> I don't understand why you're against this book though... he directly refutes the selfish gene theory... IN THE BOOK. 
> 
> Every once in awhile David, I think your knee-jerks get the better of you!-Absolutely correct, Matt. it is a knee-jerk reaction. The selfish gene concept is so foolish to begin with, I don't want to the the time to read someone else's refutation.

E. O. wilson's new book, a review:
> > > 
> > > http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303404704577311553569846904.html?KEYWORDS... > > 
> > > I don't buy the theories in the book. Neither do 150 others. I think my brain is more independent of genes than he does. He has done too much ant study, and tranferring his mind set to humans doesn't fit reality.
> > 
> > And for the record, I'd rather hear about how many working biologists in the world (~3.5M last census) disagree with his idea.
> 
> I read and quoted his book 'On Human Nature' 1978 in my book , and disagreed with him all the way. I know he has turned his back on his own sociobiology theories which is why so many folks in science who followed him now disagree with him. I'm still of the opinion that I can think of new things and change me opinions without any help from my genes. As for selfish genes, a stupid concept anyway, and of no lasting value for me.-I don't understand why you're against this book though... he directly refutes the selfish gene theory... IN THE BOOK. -Every once in awhile David, I think your knee-jerks get the better of you!

E. O. wilson's new book, a review:
> > 
> > http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303404704577311553569846904.html?KEYWORDS... > 
> > I don't buy the theories in the book. Neither do 150 others. I think my brain is more independent of genes than he does. He has done too much ant study, and tranferring his mind set to humans doesn't fit reality.
> 
> And for the record, I'd rather hear about how many working biologists in the world (~3.5M last census) disagree with his idea.-I read and quoted his book 'On Human Nature' 1978 in my book , and disagreed with him all the way. I know he has turned his back on his own sociobiology theories which is why so many folks in science who followed him now disagree with him. I'm still of the opinion that I can think of new things and change me opinions without any help from my genes. As for selfish genes, a stupid concept anyway, and of no lasting value for me.

E. O. wilson's new book, a review:
> 
> http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303404704577311553569846904.html?KEYWORDS... 
> I don't buy the theories in the book. Neither do 150 others. I think my brain is more independent of genes than he does. He has done too much ant study, and tranferring his mind set to humans doesn't fit reality.-And for the record, I'd rather hear about how many working biologists in the world (~3.5M last census) disagree with his idea.

E. O. wilson's new book, a review:
> 
> http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303404704577311553569846904.html?KEYWORDS... 
> I don't buy the theories in the book. Neither do 150 others. I think my brain is more independent of genes than he does. He has done too much ant study, and tranferring his mind set to humans doesn't fit reality.-Um...-Maybe you missed that he openly challenges the current paradigm of the selfish Gene? -Did you read the book?