Re: Evolution of ontogeny

From: Mark Mills (mmills@htcomp.net)
Date: Sun Feb 04 2001 - 23:21:20 GMT

  • Next message: Wade T.Smith: "Re: Evolution of ontogeny"

    Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id XAA05756 (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 23:33:54 GMT
    Message-Id: <5.0.2.1.0.20010204165450.01ff2a30@pop3.htcomp.net>
    X-Sender: mmills@pop3.htcomp.net
    X-Mailer: QUALCOMM Windows Eudora Version 5.0.2
    Date: Sun, 04 Feb 2001 17:21:20 -0600
    To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
    From: Mark Mills <mmills@htcomp.net>
    Subject: Re: Evolution of ontogeny
    In-Reply-To: <F122qi66Y2QTUf65Y5Q0000ed30@hotmail.com>
    Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed
    Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk
    Precedence: bulk
    Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
    

    Scott,

    At 03:44 PM 2/4/01 -0500, you wrote:
    >The late 19th century incarnations of the relationship between ontogeny
    >and phylogeny were usually influenced by the German Darwinian hyperzealot
    >Ernst Haeckel and his slogan that "ontogeny recapitulates phylogeny" which
    >in a nutshell means that in their development organisms literally proceed
    >through stages pretty close to their adult ancestors. One could think of
    >humans starting a protozoans then becoming spongelike or worm-like then
    >somewhere along the line becoming fish-like and so on until reaching
    >human-hood. Related to Haeckel's notion paralleling ontogeny and phylogeny
    >is a causal statement that phylogeny causes ontogeny.

    Interesting recap.

    >I think it was Walter Garstang who was noted for turning Haeckel's dictum
    >on its ear and saying the opposite that ontogeny causes phylogeny or that
    >ontogeny creates phylogeny. Garstang was interested in phenomena that
    >didn't reek of recapitulation (ie- neoteny and paedomorphosis).

    Sounds like chicken and egg problem on a grand scale.

    John Wilkins has a paper under-development that argues functionality is
    misplaced in biology unless one makes explicit the model one is using (with
    ranges of applicability). Though you didn't mention function, the term
    'causation' only makes sense if there are functions. To broadly state 'x'
    is a function of 'y' in the evolutionary scheme without defining the model
    leaves one prone to various logical problems.

    >One could confine a definition of evolution to organisms that develop
    >(ie-exhibit an ontogeny-metazoans and possibly metaphytes) by saying that
    >evolution is based on heritable changes in development, which isn't too
    >far from what you're talking about above. This would be indirectly related
    >to evolution's definition of being changes in allelic frequencies within a
    >gene pool or population. I have tended to prefer an epigenetic view
    >myself, not quite one of those "beads on a string" or "bean bag genetics"
    >thingies.

    By heritable, do you mean 'on the DNA'?

    I'm not very familiar with epigenetic. I looked it up and found two
    references:

    http://www.olemiss.edu/courses/psy529/Lectures/Lecture1/class1.htm
    On the theoretical side, I don't have as much to flesh out the original
    definition. How we come to be who we are is the premier theoretical
    question to be answered. Explanations generally are in terms of nature or
    nurture, maturation or experience, or some combination of these. If
    children begin to avoid a visual cliff around six months of age, the
    question is whether this is a native capacity that emerges with maturation
    or whether it is founded on sensory-motor experience in the world. A major
    emphasis in this course will be developing an integrative model that allows
    us to offer an explanation of phenomena such as this without having to
    choose between nature, nurture, maturation, or experience. I'll refer to
    it as the epigenetic model.

    http://biotech.icmb.utexas.edu/pages/dictionary.html
    1. epigenetic
          Definition: Describes something which influences the behavior of a
    cell without directly affecting its DNA or other genetic machinery, such as
    an environmental effect.

    2.epigenetic changes
          Definition: Any changes in an organism brought about by alterations
    in the action of genes are called epigenetic changes. Epigenetic
    transformation refers to those processes which cause normal cells to become
    tumor cells without the occurrence of any mutations.

    Do these describe the sense of epigenetic you are using?

    mark

    http://www.htcomp.net/markmills

    ===============================================================
    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 - 23:35:50 GMT