Re: Misunderstood Cichlids

From: Scott Chase (
Date: Fri Aug 31 2001 - 17:18:56 BST

  • Next message: Scott Chase: "Re: Misunderstood Cichlids"

    Received: by id RAA18219 (8.6.9/5.3[ref] for from; Fri, 31 Aug 2001 17:21:27 +0100
    X-Originating-IP: []
    From: "Scott Chase" <>
    Subject: Re: Misunderstood Cichlids
    Date: Fri, 31 Aug 2001 12:18:56 -0400
    Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
    Message-ID: <>
    X-OriginalArrivalTime: 31 Aug 2001 16:18:56.0845 (UTC) FILETIME=[A27887D0:01C13238]
    Precedence: bulk

    >From: Chris Taylor <>
    >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
    >action at
    > > 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
    mnemon banks.

    Speaking of the 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

    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