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