Re: The evolution of "evolution"

From: Joel.M Dimech (j.marie.dimech@wanadoo.fr)
Date: Tue 04 Oct 2005 - 18:53:09 GMT

  • Next message: Derek Gatherer: "Re: The evolution of "evolution""

    > As for "memory" explaining ontogenesis,
    It depends on what is called "memory". I would not say "memory" speaking of the laws that are governing the embryonic development, but why not?
    "Ontogenesis" in the sense of the physical development of the embryo is at odds with any Darwinist viewpoint, it's rather in perfect agreement with the concept of "punctuated equilibrium". Here, nuclear genes are not relevant.
    > As for "memory" explaining ontogenesis, I
    > suggest you take a look inside the pages of
    > journals like "Developmental Biology",
    > "Development", "Mechanisms of Development" or
    > "Genes & Development". Enormous strides have
    > been made since the mid-80s in understanding
    > things like limb and axial development at the molecular genetic level.
    (...)
    > Derek
    >
    >
    > ===============================================================
    > 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 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 : Tue 04 Oct 2005 - 19:11:03 GMT