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.

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

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

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

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

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.

[another patronising lecture snipped]

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.

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

Fortunately, I need no confirmation of my abilities.

Obviously not.
--

"I believe history will be kind to me, since I intend
to write it." - Winston Churchill

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.

On Sun, 7 Sep 2003 18:52:46 +0100, "Kevin Aylward"
wrote:

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.

I'm not suggesting he held *this* particular loony idea. The example
from Tressel was only that; an example.

No he didn't. Of course, people tighten up or refine their original

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

Indeed. Hence the re-think between the books. They were what? 10 years
apart? People move on and refine their ideas. You should read
Wittgenstein to see how far a man can change his outlook over the
course of his life!

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.

I think you've phrased that rather poorly but I believe I know what
you mean.

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.

Can't agree there. Women are basically genetically obliged to pick the
best mate they can get their hands on, given the limitations imposed
by their own pulling abilities. What they are looking for in every
case is a mate who can give their offspring the best chance of
survival and 'thrival' in this wide, mean world. Interestingly enough,
the qualities the male must display to succeed change according to
different ages (historical ages, not biological) and cultures. At
varying times, men have been favoured because of, for example, they're
exceptionally good fighters. Or unusually good hunters... later in
history, we see female preferences based on wealth and status. But in
countries where for idealogical reasons, all people are 'made to be
equal' like the old Soviet Union or the 'old' China, females must pick
according to other criteria such as a gift for literature, music or
art. They're all programmed to do their best for the unborn child,
even if they don't want children at all or are too old to conceive.

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.

boggle!

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.

I didn't say he was. In fact he admitted to wasting much time working
on 'singularities' with Roger Penrose donkey's years ago.

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.

Let's just put it down to a matter of personal preference, then.

[not particularly relevant Einstein example snipped]

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'm not sure what you're driving at here but I don't like the sound of
it.

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.

LOL! Yeah, whatever. You quit while you were behind. You should have
quit earlier but I think you just about backed out before you
sustained any terminal damage. :-)

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

I'm suggesting no such thing. I'm simply saying that Dawkins softened
his line of selfishness a good measure from the position you wrongly
(now) attribute to him.

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.

Yes I know. The attempts were laughable.

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

Okay, well let's put you this question: if everyone is basically
selfish, why do some people help other people out on newsgroups?
I think I know what your answer will be but I want to see it from you
yourself in black and white. And don't be afraid this time, Kev.
Evolution's not my specialist area. :-)


--

"I believe history will be kind to me, since I intend
to write it." - Winston Churchill

Paul Burridge wrote:
On Sun, 7 Sep 2003 18:52:46 +0100, "Kevin Aylward"
wrote:



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.

Can't agree there. Women are basically genetically obliged to pick the
best mate they can get their hands on, given the limitations imposed
by their own pulling abilities.

By and large, this is not significant. The numbers can be increased by
quality or quantity. A man will have sex pretty much with *any* women,
so long as they're not fat:-). If a women goes up to a man stranger, in
a pub and says, lets go back to my place, its a done deal. There is no
much of a disadvage numbers wise, a man has offspring by every women he
can so he does. On the over hand, a women can not do this. Once she's
pregnant, that's her out of the game for 9 months. The only way she can
get her genes to replicate faster is by choosing better gene stock. This
makes her absolutely choosy.

What they are looking for in every
case is a mate who can give their offspring the best chance of
survival and 'thrival' in this wide, mean world.

I think you have still missed an important point here. Yes, I agree that
there is some truth in this, and this is a pretty obvious analysis, but
it is not that significant. The most important facter is good gene
stock. Its the only factor. She will chose a mate based on what
characteristics the offspring will have. Not what's in her personal best
interest. The body is only a vehicle for the genes. Bodies don't copy
themselves, so cant form a basis for replication, only genes replicate.
If it is the net best interest of the genes, they will sacrifice the
vehicle to enable better success for themselves.

Interestingly enough,
the qualities the male must display to succeed change according to
different ages (historical ages, not biological) and cultures. At
varying times, men have been favoured because of, for example, they're
exceptionally good fighters. Or unusually good hunters... later in
history, we see female preferences based on wealth and status. But in
countries where for idealogical reasons, all people are 'made to be
equal' like the old Soviet Union or the 'old' China, females must pick
according to other criteria such as a gift for literature, music or
art. They're all programmed to do their best for the unborn child,
even if they don't want children at all or are too old to conceive.

But in practice, the single most significant aspect, even today, is
physical appearance. It has to be. Its pretty much universal what is
considered good looking, many studies have been done. Sure, its useful
to have other aspects. A show of wealth, is obviously an indicator that
her offspring may also get this characteristic (ignoring the details of
how for now), but in pracise, you have to be pretty damn weathy if you
want to take Liz Harley to bed.


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.

I didn't say he was. In fact he admitted to wasting much time working
on 'singularities' with Roger Penrose donkey's years ago.

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.

Let's just put it down to a matter of personal preference, then.

[not particularly relevant Einstein example snipped]

Oh?


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'm not sure what you're driving at here but I don't like the sound of
it.


That's because you didn't see the point of the Einstein example. Go back
and read it again to get the *bigger* picture.

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.

LOL! Yeah, whatever. You quit while you were behind. You should have
quit earlier but I think you just about backed out before you
sustained any terminal damage. :-)

Nope. I happen to believe in conservation of energy and momentum. You
views denied this. I look at the bigger picture. I am not familiar with
all the details of economics so I didn't want to get bogged down there.
A general theorem that you cant get blood from a stone doesn't need the
details, but as I said, cant be bothered expanding on it.


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

I'm suggesting no such thing. I'm simply saying that Dawkins softened
his line of selfishness a good measure from the position you wrongly
(now) attribute to him.

