From: Van oost Kenneth (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Thu 19 Feb 2004 - 19:28:17 GMT
----- Original Message -----
From: "Scott Chase" <email@example.com>
> My main point was to point out to Dace that individuals do not evolve, a
> point which Keith was trying to get across to him.
<< Genotypical, I agree, but each individual pursues ( genetic/ memetical
indulged) his or hers interests; with little or no sense or interest of how
all of these isolated interests combine into the total system of what stands
for society/ culture.
How would such things ' generalize ' !?
The claim that only populations/ groups are the level of evolution is to
to know for sure what evolution stands for/ or what it is.
It would seem, IMO, that evolution can either be known to us, in which case
it can 't be defined and the claim becomes simply dogmatic; or one is caught
in the paradox of defining evolution with an ideosyncratic terminology, in
which case the memetic approach undercuts the claim because all what is
done is in name of memetic propagation_ by which we can say, of what
we see, define, investigate as e(a)ffects of natural selection can be wrong.
In that case, individual evolution is as wrong as evolution occuring amongst
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)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu 19 Feb 2004 - 19:36:07 GMT