From: Derek Gatherer (firstname.lastname@example.org)
Date: Wed 05 Oct 2005 - 08:48:26 GMT
>I would not say "memory" speaking of the laws that are governing the
>embryonic development, but why not?
Because there are standard scientific way of speaking of them and
"memory" is not one of them. It's a really bad analogy to what we know, at the molecular level, is going on.
>"Ontogenesis" in the sense of the physical development of the embryo
>is at odds with any Darwinist viewpoint, it's rather in perfect
>agreement with the concept of "punctuated equilibrium". Here,
>nuclear genes are not relevant.
No, I disagree completely. How can you possibly say that nuclear
genes are not relevant to the physical development of the
embryo? It's been _totally_ proven that they are. I refer you to my
previous answers to 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)
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Wed 05 Oct 2005 - 09:06:27 GMT