What do you think about this video from the selfish gene writer

[no_alone]

What do you think about this video from the "selfish gene writer"

This is a video creater by the write of the book "the selfish gene" ,

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=9112899495889928903&ei=tQYuS5jCCJ6q2wKJsozZBQ&q=dawkins&hl=en#docid=4491999408234054262

Now I would like you opinion on the movie It is really interesting movie It try to put his modern liberal views with the world

My opinion is

Down...
Please see the movie first soo my opinion will not influence you..








I'll put my opinion in with soo not to influence anyone before they see the movie
I think that Richard Dawkins is influenced by his need to satisfy his liberal views and what he try to prove in the movie is not really been proved..
He take one company that adopted the "roles of the world enron and say that it collapsed because of it ..
Now he only took one company its not statistically good.

He take one man in the financial meeting to say that its all luck.. And then he say that the financial wold don't have to be rush

Then he take all the women that want a sperm donor and because they the womans that did not manage to get a mate want nice people he say that all womens want nice people

I myself would like to believe that what he is saying is true but I don't really mange to see real true evidence in this movie ... Am I alone?? Or is anyone else here think the same?

\

 

[BenVitale]

Okay, I'll start the discussion with questions.

There's a lot of confusion and misunderstandings about Richard Dawkins and evolution out there.

So, I ask you why did Dawkins chose the word "Selfish" gene? What did he mean by that?
And, could you give any good reason to see evolution at the gene level?

And, what is your understanding of evolution by natural selection?

 

[no_alone]

I think he wrote the word "selfish" because, The "gene only think about themself", If you can say it like this...
The genes that will survive and survived are genes that are suited for survival,
In "selfish" I think what best for the survivile of the gene will happend, Because this genes survived , For good and for worst,
If helping one another will be good for the survivle of a spices this genes will survive

But this not mean that pepole are selfish Its just mean that the behaive that is good for the surivile of a gnen

I think a better word is self promoting genes

I see evulotion as a process that started , and because it can survive it survives,
And evolution of the gene level just make it so the machine that carry the gene will be better in carring it and duplicating it..
By the way in this masearment of as much as a a gene duplicate it si better we humans are the best potential spice in Earth right now because we "in my opinion" now the only spices that has the option of moving out of our planet and reprodocin /coping the gene in another planet.

my understanding in evolution by natural selection is in on its molecular basic,
I see DNA as molecule as a cretin molecule that duplicate its self, and change and change more to the change that is more capable of duplicating in the changing process aslo known as evolution we created,
I know it probebaly started with RNA .. But there is no much different

But for me I did not sow any justification for any liberal views..
I think this is what he try to get.

 

[ormondotvos]

You'd understand him better if you'd drop the business about liberal, and think of him as the excellent SCIENTIST he actually is.

 

[LudusRex]

I find this video to be thought-provoking and interesting. However, I also recognize that it is important to critically evaluate the evidence presented and not simply accept everything at face value. While Richard Dawkins may have his own personal beliefs and biases, it is important to look at the evidence objectively and draw our own conclusions. I also agree that using one company or one person's opinion as evidence for a larger claim may not be statistically significant. It would be beneficial to see more diverse and comprehensive evidence in order to fully assess the claims made in the video. Overall, I think this video raises important questions and ideas, but it is up to each individual to critically evaluate the evidence and come to their own conclusions.