| rjohara.net |
RJOHARA.NET
- Home Page
- Johnsonia Fire
- Darwin-L Archives
- RJO’s Publications
- Coins of Miletus
- Genealogy
- Teaching Pages
- Peabody Park
- Book Reviews
- Varia from RJO
The Collegiate Way
- CW Introduction
- House Systems
- Four Foundations
- Building a College
- Future Landscape
- Colleges Worldwide
- CW Readings
Website Utilities
Darwin-L Message Log 5: 101–140 — January 1994
Academic Discussion on the History and Theory of the Historical Sciences
Darwin-L was an international discussion group on the history and theory of the historical sciences, active from 1993–1997. Darwin-L was established to promote the reintegration of a range of fields all of which are concerned with reconstructing the past from evidence in the present, and to encourage communication among scholars, scientists, and researchers in these fields. The group had more than 600 members from 35 countries, and produced a consistently high level of discussion over its several years of operation. Darwin-L was not restricted to evolutionary biology nor to the work of Charles Darwin, but instead addressed the entire range of historical sciences from an explicitly comparative perspective, including evolutionary biology, historical linguistics, textual transmission and stemmatics, historical geology, systematics and phylogeny, archeology, paleontology, cosmology, historical geography, historical anthropology, and related “palaetiological” fields.
This log contains public messages posted to the Darwin-L discussion group during January 1994. It has been lightly edited for format: message numbers have been added for ease of reference, message headers have been trimmed, some irregular lines have been reformatted, and error messages and personal messages accidentally posted to the group as a whole have been deleted. No genuine editorial changes have been made to the content of any of the posts. This log is provided for personal reference and research purposes only, and none of the material contained herein should be published or quoted without the permission of the original poster.
The master copy of this log is maintained in the Darwin-L Archives (rjohara.net/darwin) by Dr. Robert J. O’Hara. The Darwin-L Archives also contain additional information about the Darwin-L discussion group, the complete Today in the Historical Sciences calendar for every month of the year, a collection of recommended readings on the historical sciences, and an account of William Whewell’s concept of “palaetiology.”
-----------------------------------------------
DARWIN-L MESSAGE LOG 5: 101-140 -- JANUARY 1994
-----------------------------------------------
DARWIN-L
A Network Discussion Group on the
History and Theory of the Historical Sciences
_______________________________________________________________________________
<5:101>From john.wilkins1@udev.monash.edu.au Tue Jan 18 17:53:04 1994
Date: Wed, 19 Jan 1994 10:49:09 +1000
From: John Wilkins <john.wilkins1@udev.monash.edu.au>
Subject: Re: Inheritance
To: darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu
Reply to: RE>>Inheritance
Hull's generic definition of replicator/interactor might apply here. He
certainly wants to apply it to scientific theories, so why not other
sociocultural processes of transmission?
John Wilkins - Manager, Publishing, Monash University,
Wellington Road, Clayton, Victoria 3168 [Melbourne] Australia
Internet: john.wilkins@udev.monash.edu.au
Tel: (+613) 905 6009; fax: 905 6029
*******
Monash neither knows, nor approves, of what I say
_______________________________________________________________________________
<5:102>From john.wilkins1@udev.monash.edu.au Tue Jan 18 20:41:38 1994
Date: Wed, 19 Jan 1994 13:34:43 +1000
From: John Wilkins <john.wilkins1@udev.monash.edu.au>
Subject: Re: Developmentalism Biblio
To: darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu
Reply to: RE>>Developmentalism Bibliog
WRT Developmentalism recidivus: are we then approaching a "developmental unit
is the unit of selection" view? If genes organised into codons expressed in
an epigenetic environment interacting in an ecology are the essential
entities in evolution, then the developmental unit is just the interface
between interactor and replicator entities. That is, in Lewontin's terms, the
developmental unit represents the set of transformation rules from epigenetic
space to ecological space for any given species/organism.
If this is so, what does that mean for the "selection [and drift, et ceteris
paribus] is all that causes evolution" orthodoxy? I cannot see that it much
affects it.
I'm still a bit lost in "possibility space" constraints, but why should the
direction of an earlier selection event affect the direction of a future
selection event? To be sure, it may make for a wider turning circle if the
microstates available to a given species or deme are not totally free, but it
does not guarantee that longer term directional trends will ("must") emerge,
nor that selection is no longer the most important process in evolution, as
Brooks and Wiley say.
Thanks to both bibliography posters. I was aware of some items, but they are
invaluable for my own work.
John Wilkins - Manager, Publishing, Monash University,
Wellington Road, Clayton, Victoria 3168 [Melbourne] Australia
Internet: john.wilkins@udev.monash.edu.au
Tel: (+613) 905 6009; fax: 905 6029
====Monash neither knows, nor approves, of what I say====
_______________________________________________________________________________
<5:103>From DARWIN@iris.uncg.edu Tue Jan 18 22:00:30 1994
Date: Tue, 18 Jan 1994 23:06:31 -0500 (EST)
From: DARWIN@iris.uncg.edu
Subject: %#@!@%@#! (Further administrative notes)
To: darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu
Organization: University of NC at Greensboro
The mail delivery problems at my local uncg site that I thought had been
fixed reappeared again last week. Things appear now to be working normally
again, but I have my fingers crossed. I have now replied to all the private
messages I received in the last few days, so if anyone has been trying to
get in touch with me but has had no reply please do try again. I believe
that the problem the Kansas site was having with bitnet mail has also been
fixed, so if anyone has any further problems posting to the list please let
me know and I will see what I can do.
Many thanks to you all for your continuing patience.
Bob O'Hara (darwin@iris.uncg.edu)
Robert J. O'Hara (darwin@iris.uncg.edu)
Center for Critical Inquiry and Department of Biology
100 Foust Building, University of North Carolina at Greensboro
Greensboro, North Carolina 27412 U.S.A.
_______________________________________________________________________________
<5:104>From abrown@independent.co.uk Wed Jan 19 05:07:59 1994
From: Andrew Brown <abrown@independent.co.uk>
Date: Wed, 19 Jan 94 11:18:16 GMT
To: darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu
Subject: Re: Systematics and linguistics
forgive my ignorance, but what *is* reticulation in this context?
Andrew Brown
Religious Affairs Correspondent
The Independent
London, England
work phone: +44-71-956-1682
email: abrown@independent.co.uk
_______________________________________________________________________________
<5:105>From HOLSINGE@UCONNVM.BITNET Wed Jan 19 07:21:12 1994
Date: Wed, 19 Jan 1994 08:12:33 -0500 (EST)
From: "Kent E. Holsinger" <HOLSINGE%UCONNVM.BITNET@KU9000.CC.UKANS.EDU>
Subject: Re: Systematics and linguistics
To: darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu
Thank you, Scott, for the clarifications you offered. I think we were talking
at cross purposes, which is what I suspected although I didn't know what I had
misunderstood. Just to make sure I have it straight let me repeat what my
understanding of the parallels are:
1) Both biological systematists (well, cladists at least) and historical
linguists attempt to identify similarities that are due to common descent.
2) Given enough data historical linguists are often (generally?) able to
trace a single, primary line of descent even in a language like English
in which over half of the vocabulary is borrowed. This is analagous to
the ability of biological systematists to identify characters in a species
that have been introduced through hybridization, given enough data.
3) In both biological systematics and historical linguistics resemblances
decay enough over time that it may become difficult (perhaps in the case of
languages, impossible) to identify historical relationships, even though in
both cases we are (reasonably) certain that our objects of study all share
a single common ancestor some time in the distant past. To use cladistic
terminology, both life and human languages are monophyletic.
4) Convergence, the independent aquisition of similar characteristics in
different groups, is possible in both biological and language evolution.
Two important differences seem to have emerged:
1) Hybridization/borrowing is more frequent in language evolution than in
biological evolution (at least biological evolution above the species
level.
