Memes: Protoscience or Pseudoscience?

[Wowbagger]

Splitting from this thread: http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=69697

Are the concept of memes useful as a science? Although memes are considered, by their supporters, to be a "protoscience", what objective studies have been conducted to verify or falsify their existence, or their usefulness as a model for social evolution?

Or, should memes be considered junk science, since many of its critics claim that none of its concepts are well defined?

Are memetics mutually exclusive to other theories on social evolution, or are many of them valid, from certain levels of view?

There was one study, I vaguely remember, about a game of "Telephone" getting analyzed, by humans and computer, for discreet units of mutation and propagation, and stuff like that. But, I could not re-locate it, yet. If anyone know of this study, or a similar one, please let us know about it.

This is a topic that may have been discussed here, before, but there are a few new people interested in it.

[Cynric]

Hmm, thorny question. I've been wondering about it too, whilst reading the God delusion.
I get the feeling that Dawkins himself isn't completely sold on the issue, and that he only raised the idea in order to broaden the scope of the Selfish Gene. I think it served a useful purpose there in getting people to think in terms of replicators rather than organisms, but is it a science?
At the moment I would say no, simply because I struggle to think of a good experiment to test the hypothesis. It seems inevitable that ideas will spread through society (brains), and will be selected for by appeal, but can we really define a "unit" of idea-ness in such a way as to make it a useful analytical device? It also seems seductively easy to explain every observation in terms of memetics, making it vulnerable to the same pitfall as pseudosciences such as psychoanalysis.
So, I'm sceptical, but I think those researching it are doing so in an openminded and scientific manner - so I guess protoscience wins over pseudoscience at this stage.
Until someone invents a "meme-clean" helmet to remove toxic thought parasites, of course ;).

[Danniel]

I think that memes are more a synonym or term for "cultural information", or small units/entities of cultural information (of which the imprecise delimitation doesn't seems to matter), rather than something that could have a precise size and a whole new science of "memetics" for studying it. It would still be studies of compared cultures or whatever.

I do not know much about other theories of cultural evolution, but I think that the gene metaphor/analogy indeed brings something, because to me seems that without that we are a bit more prone to think of cultural evolution in a adaptationist and orthogenist-like fashion.

As if culture were always evolving toward progress, and also as if the culture were necessarily adaptations of their "hosts" rather something that can evolve on its own, despite of bringing any "real benefit" to their hosts.

It is an interesting awareness, I think. There's a bit of problem in defining what would be a "real benefit" tough, it could end in everlasting phylosophical discussios of whether just feeling good or relieved despite of the truth of the information held and spread isn't already a "real benefit" and things like that. However, it could just be rephrased as that culture can evolve on its own, despite of the truthfulness of the content then, to avoid that.

[drkitten]

I think that memes are more a synonym or term for "cultural information", or unimportantly undefined small units/entities of cultural information, rather than something that could have a precise size and a whole new science of "memetics" for studying it. It would still be studies of compared cultures or whatever.

I do not know much about other theories of cultural evolution, but I think that the gene metaphor/analogy indeed brings something, because to me seems that without that we are a bit more prone to think of cultural evolution in a adaptationist and orthogenist-like fashion.

If you want specifics -- there are a lot of theories of cultural, and specifically linguistic, evolution that hinge on the idea of language-as-a-replicator.

In particular, the sentences that I say -- the sounds -- are interpreted by your brain into a set of symbols -- and then reproduced later when you try to say the same thing. Sound reproduces sound, or alternatively symbol reproduces symbol.

And there's lots of opportunity for re-analysis and mutation; the prefix "cyber-" used to mean "control" and now means "computer." Or on a ligher note, how many of you have sung the hymm about "Gladly, the cross-eyed bear"?

So something is replicating and mutating. But what? The replication "elements" are something smaller and less specific than sentences or words. Phonemes? Sounds? Morphemes? Ideas? Absent any other term for the elements of this replication system , "memes" is as good a word as any.

Linguistic evolution is a real phenomenon, studied by real scientists. If you don't want to use the terms derived from memetics and biological evolution to describe it -- what terms do you suggest?

[Dark Jaguar]

How about "bits"?

[Danniel]

I think that a "bit" somewhat implies something even more specific and quantitatively delineated than "meme" suggests.

Since "meme", if I recall, aims to be analogue not to a certain well defined physical sequence of nucleotides, but is more in the sense of whichever network of nucleotide sequences and all the pyisiology are the cause or "factor" (as genes used to be called) of a specific phenotype, which, just incidentally, can several times be traced to a key sequence in a certain context. They are like "cultural factors" of something done by cultural reasons.

