Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id GAA25402 (8.6.9/5.3[ref email@example.com] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from firstname.lastname@example.org); Wed, 22 Aug 2001 06:16:44 +0100 From: <email@example.com> To: firstname.lastname@example.org Date: Wed, 22 Aug 2001 00:20:51 -0500 Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT Subject: Re: Song of Myself Message-ID: <3B82FAE3.3163.6CCD87@localhost> In-reply-to: <006c01c12a77$56632ee0$eb25f4d8@teddace> X-mailer: Pegasus Mail for Win32 (v3.12c) Sender: email@example.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: firstname.lastname@example.org
On 21 Aug 2001, at 12:27, Dace wrote:
> > > > > > We already know that the genes are there;
> > > > >
> > > > > That we do. What we don't know is that they contain
> > > > > instructions
> > > > > the creation of a transcomputational structure known as an
> > > > >
> > > > Actually, we do, for when we inject them into an empty ovum and
> > > > apply electric current, Dolly results.
> > >
> > > And when you turn on your radio, Eminem results. So, is Eminem
> > > inside your radio?
> Chris wrote:
> > So how might genes encode a radio for MR 'stuff'? How would we spot
> > a mutation in such genes?
> Genes don't encode anything. There's no "code."
We read genomes like a code; we know that pairs of the four
relevant amino acids, in certain sequences, promote production of
certain proteins, which have particular effects. That's why they call
it sequencing the genome.
> There's no
> information or instructions or program or blueprints. There's a
> template for producing sequences of amino acids, but the rest is faery
There is no 'rest', nor does there need to be; the production of
particular proteins in combination and singly, at particular times in
gestation, is all that is needed. These blindly and naturally, in
accoranance with physical and chemical laws, produce/construct
> Genes function in the body the same way a tuning device
> functions in a radio. It's not as if 101.3 megahertz is somehow a
> code describing the music that appears over that channel.
Here comes the 'channeling Ramtha' mysticism again; this is the
REAL fairy tale (the one for which there is NO evidence
whatsoever, and the belief in which defies logic, reason and
rationality). As if dead, rotted and gone organisms, their system
configuration degraded and decayed beyond recognition, could
nevertheless send 'messages from beyond the grave' to fertilized
zygotes. Your idea of what genes do is about as plausible as the
Greek idea that brains existed to cool the blood.
> It's interesting that the "instructions" have moved from the genes to
> the complex, nonlinear interaction of genes with each other and
This is what allows a smaller totality of components to function as
a template for a complex organism; the complex recursive
interactions between components multiplies their pattern storage
capacity (by the magnitude of a factorial!).
> The basis of morphic resonance is no different than
> electromagentic resonance. It's all about vibration.
OOH, it's newage sewage whutelight fluffybunny mystic
VIBRATIONS! Hand me my Ouija board and lemme channel Kali!
> Every structure
> in the body has its own distinctive pattern of vibration corresponding
> to its shape.
Vibrations do not correspond to shape so much as they
correspond to size and elemental composition; just check out
tuning forks. And, BTW, vibrations do not encode the configuration
or composition of the source, since many different configurations
and compositions can produce the same vibrational frequency, and
ocilloscopes and frequency generators can (each) produce many
different ones. It just isn't feasible, or believeable.
> The "dance" of genes and proteins is in sympathy to the
> same dance carried out by the genes and proteins of other members of
> its species.
Hokay, now we have the Conga Line Theory of Harmonic
Vibrational Frequency (swing them hips, now!), real credible to the
credulous, and would probably gull the gullible, but it's only a just-
so string of vague woo-woo words without a shred of evidence to
back it up, an impossible task anyway due to a complete and
convenient lack of testable specificity.
> However, each individual starts with a slightly
> different composition of genes, and this guarantees that the
> individual will be unique. Genes account for our differences, not our
This is perhaps the densest contention, and it arises from the
confused idea that sameness and difference are nonrelational
opposites, rather than being correlative opposites, that is, abstract
ideal poles of a concrete real continuum of the more or less similar.
> 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 : Wed Aug 22 2001 - 06:21:24 BST