adriaanb

I would assume that the sexual reproduction we see around us developed well below of the the gene swapping you are talking about. There would be a stage of the replicator separating its original code from the building of its own body, which would keep the original code isolated from mutations throughout the life of the organism. Then it could replicate from the original code. It is a small step to then replicate not from your own original code but from that of another organism in the same species. So the gene orgy you are talking about would be followed by organisms sticking to their own code and then followed by swapping within the species. That is the kind of sexual reproduction I am talking about.

Life is best understood as the replicator 'sliding down the hill of replication errors'. Every mutation that manages to crowd out the original or split off makes a drop downhill. Uphill we find the least-mutated life forms still alive today. Towards the bottom of the hill we find the most-mutated forms still alive today. (See diagram below) Nothing that happens downhill can serve as an explanation for anything uphill, because faulty replication is not a process that can look ahead in any way. Downhill, replication generally becomes more energy intensive and the replicator becomes more vulnerable to external disturbances due to the specialisation on specific energy sources. This vulnerability causes most life forms to die out as they slip further downhill. Sexual reproduction. A mutation to a replicator stumbles upon sexual reproduction. Now mutations that survive without fixating are allowed to build up among the sexually reproducing organisms. Sexual reproduction changes the single gene line into a gene pool of genetic diversity available to the replicator. The introduction of a genepool causes two important changes to life: 1. A replicator building its organisms from a gene pool gets an extra lease of life because it gains a resistance against external disturbances. It can adapt within the gene pool without further mutations (like the peppered moth) keeping the replicator alive for longer. The genetic diversity within the genepool acts as a buffer against external disturbances allowing the replicator code to stay alive through genetic recombination. 2. The sexually reproducing replicator becomes more vulnerable to mutations, causing increased complexity and speciation. A mutated gene can recombine in many more ways than before. This increases the chance of finding a combination that is capable of crowding out the original or splitting off, causing it to drop down the hill. But these two effects can not be the cause of sex appearing in evolution. They occur downhill from where sexual reproduction first occurs, after the build-up of a gene pool by further mutations. The cause of sexual reproduction is the increased energy efficiency offered by building in an error check in the replication process, allowing the mutated replicator code to crowd out its original. Sexual reproduction prevents the replicator from wasting energy on building faulty organisms that won't make it to replication (see blog). This lets the sexually replicating version achieve a higher growth rate on the available resources, crowding out the original. Cause and effect of sexual reproduction. This clear distinction between horizontal 'adaptation within the genepool' and vertical 'mutation downhill' can explain the cause and effects of sexual reproduction. The abundance of sexually reproducing life in today's world is due to the buffer a genepool provides against external disturbances and the increased vulnerability of the replicator to mutations that can take over or split off. Sexually reproducing life is caused by a mutation introducing an error check in replication which allowed it to crowd out the original. Present theories on evolution lead to confusion because they clump together adaptation within the genepool and mutation 'downhill' into a general mechanism called evolution. To understand the cause and effect of sexual reproduction, these two aspects of life need to be clearly separated, like the model of the 'hill of replication errors' does. Adaptation within the genepool is a largely reversible, almost directed process. Life is bound to find the 'best' genetic combination, given enough time for genetic recombination. Adaptation is about organisms within one species outperforming each other. Adaptation can occur without changing the potentially available code to the replicator. Adaptation can be seen as the replicator moving horizontally on the hill. Mutation downhill is a non-reversible, pure chance process. Due to its path dependent chaotic nature it is very hard to predict where it will go. Mutation is about permanent changes in the code available to the replicator, these are changes that affect the species in general. Mutations can open up long avenues of adaptation that life can take at great speed. This could give rise to 'sudden' large changes in a species phenotype. Mutations can be seen as the replicator slipping down the hill. Please have a look at my blog for a more complete explanation (work in progress) and the DIAGRAM if it doesn't show up correctly here. Adriaan Life sliding down the slope of replication errors. Adapting within the genepool. Mutating downhill.

Darwin's theory of evolution provides an elegant explanation for the diversity of life we see around us. The genes that code for every living organism sometimes encounter a mutation that proves viable and creates a slightly changed living organism. The accumulation of mutations and occasional speciation causes organisms to evolve and diverge in time, and this creates the great complexity and variety of life we see around us. But gene mutations are rare events compared to the lifespan of a single organism. Genes use very effective mechanisms to prevent and correct errors in the copying of the genome. Life seems to get on just fine in the time it spends in between mutations. So while the theory of the evolution of life may explain the great diversity of life, it does not explain life itself. The theory of the evolution of life relies on the mutations of the gene. A theory of life should rely only on the gene, and this is a crucial difference. ... Work in progress. I will put the rest here later. Just trying to hear some initial reactions. Hamilton's rule tries to explain phenomena in life with the mechanism of evolution, which is a mistake. Please read the full story here: ADRIAAN

