Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id EAA10875 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Tue, 6 Feb 2001 04:07:34 GMT From: <joedees@bellsouth.net> To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk Date: Mon, 5 Feb 2001 22:11:08 -0600 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: RE: Evolution of ontogeny Message-ID: <3A7F24FC.13671.49F183@localhost> In-reply-to: <NEBBKOADILIOKGDJLPMAGEJNCAAA.debivort@umd5.umd.edu> References: <20010205133539.AAA25125@camailp.harvard.edu@[128.103.125.215]> X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.12c) Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
On 5 Feb 2001, at 14:05, Lawrence DeBivort wrote:
> 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.
>
It's quite possible that the tricks we have memetically picked up
and passed on and continue to add to have removed the species
selection pressures which previously drove human biological
evolution.
>
> - 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 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 : Tue Feb 06 2001 - 04:09:32 GMT