[drkitten]

How about "bits"?

Not a chance. Bits are defined probabilitistically and information-theoretically, not in terms of semantic content.

[Dave1001]

Hmm, thorny question. I've been wondering about it too, whilst reading the God delusion.
I get the feeling that Dawkins himself isn't completely sold on the issue, and that he only raised the idea in order to broaden the scope of the Selfish Gene. I think it served a useful purpose there in getting people to think in terms of replicators rather than organisms, but is it a science?
At the moment I would say no, simply because I struggle to think of a good experiment to test the hypothesis. It seems inevitable that ideas will spread through society (brains), and will be selected for by appeal, but can we really define a "unit" of idea-ness in such a way as to make it a useful analytical device? It also seems seductively easy to explain every observation in terms of memetics, making it vulnerable to the same pitfall as pseudosciences such as psychoanalysis.
So, I'm sceptical, but I think those researching it are doing so in an openminded and scientific manner - so I guess protoscience wins over pseudoscience at this stage.
Until someone invents a "meme-clean" helmet to remove toxic thought parasites, of course ;).

I think if in studying ideas and how they propagate, mutate, etc. we stick with the scientific method (Popper, etc.) we'll be somewhat protected from falling into pseudoscience a la psychoanalysis.

[Mercutio]

"Memes" appear to be perfectly compatible with an operant conditioning/verbal behavior approach. When I first heard of the term, I was intrigued, but the more I read, the more I thought (quite favorably) "this is old B.F. Skinner in new bottles".

[Dave1001]

"Memes" appear to be perfectly compatible with an operant conditioning/verbal behavior approach. When I first heard of the term, I was intrigued, but the more I read, the more I thought (quite favorably) "this is old B.F. Skinner in new bottles".

Does the B.F. Skinner stuff look at how ideas spread, decline, and modify in populations over time? Also how ideas "compete" with each other in the medium of human brains (for example attaching an idea such as "Jesus is God and died and was reborn" or "Muhammed was Allah's propheit" to commands to proselytize and be fruitful and multiply)?

[John Hewitt]

How about "bits"?

I go with memetics being junk science. I think that Dark Jaguar's suggestion contains some sense, one might even say several bits of sense.

In general, I have suggested that the fundamental entities of evolution are "self-bounding data sets" and that such data sets are always asscoiated with "evolving systems," where the word system should be given its IT meaning. (A data system is defined in terms of data inputs, data processes and data outputs. An evolving system requires certain other properties as well.)

This is what I call bioepistemic evolution and, within it, evolutionary analysis involves giving chemical and biological intepretations to the data inputs, processes and outputs of biological evolving systems.

As for the word "meme," it just leaves me cold. It is so vacuous, I don't see where you go with it.

[Dave1001]

I go with memetics being junk science. I think that Dark Jaguar's suggestion contains some sense, one might even say several bits of sense.

In general, I have suggested that the fundamental entities of evolution are "self-bounding data sets" and that such data sets are always asscoiated with "evolving systems," where the word system should be given its IT meaning. (A data system is defined in terms of data inputs, data processes and data outputs. An evolving system requires certain other properties as well.)

This is what I call bioepistemic evolution and, within it, evolutionary analysis involves giving chemical and biological intepretations to the data inputs, processes and outputs of biological evolving systems.

As for the word "meme," it just leaves me cold. It is so vacuous, I don't see where you go with it.

So your objection is basically aesthetic? No one claims that memes are the fundamental entities of evolution, any more than are rna or (if Smolin is correct) black holes. It sounds to me like you're suggesting "bioepistemic bits" as an alternative to "memes" for ideas that can propagate and mutate? If so, that term has the benefit perhaps of being more accurate, but the disadvantage of being a little more clunky and in less common circulation, which could increase the costs of getting it widely adopted.

[Wowbagger]

As for the word "meme," it just leaves me cold. It is so vacuous, I don't see where you go with it.I think you gave slightly more intelligent criticism on my other Replicator thread.

When I asked "Does your favorite alternative explain socialization as well or better than that?", you responded:

My favourite explanations is Darwinian sexual selection with social structure as its phenotypic target. Yes I think it does.Which sounds more legitimate than "the word 'meme,' it just leaves me cold".

For the record, my response to that comment is reprinted below:

------------------------------------------
Ah, yes. I will not deny that is a useful model. Just like group-selection is also a useful model. It may be useful, from certain levels of view. But, it does not get into the core foundation levels.