2) Convergence is more frequent (or at least more frequently invoked) in
biological evolution than in language evolution.
Does that sound like a reasonable summary?
-- Kent
+--------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Kent E. Holsinger Internet: Holsinge@UConnVM.UConn.edu |
| Dept. of Ecology & BITNET: Holsinge@UConnVM |
| Evolutionary Biology, U-43 |
| University of Connecticut |
| Storrs, CT 06269-3043 |
+--------------------------------------------------------------------+
_______________________________________________________________________________
<5:106>From HOLSINGE@UCONNVM.BITNET Wed Jan 19 07:29:48 1994
Date: Wed, 19 Jan 1994 08:27:20 -0500 (EST)
From: "Kent E. Holsinger" <HOLSINGE%UCONNVM.BITNET@KU9000.CC.UKANS.EDU>
Subject: Re: Systematics and linguistics
To: darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu
Tom Cravens asked for a definition of reticulate. Since I introduced the
term, let me define it.
Biologists talk about evolution being reticulate when it is not treelike, i.e.,
when the relationships among groups do not represent single lines of descent
but multiple lines of descent. In biological evolution it reflects
hybridization (or sexual reproduction within a population). I was using it,
perhaps incorrectly, to describe the analogous situation in language evolution
when there is extensive borrowing.
-- Kent
+--------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Kent E. Holsinger Internet: Holsinge@UConnVM.UConn.edu |
| Dept. of Ecology & BITNET: Holsinge@UConnVM |
| Evolutionary Biology, U-43 |
| University of Connecticut |
| Storrs, CT 06269-3043 |
+--------------------------------------------------------------------+
_______________________________________________________________________________
<5:107>From DEWAR%UCONNVM.BITNET@KU9000.CC.UKANS.EDU Wed Jan 19 11:11:23 1994
Date: Wed, 19 Jan 1994 12:05:45 -0500 (EST)
From: Bob Dewar <DEWAR%UCONNVM.BITNET@KU9000.CC.UKANS.EDU>
Subject: Re: Systematics and linguistics
To: darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu
Tom Cravens asked for a definition of "reticulate". The word derives from
romance language words meaning net. In historical terms, reticulate evolution
is where the lines of descent diverge and converge like the intertwined fibers
of a fabric. It is sometimes used in contrast to "dendritic", where lines of
descent continue, stop or divide, but never converge.
ROBERT E. DEWAR OFFICE PHONE 203 486-3851
DEPARTMENT OF ANTHROPOLOGY OFFICE FAX 203 486-1719
UNIVERSITY OF CONNECTICUT BITNET: DEWAR@UCONNVM
STORRS, CT 06269 INTERNET: DEWAR@UCONNVM.UCONN.EDU
_______________________________________________________________________________
<5:108>From delancey@darkwing.uoregon.edu Wed Jan 19 13:05:15 1994
Date: Wed, 19 Jan 1994 11:01:44 -0800 (PST)
From: Scott C DeLancey <delancey@darkwing.uoregon.edu>
Subject: Re: Systematics and linguistics
To: darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu
Kent Holsinger's summary this morning of the parallels we've been
working on between biological and linguistic evolution pretty well
captures what Sally and I have been saying. There are two points
that haven't been foregrounded in the discussion, that could still
use clarification:
> 2) Convergence is more frequent (or at least more frequently invoked) in
> biological evolution than in language evolution.
I would make a gross analogical equation of corresponding morphemes (and
hence words) in language to molecular sequences, and of typological
similarities among languages to morphological similarities among species.
The first criteria are the most compelling in both fields, because they
cannot be the result of convergence. But while biologists have only
(relatively) recently had molecular sequencing data of various kinds
available, they have had to deal all along with morphological similarities
and the related problem of convergence. Linguists, of course, have had
word and morphological* comparisons as their primary data from the
beginning of historical linguistics, and have never paid much attention
to typological similarities--thus the problem of convergence doesn't
come up much.
> 3) In both biological systematics and historical linguistics resemblances
> decay enough over time that it may become difficult (perhaps in the case
> of languages, impossible) to identify historical relationships, even
> though in both cases we are (reasonably) certain that our objects of study
> all share a single common ancestor some time in the distant past. To use
> cladistic terminology, both life and human languages are monophyletic.
Actually this is a precarious assumption in linguistics. (I think this
is where this discussion got started, but I'm not sure we ever came
to grips with this issue). There are both biological and memetic aspects
to the origin of language, and these need to be sorted out before we
can get very far with the question of monogenesis vs. polygenesis.
It's clear that there are some biological adaptations to linguistic
behavior in humans, though there's bitter controversy about what kind
and how extensive and specific they are. (Bitter in part because no
one has anything really substantive to contribute to the issue). So
presumably the initial development of linguistic behavior took place
in a single population ancestral to all modern humans. But we have
no clear idea how far that development went, and it remains conceivable
(though IMO certainly the less likely hypothesis) that the development
of what we would recognize as full-fledged language was a cultural
rather than biological development which could have occurred more than
once.
Scott DeLancey delancey@darkwing.uoregon.edu
Department of Linguistics
University of Oregon
Eugene, OR 97403
*I hope everybody's easy with the fact that "morphological" means
quite different things in linguistics and biology.
_______________________________________________________________________________
<5:109>From GOLLAV@axe.humboldt.edu Wed Jan 19 15:44:56 1994
Date: Wed, 19 Jan 1994 13:49 PST
From: GOLLAV@axe.humboldt.edu
Subject: Re: Systematics and Linguistics
To: darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu
Scott DeLancey, in an earlier posting today, writes:
> There are both biological and memetic aspects to the origin of
> language, and these need to be sorted out before we can get very
> far with the question of monogenesis vs. polygenesis.
Scott, could you tell us what you mean by "memetic"?
--Victor Golla
Humboldt State University
Arcata, California 95521
gollav @ axe.humboldt.edu
_______________________________________________________________________________
<5:110>From delancey@darkwing.uoregon.edu Wed Jan 19 16:54:55 1994
Date: Wed, 19 Jan 1994 14:46:16 -0800 (PST)
From: Scott C DeLancey <delancey@darkwing.uoregon.edu>
Subject: Memetics (was: Re: Systematics and Linguistics)
To: darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu
Victor Golla asks:
> Scott DeLancey, in an earlier posting today, writes:
>
> > There are both biological and memetic aspects to the origin of
> > language
>
> Scott, could you tell us what you mean by "memetic"?
Woops. Well, yes, I can tell you what *I* mean by it ...
The term "meme" was proposed by Dawkins, in _The Selfish Gene_, as
a way of referring to parallels between self-replicating patterns
which replicate biologically (i.e. genes) and patterns of behavior
which replicate through cultural (very broadly construed) transmission,
which he analogically calls memes. The notion and the term (or
at least the term) are very trendy in various circles these days
(so "meme" is a successful meme). This would be an interesting
topic for this list, if there were any way of getting ahold of
it in a moderately rigorous fashion. The problem is, of course,
what exactly is a meme? To the extent that we know anything
about them, we know them only phenotypically, i.e. what we have
available to study are the equivalent of traits, not genes.
But, anyway, linguistic transmission, like other cultural
transmission, is the kind of thing Dawkins has in mind (though his
specific examples are things like particular ways of making pots),
and I guess in using the word I had in mind to refer simultaneously to the
parallels to genetic transmission and evolution that we were talking about
and the clear differences between biological and linguistic evolution.
