The Selfish Gene - A review

My inquiry into any topic is almost inevitably aimed at understanding the big picture. Rationale is that if the theory is sound, one would naturally try to explore the area in a greater detail. The biggest problem with this approach is finding a source of knowledge coherent enough to make the attempt at painting the big picture. Most authors/professors do a very bad job of that either due to a lack of presentation skills or knowledge or both. Richard Dawkins is exceptionally talented at describing the whole picture, giving adequate attention to detail for the layman.

Just as formal systems lie at the heart of all computers and logic, the theory of Selfish Gene is an attempt at answering a very profound question -
1. How did life come about from the non-living ?
In my opinion this question is one of the two strongest pillars in constructing a sound theory about Human Beings. The other question is regarding the phenomenon of consciousness -
2. What is consciousness and how does it arise from a given formal system, notably how does it spring forth in Human Beings?
I accept that this formulation is very loaded, and perhaps why attempts at answering this have met with limited success. One remarkable explanation lies at the core of Godel, Escher, Bach.
There are a few other equally deep questions, but their reign is limited to subatomic Physics. What I am getting at is that, in a way we have over the course of human history created three major checkpoints or layers of abstraction. The first checkpoint is at the atomic level. Anything below is in the domain of Physics which is still being actively explored ( Loop Quantum Gravity, String Theory ). Chemistry is an attempt to explain macro world materials with the help of atoms. The Second Layer of abstraction is the living cell upon which Biology is build. Molecular biology, Evolutionary biology and the likes are like weak bridges between the atom and the cell. The concept of selfish gene is perhaps the strongest pillar this bridge has, and the best part is that it does not contain anything fundamentally new. Richard Dawkins' book presents a bunch of observations and comes up with conclusions which later seem so obvious that it makes you wonder why they didn't occur to you. ( This was my feeling at the end of the book, even though I knew I knew squat about biology ).
The Third Layer of Abstraction has its roots grounded in a collective of mathematical theories referred to as Foundations of Mathematics. It is these that try to define logic and these theories are so fundamental that all computers, algorithms and human brains (?) can be reduced to them. I refer to first two checkpoints as simply Hardware and the third as Software in deference to the simplicity of Personal Computers. But you might want to avoid these terms in colloquial usage when referring to Humans, or face the possibility of incessant ridicule. At first look, just three major categories might appear to be too restrictive given the plethora of questions philosophers have been throwing at scientists. But I have, with whatever little knowledge of science and logic, managed to generalize or rephrase many other seemingly profound, independent questions into either of the two questions, without compromising their validity. 
Now that I've given you the context, I'll try to summarize what the Selfish Gene has to say. I'll also try to pose many old questions in a new light, more often than not, showing you how redundant they've become. If you haven't read the book, _do_ read the summary, as it might prompt you to read the book.

We'll obviously start at checkpoint 1, where we assume the existence of atoms and molecules.  
How did life come about from the non-living? I'll try to paint a picture in less than a thousand words. 
Before we answer this question, consistency calls for a definition of life and non-living. For now, let us define life as a primary property of molecules we'll call replicators. Non-living is a property of molecules which do _not_ tend to create replicas of themselves in the environment they live in.
Think of replicators as those molecules which react with other chemicals in their surrounding to form a copy of their own and a side product. ( Think Crystal Growth ... ) In this "primeval soup", there are some replicator molecules and many non-replicator molecules. As time goes by, the more efficient replicators increase in number. Through complex chemical reactions, some molecules may change ( may have an extra hydroxide or a hydrocarbon attached to them etc. ) as a result of change in the environment. Some changes would render a molecule unable  for replication, where as some would make it more efficient ( there would be whole spectrum of changes in between, obviously ). The more efficient molecules would tend to become bigger and better at replicating in this race of replication in the primeval soup. Now, don't think of each molecule as conspiring to better themselves but adding an -COOH or a -CH3 and such. It is just that the molecules we see are the ones which survived by adding a part (or removing a bad one)  to help them replicate better. We don't see the result of bad "mutations" as those molecules would have failed to replicate, perhaps ending up as a reactant in a replicator's reaction cycle. 
In this process of reactions, it is not impossible to imagine a replicator essentially one molecular part protecting itself from other reactive replicators by building chemically-strong "walls" around it by making the outer layer passive to hungry replicator reactants. ( think of some inactive hydrocarbon etc... covering the outer part on some sides...). Now, as this "walled" molecule replicates, both its inner "naked" molecular part replicates as well as the outer assisting "wall". Incidentally, by our definition, this makes the outer wall also living. I hope you now see why a definition of life is far from trivial. This process of building protective "walls" assisting in better replication, or failing to make one and being chemically swallowed by other reagents, is perpetual. The intermediate products include viruses, bacteria, plants, animals ( including us ) etc. Surprise Surprise !!! ( Really? I didn't think so. You obviously saw it coming ).
An interesting observation is that all these "organisms" or replicators seem to have one thing in common. They all have either DNA or RNA or both. Now, doesn't it seem obvious that the primary replicators in all these is the DNA or RNA molecule? There are these replicators called Viriods which are only RNA molecules and you can actually draw the entire molecule. ( There are Prions which replicate by protein-folding...but that is an exception ). Hopefully the origin of unicellular living things is now clearer to you, and hopefully more digestible. What human beings ( or plants or animals etc ) are, in a simplified way, just a bunch of single cells formed physically together and residing in a blob. Although each of us considers ourself to be living, the primal replicator is still DNA, our cell walls are the "walls" that these replicators built up. There is no I or We! "I" or "We" comes as a result of consciousness which is part of the second profound question. But let us not jump to multi-cellular organisms yet.
Let us digress a bit from the "primeval soup story". There are two distinctly different ways of replication we've observed in nature. One in which the DNA along with the "wall" splits ( asexually ) and forms two daughter cells. The other one is more familiar, where the organism produces a single cell ( or two cells - sperm and egg ) and which upon incubation grows into the next individual. In the former, the "wall" is maintained during the replication. In the latter, all walls are reconstructed ( in humans this happens during the phases of pregnancy and growing up of the child ). But, alas, one thing that continues to propagate is the gene. So, either an organism can split up into two, or it can squeeze all the information it needs to build one of its kind into a single cell ( zygote ) thus helping in propagation. 
Before, I proceed, I should explain what a gene is. DNA ( Deoxyribonucleic Acid ) just a double-helix shaped chemical molecule containing, among other things, bases called Adenine(A), Thymine (T), Cytosine (C) and Guanine (G). DNA is a long sequence of these molecules. And a gene is a subset of this sequence which is responsible (at least partly) for a particular characteristic in the corresponding ( or extended ) phenotype. Essentially, the information about the wall (protein) that gets created around the replicator is stored in the replicator ( obviously, since replicator is what originally evolved to create the wall which became a part of it ). This information is stored in the form of sequences of A,T,C and G, and by the process of transcription and translation, proteins (walls) are synthesized. In humans, each cell has the entire information about the human phenotype, as the (human)egg and the (human)sperm are responsible for storing the entire information needed to create another human. Why are there two different ways to replicate ? Dawkins talks discusses such questions in his book "The Extended Phenotype".
Coming back to the selfish gene. Gene being a fundamental unit of evolution, directly contradicts other "which is the most fundamental replicator" theories. Two favourite candidates are the individual selection theory, in which all living parts of an individual strive to maximize the chances of survival of the individual and a group selection theory, where individuals in a group strive to maximize the survival of a group as a whole ( even if it means them sacrificing ones own life, like worker bees or soldier ants or human soldiers ). Each of these theories is obviously good at explaining some observations but fails miserably at others. Most of Dawkins' book is devoted to explaining observations from the gene-centric view, defending his selfish gene theory. I will not try to elucidate upon most of these observations, but give you a couple of examples.

