Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id UAA05419 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Sun, 4 Feb 2001 20:47:28 GMT X-Originating-IP: [209.240.221.86] From: "Scott Chase" <ecphoric@hotmail.com> To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk Subject: Re: Evolution of ontogeny Date: Sun, 04 Feb 2001 15:44:49 -0500 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: <F122qi66Y2QTUf65Y5Q0000ed30@hotmail.com> X-OriginalArrivalTime: 04 Feb 2001 20:44:49.0458 (UTC) FILETIME=[510C1920:01C08EEB] Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
>From: Mark Mills <mmills@htcomp.net>
>Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
>To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
>Subject: Evolution of ontogeny
>Date: Sun, 04 Feb 2001 14:05:18 -0600
>
>Getting back to Schlighting's classification scheme for phenotypic
>plasticity factors:
>1.genotype
>2.ontogeny
>3. environment
>
>There seems to be agreement that the 'genotype' evolves (classic definition
>of evolution is 'the change in gene pools'). What about 'ontogeny' and
>'environment'?
>
>Memetics hopes to provide a framework for cultural evolution, so is it fair
>to say most here think the environment evolves?
>
>What about ontogeny (the development cycle)? Does it evolve? The
>neural-meme may be an ontogenetic feature or developmental structure. Do
>these evolve?
>
The late 19th century incarnations of the relationship between ontogeny and
phylogeny were usually influenced by the German Darwinian hyperzealot Ernst
Haeckel and his slogan that "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny" which in a
nutshell means that in their development organisms literally proceed through
stages pretty close to their adult ancestors. One could think of humans
starting a protozoans then becoming spongelike or worm-like then somewhere
along the line becoming fish-like and so on until reaching human-hood.
Related to Haeckel's notion paralleling ontogeny and phylogeny is a causal
statement that phylogeny causes ontogeny.
I think it was Walter Garstang who was noted for turning Haeckel's dictum on
its ear and saying the opposite that ontogeny causes phylogeny or that
ontogeny creates phylogeny. Garstang was interested in phenomena that didn't
reek of recapitulation (ie- neoteny and paedomorphosis).
One could confine a definition of evolution to organisms that develop
(ie-exhibit an ontogeny-metazoans and possibly metaphytes) by saying that
evolution is based on heritable changes in development, which isn't too far
from what you're talking about above. This would be indirectly related to
evolution's definition of being changes in allelic frequencies within a gene
pool or population. I have tended to prefer an epigenetic view myself, not
quite one of those "beads on a string" or "bean bag genetics" thingies.
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
===============================================================
This was distributed via the memetics list associated with the
Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission
For information about the journal and the list (e.g. unsubscribing)
see: http://www.cpm.mmu.ac.uk/jom-emit
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sun Feb 04 2001 - 20:49:22 GMT