Scott DeLancey delancey@darkwing.uoregon.edu
Department of Linguistics
University of Oregon
Eugene, OR 97403
_______________________________________________________________________________
<5:111>From SMITGM@hawkins.clark.edu Wed Jan 19 18:55:54 1994
To: darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu
From: "Gerard Donnelly Smith" <SMITGM@hawkins.clark.edu>
Organization: Clark College, Vancouver WA, USA
Date: 19 Jan 94 16:54:06 PST8PDT
Subject: memetic vs. mimetic
The theory of mimetic desire postulated by Rene Girard in THE
SCAPEGOAT, VIOLENCE AND THE SACRED and DECEIT AND DESIRE IN THE
NOVEL, should be mentioned when discussing Dawkins' meme. The
transmission of ideas through cultural rituals either in language
(oral or print), dance, plastic arts, etc., are selfish in Dawkins'
sense. "Memes," if we must use the term to stand for abstract
concepts or technological advances in a culture, compete with each
other within the culture's "genetic" field, the system of checks
and balance (taboos, rules, laws) which keep the society from
fragmenting due to internal conflict caused by biological
competition. Paradigms exist to suppress fear of nature, fear of
"the other", fear of the unknown. We replace paradigms when new
technologies or new religions (science?) explain nature, both human
and nonhuman, better. Selection, in this case, is not random, but
more precisely fits the "survival of the fittest" metaphor. The most
fit paradigm proceeds.
True, no metaphysical system ever dies, but continues to compete
within the cultural "meme" pool. Yet, the characteristics of that
genome, shall we say menome," can be rejected by the offspring,
whereas, genes may not. We may be able to alter genes in the future,
which does create an interesting analogy between cultural
transmission and biological transmission.
Christianity, an new paradigm, which met with stiff resistence
can be discussed in these terms, as can almost all new ideas which
were seen as heretical (ie. Galileo theories were heretical to the
Catholic church and continued to compete with church supported
theories for 600 years).
Individual etymologies might also be discussed using the "meme"
analogy. "ain't" has been in direct competition with "am not" for
years and regardless of grammar teacher's insistence on the latter,
has been "selfish" enough to replicate. But this is where I have to
draw the line. Personification may be useful in poetry, prose and
may help in explaining the activities of some biologically driven
processes, but using terms like "selfish," and "conscious" to describe
competition between words doesn't help the matter.
I would much rather stick with mimetic theory to describe the
cultural transmission of ideas and technologies, and, yes, I think
mimesis can be applied to linguistics and language change as well.
Mimetic theory has a long an illustrious history and it is a serious
science. Dawkins' work is insightfull, but mimetic rather than
memetic theory explains the parallels the list wishes to make.
"If a wise man gives thee better counsel, give me mine again. I
would know that a fool follows it, for a knave gives it."
Dr. Gerard Donnelly-Smith e-mail: smitgm@hawkins.clark.edu
English Department, Clark College
_______________________________________________________________________________
<5:112>From DARWIN@iris.uncg.edu Wed Jan 19 20:53:39 1994
Date: Wed, 19 Jan 1994 21:59:28 -0400 (EDT)
From: DARWIN@iris.uncg.edu
Subject: January 19 -- Today in the Historical Sciences
To: darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu
Organization: University of NC at Greensboro
JANUARY 19 -- TODAY IN THE HISTORICAL SCIENCES
1761: PIERRE-AUGUSTE-MARIE BROUSSONET is born at Montpellier, France.
An ardent naturalist from an early age, Broussonet will study Classics and
medicine at Montpellier, and will receive his doctorate in medicine there in
1779 at the age of eighteen. Broussonet's interests will turn to ichthyology,
and he will travel to London in 1780 where Joseph Banks will give him charge
of the ichthyological collection from James Cook's first voyage around the
world. Broussonet's initial reports on the Cook collection, _Ichthyologia
sistens piscium descriptiones et icones_, will begin to appear in 1782, but
the work as a whole will never be completed. Caught up in the violence of the
French Revolution, Broussonet will escape to Spain and will reside for a time
in Morocco where he will study botany. In 1803 he will return to Montpellier
to become professor of medicine, and will devote his energies to the revival
and expansion the Montpellier botanical garden. The first catalog of the
garden's collections, _Elenchus plantarum horti botanici Monspeliensis_,
will appear shortly before his death in 1807.
Today in the Historical Sciences is a feature of Darwin-L, an international
network discussion group on the history and theory of the historical sciences.
For more information about Darwin-L send the two-word message INFO DARWIN-L to
listserv@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu, or gopher to rjohara.uncg.edu (152.13.44.19).
_______________________________________________________________________________
<5:113>From HOLSINGE@UCONNVM.BITNET Thu Jan 20 07:04:30 1994
Date: Thu, 20 Jan 1994 07:56:29 -0500 (EST)
From: "Kent E. Holsinger" <HOLSINGE%UCONNVM.BITNET@KU9000.CC.UKANS.EDU>
Subject: Re: Systematics and linguistics
To: darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu
Just one minor comment on Scott DeLancey's idea of analogizing of morphemes
and molecular sequences. This isn't quite accurate in biology. With
molecular sequences we're faced with the problem that we *know* convergence
*will* happen at particular nucleotide positions, even though entire sequences
are extremely unlikely to converge.
Why can I say we *know* convergence *will* happen? Because there are only
four distinct nucleotides in DNA. Thus, at any position there is a good chance
that two sequences that share an A acquired that A independently. Fortunately,
we have some ways of dealing with the problem. Notice, however, that the A's
are chemically identical and indistinguishable in all observable properties
even if they were incorporated into the sequence in separate historical events.
With morphological traits, on the other hand, some cladists argue that "true"
convergence of the sort I have just described for molecular sequences is
impossible. They would assert that if you look closely enough at those
characters "apparent" convergences will represent non-homologous character
states.
-- Kent
+--------------------------------------------------------------------+
| Kent E. Holsinger Internet: Holsinge@UConnVM.UConn.edu |
| Dept. of Ecology & BITNET: Holsinge@UConnVM |
| Evolutionary Biology, U-43 |
| University of Connecticut |
| Storrs, CT 06269-3043 |
+--------------------------------------------------------------------+
_______________________________________________________________________________
<5:114>From FULTRD@ooi.clark.edu Thu Jan 20 13:34:04 1994
To: Scott C DeLancey <delancey@darkwing.uoregon.edu>,
darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu
From: FULTRD@ooi.clark.edu
Organization: Clark College, Vancouver WA, USA
Date: 20 Jan 94 11:33:57 PST8PDT
Subject: Re: Systematics and linguistics
I've been lurking for the last four months; ironically, the first
message I am sending to the list has nothing to do directly with any
of the issues being debated (although one might find a peripheral
relationship, or perhaps even a reticulated relationship).
Clark College will soon be announcing a full time tenure track
opening in biology. Minimum requirements are an MS in biology, with
a PhD and some teaching experience preferred. Duties will be to
teach general and environmental biology.
Clark is a community college located in Vancouver WA, where the
temperature has hovered in the high 40s since Christmas. Most of the
students taking general biology are preparing to transfer; most of
our transfer students go to Washington State, U of Washington,
Portland State, and the U of Portland. Teaching load is typical of a
community college (18 contact hours/week); tenure decision is based
strictly on teaching and community service, although research is
looked kindly on. Research is encouraged financially and in all
other ways except released time. Clark's science faculty have been
highly successful in competing for fellowships and grants. The
College will consider its diversity needs when filling this position.
If you or any of your colleagues are interested (starting salary
depending on experience, but in the neighborhood of $28,000-$30,000)
call JOBLINE (206) 696-1821. Position will officially open around
the end of January and close March 11.
