Dawkins ideas are one possibility, but far from the only one. Personally, I chuckle at any scientist who tries to define something so complex, in such simple terms. I don't believe that we have even scratched the foot of geneology, nor evolution, which is, after all, part of God's plan. How many dimensions are there? We don't know. What are all of the various ways that genes can be changed? We don't know. Will very simple chemical changes to gene structure make profound changes in the genome? We don't know.

Trying to define three or four dimensional space in terms of a two dimensional object is inherent with mistakes and problems. I encounter that often, for instance, reading a book that contains a drawing of an earthworm does not give a person the overall shape, size, or look of an earthworm, no matter how good that two dimensional drawing was. It is great for an over view, but not for more than that.

And how about trying to define a Teseract in terms of a 2 dimensional drawing. I'd say that was similar to using a 2 dimensional drawing to define any gene.