I asked the same question. My gut reaction is that this is just something that seems philosophically appetizing on the surface but breaks down when you start asking questions.
"We should view genes, not organisms, as the fundamental unit of propagation. They optimize for their own survival, not necessarily the organisms." --- this is an insight.
A testable hypothesis being, "altruistic behavior that seems detrimental to organisms clearly exists, detrimental to the organisms survival. Perhaps this behavior propagates because genes that encourage this type of behavior ensure survival of other copies of themselves within other organisms in the population."
I'm having a hard time discerning A) the exact insight here and B) whether or not there's a hypothesis to go along with it.
> "We should view genes, not organisms, as the fundamental unit of propagation. They optimize for their own survival, not necessarily the organisms." --- this is an insight.
Richard Dawkins wrote a book on just that. "The Selfish Gene" (~1970). However, recent epigenetics discounts just the gene as the sole 'unit' of propogation.
Yeah, that's why I brought it up. Should have made the reference more clear. :) Dawkins had an insight and shared it with the world. I'm not sure this pop-sci article is the same magnitude of revelation or what, if anything, is actually there.
"We should view genes, not organisms, as the fundamental unit of propagation. They optimize for their own survival, not necessarily the organisms." --- this is an insight.
A testable hypothesis being, "altruistic behavior that seems detrimental to organisms clearly exists, detrimental to the organisms survival. Perhaps this behavior propagates because genes that encourage this type of behavior ensure survival of other copies of themselves within other organisms in the population."
I'm having a hard time discerning A) the exact insight here and B) whether or not there's a hypothesis to go along with it.