[lisper]

> You're describing this viewpoint

Yes.

> evolution selects at multiple levels

That's just another way of saying that evolution selects for reproductive fitness with respect to a particular environment. If a gene is part of an organism, then the other genes in that organism are part of that gene's environment.

The aggregation of genes into organisms is itself an evolutionary adaptation (as is the aggregation of organisms into more complex organisms like eukaryotic cells and multi-cellular creatures). This aggregation provides reproductive fitness by enforcing a certain level of cooperation among the aggregated genes (see https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Evolution_of_Cooperation). But this is not the fundamental mechanism of evolution, and every now an then a gene "defects" and does what is best for it at the time. Cancer is an example of this.

[dekhn]

I think you're trying very hard to fit the real world into a hypothesis that doesn't make any sense.

[rnabel]

I would encourage you to read up on what the gene-centered view actually states.

> that doesn't make any sense

If you look at the criticism leveled against this theory you will find that many of them have been addressed by the proponents of the theory, in many cases very successfully. Many things can be said about this theory but your claim strikes me as highly unqualified.

[lisper]

It makes perfect sense to me. What about it doesn't make sense to you?