Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id XAA02475 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-bounces@mmu.ac.uk); Fri, 24 Aug 2001 23:33:59 +0100 X-Originating-IP: [209.240.220.151] From: "Scott Chase" <ecphoric@hotmail.com> To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk Subject: Re: Proof Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2001 18:31:21 -0400 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: <F298W447p9NBUL23sse00011682@hotmail.com> X-OriginalArrivalTime: 24 Aug 2001 22:31:21.0853 (UTC) FILETIME=[803DEAD0:01C12CEC] Sender: fmb-bounces@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
>From: "Dace" <edace@earthlink.net>
>Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
>To: <memetics@mmu.ac.uk>
>Subject: Re: Proof
>Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2001 12:49:05 -0700
>
> > Ted, concerning (a) protein folding, and (b) genes making proteins
> > making organisms, what level of proof would you require to sign up for
> > the mainstream evolutionary / molecular biological model of the world?
>
>Chris,
>
>Walter Elsasser approached the question of organic form like any other
>physics problem. And he found that it had no solution. Where are the
>mechanisms that turn blueprints into final product? Moreover, how would
>such mechanisms work? Elsasser was appalled by the fact that biologists
>didn't even have a theory for how genes construct organisms. Right now
>we've got a big, fat notebook full of descriptions with no coherent order
>or
>explanatory principle.
>
>When you can thermodynamically connect the dots between polypeptides and
>proteins, then you'll have something.
>
>
God of the gaps meets moving goalposts? Whenever the holes in the knowledge
base are filled out step by step, those launching salvos at "orthodox
science" (tm) need only ratchet the problem further, into areas not yet
conquered.
"OK so you know how that gene (or those genes) play(s) a role, however
limited, in that developmental process, you still haven't offered a coherent
and comprehensive explanation for how the organism develops from zygote to
fully mature adult with respect to form and behavior."
Expression genetics (versus transmission genetics) has a long way to go. I
have an even longer way to go understanding the development of organisms as
influenced by gene products and things such as cell surface interactions and
signal transduction and how the context a cell finds itself in at any given
time influences how that cell's genetic repertoire is expressed.
Something like the concept or descriptive notion of a morphogenetic field
can go a long way to combat "bean bag / beads on a string" genocentrism of
the "this for that/1:1" variety, but taking this too far and adding in some
very contentious idea of morphic resonance basically evaporates the utility
of the MF concept (if any utility even exists). One paper I recall which has
some relevant discussion is:
Gilbert SF, Opitz JM, Raff RA. 1996. Resynthesizing evolutionary and
developmental biology. Developmental Biology (173): 357-372
In the abstract Gilbert, Opitz and Raff say that morphogenetic fields
"exemplify the modular nature of developing embryos" and call them "a major
unit of ontogeny whose changes bring about changes in evolution." I found no
mention of Sheldrake in their extensive references section. Of Goodwin they
say that his particular formulation is somewhat akin to the classical
version and that "this is a field outside developmental genetics and is
actively opposed to gene action as being important in field functions."
Where Gilbert Opitz and Raff slight Goodwin as being non-genic, IIRC Goodwin
(in _How the Leopard Changed its Spots_) slights Sheldrake as being
non-psychical in his formulations. Could someone double check this for me
since I don't have a copy handy?
One area I've been interested in is epigenetics and I've heard of epigenetic
inheritance systems and ideas such as epialleles and epimutations, where
methylation states of genetic *material* (evil grin) are pertinent. It think
it was Vincent who said something about the new _Science_ (vol 293, no.
5532) where epigenetics is a major topic. This could be a fruitful area for
further exploration. Are the MR proponents giving this or any *new* work in
developmental biology any *serious* consideration? Have they done much
reading in the hybrid field of evolutionary developmental biology where
expression genetics contends with transmission genetics? Are they
constructing an Aunt Sally of "orthodoxy" for their own amusement and/or
polemic advantage?
_________________________________________________________________
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
===============================================================
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 24 2001 - 23:38:31 BST