//
sign in
Post
by @danabra.mov
PostEmbed
by @danabra.mov
Record
by @jimpick.com
Record
by @atsui.org
+ new component
Post
I don’t agree. It doesn’t hold up, unless Dawkins has displayed much deeper reflection in his 50th anniversary edition than previous editions. I have it pre-ordered and looking forward to finding out. Here is my detailed take: open.substack.com/pub/drchrise...
6d
Is Richard Dawkins wrong about the nature of life?
Is it time to abandon the metaphor of "The Selfish Gene"?
open.substack.com
Dr Chris Earl (MOL-BIO)
When Richard Dawkins’s first blockbuster book was published half a century ago, few genes had ever been sequenced or studied in detail. Yet the book’s gene-centred view of evolution still has much to teach us in today’s genetic age
6d
When Richard Dawkins’s first blockbuster book was published half a century ago, few genes had ever been sequenced or studied in detail. Yet the book’s gene-centred view of evolution still has much to teach us in today’s genetic age
www.newscientist.com
The Selfish Gene at 50: Why Dawkins’s evolution classic still holds up
New Scientist