RE: Evolution of ontogeny

From: Lawrence DeBivort (debivort@umd5.umd.edu)
Date: Mon Feb 05 2001 - 19:05:59 GMT

  • Next message: Robin Faichney: "Re: Darwinian evolution vs memetic evolution" 

    Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id TAA09617 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Mon, 5 Feb 2001 19:53:48 GMT
From: "Lawrence DeBivort" <debivort@umd5.umd.edu>
To: <memetics@mmu.ac.uk>
Subject: RE: Evolution of ontogeny
Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2001 14:05:59 -0500
Message-ID: <NEBBKOADILIOKGDJLPMAGEJNCAAA.debivort@umd5.umd.edu>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Priority: 3 (Normal)
X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook IMO, Build 9.0.2416 (9.0.2910.0)
In-Reply-To: <20010205133539.AAA25125@camailp.harvard.edu@[128.103.125.215]>
X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2615.200
Importance: Normal
Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk

    Thanks.
    Yes, 50,000 years may be too little to see biological evolution -- but we do
    know that homo sapiens evolved from earlier forms of homo. Are you
    suggesting that that process has stopped, or simply that the last 50,000
    years don't reveal biological evolution?

    I can think of a lot of changes that have happened socially in the last
    50,000 years that I would call markers of social evolution: sedentarization
    and farming, empire, distance communication, technological 'symbiosis', etc.
    I am of course not suggesting that all of these are wholly 'good' -- only
    that they are of evolutionary consequence, and certainly that they are
    irreversible.

    - Lawrence

    -----Original Message-----
    From: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk [mailto:fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk]On Behalf
    Of Wade T.Smith
    Sent: Monday, February 05, 2001 8:37 AM
    To: memetics list
    Subject: RE: Evolution of ontogeny

    On 02/04/01 21:13, Lawrence DeBivort said this-

    >And we have had no evidence so far that the human being has evolved over
    >the last 50 or so millennia....
    >
    >But lots and lots of history to mandate that we haven't.
    >
    >LdB:
    >Can you say more about what you mean here? Thanks

    The physical being that is the human ain't changed, to my knowledge,
    sparse as it is. And the historical record would indicate that behaviors
    and societies haven't changed, either.

    _Do_ we have any evidence that homo sapiens sapiens has evolved over the
    last 50 millennia?

    - Wade

    ===============================================================
    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 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 : Mon Feb 05 2001 - 19:55:44 GMT