, retroviruses, parasitic insects, gut bacteria, mitochondria, the grotesque nuptial gifts of scorpion flies, and motorcycle accidents caused by toxoplasmosis - they are all successful cases of genes replicating in varied "survival machines," giving zero shits about how quaint their respective venues appear. It's an amazing, well-proved idea, wonderfully communicated by a passionate writer. It requires no advanced training or technical background to understand, and will reward your attention by permanently enriching your understanding of the natural world.
March 17, 2022
鈥淯na gallina es solo la forma en que un huevo hace otro huevo鈥� (Samuel Butler 1835-1902)La evoluci贸n es un hecho que solo un fan谩tico religioso puede negar: antes hab铆a animales que ahora no existen y ahora existen animales que antes no. Aunque esto era conocido ya antes de Darwin, 茅l tuvo la genialidad de idear un mecanismo que explicara c贸mo se produc铆a esa evoluci贸n: la selecci贸n natural. Su explicaci贸n ha sido modificada con posterioridad de forma sustancial en base a los nuevos conocimientos sobre gen茅tica, mecanismos de la herencia, registros f贸siles, etc. hasta dejar de ser una teor铆a, una hip贸tesis, para convertirse en una ley cient铆fica al mismo nivel de credibilidad que cualquier otra ley establecida por la ciencia.
La interesante y fruct铆fera tesis que plantea Dawkins en este libro es establecer como unidad de este mecanismo de selecci贸n, no a la especie ni al grupo ni al individuo, sino al gen.
鈥淯n cuerpo es el medio empleado por los genes para preservar los genes inalterados.鈥�Tomar al gen como unidad de selecci贸n explicar铆a, por ejemplo, el altruismo, esto es, c贸mo es posible que un individuo quiera aumentar el bienestar de otro ser semejante a expensas de su propio bienestar. La respuesta es que los genes 鈥減ueden alcanzar mejor sus objetivos ego铆stas fomentando una forma limitad del altruismo a nivel de los animales individuales.鈥� El libro expone muchos ejemplos en el que comportamientos que en principio pueden parecernos altruistas pueden ser interpretados como una forma de ego铆smo tanto a nivel del individuo como a un nivel m谩s profundo y realmente inquietante, el del gen.
Otra aportaci贸n interesant铆sima de Dawkins en este libro es la idea de meme, la unidad m铆nima de informaci贸n que se puede transmitir, que actuar铆a como un replicador a nivel cerebral de forma semejante a un gen. Ejemplos de memes que da el propio autor son: 鈥渢onadas o sones, ideas, consignas, modas en cuanto a vestimenta, formas de fabricar vasijas o de construir arcos鈥�.
鈥淟os memes se propagan en el acervo de memes al saltar de un cerebro a otro mediante un proceso que鈥� puede llamarse imitaci贸n... Si los memes de los cerebros son an谩logos a los genes, deben ser estructuras cerebrales autorreplicadoras, patrones reales de conexi贸n neuronal que se reconstruyen a s铆 mismos en un cerebro despu茅s de otro.鈥�As铆, tambi茅n los memes est谩n expuestos a un mecanismo de selecci贸n, de tal forma que ser谩n favorecidos aquellos que 鈥渆xplotan su medio cultural para su propia ventaja鈥�, siendo su medio cultural el acervo de memes existentes en cada momento.
Un libro sugerente y explicado de esa forma tan did谩ctica que siempre exhibe Dawkins.
September 11, 2018
On 27 December 1831, a young naturalist by the name of Charles Robert Darwin set upon a voyage of discovery on the HMS Beagle which was to last five years and take him all over the globe. He came back with a lot of specimens, copious scientific notes and an explosive theory which was to rock the world of ideas: the theory of evolution by natural selection. Suddenly, God became an unnecessary and unlikely hypothesis: man was pulled down from his high throne as the master of creation: and existence became a cacophony of chance events rather than a carefully co-ordinated orchestra. Naturally, the religious establishment rebelled. But like all ideas whose time had come, evolution hung on with great tenacity to become the widely accepted idea it is today.
I have been fascinated with the idea ever since I was introduced to it in high school. As far as I am concerned, the very argument that theists put forward against evolution is its greatest strength; viz. the complexity of the natural world. According to the believer, such a complex and 鈥減erfect鈥� (whatever that means!) system has to have an architect behind it. But the fact is that it is not 鈥減erfect鈥� 鈥� nature is dynamic. What we perceive as stability is homeostasis, a seething mass of life, eating one another and being eaten; and as nature shifts her stance, so does life, whole species dying out (like the dinosaurs) to make way for others.
But wait! Humans are different, aren鈥檛 we? We compete, true: but we also show altruism. People lay down their life to protect their progeny, their brothers and sisters, their countrymen鈥� if we were selfish survival machines, why would we do this? It means we have the spark of divinity within us, doesn鈥檛 it?
Well鈥� not exactly, according to Richard Dawkins. It only means we have the 鈥淪elfish Gene鈥� within us.
The Selfish Gene needs no introduction. This is one of those iconic 鈥減op鈥� science books which everyone seems to have read, like The Naked Ape by Desmond Morris. I was a bit late (well, about 37 years!) in getting to it. However, the book has lost none of the charm, and the idea any of its power, due to the ravages of time: if at all, it has become stronger.
What is a gene?
Dawkins confesses that there is no universally agreed definition of 鈥榞ene鈥�. We now know that the blueprint for building of each human being is coded in 23 pairs of chromosomes, one of every pair being inherited from each parent. The code inside the chromosome is written in DNA molecules, the famous 鈥楧ouble Helix鈥� that Dawkins terms the 鈥業mmortal Coils鈥�.
The DNA molecules are replicators. They replicate themselves; they also manufacture proteins, the basic building block of life as we know it. These DNA molecules (some version of them) were the original 鈥渓ife鈥� in the 鈥減rimeval soup鈥�: they reproduced themselves and competed with one another to survive. Natural selection defined which lasted and which died away.
Dawkins defines a gene (a definition borrowed from G. C. Williams) as 鈥渁ny part of chromosomal material that potentially lasts for enough generations to serve as a unit of natural selection鈥�. In other words, a gene is a copier with high 鈥渃opying-fidelity鈥�: that is, it ensures that it copies itself without mistakes so that longevity in the form of copies is ensured.
So in the primeval soup, these genes went on happily competing with each other, evolving newer and newer ways of surviving in an environment which got increasingly complex. As part of survival technology, the genes built a lot of machines, bunching together to form gene complexes in the context. The machines got more and more complex, from the single-cell amoeba to the human being.
Dawkins starts the book with the question 鈥淲hy are people?鈥� This is his answer 鈥� so that the gene can survive and replicate. We are nothing but vehicles for the genes, who exist to ensure their survival.
Pretty disillusioning, isn鈥檛 it? But Dawkins is far from done. After pulling down humanity from its pedestal as the 鈥減innacle of creation鈥�, he proceeds to explain all the lofty sentiments such as love, altruism, sacrifice etc. as the result of strategies for gene survival 鈥� extremely selfish strategies at that. It is very difficult to stomach for a generation which has been trained to behold human beings as somehow special, and the above sentiments as the proof of their exclusivity which separate them from the 鈥渓ower鈥� animals. As one disgusted poster said in one of the fora where this book was discussed: 鈥淪o altruism is like going to the potty? Oh dear!鈥�
But even though disheartening at first, as Dawkins begins to back up his arguments with solid scientific reasoning, it is difficult to dispute him, and difficult not to get excited when he presents his theory with mathematical precision.
Aggression and Stability
One of the most common arguments put forward against evolution is that an uncontrolled state of aggression will lead to a free-for-all and the 鈥渟table鈥� environment we see cannot exist. Dawkins explains this with the concept of an ESS (Evolutionary Stable Strategy), which leads to a dynamic equilibrium or homeostasis: he posits a theoretical society populated by pure aggressors (鈥渉awks鈥�) and pure pacifists (鈥渄oves鈥�), and proves logically that over a period of time, the number of hawks and doves will stabilise in roughly equal proportion. This is because it is not the survival machines which are having the final say on who will win: it is the genes. This concept is further expanded with fine variations on the behavior 鈥� ultimately, every time, a dynamically stable configuration results.
In Chapter 12, 鈥楴ice Guys Finish First鈥� (added as part of the second edition), Dawkins takes this theory further and presents a varying set of evolutionary strategies, modelled on Game Theory. It describes in detail various evolutionary stratagems he tried out on his computer (with contributions from a lot of scientists) and the outcomes. This is a fascinating analysis and in my opinion, the most interesting part of the book 鈥� but that may just be the engineer in me, who loves anything mathematical!
Altruism
Oh yes. The old stumbling block. The favourite saw of the creationists. If we are all selfish, how does altruism come into the picture? Why do parents sacrifice themselves for their children, why do siblings do the same for each other, why do we co-operate at all? Should we not be at each other鈥檚 throats, all the time?
No, according to Dawkins. If we look at it from the gene鈥檚 point of view, it all makes perfect sense.
When we are talking of genes, we are talking of gene pools here: a group of genes working together so that the survival of each is maximised. Dawkins makes a brilliant analogy to a rowing team. If a coach is choosing a team, he would over a period end up with a group who can pull in such a way that the winning chance is maximised 鈥� an individual rower, however brilliant he is, would find no place in the team if he did not contribute to the group effort. In the case of genes, natural selection plays the role of the coach. Those genes which could not co-operate simply get discarded in the evolutionary race over a period of time.
Also, one should bear in mind that a gene is not a single physical bit of DNA; it is all replicas of a particular bit of DNA, distributed throughout the world. A gene might be able to assist replicas of itself that are sitting in other bodies. If so, this could be the origin of altruism. Dawkins calls it 鈥榞enesmanship鈥�. He spends four chapters explaining how it applies to siblings, offspring, lovers and apparent strangers. In the last chapter (鈥楾he Long Reach of the Gene鈥�), Dawkins extrapolates the above argument to how the gene in one species can extend its reach to another species, possibly to the detriment of the latter, to explain parasitism.
One may take it or leave it, but the arguments are well thought-out and presented with great clarity; with cold, scientific logic. There are no opinions here. It makes fascinating reading, even though the mathematical analysis may put some off!
Memes
The concept of the 鈥榤eme鈥� is possibly the most revolutionary one expressed in this book. Dawkins defines a meme as a unit of cultural transmission, a basic idea which gets replicated in human brains, in the 鈥榩rimeval soup鈥� of human culture; which, according to him, is in the same state as the biological 鈥榮oup鈥� was at the dawn of life on earth. To quote the author himself:
Examples of memes are tunes, ideas, catch-phrases, clothes fashions, ways of making pots or of building arches. Just as genes propagate themselves in the gene pool by leaping from body to body via sperms or eggs, so memes propagate themselves in the meme pool by leaping from brain to brain via a process which, in the broad sense, can be called imitation.
According Dawkins, all prevalent ideas (including the idea of God!) is a meme: the meme survives because it has a survival value in the meme pool. If we subscribe to this idea, the whole intellectual arena is nothing but a group of memes grappling for survival 鈥� not a very edifying thought. It seems Dawkins appreciates this, because he ends the chapter on memes with the speculation that man has the capacity for genuine, disinterested, true altruism. He says 鈥淲e are built as gene machines and cultured as meme machines, but we have the power to turn against our creators. We, alone on earth, can rebel against the tyranny of the selfish replicators.鈥�
I, as a fan of the Jungian idea of the Collective Unconscious, could not help speculating on whether the meme could be embedded way down in the gene itself? Maybe the Collective Unconscious is nothing but little bits of consciousness, embedded inside the DNA, which guided the process of survival? If so, it could be case for Intelligent Design 鈥� or rather, Intelligent Evolution.
This is one of those 鈥榩op-science鈥� books which are enlightening and enjoyable at the same time. A must-read.
Read the review also on my .
I have been fascinated with the idea ever since I was introduced to it in high school. As far as I am concerned, the very argument that theists put forward against evolution is its greatest strength; viz. the complexity of the natural world. According to the believer, such a complex and 鈥減erfect鈥� (whatever that means!) system has to have an architect behind it. But the fact is that it is not 鈥減erfect鈥� 鈥� nature is dynamic. What we perceive as stability is homeostasis, a seething mass of life, eating one another and being eaten; and as nature shifts her stance, so does life, whole species dying out (like the dinosaurs) to make way for others.
But wait! Humans are different, aren鈥檛 we? We compete, true: but we also show altruism. People lay down their life to protect their progeny, their brothers and sisters, their countrymen鈥� if we were selfish survival machines, why would we do this? It means we have the spark of divinity within us, doesn鈥檛 it?
Well鈥� not exactly, according to Richard Dawkins. It only means we have the 鈥淪elfish Gene鈥� within us.
The Selfish Gene needs no introduction. This is one of those iconic 鈥減op鈥� science books which everyone seems to have read, like The Naked Ape by Desmond Morris. I was a bit late (well, about 37 years!) in getting to it. However, the book has lost none of the charm, and the idea any of its power, due to the ravages of time: if at all, it has become stronger.
What is a gene?
Dawkins confesses that there is no universally agreed definition of 鈥榞ene鈥�. We now know that the blueprint for building of each human being is coded in 23 pairs of chromosomes, one of every pair being inherited from each parent. The code inside the chromosome is written in DNA molecules, the famous 鈥楧ouble Helix鈥� that Dawkins terms the 鈥業mmortal Coils鈥�.
The DNA molecules are replicators. They replicate themselves; they also manufacture proteins, the basic building block of life as we know it. These DNA molecules (some version of them) were the original 鈥渓ife鈥� in the 鈥減rimeval soup鈥�: they reproduced themselves and competed with one another to survive. Natural selection defined which lasted and which died away.
Dawkins defines a gene (a definition borrowed from G. C. Williams) as 鈥渁ny part of chromosomal material that potentially lasts for enough generations to serve as a unit of natural selection鈥�. In other words, a gene is a copier with high 鈥渃opying-fidelity鈥�: that is, it ensures that it copies itself without mistakes so that longevity in the form of copies is ensured.
So in the primeval soup, these genes went on happily competing with each other, evolving newer and newer ways of surviving in an environment which got increasingly complex. As part of survival technology, the genes built a lot of machines, bunching together to form gene complexes in the context. The machines got more and more complex, from the single-cell amoeba to the human being.
Dawkins starts the book with the question 鈥淲hy are people?鈥� This is his answer 鈥� so that the gene can survive and replicate. We are nothing but vehicles for the genes, who exist to ensure their survival.
