This site is not maintained. Click here for the new website of Richard Dawkins.


← The Descent of Edward Wilson (with Polish translation)

kriton's Avatar Jump to comment 17 by kriton

Jos Gibbons, of course you do what? Do you mean that all characteristics must be copied? But what has such an overly stringent definition to do with evolution?

Obviously a bacteria doesn't copy itself molecule for molecule. But so what? It can still make a genetically identical copy of itself, and that is what should matter. I'm not exactly the same individual I was a year ago if we look at all characteristics, and molecule for molecule, but how is that relevant for evolution?

I don't really understand what you are saying about r, but it does not seem to answer my request for empirical evidence for the 1/2 and 1/4 numbers.

It seems to me that it's only "the conditional probability that the recipient of altruism contains an altruism-causing gene given that the altruist does", if the altruist is the only source of that gene. But I just pointed out that in real life we have no reason to assume that the altruist is the only source.

So when a successful gene spreads through the population, the 1/2 and 1/4 stuff should no longer be relevant. It only holds for a newly introduced gene, right ...?

Thu, 24 May 2012 21:54:30 UTC | #943361