"Survival of the Species" (as a group) was, and to a certain extent, still is, a good way of thinking about adaptations, from a distant point of view. But, once you start examining things closer: first self-survival becomes more apparent. Then cell survival. And then, once you find what drives cell survival the most, you find it could very well be gene survival.

Social structure as the target of sexual selection, also looks good, from a distant point of view, and can still be useful, when examining societies at that granular stage. But, when you wish to see more detail, you discover that all those bits of information passed, back and forth, in a social network, can themselves, be thought of as replicators. These replicators, of course, exploiting the very "plastic" brains that were the product of selection (sexual or otherwise).

These are not necessarily mutually exclusive ideas. Just different ideas that work at different levels of examination.
------------------------------------------

Let's continue to hear arguments that go beyond athestics, please.

[Wowbagger]

Some definitions of Protoscience to help us out:
http://www.skepticwiki.org/wiki/index.php/Protoscience
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protoscience

Given these definitions, it would appear, to me, as if memetics were proto, not pseudo. Useful models are being developed, even if it is not a hard science, yet. Unlike junk-science or pseudoscience, where the model is either completely useless, or flatly contradicts other sciences.

[Jeff Corey]

I never saw the use of the concept. A meme is an idea that can change? So?

[Mercutio]

Does the B.F. Skinner stuff look at how ideas spread, decline, and modify in populations over time? Also how ideas "compete" with each other in the medium of human brains (for example attaching an idea such as "Jesus is God and died and was reborn" or "Muhammed was Allah's propheit" to commands to proselytize and be fruitful and multiply)?Beyond Freedom and Dignity, 1971. Chapters 6 & 7, on the evolution of culture and design of culture, respectively. Although your assumptions ("in the medium of human brains"?) needlessly limit your investigation, and your examples are not the same as his, the notion of competition and selection of belief systems is there.

[UserGoogol]

Memetics is more of a paradigm than a theory. The fact that ideas are things that replicate from person to person is fairly obvious, the point of memetics is merely that if you look at culture in that way, you get a valuable new perspective. That is, it's less like Newton's Laws of Motion and more like the idea of describing reality in terms of numbers and then describing the relationships between those numbers.

The paradigm of memetics can of course be directed towards psuedoscientific ******** if someone wants, but I don't think memetics is itself psuedoscience. But then, I haven't really heard any concrete claims, psuedoscientific or not, coming out of the world of memetics. A bit of speculation here or there, but there's no woo in that.

[Jeff Corey]

Memetics is more of a paradigm than a theory. The fact that ideas are things that replicate from person to person is fairly obvious, the point of memetics is merely that if you look at culture in that way, you get a valuable new perspective. That is, it's less like Newton's Laws of Motion and more like the idea of describing reality in terms of numbers and then describing the relationships between those numbers...
Paradigm, another fashionable term for what used to be called a "school". But I would like to know what valuable new perspective I would get out of calling an idea a meme.

[athon]

Any time you have a complex pattern where the survival of the pattern within a changing system relies on how it interacts within its environment, you're going to see evolution. We can see examples of this in chemical competition, computer programs, living systems and of course, in socially learned behaviours.

I see no problem with defining a unit of cultural inheritance a 'meme'. Indeed, it makes a comparison with genetics, but then I think if it serves to demonstrate that there are parallel rules between any such competing systems, then all the better.

The term is useful in describing something that in itself isn't novel (cultural evolution). If so far the only criticism is one of aesthetic displeasure, then we've got little to argue.

Athon

[Wowbagger]

I never saw the use of the concept. A meme is an idea that can change? So?So, they not only change, but can do so in ways that can aid or hinder its replication. In other words, there are selection pressures (natural and artificial) that impact ideas, not just physical objects.

It is a useful concept, for thinking about ear worms, fashion trends, folklore, urban legends, artistic methods, and teaching of more practical skills, such as bridge building. Oh, and also religion. I have yet to find a better explanation for how it spreads.

[athon]

Paradigm, another fashionable term for what used to be called a "school". But I would like to know what valuable new perspective I would get out of calling an idea a meme.

For the same reason you wouldn't just refer to a gene as 'a nucelotide sequence'. With the term gene comes a sense of behaviours and interactions that is not present in the term 'nucleotide sequence', just as meme refers to more than just an idea.

The evolutionary stresses which can influence the changes, proliferation or extinction of a single idea throughout a community is connoted in the term meme, where an idea implies simply a concept created by a single entity. The term draws parallels between evolving systems which encourages us to explore how we can use, say, genetics to better understand the evolution of a culturally learned unit.

