Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id TAA00814 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Fri, 16 Feb 2001 19:56:35 GMT Message-ID: <000701c09857$675d0520$400abed4@default> From: "Kenneth Van Oost" <Kenneth.Van.Oost@village.uunet.be> To: <memetics@mmu.ac.uk> References: <2D1C159B783DD211808A006008062D3101745C64@inchna.stir.ac.uk> Subject: Re: Genome Project Date: Fri, 16 Feb 2001 21:30:32 +0100 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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
----- Original Message -----
From: Vincent Campbell <v.p.campbell@stir.ac.uk>
To: <memetics@mmu.ac.uk>
Sent: Tuesday, February 13, 2001 9:40 AM
Subject: RE: Gnome Project
> Hi Kenneth,
>
> I commented on the significance of the project's results in a post
> yesterday. I don't think the number of genes in an absolute sense is what
> matters, so much as the potential interaction between genes which can be
> many times more elaborate with 30,000 than 15,000 genes.
> I'm still bemused by how the media, clearly in many countries from
people's
> comments on this list, have made this "nuture must be more important than
> nature now" argument. I'm not saying I disagree actually, just that the
> number of genes, to my mind, doesn't give us the answer to that.
> By the way, I don't know if it's just a typo, or whether you're spelling
it
> phonetically, but it's usually written genome (a gnome is something else
> entirely). Still, commendations on your English which is infinitely
> superior to my Dutch.
Hi Vincent,
Sorry for the delay, I ' ve been ill.
Thanks for the advice about how I use the English language. You, and all,
are always welcome to ' right ' my mistakes.
I wish to comment the posts of 12 Februari in one single new one.
So, this one count for you Vincent, and also for Able, Jess and Wade.
Thanks for the understanding....
<< I don 't disagree either with the remark that the number of genes is
not what really matters, but as a point of interest, it would be interesting
to know if those 30. 000 are of a recent date or are the ' rest ' of many
more.
I mean by this it would be intersting to know if those genes called by
Chris Taylor ' orphans ' had in the past a function.
That is, when the memes came into existence were there than more
genes with only one function and did the memes took over from the
genes along the line of evolution !?
Or did we have let 's say, the last 4 million years the same number of
( 30. 000) genes !?
This IMO, is an important consequence of what we know now and
further more a direct implication for our ideas about evolution !
If, like Able Lawrence points out, that it rarely comes to inventing
new genes, than we must agree that the 30. 000 we have were here
from the beginning, ( and not so selfish as we assumed, somebody
wrote...I still have to read it in depht, that one).
If, we ever had lesser genes than, than now than the question arises
where do they come from !?
From direct(ed) ingenuity, what over the long period of time we assume
to make those genes is possible, but not very likely, or is it possible that
memes are the motor behind them !?
1_ Memes than stopped genes production, that is the number of genes
discreased over time due to the existence of memes. That is memes
modified genes, made them multiple function. The question here is, why !?
2_ Memes took completely over, that is genes number stays now at
30. 000, the memes control the genes number.
The question is here, why, and will that be forever !?
That is, new, more modified memes may ask still a lesser number of
genes !? ( Or more genes...!?)
3_ If we had indeed lesser genes in the past, than the question can be
ask, where do they come from and why are they here...are there some
genes, in such a way connected to memes that they act like ' one- single-
unit !?
If so, and those genes can be transmitted to the offspring, what is getting
transmitted, the genes of the memes or both !?
If both, than we have a problem...no meme can be germline integrated,
like " we " all think....
Hope I make sense,
Best,
Kenneth
( I am, because we are)
===============================================================
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 : Fri Feb 16 2001 - 19:58:50 GMT