Subject: (urth) Wolfe's Lamarckism

From: adam louis stephanides <astephan at students.uiuc.edu>
Date: Sun, 14 Jun 1998 13:58:33 +0000

On Fri, 5 Jun 1998 Craig Christensen wrote:

> >Maybe you can explain why Wolfe defends Lamarckism (explicitly
> >and implicitly), but never really explains why.
> 
> and, I've read the same thing elsewhere in the archives.  Could you point   
> me to some examples of this?  I'd like to read those over.

A couple of examples I've recently come across:

In CASTLE OF DAYS, p. 225, he explicitly states his belief in Lamarckism.

In URTH OF THE NEW SUN there's a brief passage that seems most easily
explained Lamarckially (Lamarckianally?): "On Urth, the mystes know that
each continent has its own pattern for mankind, so that if people from one
shift their abode to another, they will in a short time--fifty generations
or so--come to resemble the original inhabitants." (73 of hardcover)

--Adam

*More Wolfe info & archive of this list at http://www.urth.net/urth/

---

From: m.driussi <m.driussi at genie.com>
Date: Sun, 14 Jun 1998 19:46:00 +0000

So attempts to link "racial" characteristics to geographical details
("Caucasians are pale because they lived in caves and/or dark
forests"; "Asians have a yellowish skin because of the yellow sands
of the Gobi Desert"; "Tropical people are dark skinned in response to
greater influx of sunlight year round") amounts to Lamarckism?  Hmmm.

As opposed to something like, "The pale mutant by chance wandered off
that way, into Europe by way of Central Asia, the reddish mutant went
that way, into the Americas by way of Alaska, the yellowish mutant
went . . . etc."?  Is this form (a sort of Neo-Noah scenario) then
"Darwinism"?  (No, I'm not trying to open the debate on "single
human/hominid genesis" versus "multiple location human/hominid
genesis"!)

But I thought that the English moths of Industrial England were
always cited as textbook examples of evolutionary process?  That is,
when the environment changed (through sooty pollution, in this case),
some moths had camouflage and some moths didn't--those that did,
survived, until all remaining population (or majority, at least) had
the same advantage.  Then when pollution was reduced, the process
reversed itself.

=mantis=

---

From: adam louis stephanides <astephan at students.uiuc.edu>
Date: Mon, 15 Jun 1998 12:12:02 +0000

> greater influx of sunlight year round") amounts to Lamarckism?  Hmmm.

No, saying that the process would be complete within fifty generations
seems to me most easily explained by Lamarckism.  I don't believe that
natural selection alone would operate that quickly in this case.
 
> the same advantage.  Then when pollution was reduced, the process

But in the case of the moths, the selection pressures were a lot
stronger--those who didn't have camouflage got eaten--so the changeover
was much more rapid.

--Adam