Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id RAA19223 (8.6.9/5.3[ref pg@gmsl.co.uk] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk); Wed, 13 Feb 2002 17:26:48 GMT X-Originating-IP: [137.110.248.206] From: "Grant Callaghan" <grantc4@hotmail.com> To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk Subject: Re: Words and Memes Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 09:21:13 -0800 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: <LAW2-F138Z0I8V7PeOB00010f39@hotmail.com> X-OriginalArrivalTime: 13 Feb 2002 17:21:14.0157 (UTC) FILETIME=[D6A795D0:01C1B4B2] Sender: fmb-majordomo@mmu.ac.uk Precedence: bulk Reply-To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
>To: memetics@mmu.ac.uk
>Subject: Re: Words and Memes
>Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 15:27:49 GMT
>
>Ted:
> >Genes have a well-defined boundary.
>
>Grant:
> >Not true. Biologists are still arguing about what constitutes a gene
>
>Derek:
>No, not really. There is fairly good agreement on what contitutes a genes,
>ie. that it is a protein-coding stretch of DNA, possibly including
>regulatory elements and introns. Gene-finding algorithms like GENSCAN,
>Procrustes, Wise etc can even fish a gene out of a gigantic slab of DNA,
>just by parsing the statistical properties of the sequence in terms of
>Hidden Markov Models, homologies etc. The gene is so well-defined, even a
>computer can spot one (and mine does, all day long......)
>
>Grant:
>There
>seems to me to be almost as much confusion in the literature defining genes
>as there is in our effort to define memes. Biologists seem to be having
>trouble deciding where to draw the line, too.
>
>Derek:
>No, there was a lot of serious discussion back in the 50s about what genes
>were, as the molecular picture replaced the classical Mendelian one, but by
>the early 80s, 'What is a gene?' had become a question that was only
>trotted out in undergraduate exams to exercise our knowledge of the various
>component parts. Even prior to the discovery of DNA there was a fairly
>rigid definition of a gene in operational terms, ie. its alleles had to be
>non-complementary, it had to be a true-breeding trait, it had to exhibit
>the appropriate segregation and assortment ratios in genetic crosses. (more
>exam question fodder...)
>
>I'm not merely being pedantic about biology here, but every now and then
>somebody will try to justify fuzziness about meme definitions by claiming
>that gene definitions are just as fuzzy. They aren't.
>
Ted, thanks for the update. The books I read don't always have the latest
information and that may be one of the reasons for my confusion. The field
is changing so rapidly it's hard to keep up.
Grant
_________________________________________________________________
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 : Wed Feb 13 2002 - 17:43:23 GMT