Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id BAA14183 (8.6.9/5.3[ref firstname.lastname@example.org] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from email@example.com); Thu, 30 Aug 2001 01:00:31 +0100 X-Originating-IP: [188.8.131.52] From: "Scott Chase" <firstname.lastname@example.org> To: email@example.com Subject: Re: Clincher? Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2001 19:57:59 -0400 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: <F129aOSbsShdbRMy6wG00001d6f@hotmail.com> X-OriginalArrivalTime: 29 Aug 2001 23:57:59.0654 (UTC) FILETIME=[6E702860:01C130E6] Sender: firstname.lastname@example.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: email@example.com
>From: "Dace" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
>Subject: Re: Clincher?
>Date: Wed, 29 Aug 2001 14:46:03 -0700
>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
>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
>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 http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
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