Richard Fulton
Dean of Faculty
Clark College
fultrd@ooi.clark.edu
_______________________________________________________________________________
<5:115>From whr@u.washington.edu Thu Jan 20 17:13:49 1994
Date: Thu, 20 Jan 1994 15:16:37 -0800 (PST)
From: William Rodgers <whr@u.washington.edu>
Subject: 2d Annual Conference on Law, Biology, & Human Behavior
To: darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu
Third Annual Conference
June 15 - 20, 1994
Squaw Valley, California
LAW, BIOLOGY, & HUMAN BEHAVIOR
sponsored by
Gruter Institute for Law and Behavioral Research
and
Continuing Legal Education,
University of Washington School of Law
This is an announcement of the Third Annual Conference on Law,
Biology, and Human Behavior (Applications of Biology in the Study
of Law) that will be held at Squaw Valley, California June 15-20,
1994. The conference offers an opportunity for law professors to
receive basic information on evolutionary social theory
(selfishness, altruism, kin-selection), primatology, ethology,
ecology, anthropology, game theory, and related subjects pertinent
to the study of law. The choice of topics and approaches best
suited to this interdisciplinary endeavor requires dialogue and
discussion. The meeting is organized around five days with morning
lectures and workshops in the afternoons or evenings. In these
workshops groups of participants engage in discussion of the
topics, analyze findings and their implications, introduce and
discuss alternative perspectives, summarize their findings and have
an opportunity to bring their questions directly to the experts in
the various fields.
Over the last two years, more than 100 law professors have attended
previous conferences, which were under the direction of Professor
William Rodgers, Jr. Last year's speakers included C. Thomas
Schelling, the well known game theorist; F. Sherwood Rowland,
retiring president of the AAAS and co-discoverer of the impact of
chlorofluorocarbons on the ozone layer; primatologist Frans de
Waal, whose published works include Chimpanzee Politics and
Peacemaking among Primates; Robert Trivers, who is responsible for
reciprocal altruism theory; and Robert Frank, Cornell economist,
author of the popular book Passions within Reason.
This conference will be of special interest to those teaching in
the subjects of environmental and constitutional law, law and
anthropology, law and economics, family law, and other subjects
directly influenced by recent studies of human behavior.
Director: Professor William H. Rodgers, Jr.
University of Washington, School of Law
(206)543-5182
Co-Director: Professor Oliver Goodenough
Vermont Law School
(802)763-8303
Co-Director: Professor Mark Grady
UCLA School of Law
(310)206-8251
PROGRAM HIGHLIGHTS
Wednesday, June 15
Travel day, reception and dinner
Thursday, June 16
Evolutionary Theory and Social Behavior
Friday, June 17
Ethology and Primate Behavior
Neuroscience
Saturday, June 18
Economics, Biology, and Law
Legal Applications of an Economics Approach to Law and Biology
Sunday, June 19
Anthropology, Biology, and Law
Legal Applications: The Evolution of Law
Monday, June 20
Environmental Law
Teaching Law and Biology
Conference ends at noon.
FACULTY
Frans de Waal, Professor of Primatology
Yerkes Primate Research Center at Emory University
E. Donald Elliott, Professor of Law, Yale Law School
Robert Frank, Professor of Economics, Cornell University
Roger Masters, Professor of Government, Dartmouth College
Michael McGuire, Professor of Biobehavioral Science, UCLA
Gordon Orians, Professor of Zoology, University of Washington
William Rodgers, Professor of Law, University of Washington
Lionel Tiger, Professor of Anthropology, Rutgers University
Robert Trivers, Professor of Biology, UC Santa Cruz
RECENT GRUTER INSTITUTE PUBLICATIONS
Law and the Mind: Biological Origins of Human Behavior (1991); M.
Gruter. Sage Publications, Newbury Park, CA.
The Sense of Justice: An Inquiry into the Biological Foundations of
Law (1992); R. D. Masters and M. Gruter, Editors; Sage
Publications, Newbury Park, CA.
Law, Biology and Culture, Second Edition (1992); M. Gruter and P.
Bohannan, Editors; McGraw-Hill Primis.
Biology, Law and Human Social Behavior. An Interdisciplinary Reader
(1992); R. D. Masters, Editor; McGraw-Hill Primis.
Human Nature and the New Europe (1993); M.T. McGuire and Gruter
Institute, Editors; Westview Press, Boulder, CO.
Rechtsverhalten - Biologische Grundlagen mit Beispielen aus dem
Familien- und Umweltrecht (1993) M. Gruter, Verlag Dr. Otto
Schmidt; Koln, Germany.
Der Faktor Mensch im neuen Europa (1993); M.T. McGuire and Gruter
Institute, Editors, Luchterhand Verlag, Kriftel, Germany.
Biology, Law and the Environment (1993) M. T. McGuire and M.
Rehbinder, Editors, Duncker & Hurnblot Verlag, Berlin, Germany.
Law and Democracy in the New Russia (1993);B. Smith and G.
Danilenko, Editors; The Brookings Institution Press, Washington,
DC.
The Neurotransmitter Revolution (1993); R. D. Masters and M. T.
McGuire, Editors; Southern Illinois University Press, Carbondale,
IL.
REGISTRATION, TRAVEL, HOTEL
The registration fee is $250, which includes room and board at
Squaw Valley Inn and conference materials. Participants who wish to
bring spouses or family may do so, but the price of their meals (or
additional rooms) is not included.
The meeting schedule includes time to enjoy the beautiful
surroundings in the Sierra Nevada Mountains and Lake Tahoe.
Most convenient flight arrangements are through Reno, Nevada, which
is about an hour (limousine service) from Squaw Valley.
For information and application, please call or write:
Gerti Dieker--Gruter Institute for Law and Behavioral Research
158 Goya Road, Portola Valley, CA 94028
Tel: 415 / 854-1191 - Fax: 415 / 854-1192
Limited space available - please apply by February 15, 1994.
This conference is made possible by a grant from the Ann and Gordon
Getty Foundation. It is co-sponsored by Continuing Legal
Education, Washington Law School Foundation, University of
Washington School of Law, Seattle, Washington.
_______________________________________________________________________________
<5:116>From DARWIN@iris.uncg.edu Thu Jan 20 18:47:05 1994
Date: Thu, 20 Jan 1994 19:57:41 -0400 (EDT)
From: DARWIN@iris.uncg.edu
Subject: Upcoming AAAS session on historical linguistics
To: darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu
Organization: University of NC at Greensboro
I just noticed that there is a session at the upcoming AAAS meeting in
San Francisco on historical linguistics, and thought some people might
like to see what's on the program. My guess is that this is a fairly
unusual session for a AAAS (American Association for the Advancement
of Science) meeting, and it may be that the people involved are trying
do what we had been discussing here, namely just getting out the correct
view as they see it, rather than working on the defensive against the
unorthodox views that have gotten a lot of attention. AAAS sessions
are usually tape recorded and cassette copies are typically available
for purchase; those of us who will not be attending the meeting might
like to look into this possibility. I don't believe any of the speakers
in this session are Darwin-L subscribers, but if any of our linguists
would care to invite them to join they would be welcome. Perhaps I could
send a Darwin-L notice to Nichols and she could pass it on to the others;
can someone send me her mailing address privately? Many thanks.
Bob O'Hara (darwin@iris.uncg.edu)
----------------------------------------
American Association for the Advancement of Science Annual Meeting
San Francisco, 18-23 February 1994 (Registration info: 301-855-8811)
COMPARATIVE LINGUISTICS AND HISTORICAL RELATIONSHIPS
Organized by Johanna Nichols, UC-Berkeley, and Lyle Campbell, Louisiana
State University.
Methods of contemporary standard comparative linguistics and an assessment
of its capabilities in reconstructing ancestral forms of language. The
relationship to history, archaeology, and cultural anthropology will also
be examined.
Monday, 21 February, 2:30-5:30, San Francisco Hilton
1. The comparative method (Jay H. Jasanoff, Cornell University)
2. The role of grammatical evidence in hypotheses of linguistic relationship
(Lyle Campbell, Louisiana State University)
3. Characterizing and evaluating evidence for distant genetic relationships
(William H. Jacobsen, University of Nevada - Reno)
4. Chance and true linguistic relationships (Donald A. Ringe, University of
Pennsylvania)
5. Language at 40,000 BC (Johanna Nichols, University of California - Berkeley)
_______________________________________________________________________________
<5:117>From ad201@freenet.carleton.ca Fri Jan 21 07:45:34 1994
Date: Fri, 21 Jan 1994 08:53:44 -0500
From: ad201@freenet.carleton.ca (Donald Phillipson)
To: darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu
Subject: Re: Inheritance
>RE>>Inheritance
>Hull's generic definition of replicator/interactor might apply here. He
>certainly wants to apply it to scientific theories, so why not other
>sociocultural processes of transmission?
