Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id JAA13094 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Tue, 20 Feb 2001 09:12:14 GMT Date: Tue, 20 Feb 2001 09:08:56 +0000 To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk Subject: Re: Darwinian evolution vs memetic evolution Message-ID: <20010220090856.B1199@reborntechnology.co.uk> References: <F158MqtQQC1Stvptvt4000041fe@hotmail.com> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.12i In-Reply-To: <F158MqtQQC1Stvptvt4000041fe@hotmail.com>; from ecphoric@hotmail.com on Mon, Feb 19, 2001 at 07:37:15PM -0500 From: Robin Faichney <robin@reborntechnology.co.uk> Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
On Mon, Feb 19, 2001 at 07:37:15PM -0500, Scott Chase wrote:
> >From: Robin Faichney <robin@reborntechnology.co.uk>
> >On Sat, Feb 17, 2001 at 08:37:23PM -0500, Wade T.Smith wrote:
> > > >Surely all "fitness" means is that, in any given context, some things
> > > >are more stable than others -- "fit" is what we call the stable ones.
> > >
> > > And what, pray tell, is stable?
> >
> >Darwin's "survival of the fittest" is really a special case of a more
> >general law of survival of the stable. The universe is populated by
> >stable things. Richard Dawkins, The Selfish Gene, first edition, p13.
> >
> Slightly misleading historically speaking. AFAIK the "survival of the
> fittest" cliche' was coined by Herbert Spencer. Lots of people attribute it
> to Darwin though.
I'll be pass that on to Dawkins when I see him.
> >What is fit is what is stable is what survives.
> >
> What survives is what is fit is what is stable. Not a whole lot of
> information there.
There's a great deal of information there, but it's about definitions,
memes if you like, not external phenomena. You're correct in your
implication that, despite what Dawkins says, such statements are not
laws. That does not mean, however, that they don't represent genuine
progress in our understanding. Clarification of concepts is essential,
because without it there are testable hypotheses that will never even
be formulated, never mind tested.
> What about differential heritable contribution to the next generation?
> Besides, if an organism survives, this doesn't necessarily mean that it has
> succeeded in reproducing. Someone could live to the ripe old age of 70
> without passing anything on besides their wisdom and charm. I guess they
> could contribute to their inclusive fitness if they helped reproductively
> successful relatives raise their own kids though.
Obviously, survivability/stability/fitness is not the whole story. No one
is suggesting it is. The question that arose concerned fitness, and that
was what I tried to answer, saying that it _basically_ means stability.
This is the bottom line, shared between living and non-living entities.
To answer _your_ question, which is a different one, and concerns only
living entities, we need replication with variation and selection (at
least).
In fact, if we look only at genes and memes, then fitness does mean
survivability, which does mean stability. A fit gene is simply one
that survives, which requires stability in the relevant environment.
The difference between living and non-living entities is that, with life,
we have stable items of information, as opposed to mere matter.
-- Robin Faichney robin@reborntechnology.co.uk=============================================================== 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 : Tue Feb 20 2001 - 09:14:32 GMT