Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id UAA09878 (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 20:51:12 GMT Subject: RE: Evolution of ontogeny Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2001 15:47:55 -0500 x-sender: wsmith1@camail2.harvard.edu x-mailer: Claris Emailer 2.0v3, Claritas Est Veritas From: "Wade T.Smith" <wade_smith@harvard.edu> To: "memetics list" <memetics@mmu.ac.uk> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Message-ID: <20010205204649.AAA21171@camailp.harvard.edu@[128.103.125.215]> Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
>simply that the last 50,000
>years don't reveal biological evolution?
Yes. Precisely.
>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.
IMHO these things are neither of evolutionary consequence (due to the 
lack of evidence of evolutionary change in home sapiens sapiens), and 
neither can they be considered irreversible. A single, catasphrophic 
natural disaster would successfully eliminate all these changes you call 
markers of social evolution, and, the path towards the acquisition of 
these markers would be just as tedious and long-lasting as the path has 
been to them at present.
- 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 archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Mon Feb 05 2001 - 20:53:09 GMT