It's mildly surprising so few answers to this modest request (for
definition) cited the literature, either secondary e.g. Peter Bowler's
Fontana history of the environmental sciences, S.J. Gould's critical
accounts of inheritance disputes, or primary e.g. Richard Dawkins on the
"meme" (heritable unit of social culture.)
>Monash neither knows, nor approves, of what I say
(But I hope they care!)
--
| Donald Phillipson, 4050 Hall's Road, Carlsbad |
| Springs, Ont., Canada K0A 1K0; tel: (613) 822-0734 |
| "What I've always liked about science is its independence from |
| authority"--Ontario Science Centre (name on file) 10 July 1981 |
_______________________________________________________________________________
<5:118>From ad201@freenet.carleton.ca Fri Jan 21 07:50:35 1994
Date: Fri, 21 Jan 1994 08:58:45 -0500
From: ad201@freenet.carleton.ca (Donald Phillipson)
To: darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu
Subject: Reticulate
Net = anything reticulated or decussated at equal distances, with
interstices between the intersections. (Samuel Johnson's Dictionary, 1775.)
--
| Donald Phillipson, 4050 Hall's Road, Carlsbad |
| Springs, Ont., Canada K0A 1K0; tel: (613) 822-0734 |
| "What I've always liked about science is its independence from |
| authority"--Ontario Science Centre (name on file) 10 July 1981 |
_______________________________________________________________________________
<5:119>From wilcox@triton.unm.edu Fri Jan 21 10:25:12 1994
From: Sherman Wilcox <wilcox@triton.unm.edu>
Subject: Conference on Language and Archeology
To: darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu
Date: Fri, 21 Jan 1994 09:32:19 -0700 (MST)
At some point, I believe there was an announcement of a conference on
language and archeology, to be held in Australia, posted on DARWIN. I've
somehow lost my copy of that post. Could anyone repost it for me, or send
it directly to me?
Thanks in advance...
--
Sherman Wilcox
Dept. of Linguistics
University of New Mexico
Albuquerque, NM 87131
wilcox@triton.unnm.edu
_______________________________________________________________________________
<5:120>From RSOLIE@smith.smith.edu Fri Jan 21 11:41:16 1994
Date: 21 Jan 1994 12:51:27 -0400 (EDT)
From: RSOLIE@smith.smith.edu
Subject: Re: Beethoven's 5th and the BBC
To: darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu
To continue the "victory" symbolism, there has been at least one earlier
time when that chain of associations was used in a commercial for some
over-the-counter medication; I remember writing about it back in the 70s.
What brand it was I don't remember, but it was to be construed as "victory
over the headache." I used it as an example precisely because the set of
associations was so complex, yet somehow powerful.
Ruth Solie
rsolie@smith.smith.edu
_______________________________________________________________________________
<5:121>From DARWIN@iris.uncg.edu Fri Jan 21 22:00:51 1994
Date: Fri, 21 Jan 1994 23:11:32 -0400 (EDT)
From: DARWIN@iris.uncg.edu
Subject: LACM suffers some earthquake damage (fwd from TAXACOM)
To: darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu
Organization: University of NC at Greensboro
The following message forwarded from TAXACOM describes the damage suffered
by the Los Angeles County Museum as a result of the recent earthquake. Some
Darwin-L members may have visited LACM or used it collections, and I thought
they might be interested to hear how the museum and its staff are doing.
Bob O'Hara (darwin@iris.uncg.edu)
-- Begin forwarded message -------------
Date: Thu, 20 Jan 1994 12:11:38 -0800
From: Robert Lavenberg <rlavenbe@BCF.USC.EDU>
Subject: Natural History Museum & Earthquake
Status of the collections and condition of the Natural History Museum of Los
Angeles County (LACM) as a result of the earthquake of January 17, 1994.
The Natural History Museum of Los Angeles County suffered little collection
damage resulting from the earthquake, but the building sustained some damage
in the form of cracked walls throughout.
Damage to the building and offices was more prevalent on the upper floors
(third and fourth floors). On the ground floor no collection damage occurred
in holdings for ichthyology, herpetology, polycheates, crustacea-echinoderms,
archeology-anthropology, or the molecular laboratory. Most of these
collections are maintained in Spacesaver compactors, and these installations
served the collections well. Many bottles were knocked down, but none broke
and none were thrown from the carriages. The tectonic braces served the
carriages well. Further, no damages occurred in any of the ground floor
offices. The first floor serves for exhibits only, and no significant damages
occurred; some items in the various exhibits fell over or were displaced.
Little damage occurred. Second floor serves exhibits, administrative offices,
and collections, no damages occurred in ornithology-mammalogy, but a few items
were broken in the archeology-anthropology storerooms. Some building damage
was noted between the administrative offices complex as they attached to the
main building. The third floor serves for offices, and the malacological,
some echinoderm, entomological, botanical, and some historical collections.
Little collection damage occurred, but many of the offices were trashed. The
fourth floor serves for exhibition and paleontological offices;
paleontological collections are also stored on the fourth floor. Although the
heavy paleontological cases moved 6-7 inches, no collection damage was noted;
however, the exhibits areas suffered moderate damage. Some wall cabinets
ripped from the wall on both the third and fourth floors. Again, some fourth
floor offices were trashed like those on the third floor.
The old 1913 domed-building apparently suffered little damage. Data for the
earthquake follows.
The San Fernando Valley Earthquake of January 17, 1994 of magnitude 6.6. Data
prepared as of 7:30 am, January 17, 1994.
An earthquake struck the San Fernando Valley this morning at 4:30 am Pacific
Standard Time. As of 7:00 am, 15 aftershocks of magnitude 3.0 or larger have
been recorded by the Southern California Seismographic Network. The epicenter
is located at 34! 13' north, 118! 33' west at a depth of 14.6 kilometers. The
surface wave magnitude from the National Earthquake Information Center is 6.6.
The local magnitude is 6.4.
The focal mechanism of the earthquake shows almost pure thrust (rake of 80!)
on a fault striking 15! west of north with a dip to the north of 30!. The
location of the mainshock's epicenter is located several kilometers south of
the southern end of the rupture zone. Most of the aftershocks are located to
the north of the mainshock around 10 kilometers depth. At this point we have
two competing hypothesis. If the mainshock is on the north dipping place
plane, it could be on the Elysian Park fold and thrust belt that produced the
Whittier Narrows earthquake (magnitude 5.9) in 1987. The aftershocks are then
occurring because of sympathetic rerupturing of the 1971 zone. The other
possibility is that the mainshock occurred on the south dipping plane that is
perhaps a backthrust of the main Elysian Park fault.
R. Lavenberg
Natural History Museum, Research and Collections, Section of Vertebrates
Voice 213 744-3446
FAX 213 748-4432
E-mail rlavenbe@usc.edu
-- End forwarded message ---------------
_______________________________________________________________________________
<5:122>From SMITGM@hawkins.clark.edu Mon Jan 24 10:38:51 1994
To: darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu
From: "Gerard Donnelly Smith" <SMITGM@hawkins.clark.edu>
Organization: Clark College, Vancouver WA, USA
Date: 24 Jan 94 08:32:22 PST8PDT
Subject: Re: Systematics and Linguistics
For those interested in a thorough and plausible theory of cultrual
transmission, I suggest they take up mimesis. Although Girard's
theory (Platonic and Aristotelian mimesis as precedent)
postulates that violence within early huminoid society caused
the need for the first ritual scapegoat tranference to animals or
other cutlures, his exploration of cultural transmission (which has
been debated by both anthopologist and psychologist)
seems much more relevant to any discussion which wishes to create an
analogy between systematics and linguistics.