1. Why do parents love their children? Why do siblings care for each other?
Because each parent has contributed half of his/her genes to the child. It is in the interest of the genes to replicate. One marvellous observation is in the bee hive, where the worker bees do not reproduce. Most of the worker bees in a hive are a product of Queen's eggs. It turns out that the workers share an average of 3/4th of the genes with their siblings. If they themselves had a kid, then only half their DNA is propagated. This explains why they work hard assisting the Queen and not worry about reproducing on their own. Workers' genes would stand to gain more by having sisters/brothers ( propagating more of the same genes  - 3/4 ) than having children ( 1/2 ). This observation beats Individual Selection theory. Group selection theory seems to work here, but it loses face in many many other situations ( why isn't the alpha male always the only one to copulate in a group ? Sperms are cheap anyway... )


2. Why do females play hard to get before copulation?
Eggs are big, nutritious and hence costly; sperms are small, numerous and hence cheap. This is the root cause of female exploitation.
The initial investment by a female is much more than the male ( esp. if the embryo has to grow in the womb as in the case of most mammals ). After copulation, if the male absconds, he has little to lose compared to the female if she deserts the child. (Someone has to take care of the child for the genes to survive...) In order to evaluate a particular male's patience, females have developed the technique of playing hard to get. A male has to show his commitment when he is courting a female, in order to mate with her and replicate. Female has to see if the male is being honest here. The game of deception is on...

Notice that I've refrained from using humans as examples. As much as I'd like to do that, there is one rather major question which needs addressing. Now that we (humans )  "know" more about ourselves than any other species, is it going to change anything? In other words, does the replicator ( gene ) still have control over her "walls" enough to replicate? It appears that, for the first time, Humans have the power over their replicators. ( We can simply commit suicide and trillions of DNA molecules will be destroyed, and their genes will not propagate ). The author introduces a concept of a meme, an analogy of gene. Meme is a cultural unit of replication. Think of it as an idea, which spreads among people through generations, and has the potential to influence the genetic evolution collectively. ( Think God/Religion ). I will not delve into this further, but I hope you can see how far the meme analogy can be extended. Richard Dawkins, while trying to defend many often observed apparent altruistic behaviours among members of various species, discusses the problem of Iterated Prisoner's Dilemma from Game Theory. In that, he shows, how sometimes it is profitable for both competitors to play for the benefit of the other. In other words an Evolutionary Stable State does not always come from a greedy strategy.

I hope I've raised enough questions here to prick even a casual reader's mind. The author, of course, does a much better job than me. Every chapter of this 300 page book is a pleasure to read, do give it a try.

Right now, my inquisition is directed towards comprehending the extent of control of meme over gene and the other way around. Clearly, there is some sort of tangled hierarchy ( refer : GEB ). Another very interesting field to look into is Cellular Automaton. Somehow, while reading the book, I was constantly reminded of how the functioning of a gene can be aptly modelled using cellular automata. This might sound totally crazy, but I also cannot help but wonder if there is the tiniest possibility that it makes sense to formulate the genetic language in a formal system, and apply Godel numbering on it...just a musing.

These are the books I have planned for future : Phantoms in the brain ( V.S. Ramachandran ), Shadows of the mind ( Roger Penrose ), A New Kind Of Science ( Stephen Wolfram ), but before those, I think I need a break. Phillip Pullman and George Orwell to the rescue!! :)