Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id QAA04457 (8.6.9/5.3[ref firstname.lastname@example.org] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from email@example.com); Mon, 28 Jan 2002 16:51:12 GMT From: <firstname.lastname@example.org> To: email@example.com Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2002 17:45:07 +0100 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: sex and the single meme Message-ID: <3C558E23.29072.F2CA1E@localhost> In-reply-to: <3C55714D.14344.821EB1@localhost> References: <firstname.lastname@example.org> X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.12c) Sender: email@example.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: firstname.lastname@example.org
> On 27 Jan 2002, at 12:45, Keith Henson wrote:
> > It is actually remarkable simple. As Hamilton said one time, he should be
> > willing to die if it would save more than 2 brothers or more than 8
> > cousins. If you understand that a brother carries half your genes and a
> > cousin one eighth of your genes it is obvious math to see that genes
> > favoring this level of sacrifice would be favored over the long term.
Btw, this logic is wrong.
A brother doesn't share half of the genes i'd say it goes more in the
direction of 90% if not more.
Why is this so?
Well the mother has eyes like the father has eyes, they also both
have legs, arms, hair, hands, hearts, blood etc...
Parents for themselves share a lot of genes, therefore children
share a lot more than the percentages mentioned above.
That's why there's also a high percentage of genes shared by
humans in a culture. If not the probability for ANY gene to survive
throughout generations would go close zero.
This was distributed via the memetics list associated with the
Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission
For information about the journal and the list (e.g. unsubscribing)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Jan 28 2002 - 17:16:07 GMT