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.