Language can be problematic if jargon terms are used to isolate other parties or no longer mean what they are supposed to. But coining a new term to better define a concept can often be useful if that concept has connotations that didn't exist before.

Athon

[Jeff Corey]

So, they not only change, but can do so in ways that can aid or hinder its replication. In other words, there are selection pressures (natural and artificial) that impact ideas, not just physical objects.

It is a useful concept, for thinking about ear worms, fashion trends, folklore, urban legends, artistic methods, and teaching of more practical skills, such as bridge building. Oh, and also religion. I have yet to find a better explanation for how it spreads.

And the explanation is? That's the part that doesn't strike me as compelling. Certain ideas are held by a group and they seem to work. When they are clearly not working, they suffer extinction (in the operant sense).
Religion, on the other hand, seems to violate this.
And wlf is an ear worm? Is it similar to a Babel fish?

[athon]

And the explanation is? That's the part that doesn't strike me as compelling. Certain ideas are held by a group and they seem to work. When they are clearly not working, they suffer extinction (in the operant sense).

I think the reason why you don't see where religion fits is because your definition is a little too basic.

An idea serves a purpose. If that purpose is served, it remains until a better concept replaces it. For instance, a variation in the spelling of a word might suit a population as it better reflects their accent. Or, as the case was in England in past centuries, a variation in spelling demonstrated that the author of the word was influenced by a continental education (hence, demonstrating that the person was well travelled). Such 'Francasized' spellings therefore became more popular than other versions as the person's position is society was perceived as higher.

Religion serves a purpose of comfort in the face of uncertainty (indeed, false or not, it's the sense that is important). Singificantly, it ties communities together with a common set of morals and beliefs. Since we are more influenced by social thinking than we are by critical thinking, various forms of religion flourish over that of science.

And wlf is an ear worm? Is it similar to a Babel fish?

An 'ear worm' is a sound, string of words or a melody that persists in the mind when the sound is no longer being heard. Like those bloody annoying Eurovision songs...

Athon

[Mercutio]

The problem, Corey, is that you already think of verbal behavior as being subject to selection pressures from the environment, in the form of reinforcement & punishment. So this is a yawn for you. For the people who bought the whole "cognitive revolution--behaviorism is dead" meme, this is a way of approaching the matter without admitting they were wrong.

[only partially facetious...]

[Mercutio]

An 'ear worm' is a sound, string of words or a melody that persists in the mind when the sound is no longer being heard. Like those bloody annoying Eurovision songs...

Athon

Aw, man, I love Eurovision...

"We are the winners...of Eurovision"... Now that will be stuck in my "mind" for the rest of the evening. Thank you!

[Dave1001]

And the explanation is? That's the part that doesn't strike me as compelling. Certain ideas are held by a group and they seem to work. When they are clearly not working, they suffer extinction (in the operant sense).
Religion, on the other hand, seems to violate this.


How does religion seem to violate this? Your field of psychology has informed economics in part by demonstrating the varieties of ways in which people aren't always rational self-interest maximizing agents. Widespread religions seem to prey on those aspects of people for the propagation of the religion very effectively.

[Jeff Corey]

...An 'ear worm' is a sound, string of words or a melody that persists in the mind when the sound is no longer being heard. Like those bloody annoying Eurovision songs...

Athon

There ought to be a whole range of ear worms, then, ranging from, "Oh, no, it's Mr. Sluggo", to "Stairway to Heaven" to Alfred Bester's, "Tenser said the censor, censor said the tensor, tension, apprehension and dissention have begun." (from The Demolished Man, derived from a Mark Twain story about a dittie that people could not get out of their head.)
Cute term. So why is it a meme?

[Mercutio]

Religion, on the other hand, seems to violate this. Think, Corey, it's basic behaviorism...

We do not reinforce a person; we reinforce a behavior. Same with punishment. The analysis is not based on the person (or organism) but on his, her, or its behavior; indeed, reinforcement and punishment are defined by their effect upon rate of behavior, not by how the organism feels. This is precisely what "memes" give us. Natural selection (or operant conditioning) working on the verbal behavior rather than the organism. It is not a matter of what is good for the organism, but what behavior is reinforced; social traps show us that short-term reinforcement can lead to long-term catastrophe. The behavior is being selected for, not the organism. Same with memes. Religion can be selected for, even at some considerable expense of individual organisms. In the long term, an attractive but deadly meme does not last, but it certainly controls in the short term!

[Wowbagger]

To summarize Mercutio's point: Memes replicate based on their ability to be replicated, not on their usefulness (practical or otherwise) to us.

The spread of religion benefits the meme, not necessarily its host.

