Re: Darwinian evolution vs memetic evolution

From: Scott Chase (ecphoric@hotmail.com)
Date: Thu Feb 08 2001 - 23:52:34 GMT

  • Next message: Scott Chase: "Re: Lamarkism (sic) and memetics"

    Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id XAA27463 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Thu, 8 Feb 2001 23:55:20 GMT
    X-Originating-IP: [209.240.220.223]
    From: "Scott Chase" <ecphoric@hotmail.com>
    To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
    Subject: Re: Darwinian evolution vs memetic evolution
    Date: Thu, 08 Feb 2001 18:52:34 -0500
    Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
    Message-ID: <F148A84m0IG5tHqAIrr00001370@hotmail.com>
    X-OriginalArrivalTime: 08 Feb 2001 23:52:34.0431 (UTC) FILETIME=[352590F0:01C0922A]
    Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk
    Precedence: bulk
    Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
    

    >From: "Wade T.Smith" <wade_smith@harvard.edu>
    >Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
    >To: "memetics list" <memetics@mmu.ac.uk>
    >Subject: Re: Darwinian evolution vs memetic evolution
    >Date: Thu, 8 Feb 2001 15:20:56 -0500
    >
    >On 02/08/01 15:42, Kenneth Van Oost said this-
    >
    > >If we consider that Memetic evolution has apparent Lamarckian quali-
    > >ties, like Able said, than Lamarckian evolution is part of the process of
    > >life and in that respect there must be "some" Lamarckian mechanism at
    >work.
    >
    >And that is the argument people who claim that astrology works use, too.
    >I.e. - Since we can see these patterns, there must be some pattern-making
    >process....
    >
    >It is the intelligent design error looked at sideways.
    >
    >The mechanism itself, the lamarckian mechanism, has been shown, I would
    >think with certitude, not to exist in nature at all.
    >
    Chopping tails off rodents is quite convincing, enough to extend across the
    whole of nature.

    Were you talking about use/disuse or were you generally referring to the
    inheritance of acquired characters? I don't think either has been shown to
    be a major force in evolution, but I'd not make such sweeping statements
    against Lamarckian or neo-Lamarckian phenomena.

    Some people seem to think that cultural phenomena exhibit a Lamarckian
    quality. I can't say I'm convinced either way.

    The two possibilities I've taken notice of recently with biological and
    evolutionary implications are retrovectors transporting information of an
    adaptive nature into the germ-line and whether methylation patterns in DNA
    can pass between generations. I don't know whether these possibilities are
    actualities or if so whether one can call them Lamarckian. The retrovector
    notion almost seems Darwinian, in the sense of gemmules.

    Another consideration would be the so-called Baldwin effect, but this could
    probably be non-Lamarckian.

    _________________________________________________________________
    Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com

    ===============================================================
    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 : Thu Feb 08 2001 - 23:57:23 GMT