Next, Dawkins argues:

“Fashions in dress and diet, ceremonies and customs, art and architecture, engineering and technology, all evolve in historical time in a way that looks like highly speeded up genetic evolution, but has really nothing to do with genetic evolution”.

As we know, fashion changes frequently, our ceremonies and customs also change, as also do styles in art and architecture. In engineering and technology too there is today rapid evolution of techniques. When compared to genetic evolution (it takes thousands of years for an evolutionary change or an adaptation to occur), they evolve all right but they evolve in a highly speeded up way at least when compared to genetic evolution. The important point here is that it has nothing to do with genetic evolution and we realize that the analogy goes only this far and is not connected at to genetic evolution.

It is said that compared to physics and chemistry, biology does not have strong laws. Dawkins says, “if I have to bet on one fundamental law then this would be it: All life evolves by the differential survival of replicating entities.” In life there has to be a ‘difference' which enables an organism to have an edge over others. Whether it is our cultural life or our biological life, the evolution is caused by differential survival of entities that replicate. This is a ‘law' suggested by Richard Dawkins in a bid to offer to us a fundamental law of all life in the absence of strong laws in biology as compared to physics and chemistry.

The question he raises here is: