+8202
‘The Extended Phenotype Summary and Review
The Extended Phenotype
Summary and Review
Has The Extended Phenotype by Richard Dawkins been sitting on your reading
list? Pick up the key ideas in the book with this quick summary.
You no doubt know about Darwinism and the concept behind the “survival of the
test.” But when you consider who was actually doing the surviving, there’s a
good chance that you may have only been thinking about humans or animals.
As it tums out, there’s more than one way to consider Darwin’s theories, and
when we only pay attention to what’s going on with big organisms like monkeys
and humans, we miss out on a major player in the survival game: genes.
‘When we zoom in down to the cellular level, we can see how genes are really the
ones actively trying to survive. After all, it’s genes that are attempting to survive
by supplying you with the ideal hair color, facial features and personality for
passing those very same genes on to the next generation,
As the author Richard Dawkins explains, we should really be looking through the
microscope and taking note of how competitive genes are, since this is where all
the adaptation, mutation and replication is really taking place
In this summary of The Extended Phenotype by Richard Dawkins, you'll discover
‘why there’s no such thing as a “blue-eye gene;”
‘+ how an angler fish is more than just super ereepy ~ it’s also a great
example of evolution; and
‘+ what a snail’s shell can teach us about evolution.
The Extended Phenotype Key Idea
#1: When considering evolution, we
‘ea6:thps_Mocluborg/ur-hups%.3A%2F*%42Ffecub.org%2Fbooks%42Fihe-extonded-phenolype-richard-dawains-eview-summary 46+8202
‘The Extended Phenotype Summary and Review
should think of genes as well as
organisms.
Ever since Charles Darwin’s theory of evolution was published back in the mid-
nineteenth century, his observations have often been summarized with the popular
concept of “the survival of the fittest.” When we imagine how this survival takes
place, we take a very specific biological perspective on which organisms are
fighting for survival
When we think of life, we think of the large organisms Darwin wrote about, such
as birds, orchids or humans, and we picture these plants and animals as being the
selfish ones fighting for their survival
So, even though we recognize larger units, such as societies, populations and
ecosystems, as well as smaller units such as cells and genes when it comes to
biological evolution, we almost always talk about “selfish organisms.” Most
evolutionary biologists focus their study on the individual body ~ so for them it's
organisms, not populations or genes, that compete and evolve.
But an interesting thing happens when we shift our focus away from the
individual bodies toward the genes, and we start thinking about “selfish genes”
rather than “selfish organisms.”
Making this shift in perspective is a lot like adjusting the way you look at a
Necker cube, which is the name of the typical 3D cube you've probably drawn on
a piece of paper numerous times. It’s just two overlapping squares, one slightly
above the other, with four diagonal lines connecting the comers.
When you look at a Necker cube, you can see it in two different ways, with either
the lower square or the upper square making up the front of the cube. But there’s
no one correct way of seeing it— both perspectives are equally valid and accurate,
And it’s the same for our biological perspective on what's fighting for survival:
both the organism-centric view and the gene-centrie view are valid. So, when we
shift to the genetic point of view, we're not looking at things from a single correct
perspective. Instead, we're opening the door to new questions that go beyond,
“Why are certain genes useful to an organism?” Now we ean ask, “Why are
certain genes often grouped together in organisms?”
‘ea6:thps_Mocluborg/ur-hups%.3A%2F*%42Ffecub.org%2Fbooks%42Fihe-extonded-phenolype-richard-dawains-eview-summary 26+8202
‘The Extended Phenotype Summary and Review
In the book summarys ahead we'll further explore these questions and much
more.
The Extended Phenotype Key Idea
#2: Genes can only influence our
lives; they can’t determine our
future.
We love a good myth, Whether it’s the legend of the Yeti, Bigfoot or accounts of
Elvis Presley being alive and working at a gas station, people cling to such stories
and keep them alive for generations.
The field of biology isn’t immune to myths either, and one of them could be
called the “gene myth.” This is the misconception which suggests that having
certain genes means we're doomed to live out a specific fate,
For example, if a child was struggling to get a passing grade in algebra, her
parents might think that getting a tutor would help. But if the parents were then
told that their child had a “bad-math gene,” they might just give up and think,
“There’s nothing we can do; we can’t fight scienc
The truth is, even though specific genes can suggest that a person is inclined or
disinclined for something, it doesn’t mean anything is predetermined.
Part of the problem is that people tend to misunderstand biology lingo. When a
biologist says something like, “the fruit fly has the red-eye gene,” what they really
‘mean is that the fly with this gene is more likely to have red eyes.
It's the many other genes that are also present that determine the ultimate
influence of a gene — otherwise known as the genetic environment. That’s why, if
you put that “red-eye gene” from the fiuit fly into the genetic environment of an
clephant, it doesn’t mean that the elephant is guaranteed to have red eyes — any
more than the student with a “bad-math gene” is guaranteed to fail her algebra
class.
‘ea6:thps_Mocluborg/ur-hups%.3A%2F*%42Ffecub.org%2Fbooks%42Fihe-extonded-phenolype-richard-dawains-eview-summary 36+8202
‘The Extended Phenotype Summary and Review
Another important factor is the organism’s natural or social environment, For
example, ifa child does have a mathematical deficiency rooted in her genes, it
could very well be compensated for by an especially effective math tutor
‘Terms like “genetic codes” or “genetically programmed” can also make it sound
like our genes are as deterministic as a piece of computer software. But again, this
is just popular jargon among scientists and shouldn't be misconstrued
Our genes do, of course, influence us in many ways. And certain genes will
influence our capacity for mathematics, but they cannot determine our fate.
Consider the books and movies we consume. They can influence our decisions
and behavior, but just like genes, they won't determine our fates.
The Extended Phenotype Key Idea
#3: Organisms don’t always have
optimal traits, which is a sign that
Darwin didn’t have the full picture.
The gecko is a fantastic example of the use of evolutionary development for
protection, having gained the ability to change the color of its skin so it can hide
in plain sight. Whereas sharks, on the other hand, are a good example of predatory
development, their skin having become so smooth that it cuts through the water at
lightning speed.
But are these traits always the best? If you're an adaptationist — someone whi
taken Darwin's ideas to mean that all organisms evolve to gain traits that are
optimal for the problems they face ~ you’d answer yes. However, if we look
around, we can see that many traits are, in fact, not optimal at all,
‘One of the reasons for an adaptation being suboptimal is a time-lag, which is the
fact that time can present any number of changes to an environment or an
organism’s circumstances. So, a trait that was once optimal can quickly become
obsolete.
‘ea6:thps_Mocluborg/ur-hups%.3A%2F*%42Ffecub.org%2Fbooks%42Fihe-extonded-phenolype-richard-dawains-eview-summary ane.+8202
‘The Extended Phenotype Summary and Review
Take an armadillo, a slow creature that can roll up into an armored ball when
danger strikes. This could be a great defense to many predators, but it’s far from
‘optimal when your environment becomes inundated with automobiles.
Another cause for suboptimal traits is available genetic variation, which means
that often the optimal scenario just isn’t in the cards.
Any trait that can be developed is a result of the existing gene pool, and in many
cases, that pool is too shallow for the optimal trait to be developed. This is why
some vertebrates evolved to have wings instead of arms yet no vertebrate has ever
evolved to have six or eight arms, even though this could very well be an optimal
trait for some.
The other thing to consider is that an optimal trait might be ideal for the
individual but not ideal for the group, or vice versa.
This is why egoistic and altruistic behaviors are at odds with each other. In many
cases, the egoistic approach could very well be the optimal one for an individual,
such as when a bison wounds another male bison to attract a mate.
But this approach backfires when faced with the outside threat of a pack of,
wolves. Without the altruistic behavior of working together to defend the herd, the
bison that are left to lag behind or defend themselves are picked off by the
wolves.
As we can see, there are many holes in the adaptationist approach to
understanding evolution. So, while Darwin may have had revolutionary insights,
these don’t provide the full picture.
The Extended Phenotype Key Idea
#4: Organisms will sometimes work
against their own interest.
Along with the adaptation of optimal traits, there is another belief surrounding
evolution that may not be so accurate. This one is about organisms maximizing
their own “fitness.” In other words, this is the central theory that every plant,
‘ea6:thps_Mocluborg/ur-hups%.3A%2F*%42Ffecub.org%2Fbooks%42Fihe-extonded-phenolype-richard-dawains-eview-summary 816+8202
‘The Extended Phenotype Summary and Review
animal and human will instinetively act in its own best interest to make sure it,
passes on its genes to the next generation.
Once again, however, we can look around us and see many cases where an
organism is actually acting in the best interest of another organism — one that is
‘manipulating it for its own benefit.
One such manipulator is the angler fish. You may have seen pictures of this
creepy deep-water fish, as it has a long and unique protrusion extending from its
head, It’s quite like a fishing rod, in fact, complete with a “lure” at the end which
resembles a piece of food.