Just like a brain fluke in an ant: If an ant gets this certain brain fluke infection, it starts trying to climb up a blade of grass. Why? Not for the benefit of the ant, that's for sure! But, for the benefit of the fluke: It reproduces better in the stomach of a cow. So, the fluke adapted the ability to encourage itself to try to get eaten by a cow, should it end up infecting an ant.

Memes spread religion, not to the benefit of the people who follow religion, but for the benefit of the meme's own survival. Scary, but the model works reasonably well, I think.

[Jeff Corey]

So memes are not tacts, nor mands, they seem to function as autoclitics. Sort of.

[athon]

There ought to be a whole range of ear worms, then, ranging from, "Oh, no, it's Mr. Sluggo", to "Stairway to Heaven" to Alfred Bester's, "Tenser said the censor, censor said the tensor, tension, apprehension and dissention have begun." (from The Demolished Man, derived from a Mark Twain story about a dittie that people could not get out of their head.)
Cute term. So why is it a meme?

Indeed, there are a whole range of 'ear worms'. China Mieville has a neat little short story on ear worms, which kill.

It's a culturally inherted unit. If it is spread in an accomdating environment, and it is by its nature adequately contagious, then it will spread through repitition. Calling it a meme insinuates the selection pressures such a string of words (and its social associations) has on its propagation.

Athon

[Wowbagger]

And wlf is an ear worm? Is it similar to a Babel fish?Well, on certain planets, having a babel fish in your ear will expose you to more ear worm infections, that is for sure! :D

But, seriously, you should learn to look stuff up: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earworm

[Wowbagger]

So memes are not tacts, nor mands, they seem to function as autoclitics. Sort of.
Autoclitics might be an example of memes. Or, a structure for memes to work within. Or, something like that.

[Jeff Corey]

Well, on certain planets, having a babel fish in your ear will expose you to more ear worm infections, that is for sure! :D

But, seriously, you should learn to look stuff up: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Earworm

But seriously, I don't use wikipedia. Too many brain worms.

[Jeff Corey]

brain worms.

[Mercutio]

Autoclitics. Seriously, it has been over a decade since I have heard that term. If it were a more successful meme...

Never mind.

[Jeff Corey]

I tried to explain it as putting words together to make a point that others could understand, if not necessarily agree with. A connected series of discourse you put together to make a point and make sense to your audience. Much of the preparation for it could be covert (rehearsing to yourself) or practicing with others,

[Mercutio]

Rule-governed behavior, Corey. The whole operant is expressed. People can follow via Pliance or Tracking. Either way, the rule (meme) is propogated.

The vocabulary is different, but the idea is the same...

[Jeff Corey]

But there is a distinction between rule governed behavior and contingency governed behavior, as I understand it. "The rule's a tool, could fool."

[Mercutio]

Yes, of course--RGB is insensitive to changes in contingencies...leads to exactly the sort of thing you mentioned: : "religion, on the other hand, seems to violate this".

ETA: when we are reinforced for following rules, we get pliance...

[John Hewitt]

So your objection is basically aesthetic? No one claims that memes are the fundamental entities of evolution, any more than are rna or (if Smolin is correct) black holes. It sounds to me like you're suggesting "bioepistemic bits" as an alternative to "memes" for ideas that can propagate and mutate? If so, that term has the benefit perhaps of being more accurate, but the disadvantage of being a little more clunky and in less common circulation, which could increase the costs of getting it widely adopted.
No, my objection is not aesthetic, my objection is that, despite repeated requests, nobody has yet suggested what memetics achieves in the way of testable predictions. I am suggesting that the reason for this lack of testability is the failure to define the word gene.

As for "bioepistemic bits," that is your phrase - kindly use mine, "self-bounding data sets."

I said that, in my opinion, ALL evolutionary theory should be based on the concept of data, not genes or any other supposed replicator. That is bioepistemic evolution. I expand bioepistemic evolution to ask about
1. The format of the evolving data and the hard and soft nature of the evolving system that utlizes this data.
2. The interpretative and selective processes occurring within the evolving system and the information and knowledge they produce.
3. The bounding processes that delineate data sets and the evolving systems on which it runs.
4. The biological and social correlates can link such studies with empirical work.

I can do such things with bioepistemic evolution. I can interpret standard genetics, molecular biology, human sexuality, humour and prebiosis in those terms.

When I say I can do nothing with the meme, I mean that it into that framework at all. It is so undefined that I can see no way to understand its format as a data set, the interpretative processes to which it is subject, the bounding processes that delineate one meme from the next, or any biological or social correlate that links it to empirical studies.

