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