Re: Morphogenetic fields

From: Keith Henson (
Date: Wed 11 Jun 2003 - 03:15:58 GMT

  • Next message: Wade T. Smith: "Re: _Religion Explained_ by Pascal Boyer"

    At 05:51 PM 10/06/03 -0700, Dace wrote:
    > > "Until recently, the interactions that constituted these fields could not
    > > identified. However, the discovery of the homologous pathways of
    > > has given us new insights into how these fields are established and
    > > maintained."
    >Okay. And what determines the "homologous pathways of development?" Genes
    >or fields?

    "Homologous pathways of development" = similar pathways of development between insects and mammals. I.e., body plan genes that "instruct" (via chemical gradients) a hollow ball of cells into becoming an animal go back,
    *way* back, to the common ancestor.

    >Whatever answers researchers come up with cannot help but be
    >provisional. Every answer merely moves the question back a step.
    >Ultimately, the information is either particulate or holistic. Ontogenesis
    >is either bottom-up or top-down. Since biochemists are no closer than they
    >were forty years ago to providing a detailed picture of how genes build
    >bodies, there's no reason not to explore other possibilities. Indeed, this
    >is the general trend of contemporary biology.
    > > I really wish you would use Google more.
    >You're playing a trick on yourself-- digging up a little sliver of
    >information that confirms your prejudice and then imagining you've solved
    >the case.

    I am citing web locations we can both locate to show that what I understand from decades of reading details about these areas of science is commonly accepted knowledge. Also, I don't have the time to type in all the supporting details, so I cite others who say what I would say if I had time.

    > > > > Sample articles
    > > > >
    > > > > Reference: Scientific American February 1994 PAGES 58-66
    > > > > Articles Name- The Molecular Architects of Body Design.
    > > > > By William McGinnis and Michael Kuziora
    > > > > Jest of Article- Putting a human gene into a fly may sound like the
    > > basis
    > > > > for a science fiction film, but it demonstrates that nearly identical
    > > > > molecular mechanisms define body shapes in all animals.
    > > >
    > > >If the molecular mechanisms are the same, and the organisms are radically
    > > >different, doesn't that demonstrate that organisms are not a product of
    > > >molecular mechanisms? This is a huge problem for the mechanistic theory
    > > >life.
    > >
    > >
    > > Hardly. "Body shapes" at the level of having a head to tail, left to right
    > > and front to back are common from insects to elephants and they all start
    > > from a single cell. That the same mechanism (hox genes) lays out the
    > > developmental axis only indicates animals with bilateral symmetry had a
    > > common ancestor.
    >It says we have a common ancestor, and there's no discernible reason why we
    >don't look like flies.

    Your above conclusion convinces me (as to the usefulness of further discussion).


    Keith Henson

    =============================================================== 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:

    This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed 11 Jun 2003 - 03:24:00 GMT