Pretty disillusioning, isn鈥檛 it? But Dawkins is far from done. After pulling down humanity from its pedestal as the 鈥減innacle of creation鈥�, he proceeds to explain all the lofty sentiments such as love, altruism, sacrifice etc. as the result of strategies for gene survival 鈥� extremely selfish strategies at that. It is very difficult to stomach for a generation which has been trained to behold human beings as somehow special, and the above sentiments as the proof of their exclusivity which separate them from the 鈥渓ower鈥� animals. As one disgusted poster said in one of the fora where this book was discussed: 鈥淪o altruism is like going to the potty? Oh dear!鈥�
But even though disheartening at first, as Dawkins begins to back up his arguments with solid scientific reasoning, it is difficult to dispute him, and difficult not to get excited when he presents his theory with mathematical precision.
Aggression and Stability
One of the most common arguments put forward against evolution is that an uncontrolled state of aggression will lead to a free-for-all and the 鈥渟table鈥� environment we see cannot exist. Dawkins explains this with the concept of an ESS (Evolutionary Stable Strategy), which leads to a dynamic equilibrium or homeostasis: he posits a theoretical society populated by pure aggressors (鈥渉awks鈥�) and pure pacifists (鈥渄oves鈥�), and proves logically that over a period of time, the number of hawks and doves will stabilise in roughly equal proportion. This is because it is not the survival machines which are having the final say on who will win: it is the genes. This concept is further expanded with fine variations on the behavior 鈥� ultimately, every time, a dynamically stable configuration results.
In Chapter 12, 鈥楴ice Guys Finish First鈥� (added as part of the second edition), Dawkins takes this theory further and presents a varying set of evolutionary strategies, modelled on Game Theory. It describes in detail various evolutionary stratagems he tried out on his computer (with contributions from a lot of scientists) and the outcomes. This is a fascinating analysis and in my opinion, the most interesting part of the book 鈥� but that may just be the engineer in me, who loves anything mathematical!
Altruism
Oh yes. The old stumbling block. The favourite saw of the creationists. If we are all selfish, how does altruism come into the picture? Why do parents sacrifice themselves for their children, why do siblings do the same for each other, why do we co-operate at all? Should we not be at each other鈥檚 throats, all the time?
No, according to Dawkins. If we look at it from the gene鈥檚 point of view, it all makes perfect sense.
When we are talking of genes, we are talking of gene pools here: a group of genes working together so that the survival of each is maximised. Dawkins makes a brilliant analogy to a rowing team. If a coach is choosing a team, he would over a period end up with a group who can pull in such a way that the winning chance is maximised 鈥� an individual rower, however brilliant he is, would find no place in the team if he did not contribute to the group effort. In the case of genes, natural selection plays the role of the coach. Those genes which could not co-operate simply get discarded in the evolutionary race over a period of time.
Also, one should bear in mind that a gene is not a single physical bit of DNA; it is all replicas of a particular bit of DNA, distributed throughout the world. A gene might be able to assist replicas of itself that are sitting in other bodies. If so, this could be the origin of altruism. Dawkins calls it 鈥榞enesmanship鈥�. He spends four chapters explaining how it applies to siblings, offspring, lovers and apparent strangers. In the last chapter (鈥楾he Long Reach of the Gene鈥�), Dawkins extrapolates the above argument to how the gene in one species can extend its reach to another species, possibly to the detriment of the latter, to explain parasitism.
One may take it or leave it, but the arguments are well thought-out and presented with great clarity; with cold, scientific logic. There are no opinions here. It makes fascinating reading, even though the mathematical analysis may put some off!
Memes
The concept of the 鈥榤eme鈥� is possibly the most revolutionary one expressed in this book. Dawkins defines a meme as a unit of cultural transmission, a basic idea which gets replicated in human brains, in the 鈥榩rimeval soup鈥� of human culture; which, according to him, is in the same state as the biological 鈥榮oup鈥� was at the dawn of life on earth. To quote the author himself:
Examples of memes are tunes, ideas, catch-phrases, clothes fashions, ways of making pots or of building arches. Just as genes propagate themselves in the gene pool by leaping from body to body via sperms or eggs, so memes propagate themselves in the meme pool by leaping from brain to brain via a process which, in the broad sense, can be called imitation.
According Dawkins, all prevalent ideas (including the idea of God!) is a meme: the meme survives because it has a survival value in the meme pool. If we subscribe to this idea, the whole intellectual arena is nothing but a group of memes grappling for survival 鈥� not a very edifying thought. It seems Dawkins appreciates this, because he ends the chapter on memes with the speculation that man has the capacity for genuine, disinterested, true altruism. He says 鈥淲e are built as gene machines and cultured as meme machines, but we have the power to turn against our creators. We, alone on earth, can rebel against the tyranny of the selfish replicators.鈥�
I, as a fan of the Jungian idea of the Collective Unconscious, could not help speculating on whether the meme could be embedded way down in the gene itself? Maybe the Collective Unconscious is nothing but little bits of consciousness, embedded inside the DNA, which guided the process of survival? If so, it could be case for Intelligent Design 鈥� or rather, Intelligent Evolution.
This is one of those 鈥榩op-science鈥� books which are enlightening and enjoyable at the same time. A must-read.
Read the review also on my .
October 4, 2021
The Selfish Gene, Richard Dawkins
