Path: utzoo!yunexus!geac!syntron!jtsv16!uunet!seismo!sundc!pitstop!sun!amdcad!ames!pasteur!ucbvax!ascf.sdr.slb.COM!SCHOLTES From: SCHOLTES@ascf.sdr.slb.COM ("SCHOLTES%ASC@SDR.SLB.COM") Newsgroups: comp.society.futures Subject: cross-posting from info-evolution Message-ID: <8810242341.AA07687@multimax.ARPA> Date: 24 Oct 88 16:07:00 GMT Article-I.D.: multimax.8810242341.AA07687 Sender: daemon@ucbvax.BERKELEY.EDU Organization: The Internet Lines: 34 From: ASCF::SCHOLTES "SCHOLTES%ASC@SDR.SLB.COM" 18-OCT-1988 15:13:58.63 To: ASC::SDR::IN%"king@kestrel.ARPA" CC: SCHOLTES Subj: RE: test Why is natural selection the dominant evolutionary mechanism of life? I recently read of some cases of Lamarckian genetics (inheritance of acquired characteristics) at the microbial level. While pondering the dangers of successively more dangerous computer virii, looming threat of self-replicating nano-machines, and the inefficiencies of genetic algorithms, it struck me that being able to pass on acquired characteristics should have a vast competetive edge over Darwinian selection, and the rate of change of a population using that mechanism would be vastly higher, with a corresponding decrease in wasted lives (failed random variations). So, why hasn't it happened naturally? Is it infeasible in natural bio- chemical systems? Is it fundamentally flawed? That possibility would have serious implications for human social change, which is basically Lamarckian, rather than Darwinian. Soon it will be technologically feasible for people to meddle with the genetic composition of their own offspring (eugenics has dread connotations because former proponents have tried to modify the gene pool by selection; direct genetic engineering is a different proposition). So it is possible that human genetic evolution will soon be affected by social evolution. Have there been any fairly recent studies of Lamarckian population genetics? ----------------------------- Mike Scholtes Schlumberger Well Services Austin Systems Center disclaimer: I'm human.