Top misconceptions of Theory of Evolution you had to deal with

[God of Mr. Hanky]

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.  

Try telling that to a Native American.

Germans, Scandinavians, Russians - all have the traits of cold-climate cultures, but typical facial features are less divergent within than across cultural boundaries.

Divergence happens of a physical nature, and then when it comes to behavioral traits, they, like everything else, are very much physical.

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.

I believe the genes which ensure we teach and protect our young was long ago decided with, or prior to our lower ape ancestors, therefore not sure why this is interesting. Altogether, it sounds a bit too Lamarkian to say that changes in phenotype (if I understand your use of that in a non-genetic sense) cause changes in genotype. Those which already have the right genotype learn how to care for their offspring, and consider teaching them survival skills.

Genotypes happen through mutation, and they survive when they influence a physical culture. If the new genotype influences the behavior of teaching offspring survival behaviors, then it's still the genotype which is responsible for this. Learned behavior may be genetically influenced in some, and with others it may be through intense cultural programming, and nobody at this point seems to understand clearly the limits of genetic influences, but what is sure is that what you learn the hard way is not going to be passed on to your offspring unless you are alive and present to teach it to them, which was not necessarily the case when the human life span topped out at age 30.

As regards men killing their mates previous children -any wondering on those counts would be lost on me - 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.

On Dawkin's and any hypothesis on homosexuality: let's keep in mind that The Selfish Gene was first published in 1976, when world governments still believed that homosexuality was a mental disease.