So, the angler fish effectively manipulates the small fish that are attracted to its
deceptive lure, coaxing them to swim close to its mouth. This works because the
small fish have bad eyesight and are unable to discern the angler’s lure from
dinner. Therefore, these half-blind fish have evolved to work in the angler fish’s
est interest, not their own.
Ina relationship like this, we can see how changes in the manipulated organism
ead to changes in the manipulator. In this case, the small fish will develop traits
to avoid the lure, while the angler fish will make its own subtle adaptations to
ensure it continues manipulating the small fish
In this way, the manipulator could successfully continue its methods for as long as
both organisms exist. After all, the angler fish faces the greater pressure to adapt,
While the small fishes have a variety of food options, the angler fish will starve if
it doesn’t successfully lure in its prey, so it’s under pressure to adapt.
In this relationship, changes in the manipulated will continue to maximize the
fitness of the manipulator, rather than its own fitness.
In the next book summary, we'll take a closer look at what's behind these
evolutionary adaptations,
The Extended Phenotype Key Idea
#5: Genes are the real replicators,
not organisms.
‘ea6:thps_Mocluborg/ur-hups%.3A%2F*%42Ffecub.org%2Fbooks%42Fihe-extonded-phenolype-richard-dawains-eview-summary 66+8202
‘The Extended Phenotype Summary and Review
So, let's return to the main question: What's behind an organism’s evolutionary
drive to compete and thrive?
To get to the bottom of this, we need to first understand what a replicator is,
A replicator is anything that lasts because copies are made of it. So a page that
has repeatedly been Xeroxed is a replicator, as are DNA molecules and, therefore,
the genes within those molecules. In fact, our genes are replicated all the time
since this is a regular part of the cell division that goes on within our bodies.
Now, to truly understand replicators, you should know that there are two different
kinds: active and passive.
An active replicator works toward increasing the likelihood of being copied.
Therefore, DNA molecules are active replicators, since they influence the
organism’s traits and behaviors, otherwise known as the organism’s phenotype, in
an effort to increase its chances of reproduction,
Passive replicators, on the other hand, are like the Xeroxed sheet of paper, they
have no influence over their likelihood of being copied.
‘Now, within both of these kinds of replicators, there are two subtypes: germ-line
replicators and dead-end replicators.
Germ-line replicators can be copied an infinite number of times, while dead-end
replicators, which includes the majority of our DNA, can only be copied a finite
number of times.
Interestingly, many other things can count as replicators, including ideas and
“memes.”
In scientific terms, a meme is any piece of information that resides in our brains,
including words, music or images. A favorite joke or melody can act like a
replicator ~ the funnier or catchier it is, the better its chances of being copied. Or,
conversely, a meme that makes people wish they never heard it will quickly be
forgotten or, in other words, leave the meme pool.
‘Memes can also act like genes in that they get copied, as they'll often go through
some “mutations” and pick up bits of other memes when they're replicated and
reintroduced.
‘ea6:thps_Mocluborg/ur-hups%.3A%2F*%42Ffecub.org%2Fbooks%42Fihe-extonded-phenolype-richard-dawains-eview-summary 716+8202
‘The Extended Phenotype Summary and Review
The Extended Phenotype Key Idea
#6: Organisms are vehicles that
carry genes.
Now that we've taken a closer look at genes and their role as replicators, let’s look
more closely at organisms themselves.
Rather than being replicators, organisms are better defined as vehicles
You might look at the lineage of a mother, daughter, granddaughter, great-
granddaughter, and so on and think that this is a sign of replication. Didn’t the
mother replicate to produce the daughter? However, let’s say the mother lost a
finger; a subsequent daughter wouldn’t be born with a missing finger, would she?
This is an example of what Darwinism calls the non-inheritance of acquired
characteristics. If we were true replicators, the daughter would be born with the
missing finger and any other acquired characteristics. Since this isn’t the case,
humans and other organisms are not replicators.
Instead, organisms are vehicles, meaning they carry the replicators around and
serve as their preservers and propagators. So, the daughter will be a vehicle for
the mother’s genes, and she'll be the recipient of any mutations that may occur in
the replication of those genes.
Even though a traditional biology class may lump organisms and their genes
together as interchangeable, the more accurate picture is that genes and organisms
are in completely different categories.
Generally, biologists will freely zoom in and out to show the same process of
natural selection occurring at a genetic level, at organism level and at group level
— with all the same rules applying.
