Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id NAA25202 (8.6.9/5.3[ref email@example.com] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from firstname.lastname@example.org); Mon, 13 Aug 2001 13:14:51 +0100 From: <email@example.com> To: firstname.lastname@example.org Date: Mon, 13 Aug 2001 07:18:50 -0500 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Callouses and Kings Message-ID: <3B777F5A.826.1796778@localhost> X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.12c) Sender: email@example.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: firstname.lastname@example.org
> > Memes not a product of genes, so must be from MR etc. etc.
> Uh-uh - the whole point of this group is the study of culturally
> heritable patterns - heritable as in copyable. No need for any
> templates. And again, where do the first ones come from?
> natural selection operating on variation explains this diversification
> for me, what does MR have to say about it (genuine question)?
MR offers a model of evolution that gives organisms an active role in
shaping themselves. We know, for instance, that camels begin
calluses on their kneepads when they're still in the womb. This
suggest that camels who developed calluses as a result of
kneeling in the
desert passed this trait onto their offspring. Since behavior can't
directly affect genes, the logical assumption is that the calluses are
passed on non-genetically. Otherwise we must accept the colossal
improbability that the genetic mutation for calluses on the
happened to appear right when the camels needed it. You'd think
to have gone through a lot of useless mutations first, like calluses in
other places, or the wrong alterations on kneepads before they'd hit
right mutation. How many millions of years should it have taken for
get the right mutation? Now consider the fact that this applies
over for every species on earth, and you start to see just how high
mountain of improbability is. Sheldrake offers a more streamlined,
model of evolution.
Callouses would not evolve all of a piece, but gradually; but what
you're REALLY missing here is dermatological understanding.
Animals (including us) can develop callouses anywhere there is
chafing on the skin; it's built into the dermis; the only modification
needed is one that permits such growth in the absence of
stimulation, and that mutation could happen anywhere, and only
stick where it was useful and selected for. There was a hundred
million years for camels and their precursors to produce such a
mutation - no problem. Elegant explanations are not always
correct; otherwise we would embrace the elegant yet Occam-
violating explanation of a Master Designer intentionally sticking
those clumsy thumbs on pandas.
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 2b29 : Mon Aug 13 2001 - 13:27:39 BST