Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id CAA28573 (8.6.9/5.3[ref email@example.com] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from firstname.lastname@example.org); Sat, 4 Aug 2001 02:53:46 +0100 Message-ID: <002f01c11c88$087fae80$3524f4d8@teddace> From: "Dace" <email@example.com> To: <firstname.lastname@example.org> References: <2D1C159B783DD211808A006008062D3101745FCC@inchna.stir.ac.uk> <000d01c1171c$6783d260$ddd9b3d1@teddace> <002101c11a02$2099ed60$9303bed4@default> Subject: Re: Logic Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2001 18:51:50 -0700 Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit X-Priority: 3 X-MSMail-Priority: Normal X-Mailer: Microsoft Outlook Express 5.50.4133.2400 X-MIMEOLE: Produced By Microsoft MimeOLE V5.50.4133.2400 Sender: email@example.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: firstname.lastname@example.org
> Hi Dace,
> You wrote,
> > These "pants" you refer to were worn by all the early evolutionists,
> > including Spencer, Wallace, Darwin, and Lamarck. All were in agreement
> that evolution was driven by direct adaptation to environmental
> > Virtually no one took seriously the idea of a mechanical method of
> > centered on the nuclei of cells.
> > So, what happened in the 20th century to change our minds? What do we
> > really know about these "genes?" Well, we know we can alter morphology
> "engineering" them. And we know there are 30,000 of them in the human
> > genome, which correspond to roughly 30,000 proteins. Does this mean
> > genes "code" for the structure of proteins? No, actually they just
> > the models for chains of amino acids. As to how these chains fold up
> > correctly, this does not appear to be a mechanically driven process.
> > protein on up, no form in the body has been linked to the sequence of
> > nucleic acids buried in our chromosomes. We know the alteration of
> > and protiens can have effects at various levels of the body's structure,
> > we don't know that the form of these structures reflects "information"
> > residing in genes.
> << Very interesting once again !
> You mean that the information you talk about in the above ' fix ', '
> form !? In a sense, that a gene ' expresses ' a certain form, what kind of
> form (that will be) we don 't know, due to what !?
> The kind of individual involved !? The kind of social structure involved
> The kind of genetic history involved !? To what kind of sensibilitÚs the
> organism will react upon !?
Genes don't determine form. They distort it. If we didn't have genetic
differences between each other, we'd all come out looking exactly the same.
Indeed this is the case with identical twins. Genes account for
differences. They have nothing to say as to the more profound question of
our similarities. Genes are like the options on your car. They don't tell
you anything about engines and wheels and whatnot, but they tell you what
color you'll be and whether or not you'll have power steering.
We resonate with our own kind. This is why life is divided up into species.
Morphic resonance works according to similarity. We resonate with ourselves
first and secondly with those who are similar. That would include everyone
in our species. We have a collective mind, and this mind determines the
form of our bodies as much as the archetypes of our unconscious.
> Due to what would any gene change something in the info residing in itself
> Yes, mutations, but what causes those mutations and indeed, ' how ' would
> that effect the gene that change your eye color if it does not contains a
> program by which the eye itself is constructed.
How can a radio dial change the music you're picking up unless it contains a
program by which that music is constructed?
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 2b29 : Sat Aug 04 2001 - 02:57:59 BST