Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id QAA11370 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Mon, 12 Feb 2001 16:03:03 GMT Message-ID: <000c01c09512$18407000$a901bed4@default> From: "Kenneth Van Oost" <Kenneth.Van.Oost@village.uunet.be> To: "memetics" <memetics@mmu.ac.uk> Subject: Gnome Project Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2001 17:36:45 +0100 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="----=_NextPart_000_0007_01C0951A.5EF0C6A0" 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
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
Hi all,
I suspect you all heard that the human being is less complicated than first
expected. 30. 000 genes at the most are important, all the rest exists out of
waste particles.
This makes one thing crystal clear and that is that the human behaviour is
far more determinated by its environment than first suspected.
One of the most striking findings is that only a small portion of the gnome
is really part of the human recipe. The rest exist out of disused DNA and
even parasites. Humans possess no more than 30. 000 genes with instruc-
tions.
The conclusion is that we don 't possess enough genes to add up to the
disposition of biological determination. The environment plays a crucial role
in the development of human behaviour.
My first conclusion about this is the next.
IMO we see here for the first time an enormous benefit for memetics.
Culture/ behaviour/ beliefs etc. are far more determinated by environmental
dispositions than they were/ are by genes, like we all suspected I suppose.
But personal, I think this give a major blow to the Darwinian prospect of
evolution. If, it becomes clearer that probably much of the heritable charac-
teristics we possess were not determinated by simple genes but by complete
networks of genes working together, than IMO we have to lay down the road
for a better understanding of Lamarckian traits and why not for Lamarcks
inheritance of acquired characteristics.
I know, and I understand that all we see is probably explicable by Darwinian-
like words but what the gnome- project found opens up new doors, first of all
for memetics.
IMO, for what I have read sofar and heard about this project, my first remark,
as a possible angle for inquiry, is that the Darwinian term " selection " must
be opened up for debate and discussion. IMO, when it is true that we are far
more environmentally determinated than genentically than our genes and
memes don 't " select " as we established but " react ".
And that is a Lamarckian term.
Don 't get me wrong here, I ' m willing to set aside my own personal interest,
for the sake of memetics, to take part in a discussion about the conclusions
of the gnome project.
I hope you will all join me in just that attempt.
This is too important to letting it go by...
Best
Kenneth
( I am, because we are) I think....
===============================================================
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 : Mon Feb 12 2001 - 16:05:13 GMT