The title seems to have misled you. You do not say whether you have read the book, you seem to criticise ("limited view") and yet hint ("you can't think about e

The title seems to have misled you. You do not say whether you have read the book, you seem to criticise ("limited view") and yet hint ("you can't think about evolution on an individual basis") at some fundamental agreement. Assuming you have not, if and when you read it you will find that there are no easy holes to poke. Dawkins doesn't just defend the gene, he derives it and then explains how it is the unit of persistence and why it is the persistence that matters.