Received: by alpheratz.cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk id XAA20047 (8.6.9/5.3[ref email@example.com] for cpm.aca.mmu.ac.uk from firstname.lastname@example.org); Wed, 13 Feb 2002 23:36:06 GMT X-Originating-IP: [188.8.131.52] From: "Scott Chase" <email@example.com> To: firstname.lastname@example.org Subject: Re: Words and Memes Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 18:30:33 -0500 Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed Message-ID: <F378VMb5UWgP1A83xiD00016671@hotmail.com> X-OriginalArrivalTime: 13 Feb 2002 23:30:33.0489 (UTC) FILETIME=[6EA55010:01C1B4E6] Sender: email@example.com Precedence: bulk Reply-To: firstname.lastname@example.org
>Subject: Re: Words and Memes
>Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 15:27:49 GMT
> >Genes have a well-defined boundary.
> >Not true. Biologists are still arguing about what constitutes a gene
>No, not really. There is fairly good agreement on what contitutes a genes,
>ie. that it is a protein-coding stretch of DNA, possibly including
>regulatory elements and introns. Gene-finding algorithms like GENSCAN,
>Procrustes, Wise etc can even fish a gene out of a gigantic slab of DNA,
>just by parsing the statistical properties of the sequence in terms of
>Hidden Markov Models, homologies etc. The gene is so well-defined, even a
>computer can spot one (and mine does, all day long......)
>seems to me to be almost as much confusion in the literature defining genes
>as there is in our effort to define memes. Biologists seem to be having
>trouble deciding where to draw the line, too.
>No, there was a lot of serious discussion back in the 50s about what genes
>were, as the molecular picture replaced the classical Mendelian one, but by
>the early 80s, 'What is a gene?' had become a question that was only
>trotted out in undergraduate exams to exercise our knowledge of the various
>component parts. Even prior to the discovery of DNA there was a fairly
>rigid definition of a gene in operational terms, ie. its alleles had to be
>non-complementary, it had to be a true-breeding trait, it had to exhibit
>the appropriate segregation and assortment ratios in genetic crosses. (more
>exam question fodder...)
>I'm not merely being pedantic about biology here, but every now and then
>somebody will try to justify fuzziness about meme definitions by claiming
>that gene definitions are just as fuzzy. They aren't.
What's an RNA coding stretch of DNA then and what's the contrast between a
molecular gene and an evolutionary gene?
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 : Wed Feb 13 2002 - 23:45:26 GMT