This stuff isn't science, man. It sounds like you don't know what science is. I don't know the subject, maybe some of these books make some valid points, but they don't constitute research. They're largely editorial. Is that a bad thing? Not necessarily, I mean "The Selfish Gene" falls into the same category. But Dawkins wouldn't be convincing if he didn't have solid experimental data to back up his claims, and if his claims weren't falsifiable.
Either show me the research itself (that should be a paper with an abstract and sections explaining how the research was conducted), or link me to a reference in a
scholarly journal, preferably
peer reviewed.