370
个编辑
更改
跳到导航
跳到搜索
第154行：
第154行： − + 第176行：
第176行： − + + 第185行：
第186行： −
→演化生物学
This behaviour appears at first to be an evolutionary paradox, since helping others costs precious resources and decreases one's own fitness. Previously, many had interpreted this as an aspect of group selection: individuals are doing what is best for the survival of the population or species as a whole. British evolutionary biologist W. D. Hamilton used gene-frequency analysis in his inclusive fitness theory to show how hereditary altruistic traits can evolve if there is sufficient genetic similarity between actors and recipients of such altruism (including close relatives). Hamilton's inclusive fitness has since been successfully applied to a wide range of organisms, including humans. Similarly, Robert Trivers, thinking in terms of the gene-centred model, developed the theory of reciprocal altruism, whereby one organism provides a benefit to another in the expectation of future reciprocation. Dawkins popularised these ideas in The Selfish Gene, and developed them in his own work. In June 2012, Dawkins was highly critical of fellow biologist E. O. Wilson's 2012 book The Social Conquest of Earth as misunderstanding Hamilton's theory of kin selection. Dawkins has also been strongly critical of the Gaia hypothesis of the independent scientist James Lovelock. Extract of page 178 Extract of p. 72 Extract of p. 223
This behaviour appears at first to be an evolutionary paradox, since helping others costs precious resources and decreases one's own fitness. Previously, many had interpreted this as an aspect of group selection: individuals are doing what is best for the survival of the population or species as a whole. British evolutionary biologist W. D. Hamilton used gene-frequency analysis in his inclusive fitness theory to show how hereditary altruistic traits can evolve if there is sufficient genetic similarity between actors and recipients of such altruism (including close relatives). Hamilton's inclusive fitness has since been successfully applied to a wide range of organisms, including humans. Similarly, Robert Trivers, thinking in terms of the gene-centred model, developed the theory of reciprocal altruism, whereby one organism provides a benefit to another in the expectation of future reciprocation. Dawkins popularised these ideas in The Selfish Gene, and developed them in his own work. In June 2012, Dawkins was highly critical of fellow biologist E. O. Wilson's 2012 book The Social Conquest of Earth as misunderstanding Hamilton's theory of kin selection. Dawkins has also been strongly critical of the Gaia hypothesis of the independent scientist James Lovelock. Extract of page 178 Extract of p. 72 Extract of p. 223
道金斯一直对进化过程中的非适应性过程(如古尔德和路翁丁所描述的 Spandrels)以及“高于”基因水平的选择持怀疑态度ref name="gould-lewontin">{{cite journal |last=Gould |first=Stephen Jay |author-link=Stephen Jay Gould |author2=Lewontin, Richard C. |author2-link=Richard Lewontin |year=1979 |title=The Spandrels of San Marco and the Panglossian Paradigm: A Critique of the Adaptationist Programme |journal=Proceedings of the Royal Society of London |volume=205 |issue=1161 |series=B |pages=581–98 |doi=10.1098/rspb.1979.0086 |pmid=42062 |bibcode=1979RSPSB.205..581G|s2cid=2129408 }}</ref> and about selection at levels "above" that of the gene.