But it’s now clear that this old way of looking at things is inaccurate: you can’t
just move freely between genes and organisms because genes are replicators and
organisms are vehicles. However, you can apply the same rules to organisms and
communities or groups of organisms since they're both vehicles.
Now let’s look at an accurate theory of evolution that does acknowledge the
difference between replicators and vehicles.
‘ead:thps_Mocluborg/ur-hups%.3A%2F*%42Ffecub.org%2Fbooks%42Fihe-extended-phenolype-ichard-dawains-eview-summary ane+8202
‘The Extended Phenotype Summary and Review
The Extended Phenotype Key Idea
#7: Signs of how genes compete can
be seen in the “outlaws” and
“modifiers.”
‘Once we recognize the difference between vehicles and replicators, we can start to
see that the real active agents of evolution aren’t the organisms, but rather the
genes. A more accurate definition of the biological process of natural selection,
would be: “the process by which genetic replicators outcompete each other.”
Genetic replicators compete through phenotypic effects. These are the different
ways in which genes influence an organism’s characteristics, including their
physical traits and behavior. So, in a human, this would include hair and eye color
and how timid his personality is.
Since appearance and personality traits influence your chances of finding a
partner and having children, it’s the genetic replicators with successful phenotypic
effects that are going to survive in the gene pool.
However, the traditional stance of biologists was that popular traits and behaviors
were due to organisms maximizing their chances, but we now know it’s really the
replicators that are actively competing
Interestingly enough, the surviving replicators aren’t always acting in the best,
interest of the larger genome. There are genes known as outlaws, which promote
their own survival even when it’s at the cost of most of the other genes.
Good examples of outlaws are the so-called segregation distorter genes, which,
during sexual reproduction, manage to increase their chances of replication to
exceed their allotted 50 percent. These genes have been well-studied in fruit flies,
where they actively sabotage the sperm cells that contain the chromosomes with
no segregation distorters,
To combat the damaging effect of outlaws, other genetic replicators can act as,
“modifiers.”
‘ea6:thps_Mocluborg/ur-hups%.3A%2F*%42Ffecub.org%2Fbooks%42Fihe-extonded-phenolype-richard-dawains-eview-summary 26svesn021 ‘The Extended Phenotype Summary and Review
‘As we saw in the second book summary, no single gene is responsible for a
specific trait or characteristic instead, genes work together. And in the case of an
outlaw trying to corrupt a genome, other genes can band together and come to the
rescue. Thes
e genes are called modifiers.
Modifiers can fight back against outlaws by outnumbering and essentially
overruling them, You can think of the scenario like a parliament or congress of
‘genes: the more members that show up to vote against the outlaw, the more likely
the corruption will be fixed.
The Extended Phenotype Key Idea
#8: With genes at the center of our
biological picture, we can explain our
superfluous DNA.
One of the oddities of human biology that has confounded biologists is the fact
that we contain way more DNA than is necessary for our bodies to be built and to
function properly. In other words, we have superfluous DNA.
But remember, one of the primary reasons biologists have been unable to figure
this out is their organism-centric perspective of evolution. From this point of
view, the sole purpose of DNA is to supervise the building of an organism's body
and to make sure it functions properly —and for this, the mysterious leftover DNA
is indeed superfluous and purposeless.
If we put on our gene-centric glasses, however, and look at evolution again, we
can see that this extra DNA isn’t so purposeless after all. In fact, the purpose
becomes clear and simple: the DNA is there to ensure its own survival,
In this light, the superfluous DNA in organisms is not unlike an extra passenger in
the backseat of a sential DNA. This freeloader might not
be chipping in for gas money or providing directions, but it’s not causing any
r being driven by the
harm, either.
‘ea6:thps_Mocluborg/ur-hups%.3A%2F*%42Ffecub.org%2Fbooks%42Fihe-extonded-phenolype-richard-dawains-eview-summary
1016+8202
‘The Extended Phenotype Summary and Review
So, how is it that biologists can’t recognize this? Well, to put it another way, it’s,
as though they’re looking at our DNA like someone from an alien utopia would,
Imagine if all biologists came from a planet called Utopia where everyone lived in
harmony with complete trust in each other. So, you understand how a Utopian
biologist might be confused as to why humans would use locks, fences and guard
dogs to protect their belongings ~ this would all seem completely pointless to the
biologists.
But once the alien biologists learned that humans distrust and compete with one
another, the extra security measures would start to make sense.
Similarly, for our earthling biologists to understand the reason behind superfluous
DNA, they need to recognize that DNA is acting for its own survival and
replication, not that of its vehicle.