Please, tell me some serious correlations with observation that come out of memetics.

[John Hewitt]

I think you gave slightly more intelligent criticism on my other Replicator thread.
[/group]
This is patronizing.

[quote]
Ah, yes. I will not deny that is a useful model. Just like group-selection is also a useful model. It may be useful, from certain levels of view. But, it does not get into the core foundation levels.

"Survival of the Species" (as a group) was, and to a certain extent, still is, a good way of thinking about adaptations, from a distant point of view. But, once you start examining things closer: first self-survival becomes more apparent. Then cell survival. And then, once you find what drives cell survival the most, you find it could very well be gene survival.

Social structure as the target of sexual selection, also looks good, from a distant point of view, and can still be useful, when examining societies at that granular stage. But, when you wish to see more detail, you discover that all those bits of information passed, back and forth, in a social network, can themselves, be thought of as replicators. These replicators, of course, exploiting the very "plastic" brains that were the product of selection (sexual or otherwise).
Dawkins antipathy toward group selection is a good example of how poor his work is. There is no doubt in my mind that group selection is valid in humans and I am happy to see that E.O. Wilson has come to appreciate that.


Let's continue to hear arguments that go beyond athestics, please. Absolutely, lets hear some arguments that can hope to address observable facts.

[Dave1001]

No, my objection is not aesthetic, my objection is that, despite repeated requests, nobody has yet suggested what memetics achieves in the way of testable predictions. I am suggesting that the reason for this lack of testability is the failure to define the word gene.

As for "bioepistemic bits," that is your phrase - kindly use mine, "self-bounding data sets."

I said that, in my opinion, ALL evolutionary theory should be based on the concept of data, not genes or any other supposed replicator. That is bioepistemic evolution. I expand bioepistemic evolution to ask about
1. The format of the evolving data and the hard and soft nature of the evolving system that utlizes this data.
2. The interpretative and selective processes occurring within the evolving system and the information and knowledge they produce.
3. The bounding processes that delineate data sets and the evolving systems on which it runs.
4. The biological and social correlates can link such studies with empirical work.

I can do such things with bioepistemic evolution. I can interpret standard genetics, molecular biology, human sexuality, humour and prebiosis in those terms.

When I say I can do nothing with the meme, I mean that it into that framework at all. It is so undefined that I can see no way to understand its format as a data set, the interpretative processes to which it is subject, the bounding processes that delineate one meme from the next, or any biological or social correlate that links it to empirical studies.

Please, tell me some serious correlations with observation that come out of memetics.

"self-bounding data sets" seems to me to be a broader term than meme. For example, folks probably wouldn't say there has been replication of a meme when an amoeba replicates itself, but they would probably agree that a "self-bounding data set" had replicated. Similarly someone probably wouldn't say that an organism had been completely replicated when Bobby believes Johnny kissed Susie, and he whispers to Mary "Johnny kissed Susie" and Mary now believes Johnny kissed Susie, but they would probably agree that a self-bounded data set had been replicated, since two people now believe the information string "Johnny kissed Susise" instead of one.

So it seems to me that "Self-bounding data set" is a broader descriptor than users of either "gene" or "meme" aspire them to be.

[Dave1001]

It is a good question Hewitt brings up. It doesn't sound too difficult to put together solid experiments testing how the spread of memes function. Have they been done already under different auspices (such has by Skinner/behaviorists)? Where's the data, the research, etc. I imagine marketing departments and Darpa would heavily fund this type research.

[Jeff Corey]

Not likely to be done by behavior analysts.We typically use single-subject methodology to study the behavior of individuals.

[Dave1001]

Not likely to be done by behavior analysts.We typically use single-subject methodology to study the behavior of individuals.

Why? Is it that much of a complexity barrier to use 2 or 3 subjects in interaction? I understand the value of single-subject methodology, but not for all research in that area to be almost completely limited to single-subject methodology.

[Jeff Corey]

Your original question had to do with how the spread of memes function. This could be the concern of social psychologists and would typically involve much larger groups of people than 2 or3.
As I said, behavior analysts prefer to focus on the behavior of individuals rather than groups.

[Mercutio]

As I said, behavior analysts prefer to focus on the behavior of individuals rather than groups.
Yes, but not exclusively. As an example, Volume 15 of Behavior and Social Issues (http://www.uic.edu/htbin/cgiwrap/bin/ojs/index.php?journal=bsi&page=index) explores "Cultural Analytic Science"; the behaviorists in our department were strong proponents of cultural application of behaviorism. I don't know what they would have thought of "memes".

