On Mon, 26 Jan 2004 18:05:57 +0000 (UTC), 
Kevin Aylward  wrote:
> Larry Moran wrote:

[snip]

>> I admit to a failing. I have failed to understand what you're talking
>> about. Not only that, I appear to be so unskilled that I've even
>> failed to see any connection between your gibberish and real
>> evolutionary theory.
> 
> 1 The most trivial fact of Darwinian evolution is that traits that are
> observed are the most popular triats, i.e. ones that are maximised. 

Characteristics observed in modern populations are either fixed or are
in the process or becoming fixed or eliminated. (There are a few 
exceptions.)

> It is a consequence of
> 
> Population = (fitness)^(number of generations)

Alleles can become fixed, or eliminated, by random genetic drift. Those
that are beneficial are subject to natural selection. There are well-known
equations relating population size, fitness, and the probability of 
fixation. None of them resemble the equation you show.

> To not understand this shows you are indeed clueless about 101
> evolution.

Count me clueless.

> 2 A second  trivial fact of Darwinian evolution is that traits are
> selfish. Therefore traits effectively "take action" to maximise
> themselves.

Alleles are not selfish. Not all alleles will "maximize" themselves
even if they are beneficial. Evolution is about probabilities.

> For the 3rd time, since traits that are already popular are a good bet
> to be ones that maximise its Replicators (human) numbers, other traits
> will attempt to preferentially copy such already maximised traits since
> they maximise themselves best by mutual co-operation. The most popular
> traits are those traits around the mean of a distribution, so that's the
> ones that will get preferentially copied, selected for. That is, the
> average sizes in a population of faces, will be the one that are judged
> better looking and therefore chosen as faces to mate with.

Whatever. I must have missed this part in Evolution 101.

> This is so simple its unreal. I just don't know what you are having
> trouble with. We simply, judge what are the average facial sizes
> (therefore the most maximised sizes) of the population, and try and copy
> them into our offspring.

New genetic features arise by mutation. If they are beneficial they will
start out at a very low frequency and their frequency will have a certain
probability of increasing over time. In the absence of mutation all alleles
will be eliminated except one and the population will become homogeneous.
The only exception is balanced selection and that's very rare. You can not
simply asssume that the presence of a common allele in a population is
due to selection.

>>I'm sure this must be my fault.
> 
> Indeed it is.

I understand that you believe this.

>> I won't bother
>> you again since it's unlikely that I will ever be able to understand
>> your simple ideas.
> 
> Or any other ideas either. It reality, they are not my ideas. They are
> the immediate and trivial consequence of applying elementary evolution
> theory. Your inability to understand this trivial application, that is
> indeed understood by anyone who actually knows the most basics of 101
> evolution, indicate that you should keep any comments you make about
> evolution to yourself. You simple do not have the knowledge to debate
> the issue.
> 
> http://www.anasoft.co.uk/replicators/index.html

Your "theory" is based on two false assumptions and a naive belief.

The two false assumptions are ...

  1. the fallacy of adaptionism
  2. that "memes" (whatever they are) play a role in biological evolution

The naive belief is that everything that Richard Dawkins says is true.

I really don't see any point in continuing this discussion since you
have such a low opinion of my ability to understand evolution.



 
Larry Moran
---
þ RIMEGate(tm)/RGXPost V1.14 at BBSWORLD * Info{at}bbsworld.com

---
 * RIMEGate(tm)V10.2áÿ* RelayNet(tm) NNTP Gateway * MoonDog BBS
 * RgateImp.MoonDog.BBS at 1/27/04 6:22:18 AM