“All conventional theories of cultural evolution, of the origin of
humans, and what makes us so different from other species. All other
theories explaining the big brain, and language and tool use and all
these things that make us unique, are based upon genes. Language must
have been useful for the genes. Tool use must have enhanced our
survival, mating and so on. It always comes back, as Richard Dawkins
complained all that long time ago, it always comes back to genes.
The point of memetics is to say, “Oh no it doesn’t.” There are two
replicators now on this planet. From the moment that our ancestors,
perhaps two and a half million years ago or so, began imitating, there
was a new copying process. Copying with variation and selection. A new
replicator was let loose” [...] - Sue Blackmore.
There’s very convincing evidence that ability to use language is genetic, up to specific kinds of brain damage and specific kinds of genetic diseases that cause very particular types of language impairment. Language itself is memetically built on top of that.
I’ve never seen such evidence for any other kind of behaviour.
I am not sure what you mean—or how it is relevant. Plenty of behaviour has a genetic basis. Eating behaviour and sexual behaviour, for instance. If you look at all the reflexes and instincts out there, you will see that many types of behaviour have a genetic basis.
Even if everything was learned (the “blank slate” hypothesis) - so what? How would that be relevant to the idea of cultural inheritance being significant?
Sure:
“All conventional theories of cultural evolution, of the origin of humans, and what makes us so different from other species. All other theories explaining the big brain, and language and tool use and all these things that make us unique, are based upon genes. Language must have been useful for the genes. Tool use must have enhanced our survival, mating and so on. It always comes back, as Richard Dawkins complained all that long time ago, it always comes back to genes.
The point of memetics is to say, “Oh no it doesn’t.” There are two replicators now on this planet. From the moment that our ancestors, perhaps two and a half million years ago or so, began imitating, there was a new copying process. Copying with variation and selection. A new replicator was let loose” [...] - Sue Blackmore.
There’s very convincing evidence that ability to use language is genetic, up to specific kinds of brain damage and specific kinds of genetic diseases that cause very particular types of language impairment. Language itself is memetically built on top of that.
I’ve never seen such evidence for any other kind of behaviour.
I am not sure what you mean—or how it is relevant. Plenty of behaviour has a genetic basis. Eating behaviour and sexual behaviour, for instance. If you look at all the reflexes and instincts out there, you will see that many types of behaviour have a genetic basis.
Even if everything was learned (the “blank slate” hypothesis) - so what? How would that be relevant to the idea of cultural inheritance being significant?