Mimesis: In THINGS HIDDEN SINCE THE BEGGINNING OF THE WORLD,
Jean-Michel Oughourlian asserts that "Without mimesis there can be
neither human intelligence nor cultural transmission. Memesis is the
essential force of cultrual integration."
The essential difference between the memetic and the mimetic:
memetic theory suggests that cultural traits can be inherited,
whereas mimetic theory argues that they can not be inherited, but
must be learned. Before we tie memetic theory to genetic theory, we
should rigourously decide which has more validity as a theory of
cultural transmission. Though I am found of Jung's collective
unconsciousness, I must ultimately reject the theory because of it
also postulates that culture can be inherited.
In other words, difference is leanred, not inherited. We note the
sexual difference because of instint, so gender distinctions are
inhereted; however, we so not inherit the sexism, racism and facism
associated with "differences" between people. Rather, we teach our
children those differences. When we talk of culture, we must include
these, or what's the use of our discussion.
"If a wise man gives thee better counsel, give me mine again. I
would know that a fool follows it, for a knave gives it."
Dr. Gerard Donnelly-Smith e-mail: smitgm@hawkins.clark.edu
English Department, Clark College
_______________________________________________________________________________
<5:123>From SMITGM@hawkins.clark.edu Mon Jan 24 10:39:54 1994
To: darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu
From: "Gerard Donnelly Smith" <SMITGM@hawkins.clark.edu>
Organization: Clark College, Vancouver WA, USA
Date: 24 Jan 94 07:50:31 PST8PDT
Subject: Re: Inheritance
Note another reference to "meme" as inheritable social unit. Would
some one please explain why this Memetic theory proposed by Dawkins
works better than Mimetic theory which the Humanities have
been using to discuss cultural transmission in literature, mass media
and religion for 2500? Why should his analogy considered more
scientific, when the structure and process developed by the former
explains transmission so well.
"If a wise man gives thee better counsel, give me mine again. I
would know that a fool follows it, for a knave gives it."
Dr. Gerard Donnelly-Smith e-mail: smitgm@hawkins.clark.edu
English Department, Clark College
_______________________________________________________________________________
<5:124>From KESSEL@ACC.FAU.EDU Mon Jan 24 10:49:13 1994
Date: Mon, 24 Jan 1994 11:56 EDT
From: Morty Kessel <KESSEL@ACC.FAU.EDU>
Subject: question
To: darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu
Can a linguist out there explain the congruence of :
who, what, where, when, why and (w)how :-)
_______________________________________________________________________________
<5:125>From ferragu@imiucca.csi.unimi.it Mon Jan 24 10:52:31 1994
Date: Mon, 24 Jan 94 16:12:27 +0100
From: Ferraguti Biodip <ferragu@imiucca.csi.unimi.it>
To: Darwin-L@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu
I am quite new to the List, so I introduce myself. I teach Evolutionary
Biology since 15 years to advanced students at the University of Milano,
Italy, at the Faculty of Natural Sciences. My research interests are
on Gamete Biology.
Even if I have never published a theoretical paper on evolution, for
obvious reasons I have read a lot of them in the last years. My impres-
sion is that much of the relevant literature is too "radical", and
so are often the messages on the List.
I try to explain myself with an exemple: suppose we are studying the
devlopment of a recently built town. A town is a complex object made
of people, houses, streets, gardens, water, power supply... So you can
study this town from the point ov view of an architect, a gardener, a
an ecologist... If you try to find a single cause of a certain phe-
nomenon that you actually SEE in the town under study, probably every
specialist will find a different one.
Does this means that there is a single cause of the observed pheno-
nomenon and that a single researcher is right whereas all the
others are wrong? Certinly not. Urban phenomena are are complex
so have complex (and multiple) explanations. A town can be under-
stood only through a pluralistic approach.
So is with evolution. Debates between the supporters of internalism
versus externalism (see the message by William Kimler) were typical
of the turn of the century. We biologists know now that both were
not mutually exclusive explanations.
Back to my former exemple: the discussion of punctuated equilibria
VERSUS gradualism as mutually exclusive explanations of the
evolution is incorrect the same as to say that the causes of
criminality in a town are urbanistic or sociological or any-
thing else. Evolution is by far a too complex phenomenon to
find simple (single) explanations.
We should try to understand as deeply as possible the work of
people studying evolution from different points of view (in
this sense I find simply exceptional the idea of Darwin-L:
thanks to Bob O'Hara!). The best picture of evolution will
certainly come out from a pluralistic approach.
Let me end with a suggestion to improove understanding: Why
each of us do not tryes to add something to the term "con-
straint" to clarify his sense of the term. If we specify
"constraints on natural selection" we say something very
different from "constraints on biological evolution".
Sexual selection is a constraint on natural selection.
Laws of physics are a constraint on biological evolution.
(gravity, thermal dispersion...).
I think that most of the misunderstanding about the term
"constraint" are due to a lack of clarity. Similarly to
say that someone is "a brother" means nothing if one does
not add "to someone".
Marco Ferraguti
Dipartimento di Biologia
Universita' di Milano
Via Celoria 26
20133, Milano, Italy
ferragu@imiucca.csi.unimi.it
_______________________________________________________________________________
<5:126>From mwinsor@epas.utoronto.ca Mon Jan 24 15:22:28 1994
From: mwinsor@epas.utoronto.ca (Mary P Winsor)
Subject: tools stopping evol'n
To: darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu
Date: Mon, 24 Jan 1994 16:30:07 -0500 (EST)
question relayed by Polly Winsor, a silent member of the Darwin-list, asked
by David McGee, not a member of the list:
Who was the first person to suggest that humans used technology
instead of organic adaptation to cope with their environment? That is,
how old is the idea that the evolution of human material culture
allows humans to escape evolution?
Polly Winsor is an historian of biological systematics at the
University of Toronto: email address mwinsor@epas.utoronto.ca
David McGee is an historian of technology at the U. of T. Please send
replies directly to him at dmcgee@epas.utoronto.ca
unless you think answer will interest whole list.
_______________________________________________________________________________
<5:127>From agelarakis@auvax1.adelphi.edu Mon Jan 24 17:16:27 1994
Date: Mon, 24 Jan 1994 18:22:56 EST
From: agelarakis@auvax1.adelphi.edu
To: Darwin-L@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu
Subject: Greetings
My name is Anagnosti P. Agelarakis, a relatively new member to Darwin-L, and
fascinated by the diversity of interesting issues and themes communicated in
this network system. I teach Prehistoric Archeology, Physical
Anthropology and Paleopathology at the Department of Anthropology of Adelphi
University. I excavate in the eastern Mediterranean region since 1976. My
interests revolve around the recovery and documentation of human skeletal
populations from burial grounds, and the anthropological archeometric and
paleoenvironmental interpretations relative to the study of the human remains
whithin a holistic and interdisciplinary context.
____________________________________________________________________________
* Anagnosti P. Agelarakis, Dept. of Anthropology, Adelphi University,
* Garden City, L.I., New York 11530 Tel:(516) 877-4112, Fax:(516) 877-4191
* Email:"AGELARAKIS@AUVAX1.ADELPHI.EDU"
____________________________________________________________________________
_______________________________________________________________________________
<5:128>From azlerner@midway.uchicago.edu Mon Jan 24 18:12:21 1994
Date: Mon, 24 Jan 94 18:20:32 CST
From: "asia z lerner" <azlerner@midway.uchicago.edu>
To: darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu
Subject: Re: tools stopping evol'n
Who was the first person to suggest that humans used technology
instead of organic adaptation to cope with their environment? That is,
how old is the idea that the evolution of human material culture
allows humans to escape evolution?