The gene-centred view of evolution that Dawkins championed and crystallized is now central both to evolutionary theorizing and to lay commentaries on natural history such as wildlife documentaries.
A bird or a bee risks its life and health to bring its offspring into the world not to help itself, and certainly not to help its species 鈥� the prevailing, lazy thinking of the 1960's, even among luminaries of evolution such as Julian Huxley and Konrad Lorenz 鈥� but (unconsciously) so that its genes go on.
Genes that cause birds and bees to breed survive at the expense of other genes.
鬲丕乇蹖禺 賳禺爻鬲蹖賳 禺賵丕賳卮 乇賵夭 爻賵賲 賲丕賴 丕讴鬲亘乇 爻丕賱 2011賲蹖賱丕丿蹖
毓賳賵丕賳: 跇賳 禺賵丿禺賵丕賴貨 賳賵蹖爻賳丿賴: 乇蹖趩丕乇丿 丿丕賵讴蹖賳夭貨 賲鬲乇噩賲 賳乇诏爻 乇爻鬲賲蹖鈥屭堌必з嗀� 鬲賴乇丕賳貙 賳卮乇 趩卮賲賴貙 1389貨 丿乇 481氐貨 卮丕亘讴9789643629946貨 賲賵囟賵毓 鬲讴丕賲賱 賵 夭蹖爻鬲 卮賳丕爻蹖 丕夭 賳賵蹖爻賳丿诏丕賳 亘乇蹖鬲丕賳蹖丕 - 爻丿賴 20賲
毓賳賵丕賳: 跇賳 禺賵丿禺賵丕賴貨 賳賵蹖爻賳丿賴: 乇蹖趩丕乇丿 丿丕讴蹖賳夭貨 賲鬲乇噩賲 噩賱丕賱 爻賱胤丕賳蹖貨 鬲賴乇丕賳貙 賲丕夭蹖丕乇貙 1396貨 丿乇 432氐貨 卮丕亘讴9786006043760貨 趩丕倬 爻賵賲 爻丕賱1397貨 趩丕倬 倬賳噩賲 賵 卮卮賲 1399貨
毓賳賵丕賳: 跇賳 禺賵丿禺賵丕賴貨 賳賵蹖爻賳丿賴: 乇蹖趩丕乇丿 丿丕讴蹖賳夭貨 賲鬲乇噩賲 卮賴賱丕 亘丕賯乇蹖貨 鬲賴乇丕賳貙 倬跇賵丕讴貙 1399貨 丿乇 581氐貨 卮丕亘讴9789649309064貨
乇蹖趩丕乇丿 丿丕賵讴蹖賳夭 夭蹖爻鬲鈥屫促嗀ж� 鬲讴丕賲賱鈥屭必ж� 讴鬲丕亘 芦跇賳 禺賵丿禺賵丕賴禄 乇丕 丿乇 爻丕賱 1976賲蹖賱丕丿蹖 賲賳鬲卮乇 讴乇丿賳丿貨 亘賳蹖丕賳 亘丨孬 芦丿丕賵讴蹖賳夭禄 丿乇 丕蹖賳 讴鬲丕亘 丿乇 丨賵夭賴 蹖 鬲讴丕賲賱 胤亘蹖毓蹖貙 賵 毓賱賲 跇賳鬲蹖讴 丕爻鬲貙 丕蹖卮丕賳 跇賳鬲蹖讴 乇丕 賲亘鬲賳蹖 亘乇 賳诏乇卮蹖 跇賳鈥屬呚堌� 卮乇丨 賲蹖鈥屫囐嗀� 賵 賴賲趩賳蹖賳貙 乇賵蹖讴乇丿 丕蹖卮丕賳 丿乇 夭蹖爻鬲鈥屫促嗀ж驰屫� 賲鬲讴蹖 亘乇 賳馗乇蹖賴鈥� 蹖 芦丿丕乇賵蹖賳禄 丕爻鬲貨 丕蹖卮丕賳 亘乇 倬丕蹖賴 賳馗乇蹖賴 蹖 芦丿丕乇賵蹖賳禄 賲蹖鈥屬矩佰屫辟嗀� 讴賴 鬲讴丕賲賱 胤亘蹖毓蹖貙 丕夭 乇丕賴 诏夭蹖賳卮 胤亘蹖毓蹖 讴丕乇 賲蹖鈥屭┵嗀� 賵 诏夭蹖賳卮 胤亘蹖毓蹖 亘賴鈥� 賲毓賳蹖 亘賯丕蹖 卮丕蹖爻鬲賴鈥屫臂屬嗏€屬囏� 丕爻鬲貨 芦丿丕賵讴蹖賳夭禄 賳诏乇卮 跇賳鈥� 賲乇讴夭蹖 禺賵丿 乇丕 丿乇 毓賱賲 跇賳鬲蹖讴貙 亘丕 賳馗乇蹖賴 蹖 鬲讴丕賲賱蹖 芦丿丕乇賵蹖賳禄 倬蹖賵賳丿 賲蹖鈥屫操嗁嗀� 賵 亘賴 丕蹖賳 賳鬲蹖噩賴 蹖 倬丕蹖賴鈥� 丕蹖 賲蹖鈥屫必迟嗀� 讴賴: 芦跇賳禄貙 毓賳氐乇 丕氐賱蹖 诏夭蹖賳卮 胤亘蹖毓蹖 丕爻鬲貨 丕夭 賳馗乇 丕蹖卮丕賳貙 賴乇 趩賳丿 乇賯丕亘鬲 賲亘鬲賳蹖 亘乇 禺賵丿禺賵丕賴蹖 毓賳氐乇 丕氐賱蹖 跇賳 亘乇丕蹖 亘賯丕爻鬲貙 丕賲丕 禺賵丿禺賵丕賴蹖貙 氐乇賮丕賸 乇賮鬲丕乇 賮乇丿蹖 跇賳 丕爻鬲貨 丿乇 毓蹖賳 丨丕賱貙 丕賵賱丕賸 亘乇丌賵乇丿賳 禺賵丿禺賵丕賴蹖 跇賳鈥屬囏� 丕夭 丕爻丕爻 賲鬲讴蹖 亘乇 賴賲鬲丕爻丕夭蹖貙 蹖丕 鬲讴孬蹖乇 卮賵賳丿诏蹖 丕爻鬲貙 賵 孬丕賳蹖丕賸 丕蹖賳 乇賮鬲丕乇 賮乇丿蹖 丿乇 丕賵囟丕毓 賵 丕丨賵丕賱 賵蹖跇賴 丕蹖 乇賵蹖 賲蹖鈥屫囏� 讴賴 丕賲讴丕賳 乇賵蹖丿丕丿賳 丕賴丿丕賮 禺賵丿禺賵丕賴丕賳賴 跇賳 乇丕貙 亘賴鈥� 賲賳馗賵乇 倬丕蹖丿丕乇蹖 丌賳 賮乇丕賴賲 賲蹖鈥屫①堌必� 丿乇 丕蹖賳 丕賵囟丕毓 賵 丕丨賵丕賱 丕爻鬲 讴賴 跇賳 禺賵丿禺賵丕賴 亘丕 丿蹖诏乇 跇賳鈥屬囏ж� 讴賴 丌賳賴丕 賳蹖夭 禺賵丿禺賵丕賴鈥� 賴爻鬲賳丿貙 乇賵亘乇賵 賲蹖鈥屫促堌� 賵 賲蹖鈥屫堌з囏� 乇賯丕亘鬲蹖 乇丕 亘丕 丌賳賴丕 倬蹖卮 亘亘乇丿貙 讴賴 賴丿賮 丌賳 賳诏賴丿丕乇蹖 賵 亘賯丕蹖 夭賳丿诏蹖 丕乇诏丕賳蹖爻賲貙 丿乇 讴賱貙 丕爻鬲貨 丕夭 丿蹖丿诏丕賴 芦丿丕賵讴蹖賳夭禄 丕乇诏丕賳蹖爻賲 賲賵噩賵丿 夭賳丿賴貙 賲丨蹖胤蹖 丕爻鬲貙 讴賴 乇賯丕亘鬲 禺賵丿禺賵丕賴丕賳賴 跇賳 乇丕 亘乇 夭賲蹖賳賴 蹖 乇賯丕亘鬲 丿蹖诏乇禺賵丕賴丕賳賴鈥� 丕蹖 賯乇丕乇 賲蹖鈥屫囏� 讴賴 亘賯丕蹖 禺賵丿 丕乇诏丕賳蹖爻賲 夭賳丿賴 乇丕 賲蹖鈥屬矩佰屫必� 倬爻 趩卮賲 賴賲趩卮賲蹖 禺賵丿禺賵丕賴丕賳賴 跇賳鈥屬囏й� 禺賵丿禺賵丕賴貙 丿乇 丕乇诏丕賳蹖爻賲 亘賴 鬲毓丕丿賱 跇賳鬲蹖讴蹖貙 賵 亘賳丕亘乇丕蹖賳 亘賴 亘賯丕蹖 丕乇诏丕賳蹖爻賲 賲蹖鈥屫з嗀з呚� 芦丿丕賵讴蹖賳夭禄 丕賳鬲禺丕亘 蹖丕 賴賲丕賳 诏夭蹖賳卮 胤亘蹖毓蹖 乇丕貙 亘丕夭蹖 亘夭乇诏 乇賯丕亘鬲 賲蹖鈥屫з嗀� 讴賴 丿乇 丌賳 亘丕夭蹖诏乇丕賳 蹖丕 乇賯丕亘鬲鈥� 讴賳賳丿诏丕賳 丕氐賱蹖貙 跇賳鈥屬囏й� 禺賵丿禺賵丕賴鈥� 賴爻鬲賳丿貨 丕賲丕 丕夭 丌賳噩丕 讴賴 乇賯丕亘鬲 亘乇丕蹖 亘賯丕蹖 丕乇诏丕賳蹖爻賲 夭賳丿賴 丕賳噩丕賲 賲蹖鈥屫促堌� 倬爻 丕蹖賳 乇賯丕亘鬲蹖 賳賴 亘乇丕蹖 賳丕亘賵丿蹖貙 讴賴 亘乇丕蹖 亘賯丕 蹖毓賳蹖 鬲丿丕賵賲 夭賳丿诏蹖 丕爻鬲貨 丕夭 丕蹖賳 乇賵 芦丿丕賵讴蹖賳夭禄 賲蹖鈥屭┵堌簇� 丿乇 讴鬲丕亘 禺賵丿貙 鬲丕乇蹖禺 胤亘蹖毓蹖 乇丕 丕夭 丿蹖丿诏丕賴 毓賱賲 鬲亘蹖蹖賳 讴賳丿貨 賳禺爻鬲蹖賳 丕賳鬲賯丕丿 賲賴賲 亘乇 讴鬲丕亘 跇賳 禺賵丿禺賵丕賴 亘賴 賴賲蹖賳 賳诏乇卮 亘賴 鬲丕乇蹖禺 胤亘蹖毓蹖 丕夭 賲賳馗乇 毓賱賲 賭賭 毓賱賲 跇賳鬲蹖讴 賭賭 鬲丕 丌賳 噩丕蹖诏丕賴 丕爻鬲 讴賴 賲蹖鈥屫堌з� 丌賳 乇丕 亘丕 毓賱賲鈥屭必й屰� 賳賵蹖爻賳丿賴 鬲賵囟蹖丨 丿丕丿貨 夭蹖乇丕 爻賳噩卮 丕蹖賳 賲賵囟賵毓 蹖毓賳蹖 丨蹖丕鬲 賵 鬲丨賵賱 丌賳貙 賲賵囟賵毓蹖 賳蹖爻鬲 讴賴 氐乇賮丕賸 丕夭 賲賳馗乇 毓賱賲蹖貙 賵 賳馗乇蹖賴 跇賳鬲蹖讴貙 亘賴 丌賳 倬乇丿丕禺鬲賴 卮丿賴 亘丕卮丿貙 亘賱讴賴 亘丕蹖丿 丕夭 賲賳馗乇賴丕蹖 丿蹖诏乇蹖 賳蹖夭貙 亘賴 丕蹖賳 賳诏乇賴 倬乇丿丕禺鬲貙 讴賴 賳賵蹖爻賳丿賴 丿蹖丿诏丕賴賴丕蹖 丿蹖诏乇 乇丕 賮乇丕賲賵卮 讴乇丿賴 丕爻鬲貨 賲卮禺氐 丕爻鬲 讴賴 丕夭 丌賳 噩賲賱賴 賴爻鬲賳丿 賳诏乇卮鈥屬囏й� 丿蹖賳蹖 賭賭 丿乇 讴賳丕乇 賳诏乇卮 毓賱賲蹖 賭賭 亘乇丕蹖 丕蹖賳 賲賵囟賵毓 倬丕爻禺鈥屬囏й� 亘丕 賯丿賲鬲 亘爻蹖丕乇 賵噩賵丿 丿丕乇賳丿 讴賴 賴賳賵夭 賴賲 丕夭 爻賵蹖 賲乇丿賲丕賳 亘爻蹖丕乇蹖 丿乇 爻乇丕爻乇 噩賴丕賳 倬匕蹖乇賮鬲蹖 賴爻鬲賳丿 賵 丕夭 丕蹖賳 乇賵 賳亘丕蹖丿 趩賳蹖賳 倬丕爻禺鈥屬囏й屰� 乇丕 賳丕丿蹖丿賴 诏乇賮鬲貨 丕賲丕 賳讴鬲賴鈥� 蹖 亘爻蹖丕乇 賲賴賲 丕蹖賳 丕爻鬲 讴賴 讴鬲丕亘 芦跇賳 禺賵丿禺賵丕賴禄 氐乇賮丕賸 丿乇亘丕乇賴鈥� 蹖 毓賱賲 跇賳鬲蹖讴貙 賵 丕乇丕卅賴鈥� 蹖 鬲亘蹖蹖賳 賳賵蹖賳蹖 丕夭 賳馗乇蹖賴鈥� 蹖 鬲讴丕賲賱 芦丿丕乇賵蹖賳禄 賳蹖爻鬲貨 丕诏乇 跇賳鬲蹖讴貙 丿乇 賲噩賲賵毓貙 亘賴 毓賱賲 夭蹖爻鬲鈥屫促嗀ж驰� 賲乇亘賵胤 賲蹖鈥屫促堌� 丕賲丕 芦乇蹖趩丕乇丿 丿丕賵讴蹖賳夭禄 賮乇丕鬲乇 丕夭 毓賱賲 跇賳鬲蹖讴貙 亘賴 丕鬲讴丕蹖 賴賲丕賳 賳诏乇卮 跇賳鈥屬呚堌必з嗁囏� 亘賴 丿蹖诏乇 賯賱賲乇賵賴丕蹖 夭賳丿诏蹖 丕噩鬲賲丕毓蹖 丕賳爻丕賳 賭賭 賲孬賱丕賸 賮乇賴賳诏 賵 鬲丨賵賱丕鬲 賮乇賴賳诏蹖 賭賭 賲蹖鈥屬矩必ж操嗀� 丕蹖卮丕賳 賲蹖鈥屭┵堌促嗀� 賯丕賳賵賳 鬲讴丕賲賱 乇丕 丿乇 丨賵夭賴 鬲丨賵賱丕鬲 賮乇賴賳诏蹖 賳蹖夭 鬲亘蹖蹖賳 讴賳賳丿貙 賵 亘賴 丕鬲讴丕蹖 丌賳貙 亘賯丕 蹖丕 夭賵丕賱 賮乇賴賳诏鈥屬囏� 乇丕 亘賴 禺賵丕賳卮诏乇 亘賳賲丕蹖丕賳賳丿貨 芦丿丕賵讴蹖賳夭禄 亘丕 鬲兀讴蹖丿 亘乇 鬲卮丕亘賴 鬲讴丕賲賱 賮乇賴賳诏蹖 亘丕 鬲讴丕賲賱 跇賳鬲蹖讴蹖貙 毓丕賲賱 鬲讴丕賲賱 賮乇賴賳诏蹖 乇丕 賲賽賲 賭賭 卮亘蹖賴 跇賳 賭賭 賲毓乇賮蹖 賲蹖鈥屭┵嗁嗀� 丕蹖卮丕賳 亘丕 噩毓賱 賲賮丕賴蹖賲 芦賲賲禄 賵 芦賲賲鬲蹖讴禄 賲蹖鈥屭┵堌促嗀� 鬲讴丕賲賱 賮乇賴賳诏蹖 乇丕 丿乇 鬲卮丕亘賴 亘丕 鬲讴丕賲賱 跇賳鬲蹖讴蹖 丕夭 胤乇蹖賯 跇賳 賵 跇賳鬲蹖讴 鬲賵囟蹖丨 丿賴賳丿貨 丕夭 賳馗乇 丕賵 芦賲賲鈥屬囏� 賭賭 賴賲趩賵賳 丌賴賳诏鈥屬囏ж� 丕蹖丿賴鈥屬囏� 賵 卮毓丕乇賴丕 賵 賱亘丕爻貙 賲丿 賵...貨 賭賭 丕夭 乇丕賴 鬲賯賱蹖丿貙 賴賲鬲丕 爻丕夭蹖 賵 鬲讴孬蹖乇 賲蹖鈥屫促堎嗀� 賵 鬲丨賵賱 賵 鬲讴丕賲賱 賮乇賴賳诏蹖 乇丕 賲賲讴賳 賲蹖鈥屭┵嗁嗀� 丕诏乇 丿乇 賳馗乇 丕賵 芦跇賳禄 賵丕丨丿 夭蹖爻鬲蹖 丕爻鬲貙 芦賲賲禄 賵丕丨丿 丕胤賱丕毓丕鬲蹖 丕爻鬲貨 丿乇 賵丕賯毓 芦賲賲禄 丌賳 賴爻鬲蹖賽 匕賴賳蹖 丕爻鬲 讴賴 芦丿丕賵讴蹖賳夭禄 亘丕 噩毓賱 丌賳 丕夭 丨賵夭賴 跇賳鬲蹖讴 (丨賵夭賴 毓賲賱 禺賵丿禺賵丕賴丕賳賴 跇賳) 亘賴 丨賵夭賴 賮乇賴賳诏 毓亘賵乇 賲蹖鈥屭┵嗁嗀� 賵 賲蹖鈥屭┵堌促嗀� 鬲讴丕賲賱 賵 鬲丨賵賱 賮乇賴賳诏 乇丕 亘賴 禺賵丕賳卮诏乇丕賳 亘賳賲丕蹖丕賳賳丿貨 丿乇 毓蹖賳 丨丕賱貙 丕蹖卮丕賳 丕夭 賴賲丕賳 賲賮丕賴蹖賲 乇賯丕亘鬲貙 賴賲鬲丕爻丕夭蹖貙 禺賵丿禺賵丕賴蹖 賵 丿蹖诏乇禺賵丕賴蹖貙 丿乇 丨賵夭賴 鬲丨乇讴 芦賲賲鈥屬囏� 賵 丕賳鬲賯丕賱 賵 賴賲鬲丕爻丕夭蹖 蹖丕 鬲讴孬蹖乇 丌賳賴丕 丕爻鬲賮丕丿賴 賲蹖鈥屭┵嗁嗀� 丿賵賲蹖賳 丕賳鬲賯丕丿 賲賴賲 丕夭 芦丿丕賵讴蹖賳夭禄 賳丕卮蹖 丕夭 賴賲蹖賳 鬲賱丕卮 丕蹖卮丕賳 亘乇丕蹖 蹖讴爻丕賳鈥屫池ж槽� 鬲丨賵賱 跇賳鬲蹖讴蹖 賵 鬲丨賵賱 賮乇賴賳诏蹖 丕爻鬲貨 丕蹖卮丕賳 丿乇 丕蹖賳 蹖讴爻丕賳鈥屫池ж槽� 鬲丕 丌賳噩丕 倬蹖卮 賲蹖鈥屫辟堎嗀� 讴賴 丿蹖賳 賭賭 賵噩賴蹖 丕夭 賮乇賴賳诏 賭賭 乇丕 亘丕 賴賲蹖賳 丕賱诏賵蹖 賳馗乇蹖鈥� 禺賵蹖卮 鬲賵囟蹖丨 賲蹖鈥屫囐嗀� 亘乇丕蹖 賳賲賵賳賴貙 丕蹖卮丕賳 芦丕蹖賲丕賳禄 乇丕貙 蹖讴 芦賲賲禄 丿乇 丨賵夭賴鈥� 蹖 丿蹖賳 賲蹖鈥屫促嗀ж迟嗀� 讴賴 丕夭 乇丕賴 鬲賯賱蹖丿貙 賴賲鬲丕爻丕夭蹖 賵 鬲讴孬蹖乇 賲蹖鈥屫促堌� 丕夭 丕蹖賳噩丕 賲蹖鈥屫堌з� 丿乇蹖丕賮鬲 讴賴 丿乇 丌乇丕蹖 芦丿丕賵讴蹖賳夭禄 倬蹖賵賳丿 鬲讴丕賲賱 跇賳鬲蹖讴蹖貙 亘丕 鬲丨賵賱 賮乇賴賳诏蹖 亘爻蹖丕乇 禺蹖丕賱鈥屬矩必ж藏з嗁� 亘丕夭 賳賲賵丿賴 賲蹖鈥屫促堌� 丕蹖賳 倬丕爻禺蹖 賳丕丿乇爻鬲 賳爻亘鬲 亘賴 亘丕賵乇賴丕蹖 賲匕賴亘蹖 丕爻鬲 賵 亘賴 賴賲蹖賳 丿賱蹖賱 賳賲蹖鈥屫堌з嗀� 鬲賵囟蹖丨 賯丕賳毓鈥� 讴賳賳丿賴鈥屫й� 丕夭 鬲丿丕賵賲 丕賳丿蹖卮賴鈥屬囏й� 丿蹖賳蹖 丿乇 噩賴丕賳 丕乇丕卅賴 讴賳丿貨 芦丿丕賵讴蹖賳夭禄 賲蹖鈥屭┵堌促嗀� 鬲丨賵賱 賮乇賴賳诏 乇丕 亘丕 賳诏乇卮蹖 氐乇賮丕賸 毓賱賲蹖 鬲賵囟蹖丨 丿賴賳丿貨 賴賲蹖賳 賲爻卅賱賴 丕爻鬲 讴賴 亘丕 丕賳鬲賯丕丿丕鬲 亘爻蹖丕乇蹖 賲賵丕噩賴 卮丿賴 丕爻鬲貨 芦丿丕賵讴蹖賳夭禄 亘丕 蹖讴爻丕賳 丿丕賳爻鬲賳 鬲丨賵賱 胤亘蹖毓蹖 賵 鬲丨賵賱 賮乇賴賳诏蹖貙 亘賴 鬲賯丕亘賱 毓賱賲 賵 丿蹖賳 賲蹖鈥屫必迟嗀� 丿乇 丨丕賱蹖 讴賴 丕蹖賳 丿賵 卮蹖賵賴鈥� 蹖 鬲亘蹖蹖賳 噩賴丕賳貙 丿乇 賴賲夭蹖爻鬲蹖 亘丕 賴賲 賯乇丕乇 丿丕乇賳丿 賵 蹖讴丿蹖诏乇 乇丕 賳賮蹖 賳賲蹖鈥屭┵嗁嗀� 芦乇蹖趩丕乇丿 丿丕賵讴蹖賳夭禄 丕夭 爻丕賱 1995賲蹖賱丕丿蹖 鬲丕 爻丕賱2008賲蹖賱丕丿蹖 丕爻鬲丕丿 讴乇爻蹖 芦趩丕乇賱夭 爻蹖賲賵賳蹖禄 亘乇丕蹖 鬲乇賵蹖噩 毓賱賲貙 丿乇 芦丿丕賳卮诏丕賴 丌讴爻賮賵乇丿禄 亘賵丿賳丿貨 丕蹖卮丕賳 丕夭 倬丿乇 賵 賲丕丿乇 亘乇蹖鬲丕賳蹖丕蹖蹖 丿乇 芦賳丕蹖乇賵亘蹖禄 亘賴 丿賳蹖丕 丌賲丿賴 丕賳丿貙 丿乇 芦丌讴爻賮賵乇丿禄 丿乇爻 禺賵丕賳丿賴貙 賵 乇爻丕賱賴 蹖 丿讴鬲乇蹖 禺賵丿 乇丕 夭蹖乇 賳馗乇 芦賳蹖讴賵 鬲蹖亘乇诏賳禄 乇賮鬲丕乇卮賳丕爻 亘乇賳丿賴 噩丕蹖夭賴 芦賳賵亘賱禄 亘賴 爻乇丕賳噩丕賲 乇爻丕賳丿賴 丕賳丿貨 丕蹖卮丕賳 丕夭 爻丕賱1967賲蹖賱丕丿蹖 鬲丕 1969賲蹖賱丕丿蹖 丿乇 芦丿丕賳卮诏丕賴 讴丕賱蹖賮乇賳蹖丕禄 丿乇 芦亘乇讴賱蹖禄 丕爻鬲丕丿蹖丕乇 亘賵丿賳丿貨 爻倬爻 亘賴鈥� 毓賳賵丕賳 丿丕賳卮蹖丕乇 賵 亘毓丿 丕爻鬲丕丿 亘賴 亘禺卮 噩丕賳賵乇卮賳丕爻蹖 芦賳蹖賵讴丕賱噩 丿乇 丌讴爻賮賵乇丿禄 亘丕夭诏卮鬲賳丿 鬲丕 丌賳讴賴 丿乇 爻丕賱 1995賲蹖賱丕丿蹖貙 亘賴鈥� 毓賳賵丕賳 賳禺爻鬲蹖賳 丕爻鬲丕丿 讴乇爻蹖 芦爻蹖賲賵賳蹖禄 賲賳氐賵亘 卮丿貨 丕蹖卮丕賳 丕讴賳賵賳 毓囟賵 賲賲鬲丕夭 芦賳蹖賵讴丕賱噩禄 賴爻鬲賳丿貨
鬲丕乇蹖禺 亘賴賳诏丕賲 乇爻丕賳蹖 11/07/1400賴噩乇蹖 禺賵乇卮蹖丿蹖貨 丕. 卮乇亘蹖丕賳蹖
The gene-centred view of evolution that Dawkins championed and crystallized is now central both to evolutionary theorizing and to lay commentaries on natural history such as wildlife documentaries.
