RE: A more "sciency"-sounding mysticism.

Mark Mills (
Thu, 1 Apr 99 23:41:32 -0600

Subject: RE: A more "sciency"-sounding mysticism.
Date: Thu, 1 Apr 99 23:41:32 -0600
From: Mark Mills <>
To: "Memetics List" <>


>I think that you have some confusion over the biological terminology. I
>think you are labouring under the misconception frequently peddled in
>memetic circles that since genes are just abstractions (false), it's alright
>for memes to be too (which it isn't).

Sounds like a 'group b' statement (genes things, memes things), but
that's not why I'm writing.

Would you agree that genes are Open Reading frames? And that Open
Reading Frames are defined as:

"ORF: An open reading frame, as defined by the yeast systematic
sequencing effort, consists of a stretch of DNA beginning with an 'ATG'
(methionine codon) and containing a total of at least 100 non-terminating
codons. Therefore real ORFs with shorter reading frames will not be
reported (false negatives), and pseudo ORFs with 100 codons or more will
be erroneously reported (false positives). For now, only ORFs associated
with a gene name can be trusted to encode protein."

If an open reading frame is a gene (my assertion), then isn't it an
abstraction? They are 'real' only if a process exists capable of reading

I am uncertain what you mean by 'abstraction.'


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)