<ref name=Extended_Phenotype>{{cite book |last=Dawkins |first=Richard |title=The extended phenotype: the long reach of the gene |url=https://archive.org/details/extendedphenotyp0000dawk |url-access=registration |year=1999 |publisher=Oxford University Press |isbn=978-0192880512 |edition=Revised with new afterword and further reading}}</ref>。他特别怀疑群体选择作为理解利他主义的基础的实际可能性或重要性。这种行为起初似乎是一种进化悖论，因为帮助他人会耗费宝贵的资源，并降低自己的适应能力。以前，许多人把这解释为群体选择的一个方面：个体做的是对种群或整个物种的生存最有利的事情。英国进化生物学家W.D.汉密尔顿在他的整体适应度理论中使用基因频率分析来说明，如果这种利他主义的行为者和接受者(包括近亲)之间有足够的遗传相似性，那么遗传的利他主义特征是如何进化的<ref>{{cite journal |last=Hamilton |first=W.D. |author-link=W. D. Hamilton |title=The genetical evolution of social behaviour I and II |journal=Journal of Theoretical Biology |volume=7 |issue=1 |pages=1–16, 17–52 |year=1964 |doi=10.1016/0022-5193(64)90038-4 |pmid=5875341}}</ref>{{Ref label|a|a|none}}。汉密尔顿的整体适应度已经成功地应用于包括人类在内的广泛的生物体中。类似地，罗伯特·泰弗士从以基因为中心的模型的角度思考，发展了互利主义理论，即一个有机体在对未来互换的预期中为另一个有机体提供利益<ref>{{cite journal |last=Trivers |first=Robert |title=The evolution of reciprocal altruism |journal=Quarterly Review of Biology |volume=46 |issue=1 |pages=35–57 |year=1971 |doi=10.1086/406755 |s2cid=19027999 |url=https://semanticscholar.org/paper/4e671994e5b0c7aefbecd050e95fdb45272d7e12 |access-date=16 December 2019 |archive-date=21 November 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201121060816/https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/The-Evolution-of-Reciprocal-Altruism-Trivers/4e671994e5b0c7aefbecd050e95fdb45272d7e12 |url-status=live }}</ref>。道金斯在《自私的基因》中推广了这些观点，并在自己的作品中加以发展<ref name="dawkins79">{{cite journal |last=Dawkins |first=Richard |title=Twelve Misunderstandings of Kin Selection |journal=Zeitschrift für Tierpsychologie |volume=51 |pages=184–200 |year=1979 |issue=2 |url=http://www.simonyi.ox.ac.uk/dawkins/writings/Twelve%20Misunderstandings%20of%20Kin%20Selection.pdf |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080529180009/http://www.simonyi.ox.ac.uk/dawkins/writings/Twelve%20Misunderstandings%20of%20Kin%20Selection.pdf |archive-date=29 May 2008 |doi=10.1111/j.1439-0310.1979.tb00682.x}}</ref>。2012年6月，道金斯对生物学家 e. o. 威尔逊2012年出版的《地球的社会征服》一书提出严厉批评，认为该书误解了汉密尔顿的亲缘选择理论<ref>{{cite news |last=Thorpe |first=Vanessa |title=Richard Dawkins in furious row with EO Wilson over theory of evolution. Book review sparks war of words between grand old man of biology and Oxford's most high-profile Darwinist |url=https://www.theguardian.com/science/2012/jun/24/battle-of-the-professors |access-date=3 October 2012 |newspaper=The Guardian |date=24 June 2012 |location=London |archive-date=6 May 2019 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190506014702/https://www.theguardian.com/science/2012/jun/24/battle-of-the-professors |url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{cite news |last1=Dawkins |first1=Richard |title=The Descent of Edward Wilson |url=http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/magazine/edward-wilson-social-conquest-earth-evolutionary-errors-origin-species |access-date=24 October 2015 |work=[[Prospect (magazine)|Prospect]] |date=24 May 2012 |archive-date=24 September 2015 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150924105332/http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/magazine/edward-wilson-social-conquest-earth-evolutionary-errors-origin-species |url-status=live }}</ref>。