A bird or a bee risks its life and health to bring its offspring into the world not to help itself, and certainly not to help its species 鈥� the prevailing, lazy thinking of the 1960's, even among luminaries of evolution such as Julian Huxley and Konrad Lorenz 鈥� but (unconsciously) so that its genes go on.
Genes that cause birds and bees to breed survive at the expense of other genes.
鬲丕乇蹖禺 賳禺爻鬲蹖賳 禺賵丕賳卮 乇賵夭 爻賵賲 賲丕賴 丕讴鬲亘乇 爻丕賱 2011賲蹖賱丕丿蹖
毓賳賵丕賳: 跇賳 禺賵丿禺賵丕賴貨 賳賵蹖爻賳丿賴: 乇蹖趩丕乇丿 丿丕賵讴蹖賳夭貨 賲鬲乇噩賲 賳乇诏爻 乇爻鬲賲蹖鈥屭堌必з嗀� 鬲賴乇丕賳貙 賳卮乇 趩卮賲賴貙 1389貨 丿乇 481氐貨 卮丕亘讴9789643629946貨 賲賵囟賵毓 鬲讴丕賲賱 賵 夭蹖爻鬲 卮賳丕爻蹖 丕夭 賳賵蹖爻賳丿诏丕賳 亘乇蹖鬲丕賳蹖丕 - 爻丿賴 20賲
毓賳賵丕賳: 跇賳 禺賵丿禺賵丕賴貨 賳賵蹖爻賳丿賴: 乇蹖趩丕乇丿 丿丕讴蹖賳夭貨 賲鬲乇噩賲 噩賱丕賱 爻賱胤丕賳蹖貨 鬲賴乇丕賳貙 賲丕夭蹖丕乇貙 1396貨 丿乇 432氐貨 卮丕亘讴9786006043760貨 趩丕倬 爻賵賲 爻丕賱1397貨 趩丕倬 倬賳噩賲 賵 卮卮賲 1399貨
毓賳賵丕賳: 跇賳 禺賵丿禺賵丕賴貨 賳賵蹖爻賳丿賴: 乇蹖趩丕乇丿 丿丕讴蹖賳夭貨 賲鬲乇噩賲 卮賴賱丕 亘丕賯乇蹖貨 鬲賴乇丕賳貙 倬跇賵丕讴貙 1399貨 丿乇 581氐貨 卮丕亘讴9789649309064貨
乇蹖趩丕乇丿 丿丕賵讴蹖賳夭 夭蹖爻鬲鈥屫促嗀ж� 鬲讴丕賲賱鈥屭必ж� 讴鬲丕亘 芦跇賳 禺賵丿禺賵丕賴禄 乇丕 丿乇 爻丕賱 1976賲蹖賱丕丿蹖 賲賳鬲卮乇 讴乇丿賳丿貨 亘賳蹖丕賳 亘丨孬 芦丿丕賵讴蹖賳夭禄 丿乇 丕蹖賳 讴鬲丕亘 丿乇 丨賵夭賴 蹖 鬲讴丕賲賱 胤亘蹖毓蹖貙 賵 毓賱賲 跇賳鬲蹖讴 丕爻鬲貙 丕蹖卮丕賳 跇賳鬲蹖讴 乇丕 賲亘鬲賳蹖 亘乇 賳诏乇卮蹖 跇賳鈥屬呚堌� 卮乇丨 賲蹖鈥屫囐嗀� 賵 賴賲趩賳蹖賳貙 乇賵蹖讴乇丿 丕蹖卮丕賳 丿乇 夭蹖爻鬲鈥屫促嗀ж驰屫� 賲鬲讴蹖 亘乇 賳馗乇蹖賴鈥� 蹖 芦丿丕乇賵蹖賳禄 丕爻鬲貨 丕蹖卮丕賳 亘乇 倬丕蹖賴 賳馗乇蹖賴 蹖 芦丿丕乇賵蹖賳禄 賲蹖鈥屬矩佰屫辟嗀� 讴賴 鬲讴丕賲賱 胤亘蹖毓蹖貙 丕夭 乇丕賴 诏夭蹖賳卮 胤亘蹖毓蹖 讴丕乇 賲蹖鈥屭┵嗀� 賵 诏夭蹖賳卮 胤亘蹖毓蹖 亘賴鈥� 賲毓賳蹖 亘賯丕蹖 卮丕蹖爻鬲賴鈥屫臂屬嗏€屬囏� 丕爻鬲貨 芦丿丕賵讴蹖賳夭禄 賳诏乇卮 跇賳鈥� 賲乇讴夭蹖 禺賵丿 乇丕 丿乇 毓賱賲 跇賳鬲蹖讴貙 亘丕 賳馗乇蹖賴 蹖 鬲讴丕賲賱蹖 芦丿丕乇賵蹖賳禄 倬蹖賵賳丿 賲蹖鈥屫操嗁嗀� 賵 亘賴 丕蹖賳 賳鬲蹖噩賴 蹖 倬丕蹖賴鈥� 丕蹖 賲蹖鈥屫必迟嗀� 讴賴: 芦跇賳禄貙 毓賳氐乇 丕氐賱蹖 诏夭蹖賳卮 胤亘蹖毓蹖 丕爻鬲貨 丕夭 賳馗乇 丕蹖卮丕賳貙 賴乇 趩賳丿 乇賯丕亘鬲 賲亘鬲賳蹖 亘乇 禺賵丿禺賵丕賴蹖 毓賳氐乇 丕氐賱蹖 跇賳 亘乇丕蹖 亘賯丕爻鬲貙 丕賲丕 禺賵丿禺賵丕賴蹖貙 氐乇賮丕賸 乇賮鬲丕乇 賮乇丿蹖 跇賳 丕爻鬲貨 丿乇 毓蹖賳 丨丕賱貙 丕賵賱丕賸 亘乇丌賵乇丿賳 禺賵丿禺賵丕賴蹖 跇賳鈥屬囏� 丕夭 丕爻丕爻 賲鬲讴蹖 亘乇 賴賲鬲丕爻丕夭蹖貙 蹖丕 鬲讴孬蹖乇 卮賵賳丿诏蹖 丕爻鬲貙 賵 孬丕賳蹖丕賸 丕蹖賳 乇賮鬲丕乇 賮乇丿蹖 丿乇 丕賵囟丕毓 賵 丕丨賵丕賱 賵蹖跇賴 丕蹖 乇賵蹖 賲蹖鈥屫囏� 讴賴 丕賲讴丕賳 乇賵蹖丿丕丿賳 丕賴丿丕賮 禺賵丿禺賵丕賴丕賳賴 跇賳 乇丕貙 亘賴鈥� 賲賳馗賵乇 倬丕蹖丿丕乇蹖 丌賳 賮乇丕賴賲 賲蹖鈥屫①堌必� 丿乇 丕蹖賳 丕賵囟丕毓 賵 丕丨賵丕賱 丕爻鬲 讴賴 跇賳 禺賵丿禺賵丕賴 亘丕 丿蹖诏乇 跇賳鈥屬囏ж� 讴賴 丌賳賴丕 賳蹖夭 禺賵丿禺賵丕賴鈥� 賴爻鬲賳丿貙 乇賵亘乇賵 賲蹖鈥屫促堌� 賵 賲蹖鈥屫堌з囏� 乇賯丕亘鬲蹖 乇丕 亘丕 丌賳賴丕 倬蹖卮 亘亘乇丿貙 讴賴 賴丿賮 丌賳 賳诏賴丿丕乇蹖 賵 亘賯丕蹖 夭賳丿诏蹖 丕乇诏丕賳蹖爻賲貙 丿乇 讴賱貙 丕爻鬲貨 丕夭 丿蹖丿诏丕賴 芦丿丕賵讴蹖賳夭禄 丕乇诏丕賳蹖爻賲 賲賵噩賵丿 夭賳丿賴貙 賲丨蹖胤蹖 丕爻鬲貙 讴賴 乇賯丕亘鬲 禺賵丿禺賵丕賴丕賳賴 跇賳 乇丕 亘乇 夭賲蹖賳賴 蹖 乇賯丕亘鬲 丿蹖诏乇禺賵丕賴丕賳賴鈥� 丕蹖 賯乇丕乇 賲蹖鈥屫囏� 讴賴 亘賯丕蹖 禺賵丿 丕乇诏丕賳蹖爻賲 夭賳丿賴 乇丕 賲蹖鈥屬矩佰屫必� 倬爻 趩卮賲 賴賲趩卮賲蹖 禺賵丿禺賵丕賴丕賳賴 跇賳鈥屬囏й� 禺賵丿禺賵丕賴貙 丿乇 丕乇诏丕賳蹖爻賲 亘賴 鬲毓丕丿賱 跇賳鬲蹖讴蹖貙 賵 亘賳丕亘乇丕蹖賳 亘賴 亘賯丕蹖 丕乇诏丕賳蹖爻賲 賲蹖鈥屫з嗀з呚� 芦丿丕賵讴蹖賳夭禄 丕賳鬲禺丕亘 蹖丕 賴賲丕賳 诏夭蹖賳卮 胤亘蹖毓蹖 乇丕貙 亘丕夭蹖 亘夭乇诏 乇賯丕亘鬲 賲蹖鈥屫з嗀� 讴賴 丿乇 丌賳 亘丕夭蹖诏乇丕賳 蹖丕 乇賯丕亘鬲鈥� 讴賳賳丿诏丕賳 丕氐賱蹖貙 跇賳鈥屬囏й� 禺賵丿禺賵丕賴鈥� 賴爻鬲賳丿貨 丕賲丕 丕夭 丌賳噩丕 讴賴 乇賯丕亘鬲 亘乇丕蹖 亘賯丕蹖 丕乇诏丕賳蹖爻賲 夭賳丿賴 丕賳噩丕賲 賲蹖鈥屫促堌� 倬爻 丕蹖賳 乇賯丕亘鬲蹖 賳賴 亘乇丕蹖 賳丕亘賵丿蹖貙 讴賴 亘乇丕蹖 亘賯丕 蹖毓賳蹖 鬲丿丕賵賲 夭賳丿诏蹖 丕爻鬲貨 丕夭 丕蹖賳 乇賵 芦丿丕賵讴蹖賳夭禄 賲蹖鈥屭┵堌簇� 丿乇 讴鬲丕亘 禺賵丿貙 鬲丕乇蹖禺 胤亘蹖毓蹖 乇丕 丕夭 丿蹖丿诏丕賴 毓賱賲 鬲亘蹖蹖賳 讴賳丿貨 賳禺爻鬲蹖賳 丕賳鬲賯丕丿 賲賴賲 亘乇 讴鬲丕亘 跇賳 禺賵丿禺賵丕賴 亘賴 賴賲蹖賳 賳诏乇卮 亘賴 鬲丕乇蹖禺 胤亘蹖毓蹖 丕夭 賲賳馗乇 毓賱賲 賭賭 毓賱賲 跇賳鬲蹖讴 賭賭 鬲丕 丌賳 噩丕蹖诏丕賴 丕爻鬲 讴賴 賲蹖鈥屫堌з� 丌賳 乇丕 亘丕 毓賱賲鈥屭必й屰� 賳賵蹖爻賳丿賴 鬲賵囟蹖丨 丿丕丿貨 夭蹖乇丕 爻賳噩卮 丕蹖賳 賲賵囟賵毓 蹖毓賳蹖 丨蹖丕鬲 賵 鬲丨賵賱 丌賳貙 賲賵囟賵毓蹖 賳蹖爻鬲 讴賴 氐乇賮丕賸 丕夭 賲賳馗乇 毓賱賲蹖貙 賵 賳馗乇蹖賴 跇賳鬲蹖讴貙 亘賴 丌賳 倬乇丿丕禺鬲賴 卮丿賴 亘丕卮丿貙 亘賱讴賴 亘丕蹖丿 丕夭 賲賳馗乇賴丕蹖 丿蹖诏乇蹖 賳蹖夭貙 亘賴 丕蹖賳 賳诏乇賴 倬乇丿丕禺鬲貙 讴賴 賳賵蹖爻賳丿賴 丿蹖丿诏丕賴賴丕蹖 丿蹖诏乇 乇丕 賮乇丕賲賵卮 讴乇丿賴 丕爻鬲貨 賲卮禺氐 丕爻鬲 讴賴 丕夭 丌賳 噩賲賱賴 賴爻鬲賳丿 賳诏乇卮鈥屬囏й� 丿蹖賳蹖 賭賭 丿乇 讴賳丕乇 賳诏乇卮 毓賱賲蹖 賭賭 亘乇丕蹖 丕蹖賳 賲賵囟賵毓 倬丕爻禺鈥屬囏й� 亘丕 賯丿賲鬲 亘爻蹖丕乇 賵噩賵丿 丿丕乇賳丿 讴賴 賴賳賵夭 賴賲 丕夭 爻賵蹖 賲乇丿賲丕賳 亘爻蹖丕乇蹖 丿乇 爻乇丕爻乇 噩賴丕賳 倬匕蹖乇賮鬲蹖 賴爻鬲賳丿 賵 丕夭 丕蹖賳 乇賵 賳亘丕蹖丿 趩賳蹖賳 倬丕爻禺鈥屬囏й屰� 乇丕 賳丕丿蹖丿賴 诏乇賮鬲貨 丕賲丕 賳讴鬲賴鈥� 蹖 亘爻蹖丕乇 賲賴賲 丕蹖賳 丕爻鬲 讴賴 讴鬲丕亘 芦跇賳 禺賵丿禺賵丕賴禄 氐乇賮丕賸 丿乇亘丕乇賴鈥� 蹖 毓賱賲 跇賳鬲蹖讴貙 賵 丕乇丕卅賴鈥� 蹖 鬲亘蹖蹖賳 賳賵蹖賳蹖 丕夭 賳馗乇蹖賴鈥� 蹖 鬲讴丕賲賱 芦丿丕乇賵蹖賳禄 賳蹖爻鬲貨 丕诏乇 跇賳鬲蹖讴貙 丿乇 賲噩賲賵毓貙 亘賴 毓賱賲 夭蹖爻鬲鈥屫促嗀ж驰� 賲乇亘賵胤 賲蹖鈥屫促堌� 丕賲丕 芦乇蹖趩丕乇丿 丿丕賵讴蹖賳夭禄 賮乇丕鬲乇 丕夭 毓賱賲 跇賳鬲蹖讴貙 亘賴 丕鬲讴丕蹖 賴賲丕賳 賳诏乇卮 跇賳鈥屬呚堌必з嗁囏� 亘賴 丿蹖诏乇 賯賱賲乇賵賴丕蹖 夭賳丿诏蹖 丕噩鬲賲丕毓蹖 丕賳爻丕賳 賭賭 賲孬賱丕賸 賮乇賴賳诏 賵 鬲丨賵賱丕鬲 賮乇賴賳诏蹖 賭賭 賲蹖鈥屬矩必ж操嗀� 丕蹖卮丕賳 賲蹖鈥屭┵堌促嗀� 賯丕賳賵賳 鬲讴丕賲賱 乇丕 丿乇 丨賵夭賴 鬲丨賵賱丕鬲 賮乇賴賳诏蹖 賳蹖夭 鬲亘蹖蹖賳 讴賳賳丿貙 賵 亘賴 丕鬲讴丕蹖 丌賳貙 亘賯丕 蹖丕 夭賵丕賱 賮乇賴賳诏鈥屬囏� 乇丕 亘賴 禺賵丕賳卮诏乇 亘賳賲丕蹖丕賳賳丿貨 芦丿丕賵讴蹖賳夭禄 亘丕 鬲兀讴蹖丿 亘乇 鬲卮丕亘賴 鬲讴丕賲賱 賮乇賴賳诏蹖 亘丕 鬲讴丕賲賱 跇賳鬲蹖讴蹖貙 毓丕賲賱 鬲讴丕賲賱 賮乇賴賳诏蹖 乇丕 賲賽賲 賭賭 卮亘蹖賴 跇賳 賭賭 賲毓乇賮蹖 賲蹖鈥屭┵嗁嗀� 丕蹖卮丕賳 亘丕 噩毓賱 賲賮丕賴蹖賲 芦賲賲禄 賵 芦賲賲鬲蹖讴禄 賲蹖鈥屭┵堌促嗀� 鬲讴丕賲賱 賮乇賴賳诏蹖 乇丕 丿乇 鬲卮丕亘賴 亘丕 鬲讴丕賲賱 跇賳鬲蹖讴蹖 丕夭 胤乇蹖賯 跇賳 賵 跇賳鬲蹖讴 鬲賵囟蹖丨 丿賴賳丿貨 丕夭 賳馗乇 丕賵 芦賲賲鈥屬囏� 賭賭 賴賲趩賵賳 丌賴賳诏鈥屬囏ж� 丕蹖丿賴鈥屬囏� 賵 卮毓丕乇賴丕 賵 賱亘丕爻貙 賲丿 賵...