Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id DAA28658 (8.6.9/5.3[ref email@example.com] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from firstname.lastname@example.org); Sat, 4 Aug 2001 03:26:27 +0100 From: <email@example.com> To: firstname.lastname@example.org Date: Fri, 3 Aug 2001 21:30:19 -0500 Content-type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: Quoted-printable Subject: Re: Logic Message-ID: <3B6B17EB.9352.269CD6C@localhost> In-reply-to: <002f01c11c88$087fae80$3524f4d8@teddace> X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.12c) Sender: email@example.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: firstname.lastname@example.org
On 3 Aug 2001, at 18:51, Dace wrote:
> > 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
> > evolution
> > > 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
> > contain
> > > 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,
> > but
> > > 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 ', '
> > stipulates' 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.
Oh, Puh-LEEEZE! Are you trying to tell us that without genes we
would all look like generic humans? And why would we not look
like generic bonobos, or generic hogs, or generic sperm whales?
Once you remove the genes, it's kinda hard to distinguish ANY
mammals from each other at the blastocyst stage. And if you
amaintain that it depends upon the carrier, then why don't test tube
babies have skins of glass, or fetuses of one racial complexion
take on the different racial complexion of some surrogate mothers?
Genes are responsible not only for configurational differences from
some nonexistent norm, but for configuration, period. Any changes
for which the environment is responsible must be variations
allowable within the parameters of the existent genetic template.
> > 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?
Ambient radiation, chemical exposure and viral infection can cause
genetic mutation. And radio dials (rheostats or varistors) direct (to
a particular frequency) the application of a schematically
instantiated heuristic on the separation of the carrier from the
signal for ALL frequencies within its applicable bandwidth, not one
for particular station X or Y and a different one for station Z, and no
station is 'beaming in' eye color to the genes as if they had little
antenna receivers on them listening to the morphic pied piper
resonating somewhere in the ethersphere. The attempted analogy
is bad in so many places and on so many levels as to be
absolutely nonrelational, thus totally useless.
> Ted Dace
> 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: http://www.cpm.mmu.ac.uk/jom-emit
===============================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 - 03:30:38 BST