道金斯还强烈批评独立科学家詹姆斯·洛夫洛克的盖亚假说。<ref>{{cite book |title=The molecular biology of Gaia |url=https://archive.org/details/molecularbiology0000will |url-access=registration |year=1996 |publisher=Columbia University Press |isbn=978-0-231-10512-5 |page=[https://archive.org/details/molecularbiology0000will/page/178 178] |first1=George Ronald |last1=Williams}} [https://archive.org/details/molecularbiology0000will/page/178 Extract of page 178]</ref><ref>{{cite book |title=Scientists debate gaia: the next century |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=TOi1Cyj9h1UC |year=2004 |publisher=MIT Press |isbn=978-0-262-19498-3 |page=72 |first1=Stephen Henry |last1=Schneider |access-date=27 January 2016 |archive-date=29 July 2016 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160729013112/https://books.google.com/books?id=TOi1Cyj9h1UC |url-status=live }} [https://books.google.com/books?id=TOi1Cyj9h1UC&pg=PA72 Extract of p. 72] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150319005453/http://books.google.com/books?id=TOi1Cyj9h1UC&pg=PA72 |date=19 March 2015 }}</ref><ref>{{cite book |title=Unweaving the Rainbow: Science, Delusion and the Appetite for Wonder |journal=Unweaving the Rainbow : Science |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=ZudTchiioUoC |year=2000 |publisher=Houghton Mifflin Harcourt |isbn=978-0-618-05673-6 |page=223 |first1=Richard |last1=Dawkins |bibcode=1998ursd.book.....D |access-date=27 January 2016 |archive-date=21 September 2014 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140921122549/http://books.google.com/books?id=ZudTchiioUoC |url-status=live }} [https://books.google.com/books?id=ZudTchiioUoC&pg=PA223 Extract of p. 223] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150319064040/http://books.google.com/books?id=ZudTchiioUoC&pg=PA223 |date=19 March 2015 }}</ref>
道金斯一直对进化过程中的非适应性过程(如古尔德和路翁丁所描述的 Spandrels)以及“高于”基因水平的选择持怀疑态度<ref name="gould-lewontin">{{cite journal |last=Gould |first=Stephen Jay |author-link=Stephen Jay Gould |author2=Lewontin, Richard C. |author2-link=Richard Lewontin |year=1979 |title=The Spandrels of San Marco and the Panglossian Paradigm: A Critique of the Adaptationist Programme |journal=Proceedings of the Royal Society of London |volume=205 |issue=1161 |series=B |pages=581–98 |doi=10.1098/rspb.1979.0086 |pmid=42062 |bibcode=1979RSPSB.205..581G|s2cid=2129408 }}</ref> and about selection at levels "above" that of the gene.<ref name=Extended_Phenotype>{{cite book |last=Dawkins |first=Richard |title=The extended phenotype: the long reach of the gene |url=https://archive.org/details/extendedphenotyp0000dawk |url-access=registration |year=1999 |publisher=Oxford University Press |isbn=978-0192880512 |edition=Revised with new afterword and further reading}}</ref>。他特别怀疑群体选择作为理解利他主义的基础的实际可能性或重要性。这种行为起初似乎是一种进化悖论，因为帮助他人会耗费宝贵的资源，并降低自己的适应能力。以前，许多人把这解释为群体选择的一个方面：个体做的是对种群或整个物种的生存最有利的事情。英国进化生物学家W.D.