Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id MAA13626 (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 12:40:46 GMT Date: Tue, 6 Feb 2001 18:07:28 +0530 (IST) From: Dr Able Lawrence <able@sgpgi.ac.in> To: "'memetics@mmu.ac.uk'" <memetics@mmu.ac.uk> Subject: RE: Evolution of ontogeny In-Reply-To: <2D1C159B783DD211808A006008062D3101745C37@inchna.stir.ac.uk> Message-ID: <Pine.LNX.4.10.10102061752150.19606-100000@sushrut.sgpgi.ac.in> Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
Socioeconomic evolution!!!
As I wrote in a previous mail, we are in the era of sconomic
stratification. So instead of dying people with unfavourable
charecteristics go down in the socioeconomic ladder. And favourable
charecteristics move up the ladder. I think this possibly become
discernable afte sufficient generation somethinglike 20 generations
(rougly 400 to 500 yrs) 20 generations is what it takes for Drosophila to
exhibit evolutionary changes).
But since there was no free mobility of people along the ladder many of
the current socioeconomic differences must be vestiges of feudal/colonial
divisions we must have to wait for many centuries to look at this effect.
Maybe one can look at white americans in California.
Able
On Tue, 6 Feb 2001, Vincent Campbell wrote:
> <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.>
> >
> There's also the issue of what changed between homo erectus and
> cro-magnon that led to the cambrian-like cultural explosion? Some argue
> that there must have been some subtle but significant changes in brain
> structure- something unrecoverable archeologically- and that would have been
> a biological change, and thus evolutionary.
>
> Then of course, you're quite right to point out things like farming,
> extensive niche selection, that has led to distinct population
> characteristics like lactose tolerance in adulthood. Debates do currently
> rage as to whether human biological evolution has effectively stopped or not
> (at least in the developed world) due to low mortality rates etc. I think
> both of these have been mentioned before a couple of weeks ago though, so I
> won't go over old ground.
>
> Vincent
>
>
>
> ===============================================================
> 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
>
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Dr Able Lawrence MD
Senior Resident
Clinical Immunology
SGPGIMS, Lucknow
able@sgpgi.ac.in
Ph +91 98390 70247
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
===============================================================
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 - 12:48:13 GMT