Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id UAA05321 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Sun, 4 Feb 2001 20:30:27 GMT X-Originating-IP: [209.240.221.86] From: "Scott Chase" <ecphoric@hotmail.com> To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk Subject: Fwd: reply to Kenneth Date: Sun, 04 Feb 2001 15:27:45 -0500 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: <F56AnfWf17rSWEr9rAk0000eb02@hotmail.com> X-OriginalArrivalTime: 04 Feb 2001 20:27:47.0005 (UTC) FILETIME=[EF9E26D0:01C08EE8] Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
>From: Mail Delivery System <Mailer-Daemon@mmu.ac.uk>
>To: ecphoric@hotmail.com
>Subject: Mail delivery failed : returning message to sender
>Date: Mon, 01 Jan 2001 17:45:08 +0000
>
>
(snip delivery notification stuff)
>
> >From: "Kenneth Van Oost" <Kenneth.Van.Oost@village.uunet.be>
> >Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
> >To: <memetics@mmu.ac.uk>
> >Subject: Re: Who knew genes could get mean?
> >Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2000 21:51:41 +0100
> >
> >
> >----- 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.
> >
>If by back-copying you mean reverse transcription, there is nothing
>controversial about this mechanism for information from RNA to be written
>back into the DNA of the genome. Retroviruses (such as HIV) are known to
>use
>this mechanism which depens on the enzyme reverse transcriptase. It's the
>back-copying of information which occurs in an adaptively changed state
>into
>the egg or sperm cells of an individual which is contentious and would
>cause
>some dissonance in the minds of many biologists if it were found to
>actually
>occur. The issues revolving around Steele's thesis are very difficult to
>understand and even more difficult to convey. If you really want to fgraps
>the basics, you need to pick up a decent introductory text on immunology
>and
>this might itself be a level of commitment that you'd probably not enjoy,
>unless you are intensely interested in the molecular and cellular workings
>of the immune system. Part of Steele's thesis centers on the way immunity
>develops in certain immune cells called lymphocytes. A subset of
>lymphocytes
>called B-lymphocytes produce antibodies which react with certain parts of
>invading organisms. These parts are called antigens. The reaction between
>antibodies and antigens is an important one.
>
>Antibodies are proteins resulting from the expression of genes in the
>lymphocytes called immunoglobulin genes. It has been found that these genes
>are rearranged during lymphocytes development so as a consequence their
>configuration differs within the lymphocyte immune cells from the original
>configuration present in the germ cells. Added to this difference is
>another
>process called hypermutation which helps the match between antibody that
>the
>lymphocyte expresses and the antigen the lymphocyte is targeted against.
>I'm
>probably flubbing the description a bit, but the jist is pretty close. This
>process of matching antigen and antibody is adaptive in that it aids the
>immune response and contributes to the survival of the organism. It is also
>important for the immune system to distinguish self from non-self (probably
>an unsavory notion for Buddhists) and self reacting cells are hopefully
>dispensed with (something important to consider in auto-immune diseases)
>where non-self reacting cells geared against prevalent antigens are favored
>and stored in memory (as a reservoir of specifically targeted cells). The
>intraselection of lymphocytes and rearrangement/hypermutation of
>immunoglobulin genes within lymphocytes are not points of contention.
>
>There are supposedly a multitide of endogenous retroviruses within
>vertebrates which are mostly benign. Part of Steeles' thesis incorporates
>these as retrovectors which somehow grasp onto a chunk of genetic
>information in the somatically selected lymphocyte and carry across what is
>known as Weismann's barrier between the soma (body or somatic cells like
>lymphocytes) and germ line (sperm and eggs or sex cells). This genetic info
>(either m-RNA or c-DNA?) within the lymhocytes corresponds to antibody
>configurations which were favored in the development of an organism's
>immune
>system within the environmental context of whatver antigens (correpoding to
>pathogens) it has encountered. This would give progeny a head start in
>developing their own immune responses and would then hve adaptive
>significance. There are statistical plots of various sites within
>immunoglobulin genes which Steele marshals as support for his views, but
>this gets a little complicated.
>
>I'm probably leaving some essentials out, but in a nutshell, Steele's
>thesis
>depends on several notions:
>
>1. somatic selection which has a pedigree going back to intraselection
>ideas
>way back when and probably isn't far removed from whatever neural Darwinism
>happens to be in the context of the nervous system (except that AFAIK
>neurons wind up having pretty much the same genetic configuration as in the
>germline)
>
>2.reverse transcription
>
>3.retroviral shuttle between lymphocytes and germ cells (or "retrovectors"
>breaching "Weismann's barrier")
>
>4.rearrangement and hypermutation of immunoglobulin genes which probably
>feeds back to 1
> >
> >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...
> >
> >
>You should ask Steele. I'd suggest, if you are really interested and aren't
>intimidated by biology that you find some intro texts on immunology at a
>library where you can get the general idea of the non-controversial points
>of molecular biology and immunology so that you can make distinctions
>between the basic views of modern immunology and where Steele is going with
>his work.
>
>Playing "as if"...even if Steeles' views were shown to be true, I do not
>have the foggiest clue how this would carry over to the functions of the
>brain or to "memetics". The part about the difference between germ and soma
>gene configurations seen in lymphocytes is AFAIK peculiar to those cells
>and
>thus Steele's ideas do not appear to carry over to neural aggregates or
>changes in synaptic plasticity influencing the germ line. Since Derek is an
>externalist, he could legitimately ask how a cultural unit could first
>correspond to a neural unit and then correspond to some discrete m-RNA info
>which could then breach the barrier into the germ line. I'd call this a
>"mapping problem" or something. I think this would be a major problem,
>where
>at least the basic logic of Steele's thesis as it depends on a more direct
>correpondence between antibodies and m-RNA related to
>rearranged/hypermutated immunoglobulin genes is at least logically feasible
>though possibly wrong. Giving him the benifit of the doubt, his views still
>IMO are confined to the immune system.
>
>
Here's a resend of my reply to Kenneth. I couldn't find my reply to Derek.
Maybe it's on my other account. This is easier than trying to recreate my
thought processes which led to this reply back then.
I think I had asked Derek something about gene conversion and
retrotransposons among other things.
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com
===============================================================
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 : Sun Feb 04 2001 - 20:32:23 GMT