Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id VAA16052 (8.6.9/5.3[ref firstname.lastname@example.org] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from email@example.com); Thu, 30 Aug 2001 21:07:07 +0100 Message-ID: <003301c1318f$21b9e5c0$9124f4d8@teddace> From: "Dace" <firstname.lastname@example.org> To: <email@example.com> References: <F129aOSbsShdbRMy6wG00001d6f@hotmail.com> Subject: Re: Clincher? Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2001 13:05:34 -0700 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: firstname.lastname@example.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: email@example.com
From: Scott Chase
> > You should
> > be aware that Darwin considered the capacity of organisms to shape
> >their evolutionary future as being essential to evolutionary theory. As
> >far as Darwin was concerned, there is no theory of evolution if the
> > 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
> supplanted by mutations or recombinations of the genetic *material*
> wicked evil grin as the Bostoner's might say).
As long as we assume that genes in some way contain the structure of the
body, then the passing on of acquired characteristics is impossible.
Acquired traits can't directly change the genome. But keep in mind that
Darwin rejected the notion of units of "germ-plasm" coding for units of
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 - 21:11:47 BST