I disagree with this part. The gene is the unit of evolution. By “gene type”, by the way, I just mean that a “copy” (reproduction) of a gene is as good as its “original”. For instance, we have the code:
XBLA
This is the “original”. We can reproduce it:
XBLA
These are twice the same “type” but not twice the same “individual” code (by definition).
Yes. The genotypical form would consist of the specific order-combination of individual genes, but we must remember too that a single gene is itself made of lesser combinations of parts, nucleotides, and that these nucleotides are themselves composed of smaller atomic components. Each part of this process has its own mechanics and depends on every other level of the process for its own function. And even what we call a “gene” is itself arbitrary, a chosen grouping of nucleotide base pairs that we believe relate, as a whole, to a certain phenotypical expression via protein synthesis. A gene is not a specific unit, and it certainly is not irreducible, so the stretch that it is the “primary” unit of evolution is dubious, at best.
As far as the “selection” element is concerned, this in fact only takes place, evolutionarily speaking, on the higher level of the organism and its behavior within its environment. Selection is the process defined by the relationship between an individual and its environment, regarding survivability (successful procreative ability) and thus has meaning only over a group of individuals, from one generation to the next (i.e. at least two individuals, the minimum being one parents and its offspring).
For instance, an organism reproduces a fertile offspring; thus we have selection of the genes of that particular organism which are transmitted to the offspring. This is the most basic selection component to evolution. Genes themselves, among themselves, are not “competing” except through the higher medium of survivability of the overall organism with respect to the needs of its environment.
Wow! You guys are so smart!
That’s hot!!! 
Again, I only disagree with a small part of what you’re saying. In this case:
My point is that it’s the gene which is “selfish”, not its components or that of which it is a component. The gene does not “care” about its components or about that of which it is a component for their own sakes, but only for the sake of itself.
Your point… or Dawkins’?
Ah, jonquil, the self-proclaimed Enneagram type 4, meaning she’s sooo concerned with originality. Why, one may ask? What does the need for originality imply?..
Um.
A gene doesn’t “care” about anything…
Consciousness…
It does inasmuch as it’s “selfish”.
If you are taking your view of the “selfish gene” from Dawkins, then why not say so? I like the Enneagram, and I am a type four, and originality is important to me… that is true.
Ermm… Sauwelios. Do you realize what is implied in this view?
If you’re trying to accuse me of plagiarism, you’re being ridiculous: it’s common knowledge that the term “selfish gene” refers to Dawkins.
That either a gene “cares” or it’s not “selfish”?
No problem then… if it’s comon knowledge . . . .
It would have to be the former since you operate on the premise that it IS selfish. If a gene “cares,” then . . . .
To be precise, I operate on the premise that it is “selfish”.
Yes, then?
Genes r us, as in they are reflective of our sociotel standing…
Please stay on topic Pan…
In that case, why is the great success of the “selfish” such an utter failure and dooming the species to destruction in the near future? Would you say that the genes of other species destined to survive the human onslaught are more selfish and thus more able to adapt to the world after humans leave it? Do those genes care more?
God, I should have guessed that it had to do with your doom scenario. Whether that scenario is correct still remains to be seen, however. And remember, the species in itself is nothing, the genes are everything. The destruction of the species need not imply the destruction of our genes.
By the way, genes do not adapt:
[size=95]Adaptation is the evolutionary process whereby a population becomes better suited to its habitat. This process takes place over many generations, and is one of the basic phenomena of biology.
The term adaptation may also refer to a feature which is especially important for an organism’s survival. For example, the adaptation of horses’ teeth to the grinding of grass, or their ability to run fast and escape predators. Such adaptations are produced in a variable population by the better suited forms reproducing more successfully, that is, by natural selection.
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adaptation][/size]