Social emotions like shame, pride, envy and respect help us overcome the prisoner dilemmas we encounter in group living. We are all equipped with these emotions that can steer our behaviour. But social rules can differ enormously over time and from group to group. We can function just fine under any set of rules, as long as we are in tune with the rest of the group. So we can't be taken advantage of and we don't make costly social errors. This means we have to constantly calibrate our social sensitivities to those of the group. Evolution has selected for a liking of listening to social narratives, because in a stone-age setting they would expose us to the vocal reactions of approval and disapproval of the people around us. The laughter or anger we hear makes us aware of the social boundaries and influences how we think ourselves, we mirror the emotions we feel around us. Because when it comes to social morals, it doesn't pay to be different. So with much of storytelling, it isn't about the story, it is all about the vocal reactions of the group. They get us in tune with the group and the group in tune with us. But then we automated the 'storyteller in middle of the group', with a TV set that we often watch on our own. People can watch almost the same storyline in drama and comedy again and again, it is their social brain that makes them do it. But without the vocal reactions of our group, much of it is has become a waste of time. The brain never anticipated being fooled by electronics. You see why watching comedy without the studio laughter is so difficult. We actually get the message that what we are seeing shouldn't be deemed funny because nobody else is laughing. To read more about this: ADRIAANB See my other posts for some more ideas, i would love to hear if they make sense to anyone.

I guess the term gossip covers more than I mean to say. The instinct for a gatherer is to signal you have the social information network that makes you the right person to trust with your 'secrets'. That is what gets you food because you look like you will be able to return the favour. Just like status information among men, it isn't about the quantity of information but the quality. You know when some guy just happens to mention he got a raise of a bigger company car. It can be just a remark among a lot of chitchat. But it is one remark that may put pressure on others. Make them feel like they are falling behind. Signals have to be a bit subtle. Like a status concious guy may 'feel' a remark about status, so does a female feel it when she finds out she was the last to hear something..

Only problem is you make it look like I said somewhere that people don't give money in today's world.. I never said that. All I said was that I think it is very unlikely that in a stone age world everyone shares whatever they find to eat. This is a world where everyone is on their toes about getting enough food to secure their children's future. And you come with 'facts' that should prove the opposite out of a world where one person can earn a million times more than a less fortunate one. That is what I mean with 'anthropological' arguments. You can find 'facts' to support life on the other side of the moon if you want to. There is no direct evidence about the idea of a gatherer needing to look 'up to date' other than plain and simple logic. Proving it is a next step..

How selfish genes can develop basic altruism is pretty easy to see. You help yourself and your kin because there is a direct benefit to your genes. You help 'friends' because there is an insurance element, they can help you when you need it. You 'help' strangers when there is a direct trade. The kind of altruism where you see people giving money away to someone who will never be able to return the favour looks odd in the present environment. But when looked at in the stone age environment the likelihood that it would go unnoticed is very small. You know everyone and everyone knows you. The memory will stick somewhere and may gain you trust, make you look like you have more than you need etc. You can evolve to like giving resources to someone needy without any of the selfish reasoning above. But the selfish effects make it possible for the behaviour to last. And you shouldn't make too much of people 'giving a dollar to a beggar'. That beggar wouldn't survive if it wasn't for the large number of people passing by. Try giving a day's pay, that isn't that common at all. (Oh, and I am sure some extensive reasoning can override your basic instinct.. But it isn't a decision you take like in a reflex)

Everybody shares with everybody.. except you, except me, and just about everyone else. It just isn't true. You can use some exotic anthropological research as an argument for and against anything. If you take all the things you can find in anthropological research there is very little one sided direction about anything. If you want to know how the Kikuyu or the Yoruba do it, ask an anthropologist. If you want to know how humans in general may have done it, you are better off taken the present as a basis.

These anthropological type of explanations where everybody shares with everybody can mean only one thing. That anthropologists are nicer people than average, assuming other people to be nice too. People don't share with people who are not already friends or relatives without something in return in today's world. That doesn't mean they will let you starve, but you don't get a free lunch now and you didn't then. Or at least you shouldn't assume that just to make an argument work. You should assume they think much like we think because we share 100.00% dna. Don't forget there is food, and then there is food. You can be getting the laboriously harvested vegetables that don't taste well and aren't very nutritious. Or you can be eating the nice ripe fruits you got because your friend got it from a friend who got it from a friend.. etc. Your kids will grow better because they are fed better. Without a supermarket, food is your prime worry throughout your life. Females feeling insecure, perfecting their life, male fuzzy impulses, you would never accept an explanation like that when you were talking about dolphins or dogs or chimps. You shouldn't accept it with humans, and you don't need to. Gathering is information intensive. You need to be told by your friends where you can get your food or you need to get it from your friends. So as a female you need to be in with the 'popular' females. That is what helps feed your children. The mating game is a pretty separate worry.

