# The existence of scientific entities

**URL:** <https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-existence-of-scientific-entities/642849>\
**Category:** Factual Questions\
**Created:** [December 3, 2012, 2:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-existence-of-scientific-entities/642849 "2012-12-03T14:04:57Z")\
**Posts on this page:** 1\
**Page:** 2

<div class="post-metadata">

**Author:** ![lazybratsche](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/ba8739/32.png) [@lazybratsche](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/lazybratsche)\
**Post date:** [December 4, 2012, 1:50am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-existence-of-scientific-entities/642849/21 "2012-12-04T01:50:55Z")

</div>

> [@Darwins\_Finch](#):
>
> Actually, selfish genes are a pretty lousy way to learn genetics, and the idea was conceived at a time before much of anything was really known about genes as entities. The concept of the selfish gene was intended by Dawkins as a model to explain how altruism (Dawkins was an ethologist by training, not a geneticist) might arise through natural selection, for which it does help…sort of.

I agree. My statement that the selfish gene concept is “pretty useful” is itself a lie-to-children. Off the top of my head, I’d say that the usefulness of Dawkins’ writings on the topic does not extend past the average Bio 101 class.

[Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/the-existence-of-scientific-entities/642849.md?page=1)