From: Joel.M Dimech (email@example.com)
Date: Thu 13 Oct 2005 - 16:08:17 GMT
>So? What has that got to do with it?
>You are trying to pull this discussion away from your original that:
“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”.
>And onto a discussion of maternal transcripts, which are in any case transcribed from the mother’s nuclei during oogenesis.
I didn’t, what for? Anyway, speaking of material transcripts I am just self-consistent with respect to my viewpoint. When one is knowledgeable in embryology, one knows the apoptotic development of the embryo displays a serious number of punctuated equilibriums. The embryonic pattern is very close to what Stephen J. Gould and al. described and derived from the study of geological times. Nothing has to be proven; the physical development of the embryo speaks for itself. This development is not gradual, it does not obey chance, and there is none development of the best-fitted type. Being so, you can’t seriously expect one to say “the physical development of the embryo is in agreement with Darwinism”. The main issue is that in your field one doesn’t need the concept “physical development of the embryo”. Doubtless, nuclear genes are important agents in organs genesis, still, they are among the necessary agents of a given complex chain reaction: the development of the embryo. When I speak of “physical development”, I speak of the complex embryonic chain reaction. The physical development is then a domain of study in itself; without any consideration of details but those that are relevant to the process of chain reaction. In this respect, it’s a given that any chain reaction that develops in space develops in the mean time a material process. The material process is a given, an eventual necessity imposed on hyper-complex chain reactions. And this material process has its proper laws and limitations, those that come from the principle of Matter’s unity. Anything that accounts for the limits of matter is not relevant to the chain reaction process. It’s relevant to the total, or to a given part of the given material process. Now, as most scientists do today, you are supposed to have taken in the basics of the theory of chain reaction. And one can easily remember fourth of them in simple terms of language:
(1) All the agents of a chain reaction are important to its continuity
(2) The factual presence and the factual absence of any agent are of equal value: both of them produce effects onto the chain reaction
(3) One agent is fundamental in a given part of the chain reaction while it is not relevant in the others
(4) The measured quantity of any agent is not a measure of its relevance in the ongoing process High school students know these 4 basics; they know they apply to all chain reactions no matter their chemical, biological, etc., nature. You are much beyond the grade “high school student”, and what did you say along three short posts?
> (Nuclear genes) are orders of magnitude more important than any slight extra-nuclear or kinetic effects.
> (Mitochondria, their genes are responsible…) in the decision or going apoptotic or not – but that’s scarcely developmental programming.
> (Extra-nuclear genes, loss of their total kinetic moment = infertility) - Clearly if the egg is knackered in any way, development will barely proceed. There is
> No developmental programming from nuclear genes.
What are we supposed to understand? The mitochondrial genes are not developmental? The mitochondrial genes are not programming? Joel
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Thu 13 Oct 2005 - 16:25:40 GMT