Newsgroups: comp.ai.alife
Path: cantaloupe.srv.cs.cmu.edu!das-news2.harvard.edu!news2.near.net!howland.reston.ans.net!pipex!uknet!bailgate!roborough.gpsemi.com!whipp
From: whipp@roborough.gpsemi.com (David Whipp)
Subject: Re: Lamarckian Evolution
Message-ID: <D382AG.Hnp@lincoln.gpsemi.com>
Sender: usenet@lincoln.gpsemi.com (usnet account)
Nntp-Posting-Host: psupw22.roborough.gpsemi.com
Organization: GEC Plessey Semiconductors
References: <A.J.Hirst-060195122247@uu-igor-mac.open.ac.uk> <3eufpiINN3ojd@rs1.rrz.Uni-Koeln.DE> <davesag-1701952036170001@sladl1p11.ozemail.com.au> <3fi3gh$abe@laplace.ee.latrobe.edu.au> <1995Jan19.195400.24879@gdunix.gd.chalmers.se>
Date: Mon, 30 Jan 1995 14:15:51 GMT
Lines: 88

In article <1995Jan19.195400.24879@gdunix.gd.chalmers.se, sa209@utb.shv.hb.se (Claes Andersson) writes:

> I get so tired.. firstly: No one here seems to understand the
> impossibility of Lamarckian evolution. It is very easily dispatched
> since it would that some sort of magic gene-construction. It was
> proved to be wrong long before even the DNA was found and dragging
> it up is like dragging the geocentric view of the universe!

> The other thing, no one seems to know what Lamarckism is at all! Not?
> Why then come with examples of Lamarckian evolution that isn't
> Lamarckian evolution in any way.  It is called LEARNING. Your parents
> learned you to speak, and they didn't do it via your genes.. So it is
> in no way Lamarckian evolution.

OK, I will accept that the term Lamarckian Evolution is being used
incorrectly in this thread.  However, that does no alter my opinion
that characteristics are inherited through non-Darwinian mechanisms.
Learning is an excellent example of such a mechanism. I can think
of others that are not dependent on the modification of genes;
for example, addiction can be inherited because chemicals are
passed in the blood from mother to child (e.g. Kwala bears are
addicted to Eucoliptus leaves)

Darwin's theory of of Evolution by Natural selection. He wrote that
species evolved by continuous and gradual modifications that are
selected by the pressures of the environment. Neo-Darwinists have
realised the the changes are not necessarily gradual, but still
hold to the beleif that the selection pressures are due to the
environment

What is the environment. Some people would argue that it is everything
that isn't the individual concerned. This definition is, IMHO rather
too broad - a similar philosophy leads the the conclusion that a
nuclear power-station is natural.

I choose to separate social environment and physical environment;
and to use Darwinian evolution in relation to the physical environment.
There is a distinction between Natural Selection and UnNatural
Selection. Evolution for social reasons does not necessarily lead
to better adaptions to the physical environment

suk@usceast.cs.scarolina.edu (Peter Kwangjun Suk) wrote:
> On the contrary, the peacock's tail can be explained quite nicely
> through darwinian selection.  For one thing, your statement:
> > The reasons for selection will originate in features that have
> > positive survival benifit (for the offspring and therefore the
> > species)
> is mistaken.  Those genes which manage to *propagate* themselves
> are the ones naturally selected.  So, a feature can easily have
> a negative impact on an individual's survival, but would propagate
> itself very efficiently.  (Supposedly, a peacock's tail makes it
> sexy.)

The selection that favours the Peacock's tail is selection by
social pressures. The environment that does the selection is
behavioural (social) not the physical environment. I this case,
a gene propogates that might lead to the extinction of the
species.

PKS:
> You should also substantiate your statement about size, and offspring
> no longer being able to support their own weight.  Size will only
> be selected if it is advantageous to a gene's chances to reproduce.
> When size gets unreasonable, increased bulk will be selected against.

Again, the selection pressure is on the ability to reproduce rather than
on the ability to survive. When a small creature acquires a gene
that says "mate with biggest male" this will be advantageous, and may
be reinforced with more complex behaviours. Unfortunately, these
will persist well beyond the point of optimuim size. I beleive
that some species of deer (Irish Elk?) had incredibly large Antlers.


For the first few billion years of life on earth, evolution would have
been controled by the physical pressures of the environment. However,
once more complex behaviours emmerge, the selection processes begin
to the influenced by these behaviours rather than the environment.

Darwinists can claim that all such pressures are "the environment".
However, I would like to see a stronger recognition of the different
forms of selection. To use the umbrella of "environment" hides (IMHO)
important classifications of features of evolution.

-- 
                    David P. Whipp.            <whipp@roborough.gpsemi.com
Not speaking for:   -------------------------------------------------------
 G.E.C. Plessey     Due to transcription and transmission errors, the views
 Semiconductors     expressed here may not reflect even  my  own  opinions!
