Re: Words and Memes

From: Scott Chase (
Date: Wed Feb 13 2002 - 23:30:33 GMT

  • Next message: Scott Chase: "Re: An odd addition to the axis of evil"

    Received: by id XAA20047 (8.6.9/5.3[ref] for from; Wed, 13 Feb 2002 23:36:06 GMT
    X-Originating-IP: []
    From: "Scott Chase" <>
    Subject: Re: Words and Memes
    Date: Wed, 13 Feb 2002 18:30:33 -0500
    Content-Type: text/plain; format=flowed
    Message-ID: <>
    X-OriginalArrivalTime: 13 Feb 2002 23:30:33.0489 (UTC) FILETIME=[6EA55010:01C1B4E6]
    Precedence: bulk

    >From: <>
    >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

    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