Alfred Wallace, the co-discoverer of the theory of evolution alongside Darwin,
had this idea. It's in a paper he published in 1863, I don't quite remember
the name, but the word "races" is in it, the point being that, for Wallace,
the fact that humans are no longer under pressure to evolve physically, but
only mentally, explained the apparent stability of racial traits.
Asia
_______________________________________________________________________________
<5:129>From CRAVENS@macc.wisc.edu Mon Jan 24 19:32:13 1994
Date: Mon, 24 Jan 94 19:40 CDT
From: Tom Cravens <CRAVENS@macc.wisc.edu>
Subject: Re: question
To: darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu
The English "wh- words" (German w-, French qu-, etc.) appear to have
a common source in Proto-Indo-European kwo-/kwi-, with no borrowing evident.
Tom Cravens
cravens@macc.wisc.edu
cravens@wiscmacc.bitnet
_______________________________________________________________________________
<5:130>From DARWIN@iris.uncg.edu Mon Jan 24 20:51:56 1994
Date: Mon, 24 Jan 1994 22:02:41 -0400 (EDT)
From: DARWIN@iris.uncg.edu
Subject: Introductions are welcome
To: darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu
Organization: University of NC at Greensboro
Many thanks to Marco Ferraguti and Anagnosti Agelarakis for their recent
self-introductions. Quite a few people have subscribed to Darwin-L in the
last few days, and our total membership is now just over 550. I thought I
would take the opportunity that Marco and Anagnosti have provided to invite
any other new (or old) members of the group who have not introduced themselves
to do so if they wish. Back in September when Darwin-L was first established
quite a few people sent short messages saying something about their interests
in the historical sciences, and it was a great pleasure to see the variety of
backgrounds represented here. We have evolutionary biologists, historical
linguists, archeologists, historians, paleontologists, anthropologists,
geologists, Classicists, systematists, philosophers of science, and many
others among us, just as I had hoped we would when Darwin-L was created. Our
interdisciplinary character has inspired a good deal of helpful collegiality
and professionalism which is very gratifying to me as list owner and which
gives every indication of continuing. Much recent discussion has focussed on
comparisons between historical linguistics and evolutionary biology, but
comparative notes across the entire range of historical sciences from geology
to cosmology to textual transmission are always welcome at any time.
New or old members may retrieve copies of past Darwin-L message logs either
from listserv@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu (send the message INFO DARWIN-L to that
address for complete instructions) or from the experimental Darwin-L gopher
on rjohara.uncg.edu (numeric address 152.13.44.19). Several bibliographies
on the historical sciences are also available on the ukanaix listserv and
the Darwin-L gopher as well.
Welcome again to all of our new members.
Bob O'Hara, Darwin-L list owner
Robert J. O'Hara (darwin@iris.uncg.edu)
Center for Critical Inquiry and Department of Biology
100 Foust Building, University of North Carolina at Greensboro
Greensboro, North Carolina 27412 U.S.A.
_______________________________________________________________________________
<5:131>From DARWIN@iris.uncg.edu Mon Jan 24 23:24:36 1994
Date: Tue, 25 Jan 1994 00:34:47 -0400 (EDT)
From: DARWIN@iris.uncg.edu
Subject: Aristotle passage on cyclical history
To: darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu
Organization: University of NC at Greensboro
In Toulmin and Goodfield's wonderful book _The Discovery of Time_ (highly
recommended for all Darwin-L members) there is a discussion of Aristotle's
cyclical view of history, and a reference to his remark that, in a sense, he
was living both after the Fall of Troy, but also before the Fall of Troy since
all events would come around again eventually. Can anyone point me to the
specific passage in Aristotle where this remark about Troy occurs? I have
checked in Gould's _Time's Arrow, Time's Cycle_, but there is no mention of
it there. Here's the Toulmin and Goodfield paragraph for background:
Even the rise and fall of civilizations might perhaps conform to the
same overall rhythm. In this connection, both Aristotle and Plato toyed
with an attractive and sweeping hypothesis. Once every few thousand
years, the Sun, Moon and planets returned to the same relative positions,
and began to follow out again the same sequence of configurations; so
perhaps the rhythm of political fortunes also had its own definite period,
keeping the recurring cycles of social change in step with the motion of
the Heavens. If that were so (Aristotle remarked) then he himself was
living _before_ the Fall of Troy quite as much as _after_ it; since, when
the wheel of fortune had turned through another cycle, the Trojan War
would be re-enacted and Troy would fall again. (_The Discovery of Time_,
pp. 45-46)
Bob O'Hara, Darwin-L list owner
Robert J. O'Hara (darwin@iris.uncg.edu)
Center for Critical Inquiry and Department of Biology
100 Foust Building, University of North Carolina at Greensboro
Greensboro, North Carolina 27412 U.S.A.
_______________________________________________________________________________
<5:132>From FDCAREY@UCF1VM.CC.UCF.EDU Tue Jan 25 05:50:15 1994
Date: Tue, 25 Jan 94 06:54:22 EDT
From: FDCAREY@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu
Subject: Re: tools stopping evol'n
To: Multiple recipients of list <darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu>
As I see it, the so-called advent of cultural evolution, does not
necessarily mark the termination of "organic" evolution among humans.
Won't (has not) the latter continue so long as there is differential
survival and reproduction?
*************************************************************************
Arlen D. Carey * internet: fdcarey@ucf1vm.cc.ucf.edu
Dept. of Sociology and Anthropology * bitnet: fdcarey@ucf1vm
University of Central Florida * phone: 407/823-2240
Orlando, FL 32816-1360 * fax: 407/823-5141
*************************************************************************
_______________________________________________________________________________
<5:133>From J_LIMBER@UNHH.UNH.EDU Tue Jan 25 06:17:55 1994
Date: Tue, 25 Jan 1994 7:25:02 -0500 (EST)
From: J_LIMBER@UNHH.UNH.EDU (JOHN LIMBER)
Subject: RE: tools stopping evol'n
To: darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu
"Who was the first person to suggest that humans used technology
instead of organic adaptation to cope with their environment? That is,
how old is the idea that the evolution of human material culture
allows humans to escape evolution?"
Whoever it was, it seems like a BAD idea! Are we to suppose that human brains,
etc, could not adapt to language--or computer keyboards for that matter-- if
there were selective advantages to do so?
John Limber, Psychology
_______________________________________________________________________________
<5:134>From ALVARD@DICKINSON.EDU Tue Jan 25 06:43:42 1994
Date: Tue, 25 Jan 94 7:41:44 est
From: Michael Alvard <ALVARD@dickinson.edu>
To: DARWIN-L@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu
Subject: intro and tools
I too am a new member to Darwin-L. I am a recent gradate from the University
of New Mexico, and have just started my first year teaching in the Department
of Anthropology of Dickinson College. I have worked for the last few years
in the rain forests of Southeastern Peru with two groups of native South
Americans, the Piro and Machiguenga. I am interested in evolutionary
ccology, human hunting, and particularly the evolution of conservation
behavior. The work I did in Peru tested the commonly held belief that many
indigenous people are natural conservationists. I am in the process of
developing a new field site on the Island of Sulawesi, Indonesia with a group
of blowgun hunters, the Wana.
By the way, I agree with the statement of Arlen Carey. Why does the advent of
tool use somehow mysteriously stop evolution. Why must humans be put on some
superorganic pedestal? If gene frequencies are changing evolution is
occurring. We now are adapting to a technologically modified environment,
but the basic mechanisms of evolution still work. Non-human animals modify
their environment, and in turn, adapt to the changes they cause.
------------------------
Michael S. Alvard, Ph.D.
