RE: Misunderstood Cichlids

From: Scott Chase (
Date: Fri Aug 31 2001 - 16:42:54 BST

  • Next message: Chris Taylor: "Re: Misunderstood Cichlids"

    Received: by id QAA18051 (8.6.9/5.3[ref] for from; Fri, 31 Aug 2001 16:45:26 +0100
    X-Originating-IP: []
    From: "Scott Chase" <>
    Subject: RE: Misunderstood Cichlids
    Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2001 11:42:54 -0400
    Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
    Message-ID: <>
    X-OriginalArrivalTime: 31 Aug 2001 15:42:54.0434 (UTC) FILETIME=[9992CC20:01C13233]
    Precedence: bulk

    >From: "Wade T.Smith" <>
    >To: "memetics list" <>
    >Subject: RE: Misunderstood Cichlids
    >Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2001 08:33:09 -0400
    >On 08/31/01 06:04, Vincent Campbell said this-
    > >Indeed, it seems to me that cichlids offer more problems for MR because
    > >the rapid rate of speciation- where are all the past images of the
    > >of new species to have appeared, particularly those that have emerged in
    > >recently isolated stretches of lake?
    >MR, like Photoshop, is constantly upgrading its selection of filters and
    Maybe the cichlids are quick studies, their rapid rates of speciational
    evolution a testament to fast learning, not unlike cramming for an exam,
    except that the crammers resonate amongst themselves.

    Since isolation is related to speciation, we may have a slight problem. A
    population may become physically isolated from another of the same species
    by a geographical barrier, but as MR theory claims there is spooky action at
    a distance. This action at a distance, if it can influence crystal growth
    and rodent learning in locales far removed, shouldn't have much problem
    jumping across a wimpy little geographical barrier. Wouldn't resonance and
    formative causation run counter to geographical isolation? Why would local
    demes diverge from those similar to them yet geographically isolated?

    The separated populations will, especially if small in effective size, be
    skewed samples of the original larger population and genetic drift would
    foster a genetic rift. Selection would adapt them to their local conditions
    and if these conditions are similar in some respects, the adaptations of the
    speciating subpopulations will converge or parallel in these respects. Where
    would resonance come into the picture? In the respects where the local
    conditions differ selection would result in a divergence of correlated
    features of the phenotypes of the repective subpopulations. Of course, drift
    itself or some sort of founder effect would also have played a part in
    divergence from the original population.

    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 - 16:50:46 BST