Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id UAA12675 (8.6.9/5.3[ref firstname.lastname@example.org] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from email@example.com); Sat, 8 Sep 2001 20:37:02 +0100 Message-ID: <001501c138a3$208b2860$b7a2bed4@default> From: "Kenneth Van Oost" <Kenneth.Van.Oost@village.uunet.be> To: <firstname.lastname@example.org> References: <3B8BA216.42CA25F@bioinf.man.ac.uk> <004101c130d4$01b31c80$d386b2d1@teddace> Subject: Re: Clincher? Date: Sat, 8 Sep 2001 22:15:43 +0200 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300 Sender: email@example.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: firstname.lastname@example.org
----- Original Message -----
From: Dace <email@example.com>
Dace wrote, Chris wrote,
Your approach is far too black-and-white. MR doesn't contradict natural
selection. It rounds it out. It restores evolutionary theory to its
Darwinian moors by incorporating the inheritance of acquired traits. You
should be aware that Darwin considered the capacity of organisms to shape
their evolutionary future as being essential to evolutionary theory. As far
as Darwin was concerned, there is no theory of evolution if the behavior of
organisms isn't its driving force. He would certainly have been appalled
at what has been put forth in his name in this century.
MR isn't going to save a species when the material basis of its existence,
genetic or environmental, is no longer present.
I agree with your statement here.
As far I can remerber the reason why I was and still are interested in
Lamarck is the notion about the inheritance of acquired characteristics.
Many who write about Lamarck seem to forget, like Wilkins points
out correctly, that he never talked about desires but always about needs,
( besoin ). And, Wilkins in mind, makes the ' same mistake ' by taking
over the ' softer ' meaning of besoin, (desire, want, shortage,...) in his
essay, the Appearance of Lamarckism in the Evolution of Culture.
Besoin is, I hope you can read and understand French, a very powerful
word. Besoins means necessity, needy.
Lamarck talks about les besoins que font agir l' homme même, ils
agissent par une puissant interne que produisent les besoins.
Les besoins provoquer l' action des muscles, and he writes.. à la pro-
vocation de toute cause ' affectente '.
And in a sense Darwin was right in saying that there was no theory
of evolution if the behavior of organisms isn 't its driving force, but
where almost everyone sees this as it were an affect of natural
selection, it would be better, IMO that is, to go one step back and
to see what Lamarck has to say... besoins, what people need to sur-
vive is important. And that, in the way I approach Lamarck, and I
do read him in French, so no translate- errors can slip in, is IMO,
still ' a reaction '.
We ' react ' upon things which change, we ' react ' upon things which
change along lines of memory and/ or lines of acquired traits.
And we do that, not along lines of genetic change, but along lines of
neurological change, along lines of memory, along lines of acquired
Lamarck writes, " Or, cet ébranlement subit donne lieu à l' instant à une
reaction qui, rapporteé à toutes parts au foyer commun,..." ( page 518,
And yes, to round this up, we have to see Lamarck, approach Lamarck
as indeed as the origin of the genuine study of mind.
IMO, Lamarck is and was always misread.
Lamarckism has to be dealt with as it were psychology, not biology.
( I am, because we are)
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 : Sat Sep 08 2001 - 20:41:50 BST