A couple of reasons for not loving too much msc. Rand shedevoure. First, although her story arcs are superior, her paragraph by paragraph writing is often heavy handed, and beats her points to death. Secondly, the length and scope of some of the philosophical speeches given by her characters, particularly in the last quarter of the book, are simply not believable. Employing other writing techniques could have achieved this more believably. It's as if Rand hasn't trusted her own characters to carry the point she put them in the book to illustrateRand's "ideal man" is entirely self focused, does nothing he doesn't want to do regardless of anyone else's need, does everything he wants to do regardless of how it might effect others, places himself above the rule of law, commits several felonies, watches virtually everyone around him self destruct and leaves the novel entirely self satisfied. Rand calls this the "ideal man". Others might read the same book and identify Roark as a sociopath, just a very talented one who also possesses many admirable qualities. By the way, on a factual point, the idea of Roark being acquitted after admitting the deed in open court is ludicrous.
Wasn't it Shakespeare who told us "To thine own self be true"? The notion of being your own man, and standing on principle is as old as philosophy itself, but Rand has given it entirely "fresh" treatment and perspective.  
For starters, according to Ayn Rand compassion is nothing but a hypocritical lie, invented by totalitarian governments to control and degrade humans. While I can understand the emotional response of a woman that fled communist Russia, and later observed the excesses committed in her former country, that view is absolutely wrong.There is an enormous amount of biological evidence that shows that humans' behaviour (and of other social species) is determined by complex emotions, that combine both competitive and altruistic urges, to maximize reproduction potentialWell, basically she attributes a bunch of desirable characteristics on the good guys, and all kind of defects on the bad guys. That way, her philosophical beliefs are reinforced by the emotional response generated by prototypical characters (Roarke = intelligent, good looking, brave, independent = good; Toohey = intelligent, but devious and cruel, and bad looking = bad). If her story was told in a less biased way, her philosophical views would probably feel less "evident".

Be"Now they swarm in huge colonies, safe inside gigantic lumbering robots, sealed off from the outside world, communicating with it by tortuous indirect routes, manipulating it by remote control. They are in you and me; they created us, body and mind; and their preservation is the ultimate rationale for our existence. They have come along way, those replicators. Now they go by the name of genes, and we are their survival machines"

This much maligned statement,

so much room for  for individuality or cultural influence on human development!!!!!

he human is reduced to a machine like robot that owes its whole origin and purpose of existence to the function and apparent motivation

if there is evolutionary deterministic  do u really think that our whole world is theoretically reducible to a set of mathematical equations

a nice response is.

There is only one science, physics: everything else is social work , xexe, screw them all

Dawkins has made no notable contributions to it or even to the history or philosophy of science. His main claim to fame is his story-telling about what might have happened in the unobservable past.

He throws in much informative material in real science which make it interested. And the real science in the book camouflages the many just-so speculations Dawkins resorts to.

but put the philosophy aside, there are brunch of technical unanswered questions as well;

the ability of causal processes to produce our current state of the universe and the capacity of reductionism to explain these processes. Darwin himself cast doubt on the theory of evolution: If it could be demonstrated that any complex organ existed which could not possibly have been formed by numerous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down

Some studies of molecular machines, like the mechanism involved in blood-clotting, and argues that there exist in biochemistry irreducibly complex systems/ removal of any one of the parts causes the system effectively to cease functioning. If we take away one part of the blood clotting mechanism and the result may be fatal.  there can be no Darwinian explanation for an irreducibly complex system, since any preceding stage in its evolution would have been non-functional and therefore eliminated by natural selection .

Remember his explanation of evolution of eye?

He explained it by relying  on a computer simulation of gradual eye evolution  and claims' it would take less than 364,000 years for a camera eye to evolve from a light-sensitive patch:

First, this layer bends gradually into a cup, so it can tell the direction of light rays increasingly well. This continues until it is curved into a hemisphere filled with the transparent substance. Secondly, bringing the ends together, closing the aperture, would gradually increase the sharpness of the image, as a pinhole camera does, because a smaller hole cuts out light, and as there are diffraction effects if the hole is too small, there is a limit to this process. So thirdly, the shape and refractive index gradient of the transparent cover change gradually to a finely focusing lens.I read that scientists show that even a ‘simple’ light sensitive spot requires a dazzling array of biochemicals in the right place and time to function.A major objection to the Dawkins scenario is that the ability to perceive light is meaningless unless the organism has sophisticated computational machinery to make use of this information. For example, it must have the ability to translate ‘attenuation of photon intensity’ to ‘a shadow of a predator is responsible’ to Similarly, the first curving, with its slight ability to detect the direction of light, would only work if the creature had the appropriate ‘software’ to interpret this. Perceiving actual images is more complicated still. And having the right hardware and software may not be enough—people who have their sight restored after years of blindness take some time to learn to see properly. It should be noted that much information processing occurs in the retina before the signal reaches the brain.

The point is his position is not invalid, but the world is not determined by evolutionary forces, there is room for smthing. By the memetic theory altruism being nothing but self-interest cloaked in apparent selflessness, but cant you think about samples of disinterested behavior, when no advance for genes occurs?

What about  Martin Luther King’s campaigning for black rights , it was certainly not in the best interests of prolonging his genetic line and me melatefing  cmen nose?