Re: Who knew genes could get mean?

From: Kenneth Van Oost (Kenneth.Van.Oost@village.uunet.be)
Date: Wed Dec 20 2000 - 20:55:52 GMT

  • Next message: TJ Olney: "RE: Who knew genes could get mean?"

    Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id UAA18167 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Wed, 20 Dec 2000 20:24:42 GMT
    Message-ID: <000901c06ac7$5626e680$6206bed4@default>
    From: "Kenneth Van Oost" <Kenneth.Van.Oost@village.uunet.be>
    To: <memetics@mmu.ac.uk>
    References: <A4400389479FD3118C9400508B0FF2300411A8@DELTA.newhouse.akzonobel.nl>
    Subject: Re: Who knew genes could get mean?
    Date: Wed, 20 Dec 2000 21:55:52 +0100
    Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
    Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
    X-Priority: 3
    X-MSMail-Priority: Normal
    X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.00.2314.1300
    X-MimeOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.00.2314.1300
    Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk
    Precedence: bulk
    Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
    

    ----- Original Message -----
    From: Gatherer, D. (Derek) <D.Gatherer@organon.nhe.akzonobel.nl>
    To: <memetics@mmu.ac.uk>
    Sent: Tuesday, December 19, 2000 8:47 AM
    Subject: RE: Who knew genes could get mean?

    Hi Derek,

    Culture influences a gene's expression in the way it interacts with the
    environ-
    ment_that is, IMO genes for specific characteristics are expressed
    differently
    over time, that is due IMO again, to differences on a memetical level.
    Like I said, by the way I am not a biologist, I think the genepool is in
    some
    extend ' linked/ connected ' with the memepool ( or our parents, culture,
    race,
    gender- pool.) Genes ' take ' additional/ associated info with them along
    the
    DNA- sequence.
    How, I do not know. And I agree that the main influence on the expression of
    a gene are other genes, but again in that respect WITH the (an) additional
    ( memetic (?)) info/ factor.
    If the info/ factor is, would, should be memetic, is open to discussion,
    like
    I mentioned.

    IMO, I do think that memetic factors have some activity on genes.
    All can be described back on the environment, I think I can agree on that,
    but somehow that influence has to be re- written in the gene.
    IMO, the cultural differences we see today, and also about the speed of
    cultural changes, I agree can be explained totally in memetic terms, but the
    inheritance of those changes can 't be described along the way of natural
    selection, but the next generation do possess those characteristics/
    changes_
    they are then already gene- written ( something what can ' t be because the
    natural selection is too slow).

    Here, you need IMO (memetic(?)) influence to change the gene expression
    slightly, but just enough to see/ experience the change.
    And I do think we ' inherit ' memes from our parents.
    We ( the parents) do not see them at work in our babies and the baby does
    not act along them, because memes of survival, feeding, protection, comfort
    etc are stronger ( as a memeplex) than memes of manisfesting itself as a
    cul-
    tural entity.
    This implicates, I know and do relaise that, a hierarchy of the memes.
    First, the most important, is survival ( unconscient), than the first signs
    of
    imitation, replication ( playing), then the first words ( language) ( here
    we
    begin to form our cultural identity), later school, here we start to learn
    to be
    a specific cultural entity of a culture and so on...

    The gene will express itself according to its contents.
    That is, along its own inbedded characteristics, that info can IMO be des-
    cribed as memetic, moreover_ can be described as pre- memetic- rules.
    Take for example the gene for blue eyes.
    How we as society/ culture see people with blue eyes can, I suppose be
    described genetical. But not entirely !!
    How you and I see people with blue eyes in quit different.
    Do we have a gene for that ?
    Probably, but it would not be the same. How we express that difference is
    and
    I agree ( can) be due to differences in/ from society/ culture where we both
    live in. But is our culture that different !? Is that the whole story ?
    I do not think so. The time needed to affect our genes to differs is too
    short.
    There has to be something else.
    IMO, the gene which will make up our blue eyes do ' possess ' additional
    info to how to react in/ to society/ culture.
    On the other hand, the gene does also have additional info how to bahave
    as " a person with blue eyes ".

    I agree that can be explained in a genetical way, other genes have influence
    and that influence can be traced back upon society/ culture/ the
    environment, but
    that influence in not genetical, but in essence memetical.
    IMO, each gene of our body do possess an additional ( phenotypic) info/
    factor by which it will express itself in/ by society/ culture.
    That info is cultural/ social influenced but is at its bias memetical in
    origin.
    And that is due to our parents by which we inherited those specific charac-
    teristics.

    By the way, we are now so far evolved that IMO memes always inflict more
    info than the memes can express itself.
    Take the meme, Killroy was here...
    If we hear those words, thousands of ideas and thoughts are running thru' my
    brain, like who is Killroy etc...
    IMO, that info we can inherit from our parents....it is not something
    cultural.

    Hope this helps....

    Best regards,

    Kenneth

    ===============================================================
    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 2b29 : Wed Dec 20 2000 - 20:26:12 GMT