Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id RAA28034 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Sun, 2 Dec 2001 17:22:21 GMT Message-ID: <003101c17b55$5d230fa0$7bc0b3d1@teddace> From: "Dace" <edace@earthlink.net> To: <memetics@mmu.ac.uk> References: <001001c16c62$3552d3e0$3524f4d8@teddace> <0111211504020D.01049@storm.berkeley.edu> <004501c176f6$706febe0$8788b2d1@teddace> <01112816595402.01083@storm.berkeley.edu> <005d01c178a4$7b425940$13c1b3d1@teddace> <20011129083627.C1366@ii01.org> <006601c179de$3e32c5e0$44c1b3d1@teddace> <20011201101017.A1238@ii01.org> Subject: Re: Debunking pseudoscience: Why horoscopes really work Date: Sun, 2 Dec 2001 09:18:28 -0800 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
Robin:
> > > On Wed, Nov 28, 2001 at 11:07:14PM -0800, Dace wrote:
> > > >
> > > > Whatever is genetically programmed now had to be consciously learned
> > when it
> > > > first evolved. Every function of the body had to be built up
through
> > > > learning and imitation.
> > >
> > > I sometimes sympathise with some of the things you say, but that is
> > > absolute bullshit. Genetic mutation is random, it does NOT follow
> > > learning, imitation or anything else whatsoever.
> >
> > Who says evolution is reducible to genetic mutation? The only thing we
can
> > say for sure is that organisms can't develop and species can't evolve
except
> > to the extent that they in some way retain forms and behaviors from
their
> > past.
>
> I've never formally studied genetics, or even biology, so I'll just
> say this: as I understand it, structures and behaviours are retained
> due to being genetically determined -- plus, of course, for sufficiently
> social and intelligent species, there's memetics. I'm quite confident in
> saying that no other mechanism is known, and I get the impression that
> practically everyone working in this and related areas believes that
> no other mechanism is required. Amateurs with bees in their bonnets,
> like you and Sheldon, have no credibility.
That's Sheldrake. He was director of graduate studies in cell biology at
Cambridge before retiring to pursue his own research projects full time.
It's true that most biologists believe in materialist mechanism. On the
other hand, Discovery magazine had no trouble digging up a few researchers
who were willing to go on the record in support of Sheldrake. The main
thing is that no one has any proof that genes encode information regarding
living form. It's not as if we can read the genetic code and say, "Okay,
here's the information on the liver; here's the blueprint for the lungs;
here's the layout of the heart," and so on. That genes influence form--
which is obvious from the successes of genetic engineering-- doesn't mean
they encode forms.
> >The radical notion that memory is stored in genes remains unproven.
>
> Not so much radical as ludicrous.
Are you agreeing with me?
> > Darwin insisted repeatedly that evolutionary theory depends on a
mechanism
> > by which learned behavior is incorporated into species memory.
Organisms
> > adapt to their environment, and these acquired adaptations become
> > instinctive in subsequent generations. Without this, he maintained, the
> > whole theory is shot.
>
> Despite the inevitable personality cult, I don't think you'll find many
> people who believe that Darwin was infallible.
When you point out that "practically everyone" in the field supports your
view, you're appealing to authority. Then, when it turns out the biggest
authority of them all is opposed to your view, you point out that he's not
infallible. The point is that you need actual proof, not just large numbers
of people who agree with you. Often the truth turns out to be precisely the
opposite of what virtually everyone believed (see Copernicus). The memetic
"herd mentality" is almost perfectly opposed to the spirit of science.
Ted
===============================================================
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 Dec 02 2001 - 17:28:33 GMT