Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id UAA12466 (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 20:03:31 GMT X-Originating-IP: [209.240.220.199] From: "Scott Chase" <ecphoric@hotmail.com> To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk Subject: Re: Less genes than expected Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2001 15:00:54 -0500 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: <F15YoiB5ANH2cv0aGlt00008374@hotmail.com> X-OriginalArrivalTime: 12 Feb 2001 20:00:54.0112 (UTC) FILETIME=[81903600:01C0952E] Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
>From: "Kenneth Van Oost" <Kenneth.Van.Oost@village.uunet.be>
>Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
>To: <memetics@mmu.ac.uk>
>Subject: Re: Less genes than expected
>Date: Mon, 12 Feb 2001 18:08:58 +0100
>
>
>----- Original Message -----
>From: Vincent Campbell <v.p.campbell@stir.ac.uk>
>To: <memetics@mmu.ac.uk>
>Sent: Monday, February 12, 2001 11:55 AM
>Subject: RE: Less genes than expected
>
>
> > In the UK, reporting said much the same, but on a TV news interview john
> > shulston said that the fact that there are fewere genes that thought a
>few
> > years ago doesn't change the basic notion that both nature and nuture
>are
> > important.
>
><< I agree with this, Vincent, but you have to agree with the fact, from a
>meme- eye- view ( and I don 't mean here Blackmore 's stance) that now
>memetics in general is of a greater importance than it used to be,
>don 't you !?
>Now memes as pieces of information strike another part of the balance.
>You do see that, don 't you !?
>And I equally agree with Jess Tauber post, a lot is still open to debate...
>I suggest we begin immediately...
>
>
Another way to look at the surprise over "too few genes" (if the recent news
holds out over time because IIRC a year or two ago there were estimates
going the other way, meaning way over 100,000 genes in humans) is that if
you start off by putting humans at the top rung of a fictional evolutionary
ladder, you will be surprised to discover that it doesn't take all that much
more to make us. Are humans all that important that we need a whole bunch
more genes to produce us? Are fruitflies and nematodes "beneath" us in some
general scalar sense? Do they occupy a position several rungs down or have
they branched from a common ancestor and been changing from that shared
point all this time? Anthropocentrism rears its ugly head, thus the
surprise.
I wonder, though, if this newsflash should be taken with a grain of salt. It
will take a while for the dust to settle over the genome mapping project.
_________________________________________________________________
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 : Mon Feb 12 2001 - 20:10:28 GMT