Dept. of Anthropology
Dickinson College,
Carlisle, PA, 17013
Tel: (717) 245-1902
E-mail: Alvard@Dickinson.edu
---------------------------
_______________________________________________________________________________
<5:135>From LANGDON@GANDLF.UINDY.EDU Tue Jan 25 07:38:04 1994
Date: Tue, 25 Jan 1994 07:38:04 -0600
From: "JOHN LANGDON" <LANGDON@GANDLF.UINDY.EDU>
To: darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu
Subject: Re: intro and tools
In message <9401251243.AA41550@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu> writes:
> By the way, I agree with the statement of Arlen Carey. Why does the advent of
> tool use somehow mysteriously stop evolution. Why must humans be put on some
> superorganic pedestal? If gene frequencies are changing evolution is
> occurring. We now are adapting to a technologically modified environment,
> but the basic mechanisms of evolution still work. Non-human animals modify
> their environment, and in turn, adapt to the changes they cause.
I would like to interject to head off a misunderstanding. I don't believe the
original question of when this hypothesis was first proposed meant to promote
the hypothesis; nor is the hypothesis generally accepted today. We do
recognize that natural selection continues to act on our species.
On the other hand, it is a legitimate question to ask _to what degree_ culture
buffers us from the full impact of natural selection. To use a trivial example:
Modern medicine has lowered mortality from many diseases. This causes the
relative fitness of those individuals with natural resistance to be less and
the relative fitness of those without to be greater. The selection coefficient
is reduced and evolution to promote resistance to such diseases will now
proceed at a slower pace.
JOHN H. LANGDON email LANGDON@GANDLF.UINDY.EDU
DEPARTMENT OF BIOLOGY FAX (317) 788-3569
UNIVERSITY OF INDIANAPOLIS PHONE (317) 788-3447
INDIANAPOLIS, IN 46227
_______________________________________________________________________________
<5:136>From DARWIN@iris.uncg.edu Tue Jan 25 11:39:16 1994
Date: Tue, 25 Jan 1994 12:49:56 -0400 (EDT)
From: DARWIN@iris.uncg.edu
Subject: Tools, historical questions, and the character of Darwin-L
To: darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu
Organization: University of NC at Greensboro
Just a short note to echo John Langdon's message, and to head off possible
misunderstandings about the range of discussion that appears on Darwin-L. Our
subscribers come from a wide variety of backgrounds, and include quite a few
people who are interested in the history of ideas in the historical sciences.
As a consequence, we often talk about the origin of various ideas in natural
history, the evidence for those ideas, how they were viewed by other
historical scientists, and so on. For example, I asked yesterday whether
anyone could point me to a particular reference on Aristotle's cyclical view
of history. Someone else might inquire what Lyell's evidence for the eternity
of the earth was. This does not mean that I believe in a cyclical universe
nor that the other party thinks the earth is eternal. As I read the question
Polly Winsor asked about the role of tools in human evolution it was a
strictly historical question: who was the first person to propose the idea
that tools in some way freed humans from natural selection. Polly and her
colleague are both historians of science, so I am inclined to think this
reading of her question is correct. The fact that the notion in question is
false is somewhat beside the point of her inquiry.
Bob O'Hara, Darwin-L list owner
Robert J. O'Hara (darwin@iris.uncg.edu)
Center for Critical Inquiry and Department of Biology
100 Foust Building, University of North Carolina at Greensboro
Greensboro, North Carolina 27412 U.S.A.
_______________________________________________________________________________
<5:137>From azlerner@midway.uchicago.edu Tue Jan 25 13:16:07 1994
Date: Tue, 25 Jan 94 13:23:57 CST
From: "asia z lerner" <azlerner@midway.uchicago.edu>
To: darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu
Subject: Re: intro and tools
I would like to interject to head off a misunderstanding. I don't
believe the original question of when this hypothesis was first proposed
meant to promote the hypothesis;
My answere was certainly intended to be understood in historical terms. The
slew of posts denying that "physical evolution stopped" comes as a surprise:)
nor is the hypothesis generally accepted today. We do recognize
that natural selection continues to act on our species.
Certainly - there have been any number of extinctions of non-European races
_in historically observable timeframe_, but Wallace's point was that from
certain time onwards the only points on which Natural Selection brings pressure
is intelligence. That is, natives were going extinct [evolutionary process]
because of their lesser mental dveloppment as a species. [please don't flame,
it ain't me, it's history]
Asia
_______________________________________________________________________________
<5:138>From azlerner@midway.uchicago.edu Tue Jan 25 13:22:46 1994
Date: Tue, 25 Jan 94 13:30:23 CST
From: "asia z lerner" <azlerner@midway.uchicago.edu>
To: darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu
Subject: Re: intro and tools
By the way, I agree with the statement of Arlen Carey. Why does the advent
of tool use somehow mysteriously stop evolution. Why must humans be put on
some superorganic pedestal? If gene frequencies are changing evolution is
occurring. We now are adapting to a technologically modified environment,
but the basic mechanisms of evolution still work.
Michael S. Alvard, Ph.D.
If you notice the different birth rate in the technologically developped West
and the less developped third world, you'll see that there's a problem with the
assumption that "the basic mechanisms of evolution still work", since it seems
to be the case that successfully adapting to technological change _lowers_ a
society's procreative capacities. This is probably a similar problem to the
one noted by turn of the century Social Darwinists - those whom we concider
successfull in society [or those nations whom we concider "successfull" on
the global scale] are not those who procreate most.
Asia
_______________________________________________________________________________
<5:139>From TOMASO@utxvms.cc.utexas.edu Tue Jan 25 16:35:25 1994
Date: Tue, 25 Jan 1994 16:42:15 -0600 (CST)
From: TOMASO@utxvms.cc.utexas.edu
Subject: Re: DARWIN-L digest 129
To: darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu
Brief Introduction.
I have been reading Darwin-L for about three months.
I am an anthropologist specializing in Caribbean archaeology and ethnohistory.
My interests are rather wide and include many of the topics that find a home on
Darwin-L, such as: theories of cultural evolution; alterity and mimesis;
ethnicity; cultural ecology; etc.
At the moment, I prefer to lurk, but don't be surprised if you receive some
behind-the-scene remarks.
Matt Tomaso
Department of Anthropology
University of Texas at Austin
INTERNET: TOMASO@UTXVMS.CC.UTEXAS.EDU TOMASO@GENIE.GEIS.COM
_______________________________________________________________________________
<5:140>From DARWIN@iris.uncg.edu Tue Jan 25 17:22:29 1994
Date: Tue, 25 Jan 1994 18:32:54 -0400 (EDT)
From: DARWIN@iris.uncg.edu
Subject: Tools and evolution
To: darwin-l@ukanaix.cc.ukans.edu
Organization: University of NC at Greensboro
The following came to me from Mark Hineline for the group as a whole.
Bob O'Hara (darwin@iris.uncg.edu)
----------------------------------------
Date: Tue, 25 Jan 1994 16:37:43 -0500
From: mhinelin@bruin.bowdoin.edu (Mark L. Hineline)
Subject: Tools and evolution
To: darwin@iris.uncg.edu
When I read the question posed by or for Polly Winsor,
Who was the first person to suggest that humans used technology
instead of organic adaptation to cope with their environment? That
is, how old is the idea that the evolution of human material culture
allows humans to escape evolution?
I thought at once of Richard Hofstedter's Social Darwinism in American
Thought. There he argued that the pragmatists made this argument to counter
the vicious determinism of social darwinists. The claim was not that
evolutionary processes ceased but that human beings were not determined solely
by natural selection or other evolutionary processes. Ward may have been the
first to make this argument in a -political- form; perhaps it was John Dewey.
Mark Hineline
Department of Physics and Astronomy
Bowdoin College
Brunswick Maine
mhinelin@polar.bowdoin.edu
_______________________________________________________________________________
Darwin-L Message Log 5: 101-140 -- January 1994 End
