Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id TAA11015 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Thu, 9 Aug 2001 19:21:29 +0100 Message-ID: <001901c120ff$d612f340$1e24f4d8@teddace> From: "Dace" <edace@earthlink.net> To: <memetics@mmu.ac.uk> References: <3B7085F0.25944.726FA7@localhost> Subject: Re: Teleology Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2001 11:19:25 -0700 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
From: <joedees@bellsouth.net>
> On 7 Aug 2001, at 13:52, Dace wrote:
>
> > > > Genes do not appear to contain instructions for the folding of
> > > > proteins. The very concept of "genetic instruction" is
> > > > speculative. There is, as yet, no evidence to bolster it. Nucleic
> > > > acid chains produce amino acid chains. That genes produce proteins
> > > > is a meme, and this meme is obstructing the emergence of a new
> > > > theory.
> > > >
> > > They do so indirectly, by producing their components (via
> > > messenger RNA), complete with specific locks and keys to govern
> > > their combination/assembly.
> >
> > DNA does not code for locks and keys to govern protein assembly. The
> > folding of protein remains a mystery, as any biochemist can tell you.
> >
> If it codes for protein construction, then lock and key configuration,
> being an aspect of overall configuration, is neccesarily a part of the
> whole.
This statement is absolutely correct. *If* genes code for protein
construction, *then* they would necessarily provide a lock and key
configuration. However, genes do not encode for any such thing. They
"encode" for a simple, linear sequence of amino acids. That's it, Joe.
Bang your head against the brick wall all you want, it's not going to change
the facts.
> > > > > Different proteins with different locks and
> > > > > keys are made, according to genetic instruction,
> > > > and those whos
> > > > > locks don't fit into the others' keys simply don't join when
> > > > > they bump into each other. Nothing has to be pushed; there are
> > > > > certain ionic and covalent bonding possibilities that serve as
> > > > > attractors once candidates drift close.
> > > >
> > > > Very little in the body works according to mechanical or chemical
> > > > necessity. When Drew Endy and John Yin at the University of
> > > > Wisconsin-Madison modeled a virus that attacks E. coli in the
> > > > human gut, they thought their model would tell them precisely how
> > > > the virus would react to various drugs. Instead they found "a
> > > > tremendous number of degrees of freedom" in the possible reactions
> > > > of the virus. Biochemist Alfred Gilman, a Nobel prize winner,
> > > > summed it up nicely. "I could draw you a map of all the components
> > > > in a cell and put all the proper arrows connecting them. I or
> > > > anybody else would look at that map and have absolutely no ability
> > > > to predict anything."
> > > >
> > > Here cause and effect apply. If a cell evolves with certain
> > > characteristics and is presented with particular stimuli, then it
> > > reacts within a certain range.
> >
> > Says who? Did you read the quotes from Endy/Yin and Gilman?
> > Biological processes do not necessarily react predictably to given
> > stimuli. You're still dealing with the body as if it were an
> > automobile engine. As Kant pointed out, in a machine the parts are
> > built so as to fit each other. In an organism, the parts build each
> > other as they build themselves. Thus all the parts identify with each
> > other holistically. Organisms exhibit "self-organization" (Kant's
> > term). There's no "self" in a machine. Mechanistic biology is
> > incompatible with the holistic notion of self-nature. Perhaps you
> > weren't aware of that.
> >
> There's also no self in organisms below a certain degree of
> complexity. As your argument proceeds fom the point of view of
> single cells, it is quite certain that the requisite complexity for self-
> awareness is absent in them. they might respond to the stimuli
> presented by contiguous cells, but they no more identify with their
> neighbors than they identify with themselves.
> Anthropomorphization on a cellular level is an egregious error.
Self-existence in no way implies human-like consciousness. It means only
that the form of a thing arises intrinsically rather than being stamped onto
it externally. Only self-existent forms resonate with each other. This is
why chairs and tables and toaster ovens don't engage in morphic resonance.
> > > > The cause of this recent upsurge of uncertainty is the Genome
> > > > Project.
> > > > It was thought that we would finally start seeing some hard
> > > > evidence
> > > > regarding the existence of genetic instructions, and it just
> > > > hasn't panned out. Instead the reductionist approach is looking
> > > > increasingly implausible. The ultimate triumph of molecular
> > > > biology is proving to be its undoing.
> > > >
> > > We have much work to do to understand the synergistic effects of
> > > many genes working in concert, and many developments occurring at
> > > the same time in gestation. Rather than fetal development being
> > > affected by any kind of vague and mystical "extra-genetic species
> > > memory", it is much more likely that development of each component
> > > is affected by the simultaneous development of other, physically
> > > contiguous areas.
> >
> > When electromagnetic fields were first discovered, it was claimed that
> > these were "vague and mystical." The belief in the necessity of
> > physical contiguity is the basis of the concept of the ether. The
> > universe does not function according to contact mechanics.
> > Mechanistic theory long-ago accepted the reality of fields and
> > resonance. There's no reason why these phenomena can't be applied to
> > biology.
> >
> First you decry what you perceive as the application of a
> mechanistic view to biology, and then you attempt to do so
> yourself when it suits you. It is extrewmely doubtful whether
> electromagnetic fields could carry a precise, detailed and info-rich
> instruction between cells, even if they possessed transmitters and
> receivers of sufficient complexity to communicate same - which
> they don't.
I don't mean to suggest that electromagnetic fields can explain organic
form. Biologists have long speculated that a different kind of field, a
"morphogenetic field," could be based on form in the same way that
electromagnetic fields are based on charge. Just as similarly charged
particles resonate with each other, so do similarly formed "particles" (such
as proteins, cells, organs, etc.) While electromagnetic fields are
deterministic, "morphic" fields are probabilistic. We generally follow
habit. If we've done something the same way nine times out of ten in the
past, then there's a 90% probability we'll do it that way again. This
applies to all organic structures. Morphic resonance is more like quantum
mechanics than classical mechanics. If "mechanistic" can include
probabilistic causation, then Sheldrake's theory is indeed mechanistic--
just not deterministic. Perhaps I should stop equating mechanistic with
deterministic. Unfortunately, habits are difficult to break.
Ted Dace
===============================================================
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 : Thu Aug 09 2001 - 19:25:43 BST