汉密尔顿在他的整体适应度理论中使用基因频率分析来说明，如果这种利他主义的行为者和接受者(包括近亲)之间有足够的遗传相似性，那么遗传的利他主义特征是如何进化的<ref>{{cite journal |last=Hamilton |first=W.D. |author-link=W. D. Hamilton |title=The genetical evolution of social behaviour I and II |journal=Journal of Theoretical Biology |volume=7 |issue=1 |pages=1–16, 17–52 |year=1964 |doi=10.1016/0022-5193(64)90038-4 |pmid=5875341}}</ref>{{Ref label|a|a|none}}。汉密尔顿的整体适应度已经成功地应用于包括人类在内的广泛的生物体中。类似地，罗伯特·泰弗士从以基因为中心的模型的角度思考，发展了互利主义理论，即一个有机体在对未来互换的预期中为另一个有机体提供利益<ref>{{cite journal |last=Trivers |first=Robert |title=The evolution of reciprocal altruism |journal=Quarterly Review of Biology |volume=46 |issue=1 |pages=35–57 |year=1971 |doi=10.1086/406755 |s2cid=19027999 |url=https://semanticscholar.org/paper/4e671994e5b0c7aefbecd050e95fdb45272d7e12 |access-date=16 December 2019 |archive-date=21 November 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201121060816/https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/The-Evolution-of-Reciprocal-Altruism-Trivers/4e671994e5b0c7aefbecd050e95fdb45272d7e12 |url-status=live }}</ref>。道金斯在《自私的基因》中推广了这些观点，并在自己的作品中加以发展<ref name="dawkins79">{{cite journal |last=Dawkins |first=Richard |title=Twelve Misunderstandings of Kin Selection |journal=Zeitschrift für Tierpsychologie |volume=51 |pages=184–200 |year=1979 |issue=2 |url=http://www.simonyi.ox.ac.uk/dawkins/writings/Twelve%20Misunderstandings%20of%20Kin%20Selection.pdf |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080529180009/http://www.simonyi.ox.ac.uk/dawkins/writings/Twelve%20Misunderstandings%20of%20Kin%20Selection.pdf |archive-date=29 May 2008 |doi=10.1111/j.1439-0310.1979.tb00682.x}}</ref>。2012年6月，道金斯对生物学家 e. o. 威尔逊2012年出版的《地球的社会征服》一书提出严厉批评，认为该书误解了汉密尔顿的亲缘选择理论<ref>{{cite news |last=Thorpe |first=Vanessa |title=Richard Dawkins in furious row with EO Wilson over theory of evolution. Book review sparks war of words between grand old man of biology and Oxford's most high-profile Darwinist |url=https://www.theguardian.com/science/2012/jun/24/battle-of-the-professors |access-date=3 October 2012 |newspaper=The Guardian |date=24 June 2012 |location=London |archive-date=6 May 2019 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190506014702/https://www.theguardian.com/science/2012/jun/24/battle-of-the-professors |url-status=live }}</ref><ref>{{cite news |last1=Dawkins |first1=Richard |title=The Descent of Edward Wilson |url=http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/magazine/edward-wilson-social-conquest-earth-evolutionary-errors-origin-species |access-date=24 October 2015 |work=[[Prospect (magazine)|Prospect]] |date=24 May 2012 |archive-date=24 September 2015 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150924105332/http://www.prospectmagazine.co.uk/magazine/edward-wilson-social-conquest-earth-evolutionary-errors-origin-species |url-status=live }}</ref>。道金斯还强烈批评独立科学家詹姆斯·洛夫洛克的盖亚假说。<ref>{{cite book |title=The molecular biology of Gaia |url=https://archive.org/details/molecularbiology0000will |url-access=registration |year=1996 |publisher=Columbia University Press |isbn=978-0-231-10512-5 |page=[https://archive.org/details/molecularbiology0000will/page/178 178] |first1=George Ronald |last1=Williams}} [https://archive.org/details/molecularbiology0000will/page/178 Extract of page 178]</ref><ref>{{cite book |title=Scientists debate gaia: the next century |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=TOi1Cyj9h1UC |year=2004 |publisher=MIT Press |isbn=978-0-262-19498-3 |page=72 |first1=Stephen Henry |last1=Schneider |access-date=27 January 2016 |archive-date=29 July 2016 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160729013112/https://books.google.com/books?id=TOi1Cyj9h1UC |url-status=live }} [https://books.google.com/books?id=TOi1Cyj9h1UC&pg=PA72 Extract of p. 72] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150319005453/http://books.google.com/books?id=TOi1Cyj9h1UC&pg=PA72 |date=19 March 2015 }}</ref><ref>{{cite book |title=Unweaving the Rainbow: Science, Delusion and the Appetite for Wonder |journal=Unweaving the Rainbow : Science |url=https://books.google.com/books?id=ZudTchiioUoC |year=2000 |publisher=Houghton Mifflin Harcourt |isbn=978-0-618-05673-6 |page=223 |first1=Richard |last1=Dawkins |bibcode=1998ursd.book.....D |access-date=27 January 2016 |archive-date=21 September 2014 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140921122549/http://books.google.com/books?id=ZudTchiioUoC |url-status=live }} [https://books.google.com/books?id=ZudTchiioUoC&pg=PA223 Extract of p. 223] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150319064040/http://books.google.com/books?id=ZudTchiioUoC&pg=PA223 |date=19 March 2015 }}</ref>
In a set of controversies over the mechanisms and interpretation of evolution (what has been called 'The Darwin Wars'), one faction is often named after Dawkins, while the other faction is named after the American palaeontologist Stephen Jay Gould, reflecting the pre-eminence of each as a populariser of the pertinent ideas. Also In particular, Dawkins and Gould have been prominent commentators in the controversy over sociobiology and evolutionary psychology, with Dawkins generally approving and Gould generally being critical. A typical example of Dawkins's position is his scathing review of Not in Our Genes by Steven Rose, Leon J. Kamin, and Richard C. Lewontin. Two other thinkers who are often considered to be allied with Dawkins on the subject are Steven Pinker and Daniel Dennett; Dennett has promoted a gene-centred view of evolution and defended reductionism in biology. Despite their academic disagreements, Dawkins and Gould did not have a hostile personal relationship, and Dawkins dedicated a large portion of his 2003 book A Devil's Chaplain posthumously to Gould, who had died the previous year.
In a set of controversies over the mechanisms and interpretation of evolution (what has been called 'The Darwin Wars'), one faction is often named after Dawkins, while the other faction is named after the American palaeontologist Stephen Jay Gould, reflecting the pre-eminence of each as a populariser of the pertinent ideas. Also In particular, Dawkins and Gould have been prominent commentators in the controversy over sociobiology and evolutionary psychology, with Dawkins generally approving and Gould generally being critical. A typical example of Dawkins's position is his scathing review of Not in Our Genes by Steven Rose, Leon J. Kamin, and Richard C. Lewontin. Two other thinkers who are often considered to be allied with Dawkins on the subject are Steven Pinker and Daniel Dennett; Dennett has promoted a gene-centred view of evolution and defended reductionism in biology. Despite their academic disagreements, Dawkins and Gould did not have a hostile personal relationship, and Dawkins dedicated a large portion of his 2003 book A Devil's Chaplain posthumously to Gould, who had died the previous year.