The Extended Phenotype Key Idea
#9: The various meanings of
“fitness” have confused the topic of
evolution.
‘Throughout this book summary, we've talked about “survival of the fittest” and
how genes and organisms can try to “maximize their fitness.” But what does
being fit really mean in scientific terms?
Part of the confusion that has lingered around the field of evolution is that
“fitmess” tends to be used by biologists in different ways,
In Darwin’s original use of the term, “fit” organism were any with the capacity to
survive. Therefore, the “fittest” were the strongest, with the best eyesight, the
sharpest hearing — all characteristics that increase their chances of survival
Now, what the “survival of the fittest” also implies is that, as time goes on and
multiple generations are born, evolution will lead to organisms having stronger
muscles, sharper eyesight and even more sensitive hearing
‘ea6:thps_Mocluborg/ur-hups%.3A%2F*%42Ffecub.org%2Fbooks%42Fihe-extonded-phenolype-richard-dawains-eview-summary ne+8202
‘The Extended Phenotype Summary and Review
This leads us to the second way “fitness” gets used: as a measure of how
successful an organism is at reproducing and passing its genes to the next
generation. So, if you were comparing a blackbird to a crow, the fittest of the two
‘would be the one that raises the most offspring to reach reproductive age.
There’s a third way of defining fitness: what's known as inclusive fitness. In this
sense, it’s not just the individual organism that’s being measured, but also the
fitness of its immediate family and close relatives — those who are most likely to
share the individual's genes.
So the inclusive fitness of an individual wombat would also depend on its sisters
and cousins, and how high their chances of survival to reproductive age were.
With all these different meanings to the term fitness, it’s little wonder that there's
been confusion surrounding evolution and Darwinism. And since it’s key to the
traditional organism-centric understanding of evolution, when there is confusion
around what “fitness” means, the whole perspective becomes fuzzy.
“Fitness” is the go-to term when biologists present their standard view of
evolution, which includes the erroneous notion that individual organisms are the
primary beneficiaries of genetic adaptations.
So this is just one more reason to shift our perspective away from the “selfish
organism” to the “selfish gene.”
The Extended Phenotype Key Idea
#10: The influence of genes goes
beyond the individual organism.
We've realigned our evolutionary perspective away from the organism and
squarely onto the survival of genes, so it’s time to do the same with our
understanding of the phenotype
‘As we've explained in previous book summarys, the phenotype is what gives us
all our observable characteristics, including our physiological traits, such as hair
color, and our behavioral traits and personality. But it’s important to remember
that genes combine with an organism’s environment to make the phenotype.
‘ea6:thps_Mocluborg/ur-hups%.3A%2F*%42Ffecub.org%2Fbooks%42Fihe-extonded-phenolype-richard-dawains-eview-summary 126+8202
The Extended Phenotype Summary and Review
But what if the phenotype goes beyond the individual organism, as certain animal
artifacts suggest.
For example, imagine a species of caddis fly that has larvae that build nests out of
stones taken from the bottom of a stream. Now picture two nests of distinct,
colors, one made of dark stones and one of light; the choice of stones depends on
the behavior of the larvae that build each nest.
So, in this case, since the behavior is a result of the genes that make up the
phenotype, the colors of the nests are also the result of the larvae’s genes,
More precisely, we could say: the nest is a phenotypic expression of the larvae’s
genes. What's more, since this phenotypic expression extends beyond the bodies
of the larvae, we could say that the color of the nest is an example of the extended
phenotype of the larvae’s genes.
In fact, an extended phenotype can include far more than that — it can include
everything the organism produces, so a spider web is an expression of a spider’s
extended phenotype.
‘We can also look beyond the nest to include the immediate surroundings of an
organism as an extension of its phenotype. A good example of this is a beaver
dam. Since these dams are generally an expression of not just an individual
beaver, but rather an entire beaver family, they're a perfect example of a joint
extended phenotype, which recognizes expressions made by multiple organisms.
The Extended Phenotype Key Idea
#11: The external influence of genes
can result from multiple organisms
joined together.
Now you know how to recognize when the influence of an organism's phenotype
extends beyond its own body, you might be wondering: How do I know what is
and isn’t an expression of an organism’s phenotype?
‘ea6:thps_Mocluborg/ur-hups%.3A%2F*%42Ffecub.org%2Fbooks%42Fihe-extonded-phenolype-richard-dawains-eview-summary 1316+8202
‘The Extended Phenotype Summary and Review
‘When considering what qualifies as an extended phenotype, remember that an
extended phenotype needs to be related to things that influence the orga
survival or chance of reproduction.
