jean-claude,

> It doesn't mean either survival of the meanest like you seem to suggest
> specially when we know how cooperation inside a tribe and between tribes are
> at  the basis of the survival of the  human species.

I think you are probably correct about this but your argument only serves to
support my previously stated opinion that our paleo ancestors were probably
violent brutes.

My reasoning: if meanness is genetically transferred and if it is
counterproductive to the survival of the species as you say, then either the
species that harbors these meanness genes should become extinct or else the
trait itself should become less prevalent in successive generations. We know
humankind is flourishing and we know also that meanness has not yet been
eradicated from the species. We can then extrapolate from the present to the
past and predict that the genes associated with meanness would have been
more prevalent in paleolithic times than in the present.

In other words if your theory is correct and if the theory of evolution is
valid with respect to character traits, then Cro-Magnons and Neandertals
were mean and uncooperative and anti-social by today's standards.

The well-known caricature of the caveman knocking a woman over the head with
a club and dragging her into a cave for purposes of rape may not be too
terribly far from the mark. Ghengis Kahn was probably a refined modern-day
gentleman in comparison to some of our remote paleolithic ancestors.

Of course this is not to say that Cro-Magnon eating habits were bad or not
worthy of copying. We have inherited their diet and metabolism related genes
as well and we should not ignore their presence in our bodies. I just
wouldn't want to invite one of those big hairy guys to my home for dinner,
and I would probably protest loudly if my sister wanted to marry one. :)

-gts