There are still plenty of primitive peoples around where the women walk in small groups for many hours through dangerous territory to get water or food. Yes, it may be dangerous, but feeding your children is also very important. What would be optimal. Walking around with all women wouldn't be very smart. You will find much less. Walking alone all the time may be dangerous. The optimum will be somewhere in between. Which means many women will have to hear about a limited find from others. Which means a good social network matters. And signalling that you have a good social network matters because that is what gets others to let you in on their information.

Maybe you wouldn't forage on your own all the time, but you sure don't walk with everyone either. And I think you are exaggerating the danger of wandering through an area you know very well. If there are lions about, who you gonna call? You get your bravest friends to throw stones at them to get rid of them. Yes, clothes can make you look good to the other sex and that is very important. But looking up to date matters too. Gossip and a large part of fashion is about signalling that between women. Men just don't care or know about the latest trend in handbags or shoes, women do (stereotyping alert!). Those are multibillion dollar industries you can't assume are just a waste of effort or some 'subconcious expression' that defies logic. We are talking about the survival of genes here, small consistent differences in individual survival rates are enough. Looking up to date helped the gatherer.

You have to try to separate the myriad of signals something as simple as clothing can carry. Wealth, availability, trendiness, group affiliation, authority, religion, etc. So signals can combine. But looking trendy is a signal that comes across to many other women for sure. Go to your news stand and look at the information people are willing to pay for. Fashion and gossip dominate the female section, not the male section. That is not to say all women are interested in it or that they are not interested in other things or that men are not interested in fashion etc. But for a gatherer, showing that you know about the latest is not a waste of time at all. You didn't evolve to waste time, they are 'loves' that help feed you. And don't fall into the trap of psychology. They have been focussing on trying to explain the abnormal. Without having a clue what it is that makes you normal. It's the wrong perspective. Much like trying to explain the movements of the planets in the sky from the viewpoint of the earth. It is possible and it was done, but it is way to complicated. Once you change to the correct model things become simple, like Galileo showed in astronomy. To explain behaviours in the present world, saying that someone loves doing it or hates doing it is a good enough explanation. But then you have to go back to the environment where we evolved to understand why that love or hate could evolve. A girl putting on the latest pants may feel great looking at herself in the mirror. And maybe she loves chatting to a girlfriend on the phone for hours about everything and everyone. You know why that love could evolve. You can assume that women hunted and men gathered too. So they will share plenty of the motivations typical to a hunter or a gatherer (see my post on sports and career). But in general, gathering fits women better, hunting fits men better. 10.000 years is very little for evolution to make big changes in an organisms plan. The enormous progress you see around you is due to people combining brain power ever more efficiently. 'Parallel processing through a language interface', you now benefit from the thoughts of people before and around you. But that doesn't mean the hardware of the individual brain changed. We use a big educated brain to follow our ancient motivations, and maybe sometimes that goes wrong, see my other post.

You are assuming the ancient world is all different from today's world. The progress over the past few thousand years is due to the brain's 'parallel processing' with other brains. You can benefit from the thoughts of the people around you and before you through writing, bookprinting and now internet. It isn't due to much change in our brain, in terms of hardware. So talking about alpha male and things like that when you are talking about humans is nonsense now, and it most likely would be nonsense then. Female choice through hidden ovulation makes it impossible to control all the female mating opportunities. You have to be suspicious when your explanation hinges on assumptions that don't hold true in today's world. The biggest rugby player can't just walk up to another guy and expect to get his girl. That wouldn't work now, that most likely wouldn't work then. Clothes can signal you belong to a certain group, and they can make you look better by hiding other signals like being hopelessly unfit. But there is a separate interest in 'looking up to date'. Clothes as a signal to look up to date would not have been possible before the introduction of easily changeable mass produced clothes. But it is a very efficient signal now, it shows all the time. (Like cars wouldn't be a status symbol between men before 1900.) Gossip does the same thing. There can be value in knowing someone can't be trusted. But there is a separate interest to the gatherer in being first in spreading the news. That makes you look good in terms of your information network. When I talk about fashion I mean the change in trends for the sake of changing trend. Colour, dress lengths, fabrics, etc. Or trends in the latest handbag and shoes, whether cheap or expensive. Few guys notice that, even less care. So it can't be about mating. It is a signal between females meant to sort the ones in the know from the ones out of it. Fashion has to start somewhere so there is definitely a vacancy for a famous designer, or a celebrity. The common denominator starting what everyone can know about sooner or later. It is a leap, but only because present ideas are so far off the mark. Gathering food is information intensive, it follows from that.

Dutchman talking to a boerseun..