If we're looking at a pigeon, its nest helps ensure the survive of its offspring and
should, therefore, be considered part of the pigeon’s extended phenotype.
But what about when the pigeon is gathering sticks for the nest? Searching for
‘materials, it might push around leaves and make scratch marks in the dirt — are
these part of the pigeon’s extended phenotype too? No; these foraging signs don’t
affect the pigeon’s survival so they don’t qualify as expressions of the pigeon’s
phenotype.
As for the joint extended phenotype, like the beaver’s dam, there are other shared
expressions to look out for, and they can be rather surprising,
One interesting case is what happens when a snail is influenced by a parasitic
flatworm known as a fluke.
Researchers have found that when a snail is carrying a fluke, its shell grows
thicker than those of snails without a parasite. The question then becomes, is the
difference in shell thickness a response to the environment, and simply the
presence of the fluke, or has a genetic change taken place?
As it tums out, studies showed that the thickened shell is indeed a shared
expression. Under normal circumstances, the snail’s shell is an expression of its
own phenotype as it helps keep it protected and therefore it’s crucial to its
survival. But only so much of a snail’s genetic resources can go toward the shell,
so its thickness and strength are limited
‘When genes from the fluke parasite are introduced, these genes will quickly
multiply and make the shell as thick as it ean be, so that the fluke and its offspring
can thrive. This is also an interesting example because it shows how an extended
phenotype can, in some cases, be another organism's living tissue.
The Extended Phenotype Key Idea
#12: In the concept of the extended
‘ea6:thps_Mocluborg/ur-hups%.3A%2F*%42Ffecub.org%2Fbooks%42Fihe-extonded-phenolype-richard-dawains-eview-summary 1416+8202
‘The Extended Phenotype Summary and Review
phenotype, the Necker cube flips.
In this final book summary, let's circle back to where we started, with the visual
aid of the Necker cube. This was used to illustrate two equally valid views in
biology: the traditional view that emphasized the individual organism and the
alternate view that emphasized the genes as the elements competing for survival
By this point, we've scen plenty of examples of the “selfish gene” and how these
act in their own interest through their extended phenotype, so it should be easier
for you to see both sides of the Necker cube and both perspectives on evolution.
But just in case, let’s look at one final example, the Bruce effect, which we'll see
in both the traditional organism-centric view and the gene-centric view.
The Bruce effect was discovered in a study involving mice: the researchers found
that female mice would terminate their current pregnancies when exposed to the
scent of an unknown male mouse.
In the traditional view, we would say that the organism of the male mouse
manipulates the female organisms to maximize its own fitness by causing the
female to terminate a pregnancy from another mouse so that she can bear the new
male mouse’s offspring.
In the confusing language of conventional biology, we could also say that there’s,
“a gene for” this scenario, And we could say that this gene, which caused the
female mouse to terminate a pregnancy upon smelling the male’s scent, was
serving the organism of the male mouse and his survival.
But we can also describe the Bruce effect in another way.
‘We can say that the termination of pregnancy is a result of a phenotype in the
male mouse that is being expressed in the actions of the female mouse. The genes
in the male mouse cause him to produce a scent, which then causes the
termination of pregnancy in the female mouse. And these genes are serving
themselves, increasing the chances of their own replication and continued survival
in the next generation.
So, the behavior of the mice “serves” the genes — not the other way around.
In summary, we can say the following is the central theorem of the extended
phenotype:
‘ea6:thps_Mocluborg/ur-hups%.3A%2F*%42Ffecub.org%2Fbooks%42Fihe-extonded-phenolype-richard-dawains-eview-summary 1816+8202
‘The Extended Phenotype Summary and Review
‘An organism’s behavior will maximize the survival of the genes that ereate the
behavior, even when those genes aren’t part of the organism’s genome, as in the
example of the female mouse.
In Review: The Extended Phenotype Book
Summary
The key message in this book:
‘There are two equally valid views in biology. There’s the conventional
Darwinian view that emphasizes the importance of the individual organism
and sees it as the focal unit of natural selection, And then there’s the more
modern view of the extended phenotype, which emphasizes the importance of
genes, not organisms, as the focal units of natural selection, By broadening
our perspective and taking both views into account, we can appreciate a
more complete understanding of biology.
‘ea6:thps_Mocluborg/ur-hups%.3A%2F*%42Ffecub.org%2Fbooks%42Fihe-extonded-phenolype-richard-dawains-eview-summary
1616