Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id RAA18219 (8.6.9/5.3[ref email@example.com] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from firstname.lastname@example.org); Fri, 31 Aug 2001 17:21:27 +0100 X-Originating-IP: [18.104.22.168] From: "Scott Chase" <email@example.com> To: firstname.lastname@example.org Subject: Re: Misunderstood Cichlids Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2001 12:18:56 -0400 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: <F197HuICu0L885s30hI00002f45@hotmail.com> X-OriginalArrivalTime: 31 Aug 2001 16:18:56.0845 (UTC) FILETIME=[A27887D0:01C13238] Sender: email@example.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: firstname.lastname@example.org
>From: Chris Taylor <Christopher.Taylor@man.ac.uk>
>Subject: Re: Misunderstood Cichlids
>Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2001 16:59:23 +0100
> > 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.
>That's testable, I wonder if anyone has done it (there are estimates of
>diversity, but I didn't see any about response to selection as such).
> > Since isolation is related to speciation, we may have a slight problem.
> > population may become physically isolated from another of the same
> > by a geographical barrier, but as MR theory claims there is spooky
> > a distance. This action at a distance, if it can influence crystal
> > and rodent learning in locales far removed, shouldn't have much problem
> > jumping across a wimpy little geographical barrier. Wouldn't resonance
> > formative causation run counter to geographical isolation? Why would
> > demes diverge from those similar to them yet geographically isolated?
> > The separated populations will, especially if small in effective size,
> > skewed samples of the original larger population and genetic drift would
> > foster a genetic rift. Selection would adapt them to their local
> > and if these conditions are similar in some respects, the adaptations of
> > speciating subpopulations will converge or parallel in these respects.
> > 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,
> > itself or some sort of founder effect would also have played a part in
> > divergence from the original population.
><applause> And *that* is a bloody marvellous point. </applause>
>Similar to the de novo flight/homeothermy/etc one. Ted's turn...
I can't claim originality on the point about isolation versus resonance (via
action at a distance). I vaguely recall somebody posting a question like
that on Sheldrake's discussion group (found on his website), but I'd have to
look it up to be sure. I thought it important though, but Vince tapped my
Speaking of the www.sheldrake.org site, to reduce some of the recent traffic
here and liven up the discussion board there, it might be a good idea to
move some of this particular discussion over there. Just a gentle
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 : Fri Aug 31 2001 - 17:26:09 BST