Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id MAA17261 (8.6.9/5.3[ref firstname.lastname@example.org] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from email@example.com); Fri, 31 Aug 2001 12:17:34 +0100 Message-ID: <2D1C159B783DD211808A006008062D310174606A@inchna.stir.ac.uk> From: Vincent Campbell <firstname.lastname@example.org> To: "'email@example.com'" <firstname.lastname@example.org> Subject: RE: Dawkins etc Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2001 11:42:16 +0100 X-Mailer: Internet Mail Service (5.5.2650.21) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" X-Filter-Info: UoS MailScan 0.1 [D 1] Sender: email@example.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: firstname.lastname@example.org
<It's a testament to the power of morphic resonance that any two
> different genes and proteins end up appearing and behaving as incredibly
> closely as many of the marsupials and placentals. (Not to mention the S.
> American and Australian marsupials.) The improbability that these
> result *exclusively* from natural selection is beyond calculation. Why
> should wolves appear? Why should cats appear? Why should flying
> appear? It's absurd that natural selection, by itself, would produce the
> same array of creatures twice in two different places.>
Well really.... What's this obsession with asking 'why' questions
all the time, as though there was some purpose to natural selection? The
animals you mentioned emerged because the environment offered a niche for
organisms to exploit, and they happened to be the ones to exploit it. The
fact that particular niches (Dawkins' calls them 'trades') have been
exploited time and again is a demonstration of this, not a refutation of it.
Remember a significant proportion of life on Earth today, on land certainly,
is only here because a bloody great asteroid helped wipe out the dinosaurs,
unless you're going to claim that the dinosaurs resonated to the Kupier belt
or Oort cloud to one of the asteriods in a mass suicide pact. When the
dinosaurs where removed, surviving organisms began to occupy the vacant
That this post-asteroid process occured entirely through natural
selection is clearly not as improbable as the chances of you understanding
it appear to be.
<Neanderthal evolved from Homo heidelbergensis a minimum of 500,000
> ago. The most recent spurt in brain growth occurred between 500 and 200
> Kya. This spurt was almost identical in the African and Eurasian lineages
> of Homo sapiens. The result is that Neanderthal had the same brain size
> identifiable neural structures as modern humans.>
Are you basing this on surviving neanderthal brains, because I was
kind of under the impression that the most we had were skulls, which tells
us something about size, and very little about capability.
< Their advanced vocal tracts, which evolved after the split from
our common ancestor, were also
> the same. Here's Stephen Mithen from The Prehistory of the Mind (page
> "The hyoid is a bone that can provide detailed information about the
> structure of the vocal tract. Its movement affects the position and
> movement of the larynx to which it is attached. That found at Kebara,
> in an undisturbed position with the mandible and cervical vertebra, is
> virtually identical to that of a Modern Human with regard to its shape,
> muscular attachments and apparent positioning."
> While these parallels could theoretically result from natural selection,
> combination of morphic influences and natural selection is far more
No it isn't because there's no evidence for MR, and no way to test
for it. Besides, this week's New Scientist reports that a study has shown
that Red and Fallow deer both have dropped larynxes, previously thought to
only occur in humans. Mithen wouldn't have known this of course when
writing his book (which is good from the bits I've read. I don't recall him
mentioning MR at all though).
>>To get MR's foot in the door
>> with me, you'd have to prove that there is something that current
> >> thinking clearly doesn't have a hope of explaining.
<The quality of being alive.>
Just coz you don't want to accept the mechanistic processes that
underpin your existence, doesn't mean they're not there. If you want to
believe in some kind of life force then sciene is not the plcae you're going
to find it (those neat fictions some call religions have some great just-so
stories that might appeal).
<All organic structure irreducible to genes.>
Who said all organic structure was reducible to genes?
<Mind and memory.>
Yeah right. Cut out your brain and plop it on the table. Now show
me you've got mind or memory without it.
<Self-existence and self-determination.>
What does 'self- existence' mean? The concept of 'I'? Try reading
Daniel Dennett, for starters.
As to self-determination. Nice bit of wishful thinking.
< Convergent evolution not explainable according to natural
selection or species-hopping
> genes. >
Tell you what. You keep misreading and selectively quoting stuff,
and I'll keep going back to source and show how they show convergent
evolution is perfectly explainable by natural selection, and you can keep
ignoring that. We'll be here forever perhaps as you clearly want to deny
this coz you know that if you accept this the whole edifice falls down
<Cumulative progress across generations of a given species in
> completing specific tasks.>
There's no credible, reproduced evidence for this, and anecdotes of
hundreth monkeys and the like have been ridiculed by serious scientists with
<The passing on of acquired characteristics.>
Such as? There's a name for this you know- Lamarckism. It kind of
went out of fashion after, oh what's his name.... oh yeah Darwin, came
Even in human culture, Lamarckism isn't necessarily what is going on
(I'm trying to be fair to those on the list like Kenneth, who seem to be
pro-Lamarck for culture). Hey, guess what? This sentence is actually on
topic! I could even stick in the word memes here without it looking like a
vain effort to pretend we're on topic.
<Non-materially coordinated behavior among groups.>
How many more times? All sorts of cogent explanations for flocking
birds etc. have been offered- some you even nearly acknowledged (the viisual
field of birds), but clearly you don't want to accept the reality of that.
<Those are the more significant ones.>
And merely within the few days of interaction on this list they've
been argued away at various levels- from my more pedantic examination of
sources/evidence cited, to the more philosophical arguments from others
(such as Joe's demolition of your notion of time).
You are doing very well to keep going, but for me you've reached the
stage of refusing to see jupiter's moons through the telescope, because to
do so would make your world crumble.
-- The University of Stirling is a university established in Scotland by charter at Stirling, FK9 4LA. Privileged/Confidential Information may be contained in this message. If you are not the addressee indicated in this message (or responsible for delivery of the message to such person), you may not disclose, copy or deliver this message to anyone and any action taken or omitted to be taken in reliance on it, is prohibited and may be unlawful. In such case, you should destroy this message and kindly notify the sender by reply email. Please advise immediately if you or your employer do not consent to Internet email for messages of this kind. Opinions, conclusions and other information in this message that do not relate to the official business of the University of Stirling shall be understood as neither given nor endorsed by it.
=============================================================== 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) see: http://www.cpm.mmu.ac.uk/jom-emit
This archive was generated by hypermail 2b29 : Fri Aug 31 2001 - 12:22:14 BST