Re: sex and the single meme

Date: Mon Jan 28 2002 - 16:45:07 GMT

  • Next message: Keith Henson: "Origin of Depression"

    Received: by id QAA04457 (8.6.9/5.3[ref] for from; Mon, 28 Jan 2002 16:51:12 GMT
    From: <>
    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: <>
    X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.12c)
    Precedence: bulk

    > 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