From: Joel.M Dimech (email@example.com)
Date: Thu 06 Oct 2005 - 07:59:54 GMT
> Message du 05/10/05 10:51
> De : "Derek Gatherer"
> A : firstname.lastname@example.org
> Copie à :
> Objet : Re: The evolution of "evolution"
> 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.
It's a bad analogy only if you focus on the fact that no plan, no fixed design settles upon the embryonic development.
"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.
Not quite. What has been totally proven is the leading role of extra-nuclear genes, and the crucial importance of the ovum's kinetic moment.
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 : Thu 06 Oct 2005 - 08:17:36 GMT