[Dave1001]

As I said, behavior analysts prefer to focus on the behavior of individuals rather than groups.

As I asked before, why? Why don't the prefer to look at both behavior of individuals, and behavior of multiples?

[Mercutio]

As I asked before, why? Why don't the prefer to look at both behavior of individuals, and behavior of multiples?
Much tighter experimental control. And let's face it, this behavior is reinforced by a history of successful investigations. If it works...

Corey--found this a bit ago, the abstract to a paper by Catania.As instances of behavior, words interact with environments. But they also interact with each other and with other kinds of behavior. Because of the interlocking nature of the contingencies into which words enter, their behavioral properties may become increasingly removed from nonverbal contingencies, and their relationship to those contingencies may become distorted by the social contingencies that maintain verbal behavior. Verbal behavior is an exceedingly efficient way in which one organism can change the behavior of another. All other functions of verbal behavior derive from this most basic function, sometimes called verbal governance. Functional verbal antecedents in verbal governance may be extended across time and space when individuals replicate the verbal behavior of others or their own verbal behavior. Differential contact with different verbal antecedents may follow from differential attention to verbal stimuli correlated with consequential events. Once in place, verbal behavior can be shaped by (usually social) consequences. Because these four verbal processes (verbal governance, replication, differential attention, and verbal shaping) share common stimulus and response terms, they produce interlocking contingencies in which extensive classes of behavior come to be dominated by verbal antecedents. Very different consequences follow from verbal behavior depending on whether it is anchored to environmental events, as in scientific verbal practices, or becomes independent of it, as in religious fundamentalism. That last sentence suggests to me (I have not yet read the paper) that this analysis is certainly applicable to cultural stuff.

[Jeff Corey]

Much tighter experimental control. And let's face it, this behavior is reinforced by a history of successful investigations. If it works...

Corey--found this a bit ago, the abstract to a paper by Catania. That last sentence suggests to me (I have not yet read the paper) that this analysis is certainly applicable to cultural stuff.

Yes, at a theoretical level, but will it lend itself to experimental analysis?
And Charley's always been enamored of his own verbal behavior.
Not that there's anything wrong with that.

[Dave1001]

Yes, at a theoretical level, but will it lend itself to experimental analysis?
And Charley's always been enamored of his own verbal behavior.
Not that there's anything wrong with that.

You're hilariously gossipy about your field.

Mercutio, I'm still surprised that there isn't a large body of experimental analysis (according to you and Jeff) with 2 people in interaction. And then 3 people in interaction. Relatively small numbers of people beyond 1.

[Mercutio]

Well...any analysis of verbal behavior is going to have at least 2 people, by definition. Verbal behavior requires another person for reinforcement.

And there is an entire journal on The Analysis of Verbal Behavior (http://www.abainternational.org/journals/analysis_verbal_behavior.asp). So it's not like there is no research going on.

[Dave1001]

Well...any analysis of verbal behavior is going to have at least 2 people, by definition. Verbal behavior requires another person for reinforcement.

And there is an entire journal on The Analysis of Verbal Behavior (http://www.abainternational.org/journals/analysis_verbal_behavior.asp). So it's not like there is no research going on.

In that case 2 people seems to me to be an ideal unit to do a lot of research on, as it's probably the simplest and most controllable unit (with the fewest costs involved).

[Dave1001]

Also, fascinating journal title and mission by the way. I wonder what insights have been gleaned from the work published there.

[John Hewitt]

Well...any analysis of verbal behavior is going to have at least 2 people, by definition. Verbal behavior requires another person for reinforcement.

And there is an entire journal on The Analysis of Verbal Behavior (http://www.abainternational.org/journals/analysis_verbal_behavior.asp). So it's not like there is no research going on.

Yes, there may well be some interesting analyses going on in a journal with that title but I am a bit puzzled by the answer emerging from this thread. Dawkins introduced the idea of memes in "The Selfish Gene," which was published, to widespread acclaim, in 1976. So the meme concept has just passed its thirtieth birthday. No doubt the concept of memes took a little while to take off but it had a flying start and memetics has been around now for some time. After such a passage of time, I find it a bit strange that we are still discussing whether memetics is a protoscience or a science or even a pseudoscience. Surely, by this time the field should have produced some results. Should we not be able to point to concrete interpretations of hard data and say, "look, this breakthrough is a result of memetics. Without memetics we just would have no way of understanding these results." Should we not be seeing those results in journals devoted to the topic?

Instead, this thread is suggesting that that we could begin looking at social psychological results for something relevant, or we could look at a journal about "The Analysis of Verbal Behaviour."