貨 賭賭 丕夭 乇丕賴 鬲賯賱蹖丿貙 賴賲鬲丕 爻丕夭蹖 賵 鬲讴孬蹖乇 賲蹖鈥屫促堎嗀� 賵 鬲丨賵賱 賵 鬲讴丕賲賱 賮乇賴賳诏蹖 乇丕 賲賲讴賳 賲蹖鈥屭┵嗁嗀� 丕诏乇 丿乇 賳馗乇 丕賵 芦跇賳禄 賵丕丨丿 夭蹖爻鬲蹖 丕爻鬲貙 芦賲賲禄 賵丕丨丿 丕胤賱丕毓丕鬲蹖 丕爻鬲貨 丿乇 賵丕賯毓 芦賲賲禄 丌賳 賴爻鬲蹖賽 匕賴賳蹖 丕爻鬲 讴賴 芦丿丕賵讴蹖賳夭禄 亘丕 噩毓賱 丌賳 丕夭 丨賵夭賴 跇賳鬲蹖讴 (丨賵夭賴 毓賲賱 禺賵丿禺賵丕賴丕賳賴 跇賳) 亘賴 丨賵夭賴 賮乇賴賳诏 毓亘賵乇 賲蹖鈥屭┵嗁嗀� 賵 賲蹖鈥屭┵堌促嗀� 鬲讴丕賲賱 賵 鬲丨賵賱 賮乇賴賳诏 乇丕 亘賴 禺賵丕賳卮诏乇丕賳 亘賳賲丕蹖丕賳賳丿貨 丿乇 毓蹖賳 丨丕賱貙 丕蹖卮丕賳 丕夭 賴賲丕賳 賲賮丕賴蹖賲 乇賯丕亘鬲貙 賴賲鬲丕爻丕夭蹖貙 禺賵丿禺賵丕賴蹖 賵 丿蹖诏乇禺賵丕賴蹖貙 丿乇 丨賵夭賴 鬲丨乇讴 芦賲賲鈥屬囏� 賵 丕賳鬲賯丕賱 賵 賴賲鬲丕爻丕夭蹖 蹖丕 鬲讴孬蹖乇 丌賳賴丕 丕爻鬲賮丕丿賴 賲蹖鈥屭┵嗁嗀� 丿賵賲蹖賳 丕賳鬲賯丕丿 賲賴賲 丕夭 芦丿丕賵讴蹖賳夭禄 賳丕卮蹖 丕夭 賴賲蹖賳 鬲賱丕卮 丕蹖卮丕賳 亘乇丕蹖 蹖讴爻丕賳鈥屫池ж槽� 鬲丨賵賱 跇賳鬲蹖讴蹖 賵 鬲丨賵賱 賮乇賴賳诏蹖 丕爻鬲貨 丕蹖卮丕賳 丿乇 丕蹖賳 蹖讴爻丕賳鈥屫池ж槽� 鬲丕 丌賳噩丕 倬蹖卮 賲蹖鈥屫辟堎嗀� 讴賴 丿蹖賳 賭賭 賵噩賴蹖 丕夭 賮乇賴賳诏 賭賭 乇丕 亘丕 賴賲蹖賳 丕賱诏賵蹖 賳馗乇蹖鈥� 禺賵蹖卮 鬲賵囟蹖丨 賲蹖鈥屫囐嗀� 亘乇丕蹖 賳賲賵賳賴貙 丕蹖卮丕賳 芦丕蹖賲丕賳禄 乇丕貙 蹖讴 芦賲賲禄 丿乇 丨賵夭賴鈥� 蹖 丿蹖賳 賲蹖鈥屫促嗀ж迟嗀� 讴賴 丕夭 乇丕賴 鬲賯賱蹖丿貙 賴賲鬲丕爻丕夭蹖 賵 鬲讴孬蹖乇 賲蹖鈥屫促堌� 丕夭 丕蹖賳噩丕 賲蹖鈥屫堌з� 丿乇蹖丕賮鬲 讴賴 丿乇 丌乇丕蹖 芦丿丕賵讴蹖賳夭禄 倬蹖賵賳丿 鬲讴丕賲賱 跇賳鬲蹖讴蹖貙 亘丕 鬲丨賵賱 賮乇賴賳诏蹖 亘爻蹖丕乇 禺蹖丕賱鈥屬矩必ж藏з嗁� 亘丕夭 賳賲賵丿賴 賲蹖鈥屫促堌� 丕蹖賳 倬丕爻禺蹖 賳丕丿乇爻鬲 賳爻亘鬲 亘賴 亘丕賵乇賴丕蹖 賲匕賴亘蹖 丕爻鬲 賵 亘賴 賴賲蹖賳 丿賱蹖賱 賳賲蹖鈥屫堌з嗀� 鬲賵囟蹖丨 賯丕賳毓鈥� 讴賳賳丿賴鈥屫й� 丕夭 鬲丿丕賵賲 丕賳丿蹖卮賴鈥屬囏й� 丿蹖賳蹖 丿乇 噩賴丕賳 丕乇丕卅賴 讴賳丿貨 芦丿丕賵讴蹖賳夭禄 賲蹖鈥屭┵堌促嗀� 鬲丨賵賱 賮乇賴賳诏 乇丕 亘丕 賳诏乇卮蹖 氐乇賮丕賸 毓賱賲蹖 鬲賵囟蹖丨 丿賴賳丿貨 賴賲蹖賳 賲爻卅賱賴 丕爻鬲 讴賴 亘丕 丕賳鬲賯丕丿丕鬲 亘爻蹖丕乇蹖 賲賵丕噩賴 卮丿賴 丕爻鬲貨 芦丿丕賵讴蹖賳夭禄 亘丕 蹖讴爻丕賳 丿丕賳爻鬲賳 鬲丨賵賱 胤亘蹖毓蹖 賵 鬲丨賵賱 賮乇賴賳诏蹖貙 亘賴 鬲賯丕亘賱 毓賱賲 賵 丿蹖賳 賲蹖鈥屫必迟嗀� 丿乇 丨丕賱蹖 讴賴 丕蹖賳 丿賵 卮蹖賵賴鈥� 蹖 鬲亘蹖蹖賳 噩賴丕賳貙 丿乇 賴賲夭蹖爻鬲蹖 亘丕 賴賲 賯乇丕乇 丿丕乇賳丿 賵 蹖讴丿蹖诏乇 乇丕 賳賮蹖 賳賲蹖鈥屭┵嗁嗀� 芦乇蹖趩丕乇丿 丿丕賵讴蹖賳夭禄 丕夭 爻丕賱 1995賲蹖賱丕丿蹖 鬲丕 爻丕賱2008賲蹖賱丕丿蹖 丕爻鬲丕丿 讴乇爻蹖 芦趩丕乇賱夭 爻蹖賲賵賳蹖禄 亘乇丕蹖 鬲乇賵蹖噩 毓賱賲貙 丿乇 芦丿丕賳卮诏丕賴 丌讴爻賮賵乇丿禄 亘賵丿賳丿貨 丕蹖卮丕賳 丕夭 倬丿乇 賵 賲丕丿乇 亘乇蹖鬲丕賳蹖丕蹖蹖 丿乇 芦賳丕蹖乇賵亘蹖禄 亘賴 丿賳蹖丕 丌賲丿賴 丕賳丿貙 丿乇 芦丌讴爻賮賵乇丿禄 丿乇爻 禺賵丕賳丿賴貙 賵 乇爻丕賱賴 蹖 丿讴鬲乇蹖 禺賵丿 乇丕 夭蹖乇 賳馗乇 芦賳蹖讴賵 鬲蹖亘乇诏賳禄 乇賮鬲丕乇卮賳丕爻 亘乇賳丿賴 噩丕蹖夭賴 芦賳賵亘賱禄 亘賴 爻乇丕賳噩丕賲 乇爻丕賳丿賴 丕賳丿貨 丕蹖卮丕賳 丕夭 爻丕賱1967賲蹖賱丕丿蹖 鬲丕 1969賲蹖賱丕丿蹖 丿乇 芦丿丕賳卮诏丕賴 讴丕賱蹖賮乇賳蹖丕禄 丿乇 芦亘乇讴賱蹖禄 丕爻鬲丕丿蹖丕乇 亘賵丿賳丿貨 爻倬爻 亘賴鈥� 毓賳賵丕賳 丿丕賳卮蹖丕乇 賵 亘毓丿 丕爻鬲丕丿 亘賴 亘禺卮 噩丕賳賵乇卮賳丕爻蹖 芦賳蹖賵讴丕賱噩 丿乇 丌讴爻賮賵乇丿禄 亘丕夭诏卮鬲賳丿 鬲丕 丌賳讴賴 丿乇 爻丕賱 1995賲蹖賱丕丿蹖貙 亘賴鈥� 毓賳賵丕賳 賳禺爻鬲蹖賳 丕爻鬲丕丿 讴乇爻蹖 芦爻蹖賲賵賳蹖禄 賲賳氐賵亘 卮丿貨 丕蹖卮丕賳 丕讴賳賵賳 毓囟賵 賲賲鬲丕夭 芦賳蹖賵讴丕賱噩禄 賴爻鬲賳丿貨
鬲丕乇蹖禺 亘賴賳诏丕賲 乇爻丕賳蹖 11/07/1400賴噩乇蹖 禺賵乇卮蹖丿蹖貨 丕. 卮乇亘蹖丕賳蹖
April 21, 2008
One of the most important things I took from is an idea that I find a bit difficult to put into words. is really good at crafting metaphors to describe scientific principles that on their own may be not be so interesting, or may be stubbornly inaccessible. While his rhetoric may make concepts more accessible and convenient to discuss, he openly warns that no metaphor is completely accurate. Understanding that the metaphors must be viewed skeptically, he offers this,
"If we allow ourselves the license of talking about genes as if they had conscious aims, always reassuring ourselves that we could translate our sloppy language back into repectable terms if we wanted to, we can ask the question, what is a single selfish gene trying to do?"
All things being even, genes that are long-lasting or that replicate quickly, and genes that can replicate with high fidelity are going to outnumber those that are slow or erroneous in replication. Dawkins calls this the 鈥渟elfish鈥� nature of genetic replication. He chooses his words carefully though, and applies metaphors of self-interest only to genes that are, or are not, selected for by indifferent and unthinking mechanisms.
Where this metaphor breaks down, as Dawkins admits, is when the idea of 鈥渟elfishness鈥� is brought up from genetics to the level of individuals within a group, or groups within a species. He criticizes such concepts in sociobiology, where claims are made that an individual鈥檚 actions are inherently selfish in order to serve their genes in themselves, or in other related individuals.
While genes may be 鈥渟elfish鈥� in order to be selected, this doesn鈥檛 necessitate that individuals (鈥渟urvival machines鈥� as he so affectionately calls us) must as well act only in self-interest. In this video introduction to the book, Dawkins suggests that,
"鈥f you have 鈥渟elfish鈥� genes, which only means that natural selection works at the level of the gene, if you have 鈥渟elfish鈥� genes, then, you may have altruistic individuals."
