Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id MAA09180 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Mon, 19 Feb 2001 12:16:18 GMT Date: Mon, 19 Feb 2001 10:33:59 +0000 To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk Subject: Re: Genome Project Message-ID: <20010219103359.A786@reborntechnology.co.uk> References: <2D1C159B783DD211808A006008062D3101745C64@inchna.stir.ac.uk> <000701c09857$675d0520$400abed4@default> <20010217090353.A586@reborntechnology.co.uk> <001401c0999f$5b8d2380$0d0fbed4@default> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Disposition: inline User-Agent: Mutt/1.3.12i In-Reply-To: <001401c0999f$5b8d2380$0d0fbed4@default>; from Kenneth.Van.Oost@village.uunet.be on Sun, Feb 18, 2001 at 11:43:14AM +0100 From: Robin Faichney <robin@reborntechnology.co.uk> Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
On Sun, Feb 18, 2001 at 11:43:14AM +0100, Kenneth Van Oost wrote:
>
> > On Fri, Feb 16, 2001 at 09:30:32PM +0100, Kenneth Van Oost wrote:
> > >
> > > 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 !?
> I'm sorry, Kenneth, but if you think there's any way that memes could
> > have taken over from genes, then you need to go back and reread the
> > basic texts. Darwin's Dangerous Idea, by Dennett, will give you a solid
> > grounding in both the principles of genetics and memetics.
>
> Hi Robin,
>
> Fair enough !
> But I don 't " think " that in the way you think I do, though !
> To recap let me use some words of Jess Tauber on this.
>
> " the more a body has to do, the larger the numbers of gene products
> needs to be, specialized to do ever more detailted work in larger num-
> bers of " compartments ". The number of gene products can be increased
> either by simply increasing the numbers of genes, or having the abilty to
> edit. ( Post 16 Feb 2001)
I missed that post and I don't know what "edit" means in this context.
The public comments I heard by geneticists and others whose opinions
I tend to repect regarding the relationship between total gene number
and phylogenetic complexity have suggested that the compensation for a
relatively low number of genes is in complexity of interactions between
genes.
<snip>
> How would a gene edit still more info to get her work done !? By lots
> of numbers of knobs, switches and interconnections made between sepe-
> rate genes. I buy that.
>
> But I don 't buy, still, the fact that ideas, can 't pass somehow the
> Weismann 's Barrier.
> Genes need info whatever that is, however that info gets in the gene...it
> needs info to edit, to translate, to transcript, to switch, to regulate
> more,to interact with others,....Genetic info !? Where did it came
> from and how would a gene absorb such an info !? And what kind
> of info is needed to " change " a gene !? How does a gene select
> that info !? Along those lines of Darwinian selection, variation and
> replication !?
> Too slow !!
>
> IMO, still, gene products can be permeable with things like memetic info.
> That info allowes the gene to " mutate " and that cell is than to be
> inherited by the progeny.
I'm sorry, this seems like sheer nonsense to me. Genes do not need
information, they are not computers, if there's any "editing" going on,
it is certainly not of that sort.
-- Robin Faichney robin@reborntechnology.co.uk=============================================================== 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 19 2001 - 12:18:32 GMT