Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id VAA22270 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Tue, 31 Jul 2001 21:08:26 +0100 Message-ID: <002101c11a02$2099ed60$9303bed4@default> From: "Kenneth Van Oost" <Kenneth.Van.Oost@village.uunet.be> To: <memetics@mmu.ac.uk> References: <2D1C159B783DD211808A006008062D3101745FCC@inchna.stir.ac.uk> <000d01c1171c$6783d260$ddd9b3d1@teddace> Subject: Re: Logic Date: Tue, 31 Jul 2001 22:47:19 +0200 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit 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
Hi Dace,
You wrote,
> These "pants" you refer to were worn by all the early evolutionists,
> including Spencer, Wallace, Darwin, and Lamarck. All were in agreement
that evolution was driven by direct adaptation to environmental constraints.
> Virtually no one took seriously the idea of a mechanical method of
evolution
> centered on the nuclei of cells.
> So, what happened in the 20th century to change our minds? What do we
> really know about these "genes?" Well, we know we can alter morphology by
"engineering" them. And we know there are 30,000 of them in the human
> genome, which correspond to roughly 30,000 proteins. Does this mean that
> genes "code" for the structure of proteins? No, actually they just
contain
> the models for chains of amino acids. As to how these chains fold up
> correctly, this does not appear to be a mechanically driven process. From
> protein on up, no form in the body has been linked to the sequence of
> nucleic acids buried in our chromosomes. We know the alteration of genes
> and protiens can have effects at various levels of the body's structure,
but
> we don't know that the form of these structures reflects "information"
> residing in genes.
<< Very interesting once again !
You mean that the information you talk about in the above ' fix ', '
stipulates'
form !? In a sense, that a gene ' expresses ' a certain form, what kind of
form (that will be) we don 't know, due to what !?
The kind of individual involved !? The kind of social structure involved !?
The kind of genetic history involved !? To what kind of sensibilités the
organism will react upon !?
Due to what would any gene change something in the info residing in itself
!?
Yes, mutations, but what causes those mutations and indeed, ' how ' would
that effect the gene that change your eye color if it does not contains a
program by which the eye itself is constructed.
In a other sense, what made the gene change its expression !?
An inner urge !? A Need !? Which kind !? And whose urge will it be !?
The organism' of those of the parents !?
This is why
> evolution is driven according to the sensible behavior of the organism
> rather than the blind workings of its macromolecules. The atomistic model
> of inheritance is unsuitable for evolution. Aristotle, Goethe, Whitehead,
> and yes, even Bergson (despite his vitalism), tell us far more about life
> than Crick and Watson ever could.
<< Yet once again, you mean here a need, an urge, le sentiment interieur,
le élan vital, the concept of the ' différend ' ( Lyotard) !?
In one word, Lamarck !?
And if so, where do you leave Darwin !? On the side- line !?
If so again, what about the Weismann's Barrier !? Breachable !?
> But the recent revelation that the genome is one-third smaller than
> previously imagined did nothing to call into question the reduction of
> morphology to genetics. The power of the meme against all logic ensures
> that the genetic model, both evolutionary and developmental, remains
> untouchable.
<< Yes, my point all along. People, in general too of course, are trapped
into the ways they think, or ought to think, or were brought up with, or
by the ones they learned.
As for this list, no harm done I hope, everyone is brought up with the
notion that Darwin is " the true way ". For some reason it seems that Dace
and I are not that much keen on staying in Darwins footsteps.
Not that I say he is wrong, but in a way we have to dismiss ourselves
from the memes which are driving us all mad with Darwin' s stuff.
I said this before, if you look for Darwinian prove, you will find it every-
where if you don 't have any " feeling" to look for something else.
Not that I say, we, you and I are all ' wrong ', but try to see the ' logic
'
of the arguments, try to see beyond the memes which block out the light.
Anyway, maybe memes are blocking out my light, but than I wonder, why
mine and not.... Vincents, or Robins, or Joe's, what makes you all diffe-
rent from Dace and me !?
Strange question of course,....
Best regards to all,
Kenneth
( I am, because we are) all one
===============================================================
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 Jul 31 2001 - 21:21:37 BST