Re: Darwinian evolution vs memetic evolution

From: Wade T.Smith (wade_smith@harvard.edu)
Date: Fri Feb 09 2001 - 13:33:39 GMT

  • Next message: Chris Taylor: "Re: Darwinian evolution vs memetic evolution" 

    Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id NAA29745 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Fri, 9 Feb 2001 13:37:01 GMT
Subject: Re: Darwinian evolution vs memetic evolution
Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2001 08:33:39 -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: <20010209133238.AAA11665@camailp.harvard.edu@[128.103.125.215]>
Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk

    On 02/08/01 23:26, Bill Spight said this-

    >Lamarckian evolution has two distinguishing characteristics: 1)
    >inheritance of adaptations (not just selection); 2) intentional
    >adaptation (which is then inherited). We are focusing on different
    >aspects. For me, 1) is sufficient to make evolution Lamarckian; for you
    >2) is necessary. A question of terminology, no?

    I don't think so. For condition 1 to happen, lamarckianism is hardly
    necessary. That is a function of life in general- that genes get passed
    on. Lamarckianism is, only and completely, concerned with your number 2-
    intentional adaptation, because that, and that alone, is the lamarckian
    mechanism.

    And it's bogus.

    - 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 : Fri Feb 09 2001 - 13:39:04 GMT