Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id UAA02026 (8.6.9/5.3[ref email@example.com] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from firstname.lastname@example.org); 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 <email@example.com> To: firstname.lastname@example.org Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit In-Reply-To: <000701c1898f$ecf82aa0$ec01bed4@default> Message-Id: <9862A432-F58A-11D5-B2B5-003065A0F24C@harvard.edu> X-Mailer: Apple Mail (2.475) Sender: email@example.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: firstname.lastname@example.org
> 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
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