自私的基因

by 理查德·道金斯

Blurb

《自私的基因》是英国进化生物学家理查德·道金斯于1976年出版的书，主要关于进化论，其理论构筑于乔治·威廉斯的书《适应与自然选择》之上。道金斯使用“自私的基因”来表达基因中心的进化论观点。这种观点和基于物种或生物体的进化论观点不同，能够解释生物体之间的各种利他行为。两个生物体在基因上的关系越紧密，就越有可能表现得无私。
一个物种的进化是为了提升其整体适应度——将自己的基因尽可能多地传给整个群体。于是，整个种群会朝向进化稳定策略进化。本书还创造了迷因一词，用以表示人类社会文化的进化的基本单位，提出“自私”的复制机制同样适用于人类文化。自本书出版以来，迷因学说成为了很多研究的主题。
在本书30周年纪念版的前言中，道金斯说他已经看到本书的书名给读者留下了不恰当的印象，并在回忆往事时认为他应该听取汤姆·马斯开尔的意见改名叫“永恒的基因”。

First Published

1976

Member Reviews Write your own review

Box304

This book is well written and makes a lot of good arguments and scenarios. I do like the author and wanted to make that point before starting. However, this book falls short in many regards. The main problem is that arguments based off of fictitious numbers will always support he who made the argument in the first place (since he chose these fictitious numbers). Ultimately, these arguments are extremely poor unless one elaborates extensively on why the numbers were chosen (which the author here does not). Another issue which I have is that author takes a few jabs at Christianity over the translation of a few words (which is another extremely poor argument). Here is the problem: take a look at the book entitle "The Case for Christ" by Lee Strobel. If one were to attempt to make an argument against Christianity, one should attempt to refute the types of claims Lee makes in this book. You see in order for an argument to be effective one must make that argument at the underlying base as a whole in order to qualify the whole entire argument as ineffective. Attacking an argument not at the base, but at the "fingertips" with trying to attack translations (which are widely accepted as accurate) is an extremely poor argument. For instance, if I were to attack evolution (as being an origin of life theory), I would simply state that "Evolution" does not provide a rationality for how matter came into existence. This would be an argument at the base as to why "Evolution" (as an origin of life theory), is not a good theory at all (because at it's core does not explain anything at all or offer up any sort of explanation as to where matter came from). If I were to attack Islam, I would make remarks such as 1) Muhammad changed text in what was the Bible (which Revelations says not to do) 2) Muhammad claimed to be greater than Christ, who claimed to be equal with God 3) Muhammad led Holy Wars for personal gain (an attack on the prophets Character) 4) Muhammad married a wealthy widow (here seeking only personal gain) 5) Muhammad married many women (here seeking personal pleasure over the Lord) 6) Christ's followers claimed Christ resurrected from the dead, and Muhammad is still dead There are other arguments which can be made, I'm just making the point that these arguments are at the base of what the religion/theory is teaching, and that is how an effective argument is formed.

0 Responses posted in August