In the other thread with a huge chunk of Dawkins in the OP, part of it says this:

"They sprint for the safety of the forest as soon as a human appears in the distance. But a few individuals, by genetic chance, happen to have a slightly shorter flight distance than the average."

This strikes me as a really odd thing to say. Is he really attributing social behavior to genetics?

If you're an atheist at least, you believe that the same governing principles that let humans operate are also present in animals, and vice versa. That is simply a highly developed animal.

Is the common scientific concept that everything humans do is controlled by genetics? Saying someone is wired from birth to be serial killer, or a soldier, or a politician, is seriously dangerous territory imo, but at least in this instance, for dawkins, genetic disposition and social behavior are functionally equivalent.

Am I missing something here, or did Dawkins misstep?

Yes, everything is at least in part genetically determined. You can most certainly be genetically predisposed to criminal behavior, but your environment and 'free will' play a role too - I'm genetically predisposed to diabetes, but I haven't yet developed the disease.

This isn't just a fringe-opinion either. The importance of genetics in all we do/are is widely accepted.

I don't see that this is necessarily related to religion. Presumably you could hold religious views focused on genetic predetermination or atheist views against it.

For example, I might hold a view that God exists and controls our actions through giving us a genetic code which predetermines everything we do. If I held that we were saved on the basis of our actions, this would entail affirming predestination.

Alternatively, I might hold a view that no God exists but that all human action is freely chosen and no actions are genetically predetermined. Perhaps Roderick Chisholm holds this view.

Yes, in part.

No, this is the common straw man of biological / genetical determinism, as used by opponents of the validity of sociobiology as a proper science.

All behaviors are the result of genetics mediated by environment. Genetics plays a significant role in all behaviors (although in some cases a behavior might be so universal within a species that genetic variation within that species doesn't result in significant behavioral differences - on the other hand, I can't think of a situation like this off the top of my head).

youre confused if you think dawkins is saying genetics is the SOLE operater. he isnt saying youre wired from birth to be what you become.

When two people are commenting on how nice the day is, it is obvious that the state of the day is not something that is determined by genetics. Therefore, genetics is not the sole operator in social behavior.

In that spot, he attributes flight distance and comfort levels to genetics. If that's what he believes or not, I can't say as I haven't read everything the man has ever written.

Just caught me off guard as flight distance seems pretty obviously to be a learned/social behavior.

(Disclaimer: I know plenty of sociology/psychology/behavioral studies, but I don't know much/anything about advanced biology. That does leave me one sided on the issue, I'm afraid.)

He suggests a genetic influence, which is not controversial.