Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id QAA18694 (8.6.9/5.3[ref email@example.com] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from firstname.lastname@example.org); Wed, 28 Nov 2001 16:43:18 GMT Date: Wed, 28 Nov 2001 11:37:44 -0500 Subject: Re: circular logic Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed From: Wade Smith <email@example.com> To: firstname.lastname@example.org Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In-Reply-To: <email@example.com> Message-Id: <3F79CDC8-E41E-11D5-86B0-003065A0F24C@harvard.edu> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.475) Sender: firstname.lastname@example.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: email@example.com
> I did not imitate my father, or my mother- they had certain parts of
> themselves which made me.
> So you were born with language, common sociocultural behavior
> and so on?
Okay, maybe I was slightly unclear, but, yes, I was born into an
environment that would nurture my speech development, and my
sociocultural development, and I was born with the genetic
material that would ensure that this development was possible,
but, nowhere in the process of actually getting my actual
physical being made was imitation a part.
Ants are born into colonies, making their development possible.
What can _your_ point possibly be, if it's anything other than
trying to annoy me?
Imitation is useless as an evolutionary process. It is
meaningless. Evolution does not imitate. It selects. With sex,
it can make large leaps for adaptations compared to copying
errors or other mutations.
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 : Wed Nov 28 2001 - 16:58:54 GMT