Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id JAA04416 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Sat, 10 Feb 2001 09:43:07 GMT Message-ID: <2D1C159B783DD211808A006008062D3101745C55@inchna.stir.ac.uk> From: Vincent Campbell <v.p.campbell@stir.ac.uk> To: "'memetics@mmu.ac.uk'" <memetics@mmu.ac.uk> Subject: RE: Darwinian evolution vs memetic evolution Date: Sat, 10 Feb 2001 09:42:24 -0000 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-Type: text/plain Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
>> 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.>
>
Ah, yes I see what you mean.
<Your second paragraph is an argument for the passing on of
_talents_, yes?>
... I think so...
<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....>
>
Too true.
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
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Sat Feb 10 2001 - 09:45:10 GMT