Paul Burridge wrote:
On Sun, 7 Sep 2003 16:12:29 +0100, "Kevin Aylward"
wrote:

Oh, so you didn't understand it properly then?

No, I understood it perfectly. It was probably some political dogma
that he threw in at that moment that did it. I recall thoroughly
enjoying 'the Ragged Trousered Philanthropists' up until the point
where Tressel stated that there was something unnatural about mature
men remaining unmarried.

You've lost me here. Its a been a while since I read the selfish gene,
but there is no way Dawkins would hold to such a silly idea.


No he didn't. Of course, people tighten up or refine their original
ideas a bit, but the fundamental principle is as sound today as when
it was proposed. Its basic underpinnings are a tautology, therefore
cannot be wrong.

Oh but he did.

Dose not compute. It make no rational sense at all.

However, I'd agree that his departure from the original
work was perhaps more subtle than you and most other mortals would
appreciate.

Must have been. However, as I said minor changes in position are not
important, one cant get all the details right first time.

I remember when I did not understand the details well enough to apply
the theory to picking up women. A naive approach would be to do things
for the women's direct interest, i.e. maybe the women could survive
better, and pass on her genes better that way, i.e acting on the
assumption that a women would chose if you were "nice" to her. Boy was I
wrong. A women will do what ever maximises the number of her genes. This
results in one main fact. She chooses a mate, essentially, only on the
basis of good gene stock. She doesn't want a nice person because this
would mean her offspring would also be nice, and thereby do things not
in there own best interest. She wants a "mean" offspring. That is, treat
them mean, keeps them keen The theories great. It explains quite nicely
why women chose those yobbys that beat them up.


Err... already have it and read it. I didn't think it was as good. A
lot of repeats of the selfish gene material. I would use all your
words above to "the selfish gene" itself.

Well I can only conclude that you didn't understand it properly.

No, you conclude wrong. There was nothing, or little really new. So,
"The Blind Watchmaker" by its very title tells you that it is explaining
the details of how apparently consciously designed intricate objects,
are not designed, but just a result of random process. This is a trivial
deduction to the theory of replicators. In addition, it is well
recognised that it was the selfish gene book that really made the ****
hit the fan.

I genuinely got bored with the book.

The
reviews of the book from the world's finest scientific minds testify
to the monumental significance of this tome.

I don't agree. Reviews mean f'all. Have you actually read all the
"review" on the later editions of Hawking's "Brief history of time". It
make you want to vomit. Sure, his a very clever dude, but he is
ceratyinly not a god.

As noted above, it was the selfish gene that revolutionised the approach
to evolution as to the body being a mere vehicle for the masters, the
genes and memes.


The handicap principle is not really another principle. Its all
accounted for in the *general* theory of replicators. Its just a
matter of how the final numbers comes out in a detailed analysis.
(see below)

I disagree.

And you would be wrong.

Certainly it the concept doesn't readily 'fall out' of
Darwin's theory.

Not relevant. Dawins theory has been completely superseded by a more
general view, where it all just drops out in the wash. After the fact,
it was the wrong way to approach the problem. Its unfortunate that many
have not realised this.

For example:

All of the content of Einstein's first and major paper on the theory of
special relativity "The Electrodynamics of Moving bodies" was already
known. It is why the fundamental equations are called the "Lorentz
Equations". The issue here was that they were derived based on an
intricate detailed knowledge of the *specifics* of EM theory. What
Einstein was the first to show was that all the details could be thrown
away as being just a trivial *conclusion* from the basic concepts he
identified. That is, all of physics is independent of uniform motion,
and his new axiom, the speed of light is an invariant. No one today
approaches SR from direction of its original discovery. Its simple
irrelevant.

The whole emphases on Darwin is wrong, it is a legacy theory. The
fundamental idea is the Replicator, as such, a "handicap" is just a
specific detail of how some particular Replicators can replicate better.


I can't agree with this. It would appear that you don't understand
the theory. If you did, you could not have possible made the
statements you did about not being selfish. Its not possible. Its
simple math. (see below)

I agree I can appear rather arrogant, but I do not do this for all
issues. Only things I really know about.

Rubbish. You demonstrably know sweet FA about global economics as
demonstrated in our recent exchanges on the subject where you cut and
run like a scalded cat when faced with cogent arguments from someone
(me) with indisputable expertise in the area.

Nonsense. It was just something that I could not be bothered to debate.
I have little interest in economics, other than how much I get paid,
which concerns me greatly.

You're always opening
salvos against people you don't know well enough to take on.

Ahmmm..


No. Dawkins recanted this. Read BW and MM.

This is nonsense. He didn't.

He did. Miller expanded on this aspect, and Dawkins has formally
endorsed Miller's work. Read the book.


If your claiming that Dawkins retracted the basics of Replicators, then
your dreaming. I'll have to see what Miller is specifically addressing.

I have read a few bits and bobs from creationists who claim that Dawkins
recanted on his evolutionary views. It was all crap, as he himself
explained.

[another patronising lecture snipped]


Well, obviously, you could not refute my argument that selfishness is
inherent. As I said, its a tautology. It can't be contradicted.

Do genes and memes replicate traits? Are traits continually being
generated? Are traits selected from? End of story.

Read Miller's work, Kev!

You obviously have not read many of my posts:-)

Well you're obviously not stupid, but you do seem to have an
unwarrantably high opinion of yourself.

Nope. I have a warranted high opinion of myself. I know what my limits
are pretty well. I have never attempted to ski through revolving doors
backward, blindfolded.


and Tony etc acknowledge your greatness, I'll
happily accept it.

Fortunately, I need no confirmation of my abilities.

Obviously not.

Indeed.

Kevin Aylward

http://www.anasoft.co.uk
SuperSpice, a very affordable Mixed-Mode
Windows Simulator with Schematic Capture,
Waveform Display, FFT's and Filter Design.