Re: Religious Thought and Lamarckism

From: Dace (edace@earthlink.net)
Date: Fri Dec 21 2001 - 18:04:24 GMT

  • Next message: Wade Smith: "Re: Religious Thought and Lamarckism"

    Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id SAA03540 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Fri, 21 Dec 2001 18:08:00 GMT
    Message-ID: <000d01c18a49$ede15da0$6187b2d1@teddace>
    From: "Dace" <edace@earthlink.net>
    To: <memetics@mmu.ac.uk>
    References: <200112201240.fBKCex116743@sherri.harvard.edu>
    Subject: Re: Religious Thought and Lamarckism
    Date: Fri, 21 Dec 2001 10:04:24 -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
    

    Wade,

    > Hi Kenneth Van Oost -
    >
    > >Is this a reason why Lamarckism seems to pop up in cultural evolution !?
    >
    > Cultural evolution is inherently lamarckian in process. Memes _can_
    > change in situ, and do, whereas genes need the whole offspring thing to
    > happen.
    >
    > The illusion of design in nature is just that.

    Not according to neo-Darwinian theory. Disposing of the designer does
    nothing, by itself, to eliminate the design. Identical objects are still
    identical even if they're produced through radically different means. A car
    is still a car whether it was made by an assembly plant or by hand. And a
    design is still a design whether it was created intentionally or by random
    mutation.

    We're trying to have it both ways. After recognizing the impossibility of
    design in natural evolution, we eliminate the designer and imagine that this
    solves the problem. But we've still got a blueprint from which the body is
    formed. Nothing has really changed. It's a sleight-of-hand. While one
    hand conspicuously disposes of the design, the other hand furtively
    reinstates it in a more subtle form.

    We are simultaneously magician and audience, willing agents in our own
    deception.

    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 : Fri Dec 21 2001 - 18:14:24 GMT