Top misconceptions of Theory of Evolution you had to deal with

[The Grand Nudger]

Natural selection doesn;t just work on our genetic inheritence, it also selects among behaviors...which can be out of the blue, learned, or enforced at a social level.

Hmmm... only genes can be passed on through natural selection, which is one of the reasons why I don't have a lot of stock in the tenured university authorities who insist that human behavior is so plastic that the Homo Sapiens infant is born with absolutely no proclivity to do anything other than suck at Mama's tit. There's plenty enough plasticity, but it's not all that plastic! This is an example of why I believe "Social Science" deserves to have its right to the "Science" part revoked.

It's sex that passes on genes, not natural selection.  The behaviors we teach our children, regardless of any genetic disposition, are passed from parent to child; and are thus heritable.  There's no "american gene" and yet there is a heritable american culture.  We refer to this larger collection of traits as a phenotype.  We tend to see behaviors as having a genetic component (for example, our learned behaviors are inextricably linked with the genes associated with our "learning apparatus") but there's no requirement that they be in order to be acted upon by natural selection.   

Consider this, all other things beings equal, which portion of the human population do you think would become over-represented in time....the portion which teaches their children to look twice before crossing the street, or the portion which does not?  There is no clear cut indicator in the genotype for this behavioral difference, this is not to say that there couldn't be, but it is a difference in phenotype regardless...... it is also an efficient cause for changes in the genotype all the same.  Unrelated variations in the genotype would piggyback on this variation in phenotype, even if it turned out that there was, in actuality, no genetic marker for the behavior upon which individuals were selected.

As regards men killing their mates previous children -any wondering on those counts would be lost on me (and I'm not sure that chimps are really that great an example to point to in any case..we're not chimps, never have been, never will be)- I only brought it up to show that the statements were -clearly- a thought experiment, and not an observation regarding known human behavior.  I doubt Dawkins is or was under the impression that people did that, when he made those statements.  Rather, describing a situation in which the relationships involved in natural selection would or could favor homosexuality.  If he did or does think that absurd non-behavior explains homosexuality, particularly in the present supposing there -was- a "what if" moment that we did engage in that in the past, then he's a fucking nutball.