Hm, ok I see what you're struggling with. I won't be responding parts by parts because I think I may be able to explain it with more context in another order.
First mistake is that genes are not sets of DNA. A set of DNA is made up of multiple genes. So in sexual selection, genes still get passed on, entire ones, they don't split up and only pass on 50%. The benefit of sexual selection is diversity. The potato famine happened because all of the potatoes had the same DNA makeup and all got infected (or what do you call it). That wouldn't have happened if they did not propagate through cloning (exact replicates as offsprings). So if a huge bunch of machines can die, the genes within them get reduced chances of being copied pass this generation.
Now, the next thing would be to understand that although genes are just genes and not a set of DNA, many of them would not survive (get passed on indefinitely) without the "help" of other genes. A single gene cannot make a machine. But a machine is necessary to protect and replicate the genes. Everything that you see at the phenotypic level was brought about by genes. Once upon a time, you were just a single cell, the genes (those in your DNA) coded for proteins and these proteins affected change that made that cell into a baby and then into an adult. But if you do not have the gene for hair, you wouldn't have hair. Even though it's part of the machine now, it is the result of a gene. That is the "foresight" that genes have. If you have a gene that allows you to feel pain, you will survive better than a machine without that gene. A lot of things are essential to your survival and all those, no matter how complicated, could not have happened if the gene for it wasn't there. Makes sense?
When I said genes still call the shots, I meant a lot of what you do, in fact maybe even all of it, you're only able to do because of your genes. If you did not have the genes for a human brain, you wouldn't be able to make decisions like you do now. And also, genes are constantly being translated into proteins that keep you alive, the process is not rigid and still responds to stimuli. So it does maintain a level of control that you do not have (you cannot will cancer away just because you want to). If you have "good genes" it means your set of genes makes a machine that is good at survival and reproduction.
Although it isn't really "foresight". Imagine asking a billion people to take a test without telling them what they'll be tested on. And then tell them if they fail they'll die. That's like natural selection. No gene can see the future and be like, right, I better modify myself a little bit and tell my neighbours to change A, B, C and D to prepare for the ice age. It's basically a lot of genes that make a lot of machines and some machines don't do well for whatever reason. So in hindsight, it seems as if the genes really have some sort of foresight, but of course they don't. So when I said a gene is pulling tricks, it really isn't. It was just "lucky" (by chance), to land beside a useful gene and therefore gets passed on when that useful gene is passed on.
And I apologize, shouldn't have said ultimate goal of evolution, I meant ultimate result of evolution will be that genes that are good at survival and passing themselves on will be around and others wouldn't. You can't say the same for machines, because machines will die out. Longevity of machines is not selected for after reproductive age. But longevity of genes is however the result of a gene that builds machines (along with other genes) that propagates it. Even though natural selection and evolution do not have purposes, natural selection does select for certain things. We used to think that natural selection will select for the phenotype that's best for species survival. In the selfish gene theory, natural selection selects for genes. It's the same process, but two different ways of understanding it. One of it sees it from the viewpoint of the organism, the other sees it from the viewpoint of the genes.
Hope that's not too convoluted.
First mistake is that genes are not sets of DNA. A set of DNA is made up of multiple genes. So in sexual selection, genes still get passed on, entire ones, they don't split up and only pass on 50%. The benefit of sexual selection is diversity. The potato famine happened because all of the potatoes had the same DNA makeup and all got infected (or what do you call it). That wouldn't have happened if they did not propagate through cloning (exact replicates as offsprings). So if a huge bunch of machines can die, the genes within them get reduced chances of being copied pass this generation.
Now, the next thing would be to understand that although genes are just genes and not a set of DNA, many of them would not survive (get passed on indefinitely) without the "help" of other genes. A single gene cannot make a machine. But a machine is necessary to protect and replicate the genes. Everything that you see at the phenotypic level was brought about by genes. Once upon a time, you were just a single cell, the genes (those in your DNA) coded for proteins and these proteins affected change that made that cell into a baby and then into an adult. But if you do not have the gene for hair, you wouldn't have hair. Even though it's part of the machine now, it is the result of a gene. That is the "foresight" that genes have. If you have a gene that allows you to feel pain, you will survive better than a machine without that gene. A lot of things are essential to your survival and all those, no matter how complicated, could not have happened if the gene for it wasn't there. Makes sense?
When I said genes still call the shots, I meant a lot of what you do, in fact maybe even all of it, you're only able to do because of your genes. If you did not have the genes for a human brain, you wouldn't be able to make decisions like you do now. And also, genes are constantly being translated into proteins that keep you alive, the process is not rigid and still responds to stimuli. So it does maintain a level of control that you do not have (you cannot will cancer away just because you want to). If you have "good genes" it means your set of genes makes a machine that is good at survival and reproduction.
Although it isn't really "foresight". Imagine asking a billion people to take a test without telling them what they'll be tested on. And then tell them if they fail they'll die. That's like natural selection. No gene can see the future and be like, right, I better modify myself a little bit and tell my neighbours to change A, B, C and D to prepare for the ice age. It's basically a lot of genes that make a lot of machines and some machines don't do well for whatever reason. So in hindsight, it seems as if the genes really have some sort of foresight, but of course they don't. So when I said a gene is pulling tricks, it really isn't. It was just "lucky" (by chance), to land beside a useful gene and therefore gets passed on when that useful gene is passed on.
And I apologize, shouldn't have said ultimate goal of evolution, I meant ultimate result of evolution will be that genes that are good at survival and passing themselves on will be around and others wouldn't. You can't say the same for machines, because machines will die out. Longevity of machines is not selected for after reproductive age. But longevity of genes is however the result of a gene that builds machines (along with other genes) that propagates it. Even though natural selection and evolution do not have purposes, natural selection does select for certain things. We used to think that natural selection will select for the phenotype that's best for species survival. In the selfish gene theory, natural selection selects for genes. It's the same process, but two different ways of understanding it. One of it sees it from the viewpoint of the organism, the other sees it from the viewpoint of the genes.
Hope that's not too convoluted.
