Re: Clincher?

From: Scott Chase (
Date: Thu Aug 30 2001 - 00:57:59 BST

  • Next message: Chris Taylor: "Re: Clincher?"

    Received: by id BAA14183 (8.6.9/5.3[ref] for from; Thu, 30 Aug 2001 01:00:31 +0100
    X-Originating-IP: []
    From: "Scott Chase" <>
    Subject: Re: Clincher?
    Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2001 19:57:59 -0400
    Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
    Message-ID: <>
    X-OriginalArrivalTime: 29 Aug 2001 23:57:59.0654 (UTC) FILETIME=[6E702860:01C130E6]
    Precedence: bulk

    >From: "Dace" <>
    >To: <>
    >Subject: Re: Clincher?
    >Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2001 14:46:03 -0700
    >Fraid not.
    >Your approach is far too black-and-white. MR doesn't contradict natural
    >selection. It rounds it out.
    I thought Chris was talking about genetic drift and severe inbreeding,
    whereby deleterious alleles can become fixed within a population, not
    natural selection.
    >It restores evolutionary theory to its
    >Darwinian moors by incorporating the inheritance of acquired traits. You
    >should be aware that Darwin considered the capacity of organisms to shape
    >their evolutionary future as being essential to evolutionary theory. As
    >as Darwin was concerned, there is no theory of evolution if the behavior of
    >organisms isn't its driving force. He would certainly have been appalled
    >at what has been put forth in his name in this century.
    I wonder if he would have been appalled by organic selection (the "Baldwin
    effect") whereby, in a sense, behavioral shifts could influence subsequent
    evolutionary changes as modifications in a pliable phenotype are eventually
    supplanted by mutations or recombinations of the genetic *material* (w.e.g.-
    wicked evil grin as the Bostoner's might say).

    William Bateson's son Gregory talks about this stuff (organic selection) in
    his book _Steps to an Ecology of Mind_ (1987. Jason Aronson Inc. New
    Jersey). It's hard to realize that Gregory was William's son, since he
    hardly ever mentions this fact in his book ;-) (just kidding)

    William was arch-nemesis of Paul Kammerer, if I recall Koestler's book
    correctly. Would morphic resonance explain supposed nuptial pads in the
    midwife toad.
    >MR isn't going to save a species when the material basis of its existence,
    >genetic or environmental, is no longer present.
    > > How do species go extinct by inbreeding if MR works?
    > >
    > > Some species are outcompeted simply, but some dwindle (cheetahs are so
    > > genetically homogenous due to population size reduction over the years
    > > that skin grafts between unrelated animals more or less always take, for
    > > example) and as they dwindle, genetic drift moves them away from the
    > > optimal configuration for the species (fixation of deleterious alleles).
    > >
    > > Genetic drift explains this perfectly, with no bits left over. How about
    > > MR? And why does the MR 'go wrong' for them in the first place (again
    > > the geneticist's explanation holds up with no visible strain here).
    > >
    > >

    Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at

    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 : Thu Aug 30 2001 - 01:05:13 BST