"If we allow ourselves the license of talking about genes as if they had conscious aims, always reassuring ourselves that we could translate our sloppy language back into repectable terms if we wanted to, we can ask the question, what is a single selfish gene trying to do?"
All things being even, genes that are long-lasting or that replicate quickly, and genes that can replicate with high fidelity are going to outnumber those that are slow or erroneous in replication. Dawkins calls this the 鈥渟elfish鈥� nature of genetic replication. He chooses his words carefully though, and applies metaphors of self-interest only to genes that are, or are not, selected for by indifferent and unthinking mechanisms.
Where this metaphor breaks down, as Dawkins admits, is when the idea of 鈥渟elfishness鈥� is brought up from genetics to the level of individuals within a group, or groups within a species. He criticizes such concepts in sociobiology, where claims are made that an individual鈥檚 actions are inherently selfish in order to serve their genes in themselves, or in other related individuals.
While genes may be 鈥渟elfish鈥� in order to be selected, this doesn鈥檛 necessitate that individuals (鈥渟urvival machines鈥� as he so affectionately calls us) must as well act only in self-interest. In this video introduction to the book, Dawkins suggests that,
"鈥f you have 鈥渟elfish鈥� genes, which only means that natural selection works at the level of the gene, if you have 鈥渟elfish鈥� genes, then, you may have altruistic individuals."
November 11, 2023
Review 2022
This was somewhat repetitious since I've read quite a few books on evolution since I last read this in April 2018 & Dawkins takes pains in this, the 30th anniversary edition, to correct mistakes he made, updates others have made, & to answer some of his critics. Some of the explanations seem needlessly pedantic until I realized just how subtle & powerful his theory is. Even if it doesn't hold up in all circumstances (I'm not sure that it doesn't.) it has changed the field considerably by turning the point of view that preceded it on its collective head (group selection) & influenced many other fields.
So, it has become clear to me that this one is even more influential than I knew at the time. I keep finding references (usually for, but occasionally against) the idea of the selfish gene. I'm interested in reading more by who is one of those who disagrees with the idea. Wilson was also eminent in the field & the finer points of their arguments are beyond me. This article takes a middling ground.
I've also just read a discussion of memes by in . It's not an area I'm terribly interested in, but I'd like to read Dawkins' take on it again. I think Dennett also codified his ideas of competence without comprehension, at least in part, from this work.
Highly recommended to all. While I found the audiobook delightful, it's nice to have a text copy available to better grasp some of the more subtle points.
-----------------
April 2018 Review This is the thirty year anniversary edition of the book (2006 rather than 1976) so it contains a lot of clarifications where he found there were misunderstandings. It also contains some corrections where he decided that he was either wrong or off target. He also mentions areas where other discoveries & papers took his work even further. I think I found these the most enjoyable. It's great to see science in progress. He also added a few extra chapters that were fantastic.
Of course, the main reason to read this book is to read the origin of the word which Dawkins created & loosed on the world in this book. I love origin stories.
This is the third book that I've read written & narrated by Dawkins. I liked it better than his autobiography, but not quite as much as . I'm not an evolutionary biologist, so some of it went into more depth than I appreciated. It was always interesting & easy to understand, though. That he could make such complex topics so easily digested by a layman says a lot about both his ability as a writer & his knowledge of the subject.
His primary point is that evolution is about gene survival. We & other living beings are just the vehicles that the genes build to perpetuate themselves. He makes it very clear throughout the book that when he ascribes words such as 'selfish' to behavior that he is putting the behavior in human terms for ease of communication. When he didn't, he used math to show his point, but he didn't do a lot of that & it was always easy to follow even when the points were counter-intuitive. There were a fair few of those.
One example is the problem & how it relates to selfishness. He spent quite a bit of time on this & even provided the results of several computer simulations done later by colleagues that prove out & explain the differences in iterated games versus single games. Wow. It really explains a lot about symbiosis, herd/group, & even cuckoos' behavior.
I'm just plain impressed by this man & his thought processes, but I'm not sure if I'll read any more of his books. He mentions where he goes into more detail in other books & papers throughout this edition of this book, but he covers enough of for me here, I think. Maybe not. It's an intriguing subject. Perhaps if I come across the audio version I'll succumb to temptation. He & Lalla Ward do a great job of narrating & the ideas are fascinating.
It's amazing just how complex processes can arise out of such simple objects working in groups. Of course, there's been a LOT of time & trial & error. Statistically it makes sense. Dawkins has seen to that. Using his thoughts as a baseline for alien life is even more fascinating. I hope I live to see if his theories are born out.
Of course, I recommend this highly. Definitely get this edition, if you can. If you've only read the first edition, get & read this one. It's worth it.
This was somewhat repetitious since I've read quite a few books on evolution since I last read this in April 2018 & Dawkins takes pains in this, the 30th anniversary edition, to correct mistakes he made, updates others have made, & to answer some of his critics. Some of the explanations seem needlessly pedantic until I realized just how subtle & powerful his theory is. Even if it doesn't hold up in all circumstances (I'm not sure that it doesn't.) it has changed the field considerably by turning the point of view that preceded it on its collective head (group selection) & influenced many other fields.
So, it has become clear to me that this one is even more influential than I knew at the time. I keep finding references (usually for, but occasionally against) the idea of the selfish gene. I'm interested in reading more by who is one of those who disagrees with the idea. Wilson was also eminent in the field & the finer points of their arguments are beyond me. This article takes a middling ground.
I've also just read a discussion of memes by in . It's not an area I'm terribly interested in, but I'd like to read Dawkins' take on it again. I think Dennett also codified his ideas of competence without comprehension, at least in part, from this work.
Highly recommended to all. While I found the audiobook delightful, it's nice to have a text copy available to better grasp some of the more subtle points.
-----------------
April 2018 Review This is the thirty year anniversary edition of the book (2006 rather than 1976) so it contains a lot of clarifications where he found there were misunderstandings. It also contains some corrections where he decided that he was either wrong or off target. He also mentions areas where other discoveries & papers took his work even further. I think I found these the most enjoyable. It's great to see science in progress. He also added a few extra chapters that were fantastic.
Of course, the main reason to read this book is to read the origin of the word which Dawkins created & loosed on the world in this book. I love origin stories.
This is the third book that I've read written & narrated by Dawkins. I liked it better than his autobiography, but not quite as much as . I'm not an evolutionary biologist, so some of it went into more depth than I appreciated. It was always interesting & easy to understand, though. That he could make such complex topics so easily digested by a layman says a lot about both his ability as a writer & his knowledge of the subject.
His primary point is that evolution is about gene survival. We & other living beings are just the vehicles that the genes build to perpetuate themselves. He makes it very clear throughout the book that when he ascribes words such as 'selfish' to behavior that he is putting the behavior in human terms for ease of communication. When he didn't, he used math to show his point, but he didn't do a lot of that & it was always easy to follow even when the points were counter-intuitive. There were a fair few of those.
One example is the problem & how it relates to selfishness. He spent quite a bit of time on this & even provided the results of several computer simulations done later by colleagues that prove out & explain the differences in iterated games versus single games. Wow. It really explains a lot about symbiosis, herd/group, & even cuckoos' behavior.
I'm just plain impressed by this man & his thought processes, but I'm not sure if I'll read any more of his books. He mentions where he goes into more detail in other books & papers throughout this edition of this book, but he covers enough of for me here, I think. Maybe not. It's an intriguing subject. Perhaps if I come across the audio version I'll succumb to temptation. He & Lalla Ward do a great job of narrating & the ideas are fascinating.
It's amazing just how complex processes can arise out of such simple objects working in groups. Of course, there's been a LOT of time & trial & error. Statistically it makes sense. Dawkins has seen to that. Using his thoughts as a baseline for alien life is even more fascinating. I hope I live to see if his theories are born out.
Of course, I recommend this highly. Definitely get this edition, if you can. If you've only read the first edition, get & read this one. It's worth it.
April 17, 2021
Reading this book was like meeting with a person about whom you have heard a lot, who has some kind of legendary status, and overall so well-acclaimed that you cannot resist the temptation to meet the person.
Another thing you have heard is that the person is so simple, down to earth that he would take the trouble to talk to any layman, to make these biological terms easier, more comprehensible and comfortable to deal with. And you think talking to you won't cause him much trouble because you are well aware of some technical biological jargons.
So, when Mr. Dawkins finally meets you through his legendary The Selfish Gene, you eagerly wait to hear a few more intricate complex terms - similar to the stature of the book and the writer. The chapters in the beginning (2 & 3) bore a little bit with their roundabout words. But if you can keep a little bit patience up to Chapter 5, then as the chapters go on you begin to realize why this book is a Classic after all!
I must agree that it's one of the finest books I have read. Chapter 1 is adorable with its nice philosophical leaps. The best chapters are Battle of the Generations and Battle of the Sexes. The chapter on memes sounds like the movie Inception. Overall the book is the best reward for its readers.
Another thing you have heard is that the person is so simple, down to earth that he would take the trouble to talk to any layman, to make these biological terms easier, more comprehensible and comfortable to deal with. And you think talking to you won't cause him much trouble because you are well aware of some technical biological jargons.
So, when Mr. Dawkins finally meets you through his legendary The Selfish Gene, you eagerly wait to hear a few more intricate complex terms - similar to the stature of the book and the writer. The chapters in the beginning (2 & 3) bore a little bit with their roundabout words. But if you can keep a little bit patience up to Chapter 5, then as the chapters go on you begin to realize why this book is a Classic after all!
I must agree that it's one of the finest books I have read. Chapter 1 is adorable with its nice philosophical leaps. The best chapters are Battle of the Generations and Battle of the Sexes. The chapter on memes sounds like the movie Inception. Overall the book is the best reward for its readers.
October 12, 2023
I do care... it's just a genetic thing.
December 8, 2014
Although a lot has changed in social biology and ethology since this book was originally published in 1976, 鈥淭he Selfish Gene鈥� brought me numerous insights which made my respect for Dawkins grow immensely. I鈥檒l explain why.
The book can be considered today almost out of date, I think, and there鈥檚 much in it to be criticized. Dawkins language is particularly reductionist as he explains various types of animal behaviors mathematically while attributing them solely to genetic factors.
He says, for instance, that an animal has 1/8 of chance of saving one of his cousins from drowning because there is a chance of 1 in 8 that he and his cousin have genes in common. Or that a mother cares about her babies just because their body is transporting half of her genes.
I鈥檓 not questioning it because I found the theory insensitive or cruel (especially when it comes to human beings). We all know very well how important are genes determining behavior. But today we also know how deeply are another factors involved in this process. They are certainly relevant in different measures between animals and humans, but I鈥檓 inclined to believe that even in animals they do not exert this kind of dictatorship. And even if they did, it would be almost impossible to use mathematics to calculate things like the probability of an animal saving his cousin's life.
In chapter 11 Dawkins introduces the notion of 鈥渕emes鈥� and makes an exception to the sovereignty of genes: he mentions briefly that culture may change what was genetically 鈥減redetermined鈥� to happen and, surprisingly, that it can be considered another type of evolution. However, most of the book doesn鈥檛 take this possibility into account, which is one of the reasons why I find it out of date.
Conversely, Dawkins brings up some really interesting ideas that had never come to my mind in other ways. One of them is mentioned in the second chapter, in which he explains the origins of replicant molecules (DNAs) and is confronted with the inevitable and very contemporary question: when does life begins? He solves the problem masterfully in my opinion: 鈥淪hould we then call the original replicators 鈥榣iving鈥�? Who cares? (鈥�) Human suffering has been caused because too many of us cannot grasp that words are only tools for our use. The mere presence in the dictionary of a word like 鈥榣iving鈥� does not mean it necessarily has to refer to something definite in the real world鈥�.
Another of my favorite parts is the one where the talks about the evolution of the capability of simulation in animals. His theory is that conscience emerged because the simulation that brains do to calculate probabilities and risks associated to everyday tasks became so complex at one point of the evolution that it was inevitable to start including the 鈥渟elf鈥� in it.
I was also positively impressed by how Dawkins describes adaptation as the predominance of evolutionary stable strategies in opposition to unstable ones. It is an interesting approach to Darwin鈥檚 theory that he would probably have agreed with. The descriptions of various behaviors to exemplify his theory are also very engaging.
Finally, the already mentioned chapter about memes is a good surprise at the end of the book, and reveals some of Dawkins鈥� skills as philosopher (as someone mentioned in a review below).
For all these reasons, and although I was bored at many moments because of its reductionism, I found 鈥淭he Selfish Gene鈥� worth of reading. It certainly deserves its fame as a classic.
The book can be considered today almost out of date, I think, and there鈥檚 much in it to be criticized. Dawkins language is particularly reductionist as he explains various types of animal behaviors mathematically while attributing them solely to genetic factors.
He says, for instance, that an animal has 1/8 of chance of saving one of his cousins from drowning because there is a chance of 1 in 8 that he and his cousin have genes in common. Or that a mother cares about her babies just because their body is transporting half of her genes.
I鈥檓 not questioning it because I found the theory insensitive or cruel (especially when it comes to human beings). We all know very well how important are genes determining behavior. But today we also know how deeply are another factors involved in this process. They are certainly relevant in different measures between animals and humans, but I鈥檓 inclined to believe that even in animals they do not exert this kind of dictatorship. And even if they did, it would be almost impossible to use mathematics to calculate things like the probability of an animal saving his cousin's life.
In chapter 11 Dawkins introduces the notion of 鈥渕emes鈥� and makes an exception to the sovereignty of genes: he mentions briefly that culture may change what was genetically 鈥減redetermined鈥� to happen and, surprisingly, that it can be considered another type of evolution. However, most of the book doesn鈥檛 take this possibility into account, which is one of the reasons why I find it out of date.
Conversely, Dawkins brings up some really interesting ideas that had never come to my mind in other ways. One of them is mentioned in the second chapter, in which he explains the origins of replicant molecules (DNAs) and is confronted with the inevitable and very contemporary question: when does life begins? He solves the problem masterfully in my opinion: 鈥淪hould we then call the original replicators 鈥榣iving鈥�? Who cares? (鈥�) Human suffering has been caused because too many of us cannot grasp that words are only tools for our use. The mere presence in the dictionary of a word like 鈥榣iving鈥� does not mean it necessarily has to refer to something definite in the real world鈥�.
Another of my favorite parts is the one where the talks about the evolution of the capability of simulation in animals. His theory is that conscience emerged because the simulation that brains do to calculate probabilities and risks associated to everyday tasks became so complex at one point of the evolution that it was inevitable to start including the 鈥渟elf鈥� in it.
I was also positively impressed by how Dawkins describes adaptation as the predominance of evolutionary stable strategies in opposition to unstable ones. It is an interesting approach to Darwin鈥檚 theory that he would probably have agreed with. The descriptions of various behaviors to exemplify his theory are also very engaging.
Finally, the already mentioned chapter about memes is a good surprise at the end of the book, and reveals some of Dawkins鈥� skills as philosopher (as someone mentioned in a review below).
