Re: Darwinian evolution vs memetic evolution

From: Scott Chase (ecphoric@hotmail.com)
Date: Fri Feb 09 2001 - 23:45:03 GMT

  • Next message: Scott Chase: "RE: Darwinian evolution vs memetic evolution"

    Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id XAA03045 (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 23:47:37 GMT
    X-Originating-IP: [209.240.220.143]
    From: "Scott Chase" <ecphoric@hotmail.com>
    To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
    Subject: Re: Darwinian evolution vs memetic evolution
    Date: Fri, 09 Feb 2001 18:45:03 -0500
    Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
    Message-ID: <F170qObqg2NL5JAR6Zy000013ac@hotmail.com>
    X-OriginalArrivalTime: 09 Feb 2001 23:45:03.0481 (UTC) FILETIME=[52C5CE90:01C092F2]
    Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk
    Precedence: bulk
    Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
    

    >From: Robin Faichney <robin@reborntechnology.co.uk>
    >Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
    >To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
    >Subject: Re: Darwinian evolution vs memetic evolution
    >Date: Fri, 9 Feb 2001 09:18:19 +0000
    >
    >On Thu, Feb 08, 2001 at 03:17:08PM -0800, Bill Spight wrote:
    > > Dear Wade,
    > >
    > > > The mechanism itself, the lamarckian mechanism, has been shown, I
    >would
    > > > think with certitude, not to exist in nature at all. It is a skyhook,
    >to
    > > > borrow Dennett's term. It is an invented quality rising from the
    > > > perceptual traps we fall into when we see patterns.
    > > >
    > >
    > > That is because, with genes, the germ line is insulated from the
    > > environment. It is the phenotype that adapts and learns from the
    > > environment. These adaptations are not transferred to the genotype.
    > > (There are apparently some exceptions, however.)
    > >
    > > But there is no germ line with memes. "Play it, Sam, for old times'
    > > sake," is altered by the environment to "Play it again, Sam," and the
    > > alteration is passed on. That's Lamarckian evolution.
    >
    >Your logic works either way. If there is no germ line, no memeotype/
    >phemotype dichotomy, then is no way to distinguish between Lamarckism and
    >ordinary mutation. In which case, for the sake of simplicity (Ockham's
    >razor), we should consider it ordinary mutation.
    >
    >
    In neo-Lamarckian formulations the germ-line would be a consideration, but
    was Lamarck himself aware of such a concept?

    _________________________________________________________________
    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 : Fri Feb 09 2001 - 23:49:44 GMT