Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id OAA07862 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Sun, 11 Feb 2001 14:32:57 GMT Message-ID: <001501c0943c$56ff62a0$1a01bed4@default> From: "Kenneth Van Oost" <Kenneth.Van.Oost@village.uunet.be> To: <memetics@mmu.ac.uk> References: <20010210213505.AAA11220@camailp.harvard.edu@[205.240.180.36]> Subject: Re: Darwinian evolution vs memetic evolution Date: Sun, 11 Feb 2001 16:06:50 +0100 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
Hi Wade,
I wrote,
> >I was just trying to point out, if we see apparent Lamarckian qualities
in
> >evolution and evolution has no purpose for those qualities, what is the
use
> >!?
You wrote,
> Ah, well, so far, we have seen neither hide nor hair of lamarckian
> processes in evolution....
<< Ah well, so far all you see are Darwinian processes !?
Where do you get your prove from !?
From experiments and emperical investigations !?
IMO, all circumstantial. It is all a matter of agreement. I don 't take all
what is said to be Darwinian for granted.
Like I said before, all of the scientific inquiry is done in the mood of
Darwinian, all of your braincells are stipulated along Darwinian lineages of
thinking. Not in the least you ever will think that this could be an
acquired
charactersitic, do you !?
Maybe just in the way we think that all is Darwinian is a Lamarckian trait
!?
Maybe we acquired the ability to think all what surrounds is due to
Darwinian processes because evolution forces gave us no other choise !
But that does not mean there are not any Lamarckian !
You search what you expect to find and that are Darwinian traits and that
is all what you gonna find if you don 't look elsewhere.
Think about this from out your memetical stance. Memeplexes of a harder,
resistant sort block out Lamarckian ones, but that does not mean they are
" right " and the Lamarckian one 's ' wrong '.
And IMO, we...you don 't see neither hide or hair of any Lamarckian pro-
cess in evolution because noone ever looked for one. Why should you !?
There is an agreement in the scientific community to expel all what is not
mainstream science, so why bother with Lamarckism !?
I from my side of the channel here, think IMHO that I found a Lamarckian
process, but where Steele tries to find the tiny hole in the Weismann 's
Barrier by genetics I try to find it by memetics, as the additional info
needed
to make up a new blueprint for the neigborhood where it happens.
What can I say more....!?
Best,
Kenneth
( I am, because we are)
===============================================================
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 : Sun Feb 11 2001 - 14:35:02 GMT