Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id XAA22055 (8.6.9/5.3[ref email@example.com] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from firstname.lastname@example.org); Sun, 2 Sep 2001 23:42:41 +0100 Message-ID: <002d01c133f5$7e7e6020$d387b2d1@teddace> From: "Dace" <email@example.com> To: <firstname.lastname@example.org> References: <F2662u4hadSyXqZ9Lmy00001af6@hotmail.com> Subject: Re: Misunderstood Cichlids Date: Sun, 2 Sep 2001 14:23:20 -0700 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: email@example.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: firstname.lastname@example.org
> 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
> 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?
While isolation prompts speciation, resonance encourages parallel
development among the new species.
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 : Mon Sep 03 2001 - 00:03:09 BST