Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id RAA04568 (8.6.9/5.3[ref email@example.com] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from firstname.lastname@example.org); Mon, 28 Jan 2002 17:43:46 GMT Message-Id: <email@example.com> X-Sender: firstname.lastname@example.org X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1 Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2002 12:41:13 -0500 To: email@example.com From: Keith Henson <firstname.lastname@example.org> Subject: Re: sex and the single meme In-Reply-To: <3C558E23.29072.F2CA1E@localhost> References: <3C55714D.14344.821EB1@localhost> <email@example.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: firstname.lastname@example.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: email@example.com
At 05:45 PM 28/01/02 +0100, <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.
It is way higher than that. 98% with chimps. Heck, we share a good number
of genes with *bacteria.*
But that is not the point. Evolution is working on the differences, not
the common elements. And brothers have half of the differences in common,
or a little more since their Y chromosomes are identical (barring mutation).
Read Dawkins on this point. He explains it clearly.
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 - 17:52:16 GMT