Re: The evolution of "evolution"

From: Derek Gatherer (d.gatherer@vir.gla.ac.uk)
Date: Wed 05 Oct 2005 - 08:48:26 GMT

  • Next message: Joel.M Dimech: "Re: The evolution of "evolution""

    Joel

    >I would not say "memory" speaking of the laws that are governing the
    >embryonic development, but why not?

    Because there are standard scientific way of speaking of them and
    "memory" is not one of them. It's a really bad analogy to what we know, at the molecular level, is going on.

    >"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.

    No, I disagree completely. How can you possibly say that nuclear genes are not relevant to the physical development of the embryo? It's been _totally_ proven that they are. I refer you to my previous answers to Ted.

    =============================================================== 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 : Wed 05 Oct 2005 - 09:06:27 GMT