Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id DAA12195 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Fri, 10 Aug 2001 03:54:38 +0100 From: <joedees@bellsouth.net> To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk Date: Thu, 9 Aug 2001 21:58:32 -0500 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: Teleology Message-ID: <3B730788.19486.9186B1@localhost> In-reply-to: <001901c120ff$d612f340$1e24f4d8@teddace> X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.12c) Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
On 9 Aug 2001, at 11:19, Dace wrote:
> 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
> > necesarily 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.
>
If DNA encodes for "simple, linear sequence(s) of amino acids",
then these themselves can only lock-and-key into proteins in ways
predetermined by their configuration.
>
> > > > > > 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.
>
This distinction, and the additional synergistic interrelations
attributed to it, smacks of the long-discredited 18th and 19th
century concept of elan vital, or 'life force'.
>
> > > > > 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 extremely 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.
>
You are violating Occam's Razor by multiplying fields beyond
necessity (what is necessary to account for the phenomena
observed). Similar claims were made of Kirlian photography, that it
was actually giving us pictures of morphogenetic or life-force fields,
then it was discovered that it was registering the water vapor
exuded by the objects photographed.
>
> 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 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 Aug 10 2001 - 03:58:55 BST