Do women nowadays go shopping in troops? They go alone or with two or three. I wouldn't assume that to be different then, no matter what the other great apes are doing. They hang in trees, we don't. We walked the edges of the savannah. The successful gatherer would not give the information away for free, that is the point. But when she has found more than she needs, she has to make the most of what she left at the site. There is still a tree with fruits that will be gone before she managed to finish what she took for her own family. To make the most of that, you give the information to the person most likely to be able to return the favour to you. So you can trade the information for another meal in the future. Looking like you would be 'up to date' with the latest finds is important when you make your living from gathering, it gets other gatherers to trust their finds with you. Gossip and following fashion trends make you look up to date nowadays. A gatherer just loves it. And that is a good enough explanation for the behaviour in the present world. To understand why a gatherer would evolve that love, you need to go back to the environment where it evolved..

geen probleem..

well, you could reply with saying you disagree.. for example. And I will try to respond..

Why do men care more about sports and career then women? Sure women care too, but for many men it seems they can't live without it. Why do so many men watch and compete in sporting games every day? Why do they pursue earning money long after they have satified every basic need? I believe the reason lies in the requirements made by our ancient environment. We lived in small groups on the African savannah. Where women made a living from gathering fruits and vegetables. And where men brought in the meat through hunting. Of course there would have been women hunting and men gathering, but the general division between occupations is clear. Hunting is a team effort. Whether you drive small animals to your fellow hunters or you track and stone larger ones, you are better of with a few others. But you don't want to bring anyone along that can't pull his weight. Nobody wants to share the meat and glory with a slacker. This means a man needs to earn his place on the best hunting party out there. That is what guarantees him and his family the most frequent supply of meat. How do you get to go with the best team? Every playful contest you can do with other men in the group can serve to impress. Depending on the intended catch, there may be a place for a good runner, an experienced tracker, a expert thrower or a really strong guy. The team nature and the skill diversity of hunting is the reason why men are so eager to compete in any game whenever they can. And why it is so much about impressing other men. It is the other men that decide who comes along with them and who doesn't. And when other men of your team compete, you better support them. When they win, the best young ones will want to be out on the hunt with you. Competing in games against neighbouring groups may be a good pasttime. But the population density throughout evolution has been too low to consider that the reason behind playing games as much as males do. Of course women better take notice who ends up bringing in the meat, but they care about many more attributes. It is your male brains that pushes you to accept any challenge. Playing games to show your ability lets everyone know where you can be useful in the hunt. Once your deserved place is secure, you can relax and the displays become few and far between. In modern times, besides sports, making money is the prominent game for most men. It shows their ranking in ability. But because of the increased group size the game has become without end. The status game that once showed how useful you could be to others in the hunt, is incompatible with our large group size. There is always someone closely behind and above you. And even though our social circle isn't bigger than it used to be, it has become much more homogeneous. The schooling system, the housing arrangements and our work floor have sorted us along the lines of our abilities. In response to the close competition, your brain tells you to step it up one more time and put in more effort displaying your strengths, or risk losing the precious meat you need for your family to survive. In the modern world, males have become stuck in their display behaviour, exhausting themselves and their environment. *** GRATUITOUS BLOG PLUG REMOVED ***

Why do women find it more important than men to be in on the latest fashion trends? It couldn't be just to look nice for the opposite sex, because most men hardly notice it. I believe the reason lies in our evolutionary background. We evolved as hunter-gatherers. With men mostly hunting, and women mostly gathering. Hunting requires plenty of skill, obviously. Compared to hunting, gathering seems a pretty simple task. What I want to show is that the occupation of gathering wild fruits and vegetables is far from simple. It is a highly information intensive occupation. A tree full of fruits is a temporary store of valuables you encounter by chance. The female that finds it comes home with enough fruits for her family, and one important bit of information. Where others can find wat she has. Who should she share that information with? In her best interest, she should share it with someone who will return the favour another day. So she can go and get fruits and vegetables and feed her family another time. The best person to share that with is the one that always seems to be in on the latest finds. She is the most likely to be able to let you in on the next bargain to be had. This is why it is important as a woman to always show you are in on the latest finds. It will get others to share the information on their finds with you, which in the end is what gets you that regular stream of fruits and vegetables you and your children need. Gossip has always been a good way to show off the quality of your information network. Fashion is a present-day signal between women intended to sort the ones in the know, from the ones out of it. Of course, fashion wouldn't have been an efficient signal before the introduction of easily changeable, mass produced clothing. But is is now. And clothing and gossip have more uses, but there is a seperate interest to the gatherer mind to signal being up to date. Female status is geared towards showing you are close to the information through signals like fashion and gossip, because gathering is all about getting the information in time. Women still dedicate a lot of effort to keeping up with the latest finds, because once it really was a matter of life and death. *** GRATUITOUS BLOG PLUG REMOVED ***

Out to post some ideas here, and maybe get some people to look at my blog, adriaanb at blogspot. Thanks.