For all these reasons, and although I was bored at many moments because of its reductionism, I found 鈥淭he Selfish Gene鈥� worth of reading. It certainly deserves its fame as a classic.
October 2, 2007
Writing lucidly about science for a lay audience while remaining scientifically rigorous is not easy, and Dawkins does a tremendous job as he examines evolution from the point of view of the gene rather than the organism.
I found this book to contain a number of "aha" moments -- for example, that rather than pose the question "Why is DNA an efficient mechanism for an individual organism to reproduce itself?", we should ask instead "How did a giant, complicated lumbering robot such as myself become a good mechanism for the reproduction of the self-replicating entities I call my genes? Why did biological matter floating around in the primordial stew originally clump together into larger organisms?"
Dawkins answers these questions and more in an engaging fashion, applying the theory of the selfish gene to aggression, altruism, sexual and familial relationships, and to the transmission of ideas in human societies.
And he makes a point of leaving us with the optimistic thought that we as humans should be informed by our biological history, but need not be bound by it.
I found this book to contain a number of "aha" moments -- for example, that rather than pose the question "Why is DNA an efficient mechanism for an individual organism to reproduce itself?", we should ask instead "How did a giant, complicated lumbering robot such as myself become a good mechanism for the reproduction of the self-replicating entities I call my genes? Why did biological matter floating around in the primordial stew originally clump together into larger organisms?"
Dawkins answers these questions and more in an engaging fashion, applying the theory of the selfish gene to aggression, altruism, sexual and familial relationships, and to the transmission of ideas in human societies.
And he makes a point of leaving us with the optimistic thought that we as humans should be informed by our biological history, but need not be bound by it.
June 9, 2012
Finally, and after an excessive period of time, the main cause of which was college overwhelming demands, I managed to read and finish, from cover to cover, the book that launched the fame of the most distinguished evolutionary biologist in the world (Richard Dawkins): The Selfish Gene.
Dawkins is often characterized as the World's Most Outspoken Atheist. This may be true, but it's concerned with a relatively recent development in his character. I think such reduction is misleading and unfair, quite frankly. Dawkins is an intelligent evolutionary biologist and he has contributed a lot to the field over the past three or four decades. He is very passionate about Darwinian Evolution that I'm surprised that he's not been referred to as "Darwin's pitbull" as much as Sir Huxley was known as "Darwin's Bulldog"!
The book is an attempt by Dawkins to offer a meticulous explanation of organisms' behavior, especially animals. Animal behavior is such an intriguing subject, indeed!. Dawkins tries to explore this phenomenal world through the lens of what he calls, "The Selfish Gene Theory".
The Selfish Gene Theory establishes that organisms evolve by Natural Selection, but the unit of selection is, surprisingly and against all common knowledge and conventions, the gene. It's not the species, as I used to firmly hold, not even the individual, but the gene, the selfish gene. Genes were here first long before us the multi-cellular organisms. In addition, they are "the replicators" who will live on, unlike us the mortals. They are the immortal units of selection, and we merely are "survival machines" as Dawkins affirms throughout the whole book. This, to me, has a very profound implication. It seems to me to negate the "hypothesis" of morality being also a product of our evolution because if the Selfish Gene Theory is true, then I don't see how the "survival of the species" would have mattered from the first place. However, Dawkins makes the case that selfish genes might "program" survival machines to adopt some forms of "altruistic" behaviors to meet their "selfish" ends.
Dawkins' language is that of a "reductionist" which doesn't surprise me as a student of biology familiar with the scientific doctrine of "Occam's Razor". However, I understand how his language might disturb some readers. Dawkins reduces all forms of relationships and attributes them to "genetic" factors including those among family members. Altruistic behavior vs. selfish behavior can all be calculated mathematically. Your mother cares about you because you contain half of her genes! Forget love, affection, and all of that emotional talk. We're merely survival machines designed by our selfish genes to propagate them. Pretty disturbing, huh?
Yet, this also has a crucial implication. Dawkins affirms in the beginning of the book that it's one of "biology", not "ethics". He states that we are "selfish by nature", but we can teach our children to be altruistic. To me, this raises a very important question: doesn't that assert that we, indeed, possess free will? This is a profound implication that I believe Dawkins was not aware of when first writing this book. He attempts to briefly discuss this matter in the endnotes by rejecting it, but I think he didn't succeed.There's some form of dualism that the theory suggests in our case: the conscious Homo sapiens.It's very evident and prevalent.
One chapter of the book is devoted to what Dawkins call, "memes". It's such a great idea and it shows Dawkins' skill as a "philosopher". Simply, a meme is a "replicating idea" as Daniel Dennett defines it. It makes so much sense to me that memes are replicators just like genes floating from one mind to another and manipulating subjects to insure their survival. It seems to me that religion is an example of a meme that replicates itself (from followers to followers) and struggle for survival through consistent "adaptation" (modification)! Dawkins' animosity towards religion is probably as old as this book is, but he offers a very mild criticism of it which makes sense given that it's not really the center focus of this book.
The Selfish Gene Theory is a revolutionary idea. However, even more revolutionary is the concept of "The Extended Phenotype" which illustrates the "long reach of the gene". Dawkins dedicates a whole book to this idea, and devotes the last chapter to it. The notion simply suggests that selfish genes influence very "indirect" behaviors such as, building nests in birds. I must read his book "The Extended Phenotype" since Dawkins explores the idea much more deeply and thoroughly.
To conclude, the Selfish Gene Theory (or should I say hypothesis?) is indeed a profound seductive idea as an explanation of organisms' innate behavior. I don't know, though, how much of it is predicated upon scientific evidence and how much is mere speculation, but I do know that the book is a must-read for anyone interested in animal behavior. The book brilliantly offers answers to puzzling phenomenons, but it also raises a lot of profound questions.
"The only kind of entity that has to exists in order for life to arise, anywhere in the universe, is the immortal replicator." - R. Dawkins
Dawkins is often characterized as the World's Most Outspoken Atheist. This may be true, but it's concerned with a relatively recent development in his character. I think such reduction is misleading and unfair, quite frankly. Dawkins is an intelligent evolutionary biologist and he has contributed a lot to the field over the past three or four decades. He is very passionate about Darwinian Evolution that I'm surprised that he's not been referred to as "Darwin's pitbull" as much as Sir Huxley was known as "Darwin's Bulldog"!
The book is an attempt by Dawkins to offer a meticulous explanation of organisms' behavior, especially animals. Animal behavior is such an intriguing subject, indeed!. Dawkins tries to explore this phenomenal world through the lens of what he calls, "The Selfish Gene Theory".
The Selfish Gene Theory establishes that organisms evolve by Natural Selection, but the unit of selection is, surprisingly and against all common knowledge and conventions, the gene. It's not the species, as I used to firmly hold, not even the individual, but the gene, the selfish gene. Genes were here first long before us the multi-cellular organisms. In addition, they are "the replicators" who will live on, unlike us the mortals. They are the immortal units of selection, and we merely are "survival machines" as Dawkins affirms throughout the whole book. This, to me, has a very profound implication. It seems to me to negate the "hypothesis" of morality being also a product of our evolution because if the Selfish Gene Theory is true, then I don't see how the "survival of the species" would have mattered from the first place. However, Dawkins makes the case that selfish genes might "program" survival machines to adopt some forms of "altruistic" behaviors to meet their "selfish" ends.
Dawkins' language is that of a "reductionist" which doesn't surprise me as a student of biology familiar with the scientific doctrine of "Occam's Razor". However, I understand how his language might disturb some readers. Dawkins reduces all forms of relationships and attributes them to "genetic" factors including those among family members. Altruistic behavior vs. selfish behavior can all be calculated mathematically. Your mother cares about you because you contain half of her genes! Forget love, affection, and all of that emotional talk. We're merely survival machines designed by our selfish genes to propagate them. Pretty disturbing, huh?
Yet, this also has a crucial implication. Dawkins affirms in the beginning of the book that it's one of "biology", not "ethics". He states that we are "selfish by nature", but we can teach our children to be altruistic. To me, this raises a very important question: doesn't that assert that we, indeed, possess free will? This is a profound implication that I believe Dawkins was not aware of when first writing this book. He attempts to briefly discuss this matter in the endnotes by rejecting it, but I think he didn't succeed.There's some form of dualism that the theory suggests in our case: the conscious Homo sapiens.It's very evident and prevalent.
One chapter of the book is devoted to what Dawkins call, "memes". It's such a great idea and it shows Dawkins' skill as a "philosopher". Simply, a meme is a "replicating idea" as Daniel Dennett defines it. It makes so much sense to me that memes are replicators just like genes floating from one mind to another and manipulating subjects to insure their survival. It seems to me that religion is an example of a meme that replicates itself (from followers to followers) and struggle for survival through consistent "adaptation" (modification)! Dawkins' animosity towards religion is probably as old as this book is, but he offers a very mild criticism of it which makes sense given that it's not really the center focus of this book.
The Selfish Gene Theory is a revolutionary idea. However, even more revolutionary is the concept of "The Extended Phenotype" which illustrates the "long reach of the gene". Dawkins dedicates a whole book to this idea, and devotes the last chapter to it. The notion simply suggests that selfish genes influence very "indirect" behaviors such as, building nests in birds. I must read his book "The Extended Phenotype" since Dawkins explores the idea much more deeply and thoroughly.
To conclude, the Selfish Gene Theory (or should I say hypothesis?) is indeed a profound seductive idea as an explanation of organisms' innate behavior. I don't know, though, how much of it is predicated upon scientific evidence and how much is mere speculation, but I do know that the book is a must-read for anyone interested in animal behavior. The book brilliantly offers answers to puzzling phenomenons, but it also raises a lot of profound questions.
"The only kind of entity that has to exists in order for life to arise, anywhere in the universe, is the immortal replicator." - R. Dawkins
May 30, 2024
Been on my TBR since grad school where we discussed the hell out of these concepts, but I escaped reading it (tons of other mandatory books) and still crushed my comps. I still anthropomorphize genes as little super-intelligent pilots in my head-cockpit always calculating and optimizing, forecasting and predicting outcomes for me. And me mostly clueless about their agenda. Well, most of the time.
I really enjoyed Dawkins' comments to his contemporaries and opponents in this edition. He really had some beef with I feel I missed out on at the time.
I really enjoyed Dawkins' comments to his contemporaries and opponents in this edition. He really had some beef with I feel I missed out on at the time.
December 2, 2020
3 stars
and in this book, this concept is explained through the perspective of genes. Dawkins manages to present complicated topics like cell division, probability, and animal behaviours through the "eyes" of the gene which will use its survival machine (the organism) to survive.
It was fascinating to to learn about relationships and customs that I took for granted, and to now get more understanding on why they occur as they do (especially mutualism and parasitism). Since I learn a lot about this in school, though separately, here I was able to draw connections with Mr. Dawkins' guidance that really enriched my prior knowledge. That being said, Dawkins writes in a simple writing style that may sometimes sound contemptuous of the reader, but I don't think that was the intent: he obviously knows much more about the topic, why would he talk to us as an equal in the field? I also found some of his remarks quite funny or satirical and found they helped lift the mood from just the nitty-gritty science facts.
There are a few 1 star reviews that tie a lot to religion and how Dawkins is overly dismissive of this. In my opinion, I don't exactly understand why this forced people to rate the book so low, since religion is mentioned maybe 2 or 3 times in the book, and in passing. Is Dawkins a bit dismissive of it? Well yes, but he isn't rude about it, he just states that some aspects of religions don't line up with what can be deduced through science... then again maybe I'm not the best person to speak on this, as I too am atheist. I don't know. I sure have read a lot of books that presented religion in a ruder manner, so I thought that Dawkins went about this in a respectful way.
Overall, I thought this book was really insightful, and will definitely be picking up more titles from this author.
and in this book, this concept is explained through the perspective of genes. Dawkins manages to present complicated topics like cell division, probability, and animal behaviours through the "eyes" of the gene which will use its survival machine (the organism) to survive.
It was fascinating to to learn about relationships and customs that I took for granted, and to now get more understanding on why they occur as they do (especially mutualism and parasitism). Since I learn a lot about this in school, though separately, here I was able to draw connections with Mr. Dawkins' guidance that really enriched my prior knowledge. That being said, Dawkins writes in a simple writing style that may sometimes sound contemptuous of the reader, but I don't think that was the intent: he obviously knows much more about the topic, why would he talk to us as an equal in the field? I also found some of his remarks quite funny or satirical and found they helped lift the mood from just the nitty-gritty science facts.
There are a few 1 star reviews that tie a lot to religion and how Dawkins is overly dismissive of this. In my opinion, I don't exactly understand why this forced people to rate the book so low, since religion is mentioned maybe 2 or 3 times in the book, and in passing. Is Dawkins a bit dismissive of it? Well yes, but he isn't rude about it, he just states that some aspects of religions don't line up with what can be deduced through science... then again maybe I'm not the best person to speak on this, as I too am atheist. I don't know. I sure have read a lot of books that presented religion in a ruder manner, so I thought that Dawkins went about this in a respectful way.
Overall, I thought this book was really insightful, and will definitely be picking up more titles from this author.
September 3, 2016
鈥� There are more possible games of chess than there are atoms in the galaxy.鈥�
Sometimes science books can become unintentionally funny:
鈥淲hat is the good of sex? This is an extremely difficult question for the evolutionist to answer. Most serious attempts to answer it involve sophisticated mathematical reasoning.鈥�
Okay!
One of stupidest criticism here on 欧宝娱乐 of Adam Smith鈥檚 Theory of Wealth of Nations鈥� was that he made the human selfishness as basis of his theory. It was stupid as Smith didn鈥檛 invented that 鈥榮elfishness鈥� he merely showed us how our economy was already based on selfishness of individuals.
It is same here. In fact, in this case 鈥榮elfishness鈥� is apparent selfish behaviour of genes (鈥榓pparent鈥� because genes do not make conscious choices, selfless-by-default ones just won鈥檛 survive) and any effects on the individuals are unconscious. Dawkins shows how selfishness of genes can actually bring out what, at first, may look like altruistic behaviour among animals.
Also, we need not be slave to our genes. In fact, we do resist behaviour imposed on us by genes. The best examples are people who remain without children all their life, contraceptives, welfare state etc.
鈥淐ontraception is sometimes attacked as 'unnatural'. So it is, very unnatural. The trouble is, so is the welfare state. I think that most of us believe the welfare state is highly desirable. But you cannot have an unnatural welfare state, unless you also have unnatural birth- control, otherwise the end result will be misery even greater than that which obtains in nature.鈥�
There are theories in here describing how first life must have started on planet. There is also a theory (theory, not law) that tries to explain why should people die of old age. Any explanations are better than 'God did it'. One of my favorite parts were those discussing Game theory involved in biology.
