Why men exist

[Kuznetzova]

Frankly, I don't see why the male species' existence is being questioned. Why do we all exist?
In the end, you know life will be dull without us around

The question as to why men exist is equivalent to asking why "males" exist in nature on earth. Why would this process of evolution favor populations wherein half of the constituents can't reproduce copies of themselves? The question is a burning one. The answer will be assuredly counter-intuitive. I believe Evolutionary Genetics provides the answer.

[chaz wyman]

chaz wyman --

I asked you a clear, relevant, pointed, unambiguous question: Why do fungus engage in heterothallic reproduction?

You refused to answer this question.

I asked you a clear, relevant, and unambiguous question directly: Have you ever read The Selfish Gene, a book by Richard Dawkins?

You refused to answer this question.

There is no answer to your teleological question.
I've read all of Dawkins works.

[Kayla]

If you are going to tear my posts apart like some gradeschool teacher correcting spelling and grammar, you will need to be awake enough to read and understand what I actually wrote. Given the short length of your replies, and their speed of turn around, I am going to assume you are either drunk on beer, high on something, or you are not getting enough sleep. Your replies are devolving into short "nuh-uh!" quips. Your posts do not contain reasoned arguments nor references to modern literature in evolutionary biology.

go easy on chaz

he is a substitute gym teacher

i think he is doing his best

[chaz wyman]

If you are going to tear my posts apart like some gradeschool teacher correcting spelling and grammar, you will need to be awake enough to read and understand what I actually wrote. Given the short length of your replies, and their speed of turn around, I am going to assume you are either drunk on beer, high on something, or you are not getting enough sleep. Your replies are devolving into short "nuh-uh!" quips. Your posts do not contain reasoned arguments nor references to modern literature in evolutionary biology.

go easy on chaz

he is a substitute gym teacher

i think he is doing his best

That is the most pathetic thing I've read on this forum in a long while.
I can hardly believe that you have crawled out from under your rock to break your recent silence to offer that piece of vitriolic nonsense.
Why not get back under your rock?

[Kuznetzova]

go easy on chaz

he is a substitute gym teacher

i think he is doing his best

Well we know he did some engineering work for the Navy.
They had him on tactical missiles launched from underwater.

[chaz wyman]

go easy on chaz

he is a substitute gym teacher

i think he is doing his best

Well we know he did some engineering work for the Navy.
They had him on tactical missiles launched from underwater.

Your knowledge is bad enough without making up shit.

I feel an unsubscribe coming on....

PLONK

[Kuznetzova]

[
There is no answer to your teleological question.

Except I have completely described answers to them in terms of Evolutionary Genetics. Recombination (a genetic process) is the key reason for the evolution of sex.

I've read all of Dawkins works.

Well then you should be very familiar with Dawkin's concept of Fidelity.

Secondarily, when I say things like "Evolution favors such-and-such" you should know very clearly that what I'm actually telling you is that the statistical and mathematical properties of the process itself will trend towards "such-and-such" over long spans of time. You should understand that very clearly, instead of covering your ears and yelling "Teleology!" at me, like some bratty child.

What we know from simulations shows us that artificial organisms will trend their genotypes towards shorter and simpler "snippets" of code throughout the lifetime of a simulation. They do this even when endowed with powerful mechanisms. Powerful mechanisms include capacities for communication, memory, and conditional actions. They discard those mechanisms and instead evolve "zombies". (Dan Dennett gave a lecture on this). Why? When one first encounters evolution and natural selection as a young person, one is almost invariably going to interpret it to mean a process which trends towards, bigger, faster, stronger, smarter. Except what you actually see in simulation is a statistical trend towards organisms whose genotype is IMPERVIOUS TO MUTATION.

Genotypes that are impervious to mutation are trending towards genotypes who can make identical cloned copies.

Okay so what? Well this is completely consistent (indeed representative of) what Richard Dawkins called a tendency of evolution towards Fidelity. Evolution is not concerned with bigger, faster, stronger, smarter. On the contrary-- evolution is first and foremost concerned with organisms who genotypes can be replicated with high Fidelity.

Mr. chaz wyman, when I said to you that every simulation, if allowed to, will evolve the mutation rate to 0.0 in all organisms. You should have not been surprised by this answer. If you have actually read Richard Dawkin's books (which you claim you have) you immediately should have recognized this as a tendency and strong trend towards Fidelity. If given the chance, natural selection will always favor situations in which the genes are replicated exactly, or more exactly, than situations in which they are constantly mutated.

[Kuznetzova]

Your knowledge is bad enough without making up shit.

I feel an unsubscribe coming on....

PLONK

Which one of these people is the Aviation Anti-Submarine Warfare Operator?