Re: Defining the word "replicator" (was Re: Silent memes)

From: derek gatherer (
Date: Mon 04 Aug 2003 - 16:11:32 GMT

  • Next message: "Re: Defining the word "replicator" (was Re: Silent memes)"

     --- Scott Chase <> wrote: >

    > What proportion of a genome (eg- the human genome)
    > actually codes for
    > anything versus the proportion which is non-genic?

    About 3%

    > so-called "evolutionary
    > gene" would include portions of the genome that code
    > for nothing of cellular
    > significance.

    They could be non-protein-coding and even non-transcribed, but in order for natural selection to act on them, they would have to have some cellular significance presumably, if only in the use of cellular resources to facilitate their own replication.

    > I suppose the distinction between evolutionary and
    > molecular genes has
    > little bearing on these regions acting as
    > replicators,

    'Replicator' and 'evolutionary gene' are essentially synonymous, in the intellectual lineage leading from Williams to Dawkins. The real issue subsequently has not been whether we have a decent definition of replicator (because we do) but in the replicator/'interactor' controversy.

    ________________________________________________________________________ Want to chat instantly with your online friends? Get the FREE Yahoo! Messenger

    =============================================================== 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 : Mon 04 Aug 2003 - 16:16:07 GMT