Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id VAA14370 (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 21:37:54 +0100 Message-ID: <3B742097.DE53E8D@bioinf.man.ac.uk> Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2001 18:57:43 +0100 From: Chris Taylor <Christopher.Taylor@man.ac.uk> Organization: University of Manchester X-Mailer: Mozilla 4.77 [en] (Windows NT 5.0; U) X-Accept-Language: en To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk Subject: Re: Teleology etc. References: <3B730788.19486.9186B1@localhost> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
Sorry you're getting such a kicking Ted - I have to say I admire your
staying power!
Two points to start:
1) You just can't cite Kant as an authority on molecular biology.
2) Protein folding is rather complex - many chaperones help out,
different cellular compartments are involved, as are timing effects to
allow local folding. You need a concept of an energy landscape, which is
'out there' in a sense(...), but you most emphatically do not need
mystery fields of force.
TD:
> To my knowledge Wilson has never responded to Sheldrake's thesis that
> termite mounds are governed by morphic fields, with the termites occupying a
> similar role to cells within animal bodies. Wilson has never responded to
> this suggestion because he has no alternative. It's just up in the air. He
> doesn't like the field explanation, but he can't offer anything better.
JD:
> I'm sure that there is a similar
> rule or small group of rules, probably connected with pheromonic
> chemical marking, that will suffice to explain termite mound
> construction.
I've seen simulated paper wasps build complex nests despite individuals
only having small simple locally applicable rule sets (consisting of
simple input=output pairs). Termites would be easy enough too. Wilson
didn't have decent computers and complexity theory to help him.
And btw where did the *first* termite mound come from (and the first
protein structures too)?
TD:
> Sheldrake gets around both of these problems.
No he doesn't - he tells us a story without evidence. He's his own worst
enemy as far as science is concerned, but then I suspect we're not his
target demographic.
> Memes not a product of genes, so must be from MR etc. etc.
Uh-uh - the whole point of this group is the study of culturally
heritable patterns - heritable as in copyable. No need for any ethereal
templates. And again, where do the first ones come from? Evolution by
natural selection operating on variation explains this diversification
for me, what does MR have to say about it (genuine question)?
> Has anybody spoke to the infamous 100th monkey phenomenon yet?
Pah-leeze put me out of my misery...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Chris Taylor (chris@bioinf.man.ac.uk)
http://bioinf.man.ac.uk/ »people»chris
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
===============================================================
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 - 21:52:00 BST