Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id WAA14742 (8.6.9/5.3[ref firstname.lastname@example.org] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from email@example.com); Fri, 10 Aug 2001 22:12:06 +0100 From: <firstname.lastname@example.org> To: email@example.com Date: Fri, 10 Aug 2001 16:16:04 -0500 Content-type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-transfer-encoding: Quoted-printable Subject: Re: Teleology etc. Message-ID: <3B7408C4.2261.13AB141@localhost> In-reply-to: <3B742097.DE53E8D@bioinf.man.ac.uk> X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.12c) Sender: firstname.lastname@example.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: email@example.com
On 10 Aug 2001, at 18:57, Chris Taylor wrote:
> Sorry you're getting such a kicking Ted - I have to say I admire your
> staying power!
> Two points to start:
> 1) You just can't cite Kant as an authority on molecular biology. 2)
> Protein folding is rather complex - many chaperones help out,
> different cellular compartments are involved, as are timing effects to
> allow local folding. You need a concept of an energy landscape, which
> is 'out there' in a sense(...), but you most emphatically do not need
> mystery fields of force.
> > To my knowledge Wilson has never responded to Sheldrake's thesis
> > that termite mounds are governed by morphic fields, with the
> > termites occupying a similar role to cells within animal bodies.
> > Wilson has never responded to this suggestion because he has no
> > alternative. It's just up in the air. He doesn't like the field
> > explanation, but he can't offer anything better.
> > I'm sure that there is a similar
> > rule or small group of rules, probably connected with pheromonic
> > chemical marking, that will suffice to explain termite mound
> > construction.
> I've seen simulated paper wasps build complex nests despite
> individuals only having small simple locally applicable rule sets
> (consisting of simple input=output pairs). Termites would be easy
> enough too. Wilson didn't have decent computers and complexity theory
> to help him.
> And btw where did the *first* termite mound come from (and the first
> protein structures too)?
> > Sheldrake gets around both of these problems.
> No he doesn't - he tells us a story without evidence. He's his own
> worst enemy as far as science is concerned, but then I suspect we're
> not his target demographic.
> > Memes not a product of genes, so must be from MR etc. etc.
> Uh-uh - the whole point of this group is the study of culturally
> heritable patterns - heritable as in copyable. No need for any
> ethereal templates. And again, where do the first ones come from?
> Evolution by natural selection operating on variation explains this
> diversification for me, what does MR have to say about it (genuine
> > Has anybody spoke to the infamous 100th monkey phenomenon yet?
> Pah-leeze put me out of my misery...
The hundredth monkey syndrome will probably be the next
thing Ted attributes to morphogenetic fields (along with the
disappearance of Amelia Earhardt and the kidnapping of the
> Chris Taylor (firstname.lastname@example.org)
> http://bioinf.man.ac.uk/ »people»chris
> 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 : Fri Aug 10 2001 - 22:50:35 BST