Re: Who knew genes could get mean?

From: Kenneth Van Oost (Kenneth.Van.Oost@village.uunet.be)
Date: Thu Dec 21 2000 - 20:51:41 GMT

  • Next message: lhousego@axa.com.au: "RE: Who knew genes could get mean? Explication."

    Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id UAA21310 (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 20:23:22 GMT
    Message-ID: <002901c06b8f$f510fb00$ad01bed4@default>
    From: "Kenneth Van Oost" <Kenneth.Van.Oost@village.uunet.be>
    To: <memetics@mmu.ac.uk>
    References: <A4400389479FD3118C9400508B0FF2300411B8@DELTA.newhouse.akzonobel.nl>
    Subject: Re: Who knew genes could get mean?
    Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2000 21:51:41 +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: Thursday, December 21, 2000 8:55 AM
    Subject: RE: Who knew genes could get mean?

    > Kenneth:
    > 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.
    >
    > Derek:
    > I think you're using 'expression' in a non-standard way. A gene's
    > expression is simply a description of how its protein-producing activity
    is
    > turned on and off. Cellular phenotypes, and ultimately organismal ones,
    are
    > of course ultimately dependent on expression of individual genes. It's
    like
    > a historian (who?) once said, history is the sum of billions of
    biographies.
    > Organisms could be argued to be the sum of several thousand patterns of
    gene
    > expression. So I'm not sure how to interpret what you say above.

    << It is all due to my native language, I think. It is hard to express
    myself, but
    I will try...
    I think you right are saying I use the word " expression " in an other
    sense
    than you do. I use it like I stated that each gene has its own " pattern "
    of
    expression. That patterns consist out of additional info needed by the gene
    to allow itself to come to its full commitment. That is, to fully do for
    what its
    designed for...the gene for blue eyes has imbedded info needed, and I agree,
    for other genes to forfill their task. That info do changes over time and
    there-
    for IMO the gene's expression is changed. That info has to be memetic.
    Drinking beer out of a teecop may not be a cultural trait, yet, but it seems
    to
    me that when it would taste better that genes for making up our savours
    would change accordingly. Those genes would " express " themselves
    differently in the way that we would ask for a pint in a teecop and not in a
    glass. That info would be memetic, wouldn 't it !?

    > Kenneth:
    > 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.

    > Derek:
    > But why do you think that? It doesn't follow from cultural influences on
    > gene expression. All those things happen within the lifetime of a single
    > individual. You seem to want some kind of (memetic?) information to cross
    > the germ-soma boundary. There's no way that _any_ information, memetic or
    > genetic (eg. a la Ted Steele), crosses that boundary, I can assure you.
    You
    > must stop thinking that, Kenneth. Really, you must.

    << Thanks for this Derek, I do appreciate your concerns, but is Steele
    wrong than !? I have here before my eyes his essay The Evidence for
    Lamarck, and it seems to me very convinsive. His back- copying idea
    seems to me very adequate. Of course, as a non- biologist I don 't see
    the flaws so easily, but than again, what would be his goal ?
    Selling more books !? What a meme it would be....!!
    As long I am in memetics I always had the idea that there has to more
    about the gene than the eye can see, but even so, Steele in his essay
    talks about an expression site for the gene. Of course his site and mine
    would be quite something different, but even so...why is the idea that
    info can cross the germ- soma boundary a bad one !?
    Not that I ever will be a pain in the ... but are you " afraid " that those
     ' jumping info patterns ' would mess up your picture about genetics ?
    Sorry, had to ask this....

    Wouldn 't be better to propose this to Steele himself...I do have his
    address here...
    Well you convinced me, I do....

    Thanks for sharing your thoughts....
    Please reply...

    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 : Thu Dec 21 2000 - 20:24:51 GMT