在一系列关于进化机制和解释的争论中<ref>{{cite book |last=Brown |first=Andrew |author-link=Andrew Brown (writer) |title=The Darwin Wars: How stupid genes became selfish genes |year=1999 |publisher=London: Simon and Schuster |isbn=978-0-684-85144-0}}</ref><ref name="AndrewBrown2000">{{cite book |last=Brown |first=Andrew |author-link=Andrew Brown (writer) |title=The Darwin Wars: The Scientific Battle for the Soul of Man |year=2000 |publisher=Touchstone |isbn=978-0-684-85145-7}}</ref>，一个派别经常以道金斯的名字命名，而另一个派别则以美国古生物学家史蒂芬·古尔德的名字命名<ref name="Brockman">{{cite book |last=Brockman |first=J. |title=The Third Culture: Beyond the Scientific Revolution |year=1995 |publisher=Simon & Schuster |location=New York |isbn=978-0-684-80359-3 |url=https://archive.org/details/thirdculture00broc}}</ref><ref name="Sterelny">{{cite book |last=Sterelny |first=K. |author-link=Kim Sterelny |title=Dawkins vs. Gould: Survival of the Fittest |year=2007 |publisher=Icon Books |location=Cambridge, UK |isbn=978-1-84046-780-2 |title-link=Dawkins vs. Gould}} Also {{ISBN|978-1-84046-780-2}}</ref>。同样值得一提的是，道金斯和古尔德在社会生物学和进化心理学的争论中是杰出的评论家，道金斯通常时赞同和欣赏，而古尔德普遍持批判态度<ref>{{cite book |last=Morris |first=Richard |title=The Evolutionists |year=2001 |publisher=W. H. Freeman |isbn=978-0-7167-4094-0}}</ref> A typical example of Dawkins's position is his scathing review of ''[[Not in Our Genes]]'' by [[Steven Rose]], [[Leon J. Kamin]], and Richard C. Lewontin.<ref>{{Cite news |last=Dawkins |first=Richard |date=24 January 1985 |title=Sociobiology: the debate continues |periodical=New Scientist |url=http://www.simonyi.ox.ac.uk/dawkins/WorldOfDawkins-archive/Dawkins/Work/Reviews/1985-01-24notinourgenes.shtml |access-date=3 April 2008 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080501043602/http://www.simonyi.ox.ac.uk/dawkins/WorldOfDawkins-archive/Dawkins/Work/Reviews/1985-01-24notinourgenes.shtml |archive-date=1 May 2008 |url-status=dead}}</ref>。道金斯立场的一个典型例子是他对史蒂文·罗斯、里昂·J·卡明和理查·C·莱翁廷的《不再我们的基因里（Not In
在一系列关于进化机制和解释的争论中<ref>{{cite book |last=Brown |first=Andrew |author-link=Andrew Brown (writer) |title=The Darwin Wars: How stupid genes became selfish genes |year=1999 |publisher=London: Simon and Schuster |isbn=978-0-684-85144-0}}</ref><ref name="AndrewBrown2000">{{cite book |last=Brown |first=Andrew |author-link=Andrew Brown (writer) |title=The Darwin Wars: The Scientific Battle for the Soul of Man |year=2000 |publisher=Touchstone |isbn=978-0-684-85145-7}}</ref>，一个派别经常以道金斯的名字命名，而另一个派别则以美国古生物学家史蒂芬·古尔德的名字命名<ref name="Brockman">{{cite book |last=Brockman |first=J. |title=The Third Culture: Beyond the Scientific Revolution |year=1995 |publisher=Simon & Schuster |location=New York |isbn=978-0-684-80359-3 |url=https://archive.org/details/thirdculture00broc}}</ref><ref name="Sterelny">{{cite book |last=Sterelny |first=K. |author-link=Kim Sterelny |title=Dawkins vs. Gould: Survival of the Fittest |year=2007 |publisher=Icon Books |location=Cambridge, UK |isbn=978-1-84046-780-2 |title-link=Dawkins vs. Gould}} Also {{ISBN|978-1-84046-780-2}}</ref>。同样值得一提的是，道金斯和古尔德在社会生物学和进化心理学的争论中是杰出的评论家，道金斯通常时赞同和欣赏，而古尔德普遍持批判态度<ref>{{cite book |last=Morris |first=Richard |title=The Evolutionists |year=2001 |publisher=W. H. Freeman |isbn=978-0-7167-4094-0}}</ref>
