[kahljorn]

I read up on this topic and it seems rather ridiculous from certain angles. I understand the idea the genes that do good things for us are more likely to reproduce via the goodness keeping us good, but after that it kind of trails off.
Kelly, being keyed towards reproduction makes sense for genes, considering their inherent function is to essentially hold genetic blue-prints for later days. Kind of like a "save file" for a video game or something. But then, that's kind of common sense in a way... it seems they would carry that feature just by being our "Foundation" and considering reproduction is usually through the transfer of genetic material... pointingouttheobvioustheories?

This theory seems to be trying to hint at the idea that all of life is directed towards evolution into better organisms(or in this case genes) from a genetic viewpoint, maybe insisting that genes are what cause evolution. That's about all it provides. Kind of boring, really. I thought that idea was already inherent within the concept of evolution? It seems all he really did is link genetics and evolution together(I'm guessing that might be historically true?), but seeing as how genetics are kind of the building blocks of our organism it really wasn't a far fetched connection. I mean, what did people think? That the organism itself goes through some kind of metamorphosis? I like to get cozied up in my cocoon. That seems more unlikely than genetic alteration.
All in all this theory presents no new understanding of how evolution occurs, just a very loose why. I just read a brief summary of it, though, so maybe I didn't get into where it gets too "Crazy" and just suffered through the shallow end.

I thought this had sounded familiar, though. He's the guy who "invented" "memes". Ironic considering how popular memes are.