Above all, there are all those fascinating aspects how some animals behave. There are some insects who can be like Chinese-boxes:
Female greenflies can bear live, fatherless, female offspring, each one containing all the genes of its mother. (Incidentally, an embryo in her mother's 'womb' may have an even smaller embryo inside her own womb. So a greenfly female may give birth to a daughter and a grand- daughter simultaneously, both of them being equivalent to her own identical twins.)
And...do you remember that romantic dialogue, 'I'll die for you'? Ladies among matinses take it too literally:
鈥淢antises 鈥� When they mate, the male cautiously creeps up on the female, mounts her, and copulates. If the female gets th e chance, she will eat him, beginning by biting his head off, either as the male is approaching, or immediately after he mounts, or after they separate.鈥�
Isn鈥檛 that lovely?
Than there are the friendly fights (mostly to get girls):
"the notable thing about animal fights is that they are formal tournaments, played according to rules like those of boxing or fencing. Animals fight with gloved fists and blunted foils. Threat and bluff take the place of deadly earnest. Gestures of surrender are recognized by victors, who then refrain from dealing the killing blow or bite that our naive theory might predict.鈥�
Dawkins also points out how most of Darwin鈥檚 oringal theory was wrong. Yet, you won鈥檛 find any Darwin-fundamentalists fighting against evolutionists. Several of Dawkins' own postulates must have been already proved wrong - it was written 40 years ago, that is like stone age to scientists. I don't think he would mind either.
Creationists, well, they are a different breed. I guess given the condition the world is in, with all those stupid wars and ozone holes; any ideas of intelligent design can be easily trashed. And have you ever heard of that *stops to search for a word*thing called 'Donald Trump' - what is so intelligent about his existence? If I had my way, I would also have humanity consider whether we aren鈥檛 too liberal with the word when we call ourselves an 'intelligent' race. And even assuming there was a creator -than what about his/her aesthetic sense? Why should he give us bad body order? What is so intelligent about that?
Coming back to creationists, well, I think Christian church was a little stupid (no offence) when it picked a head-on fight against evolutionists. All they needed to do was to manipulate the meaning of phrases in Bible and tell the world that evolution was embodied in Bible, it was just that they weren't interpreting it right. Hinduism and Islam are far cleverer in this regard.
For example, as India鈥檚 respected prime minister will tell you Hindu gods had already invented plastic surgeries long before lesser mortals discovered Iron. Atom bombs, flying vehicles etc 鈥� you name it, we already had them ages ago. Read this review for more details. Whatever you may do, we did it in ancient times and were clever enough to forget about it.
Also, one of most popular (pseudo) scholars on religion, Dr. Zakir Naik, tells us that truths like Big bang, evolution, Copernican solar system, existence of plasma state of matter, the growth of embryo etc. were all already explained by none other than God himself in Quran. There are many other scientific truths to be found in Quran that he has found using his
April 4, 2020
Any reader of fiction understands the importance of narrative point of view. Influential evolutionary biologist Richard Dawkins adopts that idea here. The point of view is that of the gene. His 鈥渟elfish gene鈥� is a metaphor, an anthropomorphic representation of a replicating sequence of genetic code.
He clarifies this idea with an astonishing admission: 鈥淭here is no universally agreed definition of a gene.鈥�(p.36) Starting with this blank slate frees him to create parameters that suit his own purposes: 鈥淎 gene is defined as any portion of chromosomal material that potentially lasts for enough generations to serve as a unit of natural selection....[A] gene is a replicator with high copying fidelity.鈥� (p. 35) In one analogy he compares a gene to a cooperative team of rowers. The individual is merely a vehicle for the focused efforts of this team. Instead of quibbling about the physical entity of the gene, Dawkins focuses his attention on salient properties: copying errors, fecundity (the rate of replication), chromosomal rearrangement, and chemical 鈥渞ivalry.鈥� These in turn govern observable properties of the organism: viscosity ( 鈥�...any tendency for individuals to continue living to the place where they were born.鈥�) and memory (p.282)
His arena is a multi-generational dynamic of ephemeral winners and losers, quantitative dominance in the gene pool. He proposes various strategies for achieving that dominance, and asserts that the results are mathematically predictable through game theory. A step-wise picture of evolution emerges: 鈥淧rogressive evolution may be not so much a steady upward climb as a series of discrete steps from stable plateau to stable plateau.鈥� (p.113) Each plateau signals the achievement of an Evolutionary Stable Strategy (ESS).
This revolutionary book was published in 1976. Dawkins cites two important influences. William Donald Hamilton (1936-2000) developed the idea of 鈥渒in selection鈥� 鈥� the basis for the principle that 鈥�...a gene might be able to assist replicas of itself that are sitting in other bodies....鈥� (p.114) In a chapter titled 鈥淕enesmanship", Dawkins provides a simplified version of a formula for calculating the odds that two individuals share a particular gene.
George C. Williams (1926-2010) contributed the idea of pleioptropy 鈥� multiple effects of a single gene. An example is the activation of a gene when the chemical properties of aging accumulate. I mention these antecedents because I often felt I had fallen into a time warp. Dawkins' ideas are a far cry from the Mendelian genetics I learned in school. Readers familiar with these earlier evolutionary pioneers will have a much easier time navigating this book than I had.
I read the 40th anniversary edition, published in 2016. Extensive explanatory footnotes, often running on for pages, have been added and need to be read in conjunction with the text. This is expedited by the formatting of the Kindle edition.
Fortunately, this book is leavened with surprising behavioral examples. We learn that a whale song can continue for eight minutes without repetition. (p.68) We learn that a strain of worker bee has the 鈥渉ygenic鈥� behavior of detecting and culling grubs infected by a particular disease. The culling requires two steps: uncapping the wax cell of the larva and evicting the larva from the hive. (p.78) A strain of mice exhibit the 鈥淏ruce effect.鈥� The male mouse exudes a chemical that causes a female impregnated by a different male to abort. (p.191) Vampire bats will regurgitate and share excess blood harvested during the night with unsuccessful bats. (p.298) Dawkins examines and explains these behaviors through the lens of his 鈥渟elfish gene.鈥�
He clarifies this idea with an astonishing admission: 鈥淭here is no universally agreed definition of a gene.鈥�(p.36) Starting with this blank slate frees him to create parameters that suit his own purposes: 鈥淎 gene is defined as any portion of chromosomal material that potentially lasts for enough generations to serve as a unit of natural selection....[A] gene is a replicator with high copying fidelity.鈥� (p. 35) In one analogy he compares a gene to a cooperative team of rowers. The individual is merely a vehicle for the focused efforts of this team. Instead of quibbling about the physical entity of the gene, Dawkins focuses his attention on salient properties: copying errors, fecundity (the rate of replication), chromosomal rearrangement, and chemical 鈥渞ivalry.鈥� These in turn govern observable properties of the organism: viscosity ( 鈥�...any tendency for individuals to continue living to the place where they were born.鈥�) and memory (p.282)
His arena is a multi-generational dynamic of ephemeral winners and losers, quantitative dominance in the gene pool. He proposes various strategies for achieving that dominance, and asserts that the results are mathematically predictable through game theory. A step-wise picture of evolution emerges: 鈥淧rogressive evolution may be not so much a steady upward climb as a series of discrete steps from stable plateau to stable plateau.鈥� (p.113) Each plateau signals the achievement of an Evolutionary Stable Strategy (ESS).
This revolutionary book was published in 1976. Dawkins cites two important influences. William Donald Hamilton (1936-2000) developed the idea of 鈥渒in selection鈥� 鈥� the basis for the principle that 鈥�...a gene might be able to assist replicas of itself that are sitting in other bodies....鈥� (p.114) In a chapter titled 鈥淕enesmanship", Dawkins provides a simplified version of a formula for calculating the odds that two individuals share a particular gene.
George C. Williams (1926-2010) contributed the idea of pleioptropy 鈥� multiple effects of a single gene. An example is the activation of a gene when the chemical properties of aging accumulate. I mention these antecedents because I often felt I had fallen into a time warp. Dawkins' ideas are a far cry from the Mendelian genetics I learned in school. Readers familiar with these earlier evolutionary pioneers will have a much easier time navigating this book than I had.
I read the 40th anniversary edition, published in 2016. Extensive explanatory footnotes, often running on for pages, have been added and need to be read in conjunction with the text. This is expedited by the formatting of the Kindle edition.
Fortunately, this book is leavened with surprising behavioral examples. We learn that a whale song can continue for eight minutes without repetition. (p.68) We learn that a strain of worker bee has the 鈥渉ygenic鈥� behavior of detecting and culling grubs infected by a particular disease. The culling requires two steps: uncapping the wax cell of the larva and evicting the larva from the hive. (p.78) A strain of mice exhibit the 鈥淏ruce effect.鈥� The male mouse exudes a chemical that causes a female impregnated by a different male to abort. (p.191) Vampire bats will regurgitate and share excess blood harvested during the night with unsuccessful bats. (p.298) Dawkins examines and explains these behaviors through the lens of his 鈥渟elfish gene.鈥�
January 4, 2012
I asked Twitter for reading recommendations just before Christmas and one of them was this book. It's so outside my comfort zone (a book about genetics? Are you MAD?), I just went for it. And I am very glad I did.
That's the great thing about Kindles. You can do mad stuff in seconds flat.
Skip the forewords and introductions, they're sententious verbiage. Just start reading the book - by the time you've done, you'll actually WANT to go back to the forewords and revision notes. Because this book is seriously fun.
Honestly. It's highly readable, thought-provoking and never less than entertaining. Imagine reading a TV series like Coast or a Robert Winston documentary - the mixture of powerful images, connections to the everyday and down to earth presentation actually make the subject matter of the book relevant, alive and, well, splendid.
Richipoos takes the odd diversion to indulge in some academic spattery, (one reason, perhaps, this was dubbed a 'young book' - it was written 30 and more years ago) but generally is on the side of the reader, which is why his ideas come across so clearly. The book explores the role of the 'eternal gene', the miraculous and self-replicating bunch of amino-acids that is US and how we are effectively a co-operative of chemical conveniences. Starting with the primeval soup and ending with why mums and dads do what they do, it's a roller-coaster ride. I'm serious - like I said, this would normally tick all my ohnoimnotreadingthatshit buttons. I was grinning through most of it and rare was the day when I didn't share a thought or insight the book had triggered or opened up with my long-suffering wife Sarah.
I had the time of my life reading this. I wish I could say the same about my my current struggle with Umberto Eco's somewhat turgid latest, but that - as they say - is another story...
That's the great thing about Kindles. You can do mad stuff in seconds flat.
Skip the forewords and introductions, they're sententious verbiage. Just start reading the book - by the time you've done, you'll actually WANT to go back to the forewords and revision notes. Because this book is seriously fun.
Honestly. It's highly readable, thought-provoking and never less than entertaining. Imagine reading a TV series like Coast or a Robert Winston documentary - the mixture of powerful images, connections to the everyday and down to earth presentation actually make the subject matter of the book relevant, alive and, well, splendid.
Richipoos takes the odd diversion to indulge in some academic spattery, (one reason, perhaps, this was dubbed a 'young book' - it was written 30 and more years ago) but generally is on the side of the reader, which is why his ideas come across so clearly. The book explores the role of the 'eternal gene', the miraculous and self-replicating bunch of amino-acids that is US and how we are effectively a co-operative of chemical conveniences. Starting with the primeval soup and ending with why mums and dads do what they do, it's a roller-coaster ride. I'm serious - like I said, this would normally tick all my ohnoimnotreadingthatshit buttons. I was grinning through most of it and rare was the day when I didn't share a thought or insight the book had triggered or opened up with my long-suffering wife Sarah.
I had the time of my life reading this. I wish I could say the same about my my current struggle with Umberto Eco's somewhat turgid latest, but that - as they say - is another story...
October 2, 2007
I read this book when I was a student and studying genetics at the time. This helped a lot, it made an awful lot more sense than what I was learning and I have Professor Dawkins to thank for making me look like a genius in a lecture and completely getting my head round an essay.
I am a big fan of Richard Dawkins, and this is his genius. I admire his ability to argue something so comprehensively and convincingly. I first discovered him in a book of essays where he wrote a letter to his daughter Juliet (who was ten at the time) explaining how you must always look for evidence. That, I believe, is one of the most important things to learn in life and the way he presents it to a child is impressive.
(The book, incidentally, is called How Things Work. I must see if I can add it)
However, despite being in awe of Professor Dawkins, I find him a little cruel in the way he removes the potential for all the nice things in life. If he is correct, we may as well all be selfish and thoughtless at all times because to do otherwise is simply irrational. I like to retain a little naivete in my convictions, it makes life more palatable.
Apparently "The Blind Watchmaker" is his best book, but I have completely read very few of his books and prefer to listen to him talk.
I am a big fan of Richard Dawkins, and this is his genius. I admire his ability to argue something so comprehensively and convincingly. I first discovered him in a book of essays where he wrote a letter to his daughter Juliet (who was ten at the time) explaining how you must always look for evidence. That, I believe, is one of the most important things to learn in life and the way he presents it to a child is impressive.
(The book, incidentally, is called How Things Work. I must see if I can add it)
However, despite being in awe of Professor Dawkins, I find him a little cruel in the way he removes the potential for all the nice things in life. If he is correct, we may as well all be selfish and thoughtless at all times because to do otherwise is simply irrational. I like to retain a little naivete in my convictions, it makes life more palatable.
Apparently "The Blind Watchmaker" is his best book, but I have completely read very few of his books and prefer to listen to him talk.
November 29, 2015
I love reading books that challenge my worldview and compel me to change it. This book is an excellent work on Evolutionary biology, Genes, Behavioral biology and Natural selection, among many other fascinating topics. Dawkins is succinct, eloquent and a very intelligent tutor. He uses examples and metaphors to illustrate his point and to coalesce them all to form one unifying picture, of a universe, not in perfect harmony, but in tumult and constant change. The chapter on 鈥淢emes鈥� blew me off absolutely; I would want my friends to read just that chapter even if they don鈥檛 read the whole book. His ideas are fascinating and logical, but his way of expressing and putting them in words is even better. What a shame that he got into the new atheist movement and all the bad publicity that came with it. As a scientist, I found him at the top of his game.
This is a very readable, entertaining and beautifully written book that I would recommend to any one who, like me, bunked their biology lectures back in school. There is a lot to learn from this book. The 30th anniversary edition is annotated and made up to date with additional chapters, so the older edition should be avoided.
Read it, let is rinse your brain, and repeat.
This is a very readable, entertaining and beautifully written book that I would recommend to any one who, like me, bunked their biology lectures back in school. There is a lot to learn from this book. The 30th anniversary edition is annotated and made up to date with additional chapters, so the older edition should be avoided.
Read it, let is rinse your brain, and repeat.
Displaying 1 - 30 of 5,244 reviews
Can't find what you're looking for?
Get help and learn more about the design.