RE: Who knew genes could get mean?

From: Wade T.Smith (wade_smith@harvard.edu)
Date: Thu Dec 21 2000 - 12:21:13 GMT

  • Next message: Wade T.Smith: "RE: Who knew genes could get mean?" 

    Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id MAA20043 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Thu, 21 Dec 2000 12:24:46 GMT
Subject: RE: Who knew genes could get mean?
Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2000 07:21:13 -0500
x-sender: wsmith1@camail2.harvard.edu
x-mailer: Claris Emailer 2.0v3, Claritas Est Veritas
From: "Wade T.Smith" <wade_smith@harvard.edu>
To: "Memetics Discussion List" <memetics@mmu.ac.uk>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Message-ID: <20001221121936.AAA9449@camailp.harvard.edu@[204.96.32.107]>
Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk
Precedence: bulk
Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk

    Hi Gatherer, D. (Derek) --

    >Genes have absolutely _nothing_ 'rewritten' in
    >them, at all at any time by any mechanism. They change by mutation,
    >duplication, deletion, and recombination (inversion and jumping included)
    >only.

    And every infant is a rewrite, and every child's development contains a
    blank slate.... If memetics works in any arena, it is there, surrounding
    the child, as it grows.

    As for teaching old dogs new tricks- well- the child is father to the man.

    - Wade

    ===============================================================
    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 : Thu Dec 21 2000 - 12:26:22 GMT