Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id DAA06889 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-bounces@mmu.ac.uk); Mon, 27 Aug 2001 03:12:32 +0100 From: <joedees@bellsouth.net> To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk Date: Sun, 26 Aug 2001 21:16:39 -0500 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: Proof Message-ID: <3B896737.23522.499523@localhost> In-reply-to: <003a01c12e6a$6b80d1a0$6f24f4d8@teddace> X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.12c) Sender: fmb-bounces@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
On 26 Aug 2001, at 13:05, Dace wrote:
> From: Scott Chase
>
> > > > 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.
>
> Who says the holes in our knowledge are being filled out step by step?
> I see no explanations of developmental processes, only descriptions.
> How do genes build bodies? We can't even explain how they build
> proteins. Why don't organisms just revert to their physical and
> chemical properties and begin disintegrating? In other words, how is
> life different from death? Neo-Darwinian biology can't answer this
> question any better than ancient myth. It's because we have no answer
> that we imagine life as mechanism and then explain that instead.
>
Genes build bodies via proteins, among other things. Organisms
do not dissolve into their chemical properties because they are
EXERCISING their electrochemical properties in the living
organism's metabolism, and when the organism dies, the
dissolving that follows is no more natural than the metabolic bodily
processes that inhered before. Life is different from death in that
the (sufficiently complex) system is able to capture energy from
outside of itself (food, water, sunlight) and convert it into growth,
elaboration and increased complexity. When this ability breaks
down, due to age, accident or disease, the organism dies and
dissolves.
>
> > "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?
>
> > Ooooops! Now that was a very bad typo. This should read as
> > "non-physical". (blush)
>
> Must be that dyxlesia acting up again. :-)
>
> Ted
>
>
>
> ===============================================================
> 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 : Mon Aug 27 2001 - 03:18:58 BST