Re: sex and the single meme

From: Keith Henson (
Date: Mon Jan 28 2002 - 17:41:13 GMT

  • Next message: Scott Chase: "Re: Rogue Males by Lionel Tiger"

    Received: by id RAA04568 (8.6.9/5.3[ref] for from; Mon, 28 Jan 2002 17:43:46 GMT
    Message-Id: <>
    X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.1
    Date: Mon, 28 Jan 2002 12:41:13 -0500
    From: Keith Henson <>
    Subject: Re: sex and the single meme
    In-Reply-To: <3C558E23.29072.F2CA1E@localhost>
    References: <3C55714D.14344.821EB1@localhost> <>
    Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
    Precedence: bulk

    At 05:45 PM 28/01/02 +0100, <>

    > > 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.

    Keith Henson

    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