Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id VAA14377 (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 21:37:56 +0100 Message-ID: <003a01c121ca$0d87d280$da86b2d1@teddace> From: "Dace" <edace@earthlink.net> To: <memetics@mmu.ac.uk> References: <3B7301CC.23739.7B20C2@localhost> Subject: Re: Convergence + protein folding Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2001 11:26:51 -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
Joe Dees:
> On 9 Aug 2001, at 12:33, Dace wrote:
>
> > > > Dawkins discusses this dilemma in The Blind Watchmaker: "It is
> > > > vanishingly improbable that the same evolutionary pathway should
> > > > ever be followed twice. And it would seem similarly improbable,
> > > > for the same statistical reasons, that two lines of evolution
> > > > should converge on the same endpoint from different starting
> > > > points. It is all the more striking... that numerous examples can
> > > > be found in real nature, in which independent lines of eovlution
> > > > appear to have converged, from very different starting points, on
> > > > what looks very like the same end-point."
> >
> > Joe Dees wrote:
> >
> > > Random mutation (within the same range of genetic possibilities),
> > > followed by selection by similar environments for similar niches
> > > should just about do it.
> >
> > Are you establishing yourself as a higher authority on these matters
> > than Dawkins? Of course, he's taking into consideration environmental
> > fitness and random mutation in his assessment. Learn to pick your
> > fights. Don't just assume that every assertion I make is unorthodox
> > or subject to debate.
> >
> Appeal to Authority is another one of those 2500 year old Greek
> logical fallacies. In fact, my reply was logical, rational, reasonable,
> coherent, cohesive and cogent, and specifically addressed the
> referent conditions rather than someone else's opinion of them.
Appeal to Authority is a fallacy only when the "authority" turns out to have
no expertise on the issue under discussion. If I appeal to the authority of
a plumber on my leaky faucet, that is not a fallacy. But if I make my
appeal to the authority of an electrician, this would then be a fallacy.
Yes, your reply was logical. That's the problem. You're trying to argue
against facts with logic. It won't work. This is what I mean about banging
your head against a wall.
> > Bill Spight wrote:
> >
> > > Dear Ted,
> > >
> > > > It's well known that atavistic traits commonly pop up among
> > > > developing organisms. A feral pig is liable to develop tusks.
> > > > Horses occasionally grow extra toes. Humans are sometimes born
> > > > with a small tail. Such
> > things
> > > > can be expected if we do indeed resonate with past forms. But
> > > > they can
> > also
> > > > be explained according to the genetic model. What can't be
> > > > explained genetically is parallel evolution, or "convergence."
> > >
> > > Convergent evolution is in fact a major support of the theory of
> > > evolution.
> >
> > And as Hume said, "The green table is green."
> >
> He's saying that the fact that similarly configured niche inhabitants
> evolve to occupy similarly configured environmental niches is an
> empirical corroboration of the power that natural selection exerts on
> random mutations, thus an empirical corroboration of evolutionary
> theory.
And you imagine you're informing me of something I didn't already know?
What am I, six years old? His point is obvious. It's also irrelevant.
Sheldrake takes an evolutionary model. He accepts natural selection. I've
already made this perfectly clear for anyone who's been paying attention.
The only interesting thing about the comment was its amusing redundancy,
hence the Hume comment.
> > > > Among plants and
> > > > animals, we continually find new examples of organisms widely
> > > > separated
> > in
> > > > their phylogenetic derivation which nonetheless develop remarkably
> > similar
> > > > forms. In New Zealand we find many kinds of leaves common to
> > > > Eurasia
> > which
> > > > serve to fend off herbivores that don't exist in New Zealand.
> > > > There
> > seems
> > > > to be no reason why marsupials and mammals would develop such
> > > > incredibly similar forms.
> > >
> > > Don't be silly.
> >
> > See Dawkins above. He may not accept morphic resonance, but at least
> > he concedes that convergence is a mystery.
> >
> It is less mysterious to Stephen Jay Gould (omidog - dueling
> authorities! <chortle>).
I'd be interested to know in what book Gould made this observation.
> > To take a single example, the astonishingly similar color patterns on
> > the scales of fish of different species which inhabit different
> > African lakes cannot be explained by any known factor. It has nothing
> > to do with fitness or chemistry. You've got nothing here except
> > coincidence. And that's the point Dawins is making above. There's a
> > colossal coincidence at work here, and it's repeated *countless* times
> > across the earth. At least Dawkins is honest about the extreme
> > improbability of neo-Darwinian theory.
> >
> You don't have other predator and prey species that share those
> lakes, and common underwater environmental color and
> configuration, which could cause similar selection? And these
> different species are not genetically related; say, in the same
> family? I'm quite sure that one or both of these conditions hold(s).
It's interesting that you're quite sure. You appear to be working on faith,
not reason.
> Sheldrake just proposes a resonating wave function that functions
> as a newage Holy Ghost. It's junk science, which means it is
> pseudoscience trying to hide it's pseudo in the closet, and was
> probably published to make the author money,
Fallacy of abuse.
as sensationalistic
> 'controversial' theories which are basically conjectural 'just so
> stories' with no empirical basis sell more to the great untutored
> than do serious and seriously dry academic tomes. From
> Velikovsky to Joseph Chilton Pearce, crackpots have made much
> money doing this sort of thing.
"Guilt by association." These statements are childish and meaningless.
> > > > > > 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.
Do you realize you're making this up out of thin air? Do you imagine you
would find support for this statement from professional biochemists? Do you
imagine that you could open a textbook and read all about how genes guide
the protein-folding process? This is absurd! It's common knowledge among
professionals that protein folding remains a mystery. While it's assumed
that eventually we will discover a mechanism that forces amino acid chains
into the correct configuration, even if this were the case, it still would
offer no basis for the belief that genes are somehow in control of the
process.
> > 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'.
Guilt by association.
> > > 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).
Invoking Occam here is a big mistake. The whole point of field theory in
biology, all the way back to the 20s, was to reduce the number of
"entities." Field theory is far more elegant than germ-plasm theory. All
the complexity involved in storing blueprints in our chromosomes and somehow
translating them into actual bodies is washed away with the concept of a
holistic field governing development. This is not to suggest, of course,
that elegance constitutes proof.
You're really going to have to do better, Joe. Except for the reference to
Gould, none of this is the least bit helpful.
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 : Fri Aug 10 2001 - 22:01:56 BST