Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id EAA11018 (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 04:59:56 GMT Message-Id: <5.0.2.1.0.20010205222706.02166ec0@pop3.htcomp.net> X-Sender: mmills@pop3.htcomp.net X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.0.2 Date: Mon, 05 Feb 2001 22:50:44 -0600 To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk From: Mark Mills <mmills@htcomp.net> Subject: Re: Evolution of ontogeny In-Reply-To: <20010205013705.AAA9513@camailp.harvard.edu@[204.96.32.103] > Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
Wade,
At 08:38 PM 2/4/01 -0500, you wrote:
> >Memetics hopes to provide a framework for cultural evolution, so is it fair
> >to say most here think the environment evolves?
>
>The environment changes. All change is not evolution, although evolution
>is always change. So, no, from this particular corpus of molecules, it is
>not thought that the environment evolves. Life needs to evolve to survive
>in changing environments.
What do you think of the G-meme, artifact memes. Are you saying they don't
evolve? They are 'in the environment.'
> >What about ontogeny (the development cycle)? Does it evolve? The
> >neural-meme may be an ontogenetic feature or developmental structure. Do
> >these evolve?
>
>The developmental cycle may indeed evolve, although we have had no
>evidence that it has.
Have you read about people working with hominid fossils? They can trace an
extension of the maturing process over the last 3 million years.
Here is a quote from Leakey's 'Origins Reconsidered':
[After details of CAT scanning hominid fossils].. 'We therefore have to
think of the earliest hominids as bipedal apes, with apelike life histories
[ontogeny] and apelike facial and dental developments. Only with the
evolution of the genus Homo... did patterns begin to change. According to
the pattern of dental development, the period of childhood was beginning to
be prolonged in Homo."
>And we have had no evidence so far that the human being has evolved over
>the last 50 or so millennia....
I guess the standard reply would be:
a) 50,000 years is too short to see evolutionary change
b) If a changing gene pool is 'the evolutionary' gage, then we know we can
track DNA changes from parent to child. Thus, we have evidence of
evolution (changing gene pool) in a microscopic manner.
Mark
http://www.htcomp.net/markmills
===============================================================
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 - 05:01:53 GMT