Re: Clincher?

From: Scott Chase (
Date: Fri Aug 31 2001 - 02:54:47 BST

  • Next message: Vincent Campbell: "RE: Cichlids & Memes"

    Received: by id CAA16502 (8.6.9/5.3[ref] for from; Fri, 31 Aug 2001 02:57:25 +0100
    X-Originating-IP: []
    From: "Scott Chase" <>
    Subject: Re: Clincher?
    Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2001 21:54:47 -0400
    Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
    Message-ID: <>
    X-OriginalArrivalTime: 31 Aug 2001 01:54:48.0258 (UTC) FILETIME=[EA4E0220:01C131BF]
    Precedence: bulk

    >From: "Dace" <>
    >To: <>
    >Subject: Re: Clincher?
    >Date: Thu, 30 Aug 2001 13:05:34 -0700
    >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.
    > > >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
    > > effect") whereby, in a sense, behavioral shifts could influence
    > > 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.
    Genes can exert influence on development of structure without containing
    some sort of homuncular "blueprint".
    >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
    >bodily structure.
    I have in mind that Darwin put forth a shaky speculation about particles
    from various modified parts of the body (gemmules) somewhow influencing the
    gonadal structure and allowing for acquired traits to be passed to
    offspring. Was he aware of Weismann's doctrine of the germ-plasm?

    IIRC Gregory Bateson considered Lamarck a great biologist who turned a trick
    similar to the Copernican revolution in that L. inverted our views of mind
    versus biology. Before Lamarck it was Mind first from on high. After Lamarck
    the mind emerged from the realm of biology itself. Lamarck was also a
    pioneer of comparative psychology, however crude his attempts by our

    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 : Fri Aug 31 2001 - 03:02:03 BST