Re: Religious Thought and Lamarckism

From: Wade Smith (
Date: Thu Dec 20 2001 - 20:46:08 GMT

  • Next message: Wade T. Smith: "Re: Fwd: Eureka!"

    Received: by id UAA02026 (8.6.9/5.3[ref] for from; Thu, 20 Dec 2001 20:50:53 GMT
    Date: Thu, 20 Dec 2001 15:46:08 -0500
    Subject: Re: Religious Thought and Lamarckism
    Content-Type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII; format=flowed
    From: Wade Smith <>
    Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
    In-Reply-To: <000701c1898f$ecf82aa0$ec01bed4@default>
    Message-Id: <>
    X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.475)
    Precedence: bulk

    > We tend to see this as the Darwinian paradigm_ natural selection can do
    > the same trick

    I would nitpick and say that natural selection does what it
    does, and we perceive it, erroneously, as doing a trick.

    > Lamarck's theory is misrepresented and misinterpreted.

    It's not a misunderstanding to remark that lamarckianism has no
    place in evolution. Culture _is_ lamarckian, and I would say
    that Lamarck was simply one person to notice the trends of
    cultural patterns, sheerly luckily getting his name attached to
    'change due to need'.

    Of course Dawkins and Darwin noticed these things culturally.
    Culture is all about needs and wants. Evolution is about fit.
    That we see confluence between these two processes is
    understandable. Culture is one of the things evolution has
    selected for us.

    But there was never and never will be any lamarckian _need_ for
    culture. The peoples with it, however, spread more and killed

    - Wade

    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 : Thu Dec 20 2001 - 20:57:18 GMT