。道金斯立场的一个典型例子是他对史蒂文·罗斯、里昂·J·卡明和理查·C·莱翁廷的《不再我们的基因里（Not In
Our Gene）》的严厉评论<ref>{{Cite news |last=Dawkins |first=Richard |date=24 January 1985 |title=Sociobiology: the debate continues |periodical=New Scientist |url=http://www.simonyi.ox.ac.uk/dawkins/WorldOfDawkins-archive/Dawkins/Work/Reviews/1985-01-24notinourgenes.shtml |access-date=3 April 2008 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080501043602/http://www.simonyi.ox.ac.uk/dawkins/WorldOfDawkins-archive/Dawkins/Work/Reviews/1985-01-24notinourgenes.shtml |archive-date=1 May 2008 |url-status=dead}}</ref>。在这个问题上，另外两位经常被认为与道金斯意见一致的思想家是史蒂文•平克(Steven Pinker)和丹尼尔•丹尼特(Daniel Dennett)。丹尼特提倡以基因为中心的进化论观点，并为生物学中的还原论辩护<ref>{{cite book |last=Dennett |first=Daniel |author-link=Daniel Dennett |title=Darwin's Dangerous Idea |journal=Complexity |volume=2 |issue=1 |pages=[https://archive.org/details/darwinsdangerous0000denn/page/32 32–36] |year=1995 |publisher=Simon & Schuster |location=United States |isbn=978-0-684-80290-9 |bibcode=1996Cmplx...2a..32M |doi=10.1002/(SICI)1099-0526(199609/10)2:1<32::AID-CPLX8>3.0.CO;2-H |url=https://archive.org/details/darwinsdangerous0000denn/page/32 }}</ref> 。道金斯和古尔德尽管在学术上存在分歧，但他们之间并没有敌对的个人关系，道金斯在他2003年出版的《一个魔鬼的牧师（A Devil's Chaplain）》一书中，将很大一部分献给了去年去世的古尔德。
Our Gene）》的严厉评论<ref>{{Cite news |last=Dawkins |first=Richard |date=24 January 1985 |title=Sociobiology: the debate continues |periodical=New Scientist |url=http://www.simonyi.ox.ac.uk/dawkins/WorldOfDawkins-archive/Dawkins/Work/Reviews/1985-01-24notinourgenes.shtml |access-date=3 April 2008 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080501043602/http://www.simonyi.ox.ac.uk/dawkins/WorldOfDawkins-archive/Dawkins/Work/Reviews/1985-01-24notinourgenes.shtml |archive-date=1 May 2008 |url-status=dead}}</ref>。在这个问题上，另外两位经常被认为与道金斯意见一致的思想家是史蒂文•平克(Steven Pinker)和丹尼尔•丹尼特(Daniel Dennett)。丹尼特提倡以基因为中心的进化论观点，并为生物学中的还原论辩护<ref>{{cite book |last=Dennett |first=Daniel |author-link=Daniel Dennett |title=Darwin's Dangerous Idea |journal=Complexity |volume=2 |issue=1 |pages=[https://archive.org/details/darwinsdangerous0000denn/page/32 32–36] |year=1995 |publisher=Simon & Schuster |location=United States |isbn=978-0-684-80290-9 |bibcode=1996Cmplx...2a..32M |doi=10.1002/(SICI)1099-0526(199609/10)2:1<32::AID-CPLX8>3.0.CO;2-H |url=https://archive.org/details/darwinsdangerous0000denn/page/32 }}</ref> 。道金斯和古尔德尽管在学术上存在分歧，但他们之间并没有敌对的个人关系，道金斯在他2003年出版的《一个魔鬼的牧师（A Devil's Chaplain）》一书中，将很大一部分献给了去年去世的古尔德。
当被问及达尔文主义是否影响了他对生活的日常理解时，道金斯说：“在某种程度上是这样的。我的眼睛一直睁得大大的，看着存在的非凡事实。不仅仅是人类的存在，还有生命的存在，以及这个惊人的强大过程——自然选择——是如何将物理学和化学的简单事实应用到红杉树和人类身上的。那种惊奇的感觉从未离开过我的脑海。另一方面，我当然不允许达尔文主义影响我对人类社会生活的感受,”这意味着他认为个体人类可以选择退出达尔文主义的生存机器，因为他们被自我意识解放了。<ref name="strident" />
当被问及达尔文主义是否影响了他对生活的日常理解时，道金斯说：“在某种程度上是这样的。我的眼睛一直睁得大大的，看着存在的非凡事实。不仅仅是人类的存在，还有生命的存在，以及这个惊人的强大过程——自然选择——是如何将物理学和化学的简单事实应用到红杉树和人类身上的。那种惊奇的感觉从未离开过我的脑海。另一方面，我当然不允许达尔文主义影响我对人类社会生活的感受,”这意味着他认为个体人类可以选择退出达尔文主义的生存机器，因为他们被自我意识解放了。<ref name="strident" />
=== 提出“模因”概念 ===
=== 提出“模因”概念 ===