There are a ton of errors and misconceptions in that view as well. Dawkins claimed genes were discrete entities only concerned with their own replication and k

There are a ton of errors and misconceptions in that view as well. Dawkins claimed genes were discrete entities only concerned with their own replication and kept on with that view despite the discovery of introns, gene shuffling, and about a dozen other major discoveries in the field, like epigenetic modification and others. This criticism of the hyper-reductionist approach of Dawkins is nothing new, either. See this from 1995: https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/entertainment/books/1995/07/16/the-rules-of-the-game/8771dfd5-da70-43db-aacc-0e0cfbd4eea0/ https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/entertainment/books/1... > "The intervening two decades between that volume and this have seen a major technological revolution in the science of genetics. Just how do these breakthroughs affect Dawkins's ideas about the origin of diversity? The answer, apparently, is not at all. Dawkins's descriptions of genetic processes are facile and outdated. According to him, the power of natural selection is still "almost limitless" genes are still discrete entities with "a flintlike integrity" that remains unaffected by their environment from generation to generation." Similarly, the relationship between Charles Darwin and modern evolutionary theory is about as distant as that between Isaac Newton and modern physics, which is another concept that the Dawkins crowd (in which I'd include Charles Murray, Sam Harris, etc.) seems uncomfortable with.