From: Berrie Staring (staring@worldonline.nl)
Date: Wed Dec 17 1997 - 14:04:44 MST
(sorry for the horrible spelling)
Anders wrote:
>
> I'm not sure, but I don't see any big benefit from the selfish genes
> perspective with hermaphrodites; the child is still a mixture of the
> parent genomes. But I think I'm missing something obvious here...
>
Maybe I should explain it better. If I understand the global
vision of the book right. By natural selection and thanks
to some copy misstakes of the genes (evolution:-) the one's
best equiped stay and the one's who don't go.
But, at some point in the history of this evolution some
genes split....and could only "build" a new copy when
they came back together again (ok a bit alterd).
If I see this right there was a point that "they" both were not
able to evolve alone and had (to evolve all sort of things) to get
back together again. In this period "they" could have been
wiped out.............what am I missing here.........
IMHO it was very tricky to give away the oppertunity to
spread alone!? Of course I accept the "luck" or "random"
factor in this story. But maybe some of you would like
to share their "why" opinions.
Greetings,
Berrie
=====================================
Berrie Staring Email : staring@worldonline.nl
Co-founder: Transcedo Dutch >H
Site: www.dse.nl/~transed/
" So you own the seed. It will not become
a Bonsai, unless you let it grow and cut wise"
=====================================
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 14:45:14 MST