Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id XAA02548 (8.6.9/5.3[ref firstname.lastname@example.org] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from email@example.com); Fri, 24 Aug 2001 23:57:20 +0100 X-Originating-IP: [126.96.36.199] From: "Scott Chase" <firstname.lastname@example.org> To: email@example.com Subject: Re: Proof Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2001 18:54:42 -0400 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: <F197PIQhtNhsPkc1wFp00011452@hotmail.com> X-OriginalArrivalTime: 24 Aug 2001 22:54:42.0609 (UTC) FILETIME=[C3285210:01C12CEF] Sender: firstname.lastname@example.org Precedence: bulk Reply-To: email@example.com
>From: "Scott Chase" <firstname.lastname@example.org>
>Subject: Re: Proof
>Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2001 18:31:21 -0400
>>From: "Dace" <email@example.com>
>>Subject: Re: Proof
>>Date: Fri, 24 Aug 2001 12:49:05 -0700
>> > Ted, concerning (a) protein folding, and (b) genes making proteins
>> > making organisms, what level of proof would you require to sign up for
>> > the mainstream evolutionary / molecular biological model of the world?
>>Walter Elsasser approached the question of organic form like any other
>>physics problem. And he found that it had no solution. Where are the
>>mechanisms that turn blueprints into final product? Moreover, how would
>>such mechanisms work? Elsasser was appalled by the fact that biologists
>>didn't even have a theory for how genes construct organisms. Right now
>>we've got a big, fat notebook full of descriptions with no coherent order
>>When you can thermodynamically connect the dots between polypeptides and
>>proteins, then you'll have something.
>God of the gaps meets moving goalposts? Whenever the holes in the knowledge
>base are filled out step by step, those launching salvos at "orthodox
>science" (tm) need only ratchet the problem further, into areas not yet
>"OK so you know how that gene (or those genes) play(s) a role, however
>limited, in that developmental process, you still haven't offered a
>and comprehensive explanation for how the organism develops from zygote to
>fully mature adult with respect to form and behavior."
>Expression genetics (versus transmission genetics) has a long way to go. I
>have an even longer way to go understanding the development of organisms as
>influenced by gene products and things such as cell surface interactions
>signal transduction and how the context a cell finds itself in at any given
>time influences how that cell's genetic repertoire is expressed.
>Something like the concept or descriptive notion of a morphogenetic field
>can go a long way to combat "bean bag / beads on a string" genocentrism of
>the "this for that/1:1" variety, but taking this too far and adding in some
>very contentious idea of morphic resonance basically evaporates the utility
>of the MF concept (if any utility even exists). One paper I recall which
>some relevant discussion is:
>Gilbert SF, Opitz JM, Raff RA. 1996. Resynthesizing evolutionary and
>developmental biology. Developmental Biology (173): 357-372
>In the abstract Gilbert, Opitz and Raff say that morphogenetic fields
>"exemplify the modular nature of developing embryos" and call them "a major
>unit of ontogeny whose changes bring about changes in evolution." I found
>mention of Sheldrake in their extensive references section. Of Goodwin they
>say that his particular formulation is somewhat akin to the classical
>version and that "this is a field outside developmental genetics and is
>actively opposed to gene action as being important in field functions."
>Where Gilbert Opitz and Raff slight Goodwin as being non-genic, IIRC
>(in _How the Leopard Changed its Spots_) slights Sheldrake as being
Ooooops! Now that was a very bad typo. This should read as "non-physical".
Here come the rotten tomatoes.
>in his formulations. Could someone double check this for me
>since I don't have a copy handy?
>One area I've been interested in is epigenetics and I've heard of
>inheritance systems and ideas such as epialleles and epimutations, where
>methylation states of genetic *material* (evil grin) are pertinent. It
>it was Vincent who said something about the new _Science_ (vol 293, no.
>5532) where epigenetics is a major topic. This could be a fruitful area for
>further exploration. Are the MR proponents giving this or any *new* work in
>developmental biology any *serious* consideration? Have they done much
>reading in the hybrid field of evolutionary developmental biology where
>expression genetics contends with transmission genetics? Are they
>constructing an Aunt Sally of "orthodoxy" for their own amusement and/or
Get your FREE download of MSN Explorer at http://explorer.msn.com/intl.asp
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 25 2001 - 00:01:53 BST