RE: Less genes than expected

From: Scott Chase (ecphoric@hotmail.com)
Date: Tue Feb 13 2001 - 23:48:07 GMT

  • Next message: wilkins: "Re: realist-rationalist quad"

    Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id XAA17821 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Tue, 13 Feb 2001 23:50:42 GMT
    X-Originating-IP: [209.240.221.102]
    From: "Scott Chase" <ecphoric@hotmail.com>
    To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
    Subject: RE: Less genes than expected
    Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2001 18:48:07 -0500
    Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
    Message-ID: <F54Mg1m7bjPsfzCXFcc0000ab47@hotmail.com>
    X-OriginalArrivalTime: 13 Feb 2001 23:48:07.0827 (UTC) FILETIME=[6A4DC630:01C09617]
    Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk
    Precedence: bulk
    Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
    

    >From: Vincent Campbell <v.p.campbell@stir.ac.uk>
    >Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
    >To: "'memetics@mmu.ac.uk'" <memetics@mmu.ac.uk>
    >Subject: RE: Less genes than expected
    >Date: Tue, 13 Feb 2001 08:45:58 -0000
    >
    > > >> 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...>
    > >
    > Well Kenneth, again I don't disagree with the importance of nuture,
    >but I do disagree that the number of genes automatically gives nuture, and
    >thus memes, a higher status.
    >
    First off, what's nuture? Is it a misspelling of nature or of nurture? I
    assume from the context (ie- "memes") you mean nurture.
    >
    > It will no be intriguing, for example, to see how searches for the
    >biological basis of intelligence are now undertaken. There has to be a
    >biological, i.e. genetic, basis for things like intelligence,
    >self-awareness
    >etc. but now we know they must emerge from the interaction of far fewer
    >genes than thought a few years ago.
    >
    >
    Interaction of genes (the epigenetic side of things) is important. Nature
    versus nurture is poorly put. Maybe it's nuture, a new word (neologism)
    referring to the complex interplay of genes within their ecological context
    to form a mature organism from simpler beginnings as a zygote.

    The future brings nuture.
    _________________________________________________________________
    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 : Tue Feb 13 2001 - 23:53:31 GMT