Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id RAA02974 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Sat, 17 Feb 2001 17:03:13 GMT X-Originating-IP: [209.240.220.159] From: "Scott Chase" <ecphoric@hotmail.com> To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk Subject: Re: Darwinian evolution vs memetic evolution Date: Sat, 17 Feb 2001 12:00:45 -0500 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: <F41omRXf2LTrpwACkWH00008a9b@hotmail.com> X-OriginalArrivalTime: 17 Feb 2001 17:00:45.0281 (UTC) FILETIME=[2B103D10:01C09903] Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
>From: Bill Spight <bspight@pacbell.net>
>Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
>To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
>Subject: Re: Darwinian evolution vs memetic evolution
>Date: Fri, 09 Feb 2001 11:27:26 -0800
>
>Dear Robin,
>
> > > 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.
>
>Ah, but there is. Memes are altered in such a way that they fit the
>environment better. Their survivability is enhanced. That is not so with
>random mutation. Au contraire: random mutation is detrimental, on
>average.
>
>
The tendency to apply a hardcore genetic analogy on cultural phenomenon
could be riddled with problems. First off, how does one pply the notion of a
germ-line to "memes", beyond saying that biologically speaking, it hasn't
been shown that ideas can pass from soma to germ cells to be inherited by
the progeny. The germ line is a biological concept, which applies only to a
subset of organisms, if I'm not mistaken. Those organisms, including humans,
which segregate a germ line early in development have what is called a
"Weismann's barrier", which may still be permeable to things like
retrovectors carrying junk (ie- non-adaptive info) into the germline.
Organism which don't segregate a distinct germ line are still subject to the
central dogma where info can pass unidirectionally from nucleic acids to
peptides. There may be reverse transciption (RNA to DNA) but not back
translation (peptides to RNA). Humans would probably be subject to the allie
notions of Weismann's barrier and Crick's central dogma.
Now there is heritability in the biological mode, where genically related
traits will be inherited by progeny. Something I started considering upon
reading Bernhard Rensch's contribution "The relation between the evolution
of central nervous functions and the body size of animals" in _Evolution as
a Process_ (1958. Collier Books. New York. edited by Huxley, Hardy, and
Ford) is whether cultural phenomenon can be said to relate to a second sense
of heritability. Are "memes" units of heritability? Rensch says something of
the "...non-inherited transmission of experience through tradition." (p.
233) He does mention Broca's area though and books as "extracerebral chains
of associations" (Rensch here is citing another work of his). The rest of
the essay rubs me the wrong way in several parts, especially when Rensch is
comparing anagenetic (progressive or upward mode of evolution) to
cladogenetic (branching lateral splits in evolution) modes.
What about the non-heritable transmission in tradition?
_________________________________________________________________
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 : Sat Feb 17 2001 - 17:05:26 GMT