From: Chris Taylor (Christopher.Taylor@man.ac.uk)
Date: Thu 19 Jun 2003 - 10:53:05 GMT
> How do they do that when every cell has precisely the same genes (including
> the homeobox genes)?  Clearly the answer comes from its spatial position,
> i.e. the "field" effect. Blah yadda etc. <snip>.
Ffs man give it up ;) I admire your tenacity, and your grasp of the raw 
facts, along with your dedication to micro-questioning assumptions, but 
not every assumption is a hazard sign. The fields that determine 
developmental patterns are gradients of chemicals, some of which are 
metabolites, some are RNAs blah blah blah. Genes are induced at a rate 
determined by the chance that a molecule that fits a promoter will bump 
up against it in the right way (paraphrasing a little to save pain). The 
concentration of those signal molecules in a region of a cell (often 
localisation is via the train network of microtubules where that other 
nutter Penrose's conciousness lives lol), and across sheets of cells, 
switches on cascades of genes, that express proteins and RNAs that do stuff.
The fact that the picture is incomplete is not a problem for theory. If 
that is your issue go get stuck into some really hard scientists like 
chemists who afaik still work only with models. Biology is a soft target 
for new age bull because it is all storytelling at the end of the day. 
You have to go with your gut sometimes and that leaves us open to 
reductio nonsense like yours (nothing personal - I admire skilled 
debating in it's own right but I have a vested interest so I'm a little 
shirty). Also just cos a theory (like MR) 'explains' most stuff _so_far_ 
doesn't make it a winner. It is at best a competing explanation which if 
valid will eventually be accepted by the usual route. The problem is 
that it predicts less, and has less explanatory power, than the stuff I 
believe.
And of course if all this is just a totally immersive 'real-life' arcade 
game of sorts, then we'll all be disproved when we run out of credit and 
emerge from the booth, tentacles raised in shock, our forty eyes 
squinting at the light.
Slonshal, Chris.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
  Chris Taylor (chris@bioinf.man.ac.uk)
  http://pedro.man.ac.uk/ »people»chris
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
===============================================================
This was distributed via the memetics list associated with the
Journal of Memetics - Evolutionary Models of Information Transmission
For information about the journal and the list (e.g. unsubscribing)
see: http://www.cpm.mmu.ac.uk/jom-emit
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu 19 Jun 2003 - 11:01:57 GMT