The selfish gene theory has absolutely nothing to do with one gene "achieving complex behavior"SAM said:Exactly. Which is why the selfish gene theory does not work for me. There is no one gene that can achieve complex behaviour.
(whatever that actually means. Just one nucleic acid substitution in one gene can radically alter complex behavior of some systems, even of whole organisms).
You have completely misunderstood Dawkins, if indeed you have actually read him. There is no evidence here that you have, aside from your assertion. You claim to disagree with him, yet most of your assertions here are straight from his viewpoint (the Pima Indian example is commonly employed by those proposing the "reductionist" view you claim to reject, for instance).
That is not clear. If you mean that the larger or more inclusive scale patterns cannot exist without some kind of physical substrate to employ in their creation and development, and are in some ways constrained as well as enabled by that substrate, then I agree.michael said:By based on I mean, every emotion, intuition, feeling, idea, memory, is at a fundamental level a product of chemical reactions - purely physical phenomena.
If you mean that the substrate completely fixes the patterns involved, that the patterns hove no independent existence at all, then I think you are overlooking some important aspects of reality - physical and otherwise.
Last edited: