Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id TAA02175 (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 19:18:46 GMT Subject: RE: Darwinian evolution vs memetic evolution Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2001 14:15:22 -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: <20010209191421.AAA19379@camailp.harvard.edu@[128.103.125.215]> Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
On 02/09/01 12:35, Vincent Campbell said this-
> Does a giraffe stretching its neck to reach the branches intend to
>make its offspring's necks longer by the act?
>
> Lamarkcism simply argues that capabilities acquired during a
>lifetime are passed on to offspring, intentionally or not.
Ah, but it _intends_ to reach something that it cannot, in the giraffe's
case. I had thought that Lamarck argued that, yes, the intent to do
something that at the moment could not be done would result in offspring
that could.
Your second paragraph is an argument for the passing on of _talents_, yes?
At any rate, both contentions are equally bogus, and so Lamarck seems to
have been wrong twice. Then again, being wrong twice or more does seem to
be a talent endemic to our species....
- Wade (speaking for himself....)
===============================================================
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 - 19:20:49 GMT