Lol

this is his hypothesis:

```he selfish gene idea is not useful in the physiological sciences, since selfishness cannot be defined as an intrinsic property of nucleotide sequences independently of gene frequency, i.e. the ‘success’ in the gene pool that is supposed to be attributable to the ‘selfish’ property. It is not a physiologically testable hypothesis.```

Im putting it in here to develop a hypothesis-argumentation-proof chain

Well, press Ctrl+F and search this - The Modern Synthesis adds discrete (Mendelian) inheritance to neo-Darwinism. Alternatives to the Modern Synthesis include: symbiogenesis, the idea that major steps in evolution, such as the formation of eukaryotes and multicellular organisms, resulted from cooperation and/or fusion between different organisms; horizontal gene transfer within and between organisms

That is not his hypothesis; that is his assertion backed by citations, you can find.

```These are not at all the same thing when it comes to questions like ‘what do genes do?’ and ‘what kind of causation is involved?’ When Johannsen (1909) introduced the term ‘gene’ it was defined as the (necessary) cause of a phenotype, since it was defined as an inherited phenotype that could be attributed to an allele. But now it has to be shown to be a cause, and the nature of that causation needs clarification. ```

I love how you are avoiding the key statement. By any chance, are you an atheist?

``` They are reinforced by the fact that most changes at the level of DNA do not have a measurable phenotypic effect under normal physiological conditions (see, for example, Hillenmeyer et al. 2008). By the original definition, these would not even have been identified as genes, since a gene was an entity that necessarily had a phenotypic manifestation.```

so thats his "proof"?
thats not even against the fucking theory

He merely says that not every change could be categorized as a whole new phenotype

what a bright discovery, isnt it?

Oh, but he has a paper and you don't.

Strange

His whole idea was basically that not every mutation might lead to a viable/very distinguish phetotypic change, thus the selfish gene theory could not entirely apply to some cases such as above

what

are you dumb

Please write a counter paper

Get it published

And peer reviewed

he generally sums up what many people would agree on, and just proposes that the selfish gene theory might not explain everything

We will wait

im not even denying that man you dumb faggot

Wow. So, you agree with him but do not. Not very bright are you

you call me an atheist and I made one mistake reading but you cant read fucking scientific articles, prove me fucking wrong

I posted a direct statement. You don't want to read that. Because that will break your atheism apart.

I have no time for babies

Write a counter article, get it published and then we will listen to your woes

Deal?

Or you are too much of a fag to do that

im not an atheist you dumb fuck

Oh! Even some theists are retarded

And I have found one

suck my dick and shut up if you will keep on fucking making projections based on your fucking retardation level reaching out of the fucking ape kingdom

Your dad was ape. Bear it. Was he Harambe?

I offer condolences

lads this is so unepic, can we stop?

The author clearly mentioned that the original classification of a GENE is such a unique combination of DNA that results in a new phenotype.
He provided the argument that not every DNA change might result in a new phenotype, because some mutations do not seem to affect it.

@t r u e I dont like the vestigial structure argument, particularly in humans since its simply not true. Generally organisms are perfectly adapted to what they need to do, and i have yet to see a flawed creature, generally evolution allows for perfection in this way.

some genetic changes do not yield clearly visible phenotypic modifications

Lol, still missing the statement that I quoted. Wow, you might have been a baboon. Maybe, we are just different