If you mean that we might be able to override the gene's "intentions", I
don't know if what he says is really what he believes, or is an attempt
to appease the masses for politically correct reasons.

The problem is, the only way to override a Replicator, is make a better
one. Unfortunately, the ones we have, have millions of years of a head
start. You try not getting a hard on if naked striper sits on your lap.


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.

Yes I know. The attempts were laughable.

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

Okay, well let's put you this question: if everyone is basically
selfish, why do some people help other people out on newsgroups?

I explained this, the 5 team bunch of skinheads verses the single guy,
although there is a number of factors. The fundermental reason is that
the genes expect a payback. Of course, detrimental characteristics are
still being randamly generated, so some of them are fools. Have you been
to the dawin awards site http://www.darwinawards.com/ ?

In *general*, is it good or bad to gain a respected reputation?

Genes don't know when helping is going to be beneficial or not, they
cant think. They don't know the future. Replication is only based on
probabilities. If you help nobody, what's the probability you will get
help back? One has to look at the numbers from game theory. Give various
traits, e.g helpfulness, punishment, slyness, e.g. tit for tat strategy
etc. The final numbers give what strategies are stable, or drive the
group to extinction.

So, people are helpful to others because, statistically, this strategy
results in net benefit to themselves, statisticly.

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.

Kevin Aylward wrote:

I think you have still missed an important point here. Yes, I agree that
there is some truth in this, and this is a pretty obvious analysis, but
it is not that significant. The most important facter is good gene
stock.

Heck, I thought her strategy was to latch on to the
best provider and then during that small period of maximum
fertility sneak out and laid by the biggest baddest stud
available.

Roy McCammon wrote:
Kevin Aylward wrote:

I think you have still missed an important point here. Yes, I agree
that there is some truth in this, and this is a pretty obvious
analysis, but it is not that significant. The most important facter
is good gene stock.

Heck, I thought her strategy was to latch on to the
best provider and then during that small period of maximum
fertility sneak out and laid by the biggest baddest stud
available.

Indeed. This is essentially the way it works.

So, as far as picking up women, one must always act in such a manner as
she would want in her offspring. Walk tall, show no sign of weakness
etc... The best way to pick up a women is to make sure that your with
lots of other women. They want offspring that are similar attractive
with other women. For, men its big bad news if a women is seen with lots
of men. Too much probability that she's having someone's else genes, and
as you say, having some sucker pick upon the rearing tab.

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.

On Tue, 09 Sep 2003 15:18:00 GMT, Roy McCammon
wrote:

Heck, I thought her strategy was to latch on to the
best provider and then during that small period of maximum
fertility sneak out and laid by the biggest baddest stud
available.

I assume your comment is made in jest, but there *are* wimmin out
there who will do this. One case that springs to mind was this poor
sap who lived in Texas (IIRC) who was ostensibly happily married; he
and his "wonderful wife" had been "blessed" with four "beautiful
children" - as invariably happens in America, of course. :-) Anway,
some chance event led to the discovery that one of the kids couldn't
possibly have been this father's. It was thought that was the extent
of the infidelity, but it turned out on further investigation that
*none* of the children were his *and* they all had *different*
fathers! Understandalby the poor ******* was devastated when he
learned this - as indeed where the children; they'd all grown very
close to him and he to they during their lives. Most were in their
teens. Bad time for such revelations. :-(
I'll wager that bitch had some explaining to do! :-
--

"I believe history will be kind to me, since I intend
to write it." - Winston Churchill

Paul Burridge wrote:
On Tue, 09 Sep 2003 15:18:00 GMT, Roy McCammon
wrote:

Heck, I thought her strategy was to latch on to the
best provider and then during that small period of maximum
fertility sneak out and laid by the biggest baddest stud
available.

I assume your comment is made in jest, but there *are* wimmin out
there who will do this.

No its not in jest. There has really been a good deal of real research
done on this. In fact, the was a TV program on it the other day. The
researches get women to rate people based on attractiveness. There are
well studied features that relate facial features and behaviour, for
example "manly" or "caring" characteristics. They show that during the
critical ovulation period, women much prefer the manly faces rather then
the caring faces, and visa versa doing other times.

Of course, women don't generally do this consciously, but it is the way
it is. As I said, whatever strategy results in the best Replicators, is
what we observe.

And to Roy, it occurred to me that you may have misunderstood my comment
on "women selects", I was of course, meaning selects to have sex with,
not as a long term partner.

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.

Paul Burridge wrote:
On Tue, 09 Sep 2003 15:18:00 GMT, Roy McCammon
wrote:

Heck, I thought her strategy was to latch on to the
best provider and then during that small period of maximum
fertility sneak out and laid by the biggest baddest stud
available.

I assume your comment is made in jest, but there *are* wimmin out
there who will do this.

No its not in jest. There has really been a good deal of real research
done on this. In fact, the was a TV program on it the other day. The
researches get women to rate people based on attractiveness. There are
well studied features that relate facial features and behaviour, for
example "manly" or "caring" characteristics. They show that during the
critical ovulation period, women much prefer the manly faces rather then
the caring faces, and visa versa doing other times.

Of course, women don't generally do this consciously, but it is the way
it is. As I said, whatever strategy results in the best Replicators, is
what we observe.

And to Roy, it occurred to me that you may have misunderstood my comment
on "women selects", I was of course, meaning selects to have sex with,
not as a long term partner.

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.

Paul Burridge wrote:
On Tue, 09 Sep 2003 15:18:00 GMT, Roy McCammon
wrote:


Heck, I thought her strategy was to latch on to the
best provider and then during that small period of maximum
fertility sneak out and laid by the biggest baddest stud
available.


I assume your comment is made in jest,

no, I believe that they are pretty much wired that way.