Once upon a time, there was a "Journal of Memetics" and I would have thought we could look at the results it has published in the expectation of finding such breakthrough results there. Well, as I mentioned somewhere before, I think that journal folded because its published data was seemingly not found to be of much real value.

Still, perhaps you are correct and there are good results somewhere but I feel that, by now, they should be real results, not mere twinklings in a memeticist's eye. I would like someone to show them to me.

[Dark Jaguar]

I suppose memetics could at least hypothetically be used to predict how ideas will flow and allow us to do something about that, much in the same was as genetics allows us to predict how bacteria might mutate.

[Schneibster]

See, when I read "pseudoscience," and then I hear people refer to psychology as pseudoscience as well, then I get kinda all up in arms. Now, mind you, I'm no psychologist myself- much more the hard-science type, physics for recreation, computers and software for money. Still and all, I have to say that having read a fair number of books on the brain, and on cognitive studies, and even gone so far as to read a textbook on psychology, I find referring to psychology as a "pseudoscience" pretentious to say the least, and more like downright misleading or even patently and obviously false. I see modes of behavior defined in that psychology text that are obscure until they are pointed out, but are obvious thereafter. This, for me, is the hallmark of accurate observation and classification, and that, in turn, makes the treatment of the subject scientific in my eyes; what could be more scientific than accurate observation, and classification of one's observations? How can one make good theories in the absence of good data? And how can anyone claim that we have good data where our own minds are concerned? We are still discovering what are obviously foundational mechanisms in our own brains, not to even speak of any kind of understanding of the foundational mechanisms of our minds, or how those mechanisms vary from one individual to another, and how they remain the same. And even with that small depth, we have managed to make discoveries that at least mitigate the effects of emotional or mental disorders among the worst affected.

By no means would I characterize psychology as anything more than an infant science, if that much; we know a hell of a lot, but it is obvious to anyone who thinks seriously about it and does some studying that we are a hell of a lot farther from knowing much compared to how much there is to know, than we are in more mature areas of study like astronomy or chemistry. We are still at the stage in cognitive studies of all types of defining empirical knowledge; we don't have enough to start looking for meaningful global patterns, or devising solid theories that have very much scope (although there is considerable room for limited sorts of theories, that actually pass scientific tests that those here who denigrate psychology as "pseudo-science" would be surprised if not chagrined to discover) compared to the breadth of the subject matter. It is likely to be a very long time until we do. To judge psychology, therefore, on the basis of this extremely incomplete data set, is not merely unfair but actively deceptive; the extent to which it is deliberately so is even open to question.

So when faced with a choice in this particular case, I have no hesitation in stating that we do not and cannot know enough to define memetics as "either" anything "or" anything to do with science. All that we can say at present is that it is a relatively plausible way of defining fairly amorphous and very ill-delimited "units of social discourse" (whatever the hell that might mean) and ways that such units might, if we understand things correctly, change and get distributed over time. Whether it will survive our acquisition of more and more data about ourselves, and the construction of well-grounded theories of psychology, or sociology, remains very much up in the air, and in fact it may be alternately asserted and denied many times over before we come to any sort of deep understanding of what it means, much less what it implies, about our minds, brains, and emotions.

[Wowbagger]

...(snip)...
All that we can say at present is that it is a relatively plausible way of defining fairly amorphous and very ill-delimited "units of social discourse" (whatever the hell that might mean) and ways that such units might, if we understand things correctly, change and get distributed over time. Whether it will survive our acquisition of more and more data about ourselves, and the construction of well-grounded theories of psychology, or sociology, remains very much up in the air, and in fact it may be alternately asserted and denied many times over before we come to any sort of deep understanding of what it means, much less what it implies, about our minds, brains, and emotions.So, I'll take that as a vote for protoscience, then?

If it's "relatively plausible", right now, that ought to be good enough for such a vote. Unlike real pseudoscience, which is never plausible, from a scientific stand point.

Of course, in the event (which I think is unlikely) that memetics gets definitively disproven, you could then argue that anyone who still promotes it, is doing pseudoscience.
Since we can't tell if that is going to happen, yet, it is "proto", for now.

How about that?

[Walter Wayne]

I'll say neither, unless you take meme too literally. In science, like in everything else, invoking a metaphor can help steer ideas in a certain direction. A good thing while the idea is new, and you want to get lots of people exploring it, and a bad thing if it gets so instilled that other avenues of thought go unexplored.

As usual, choice of language can open up avenues of thought or close them down.

Walt

[Dark Jaguar]

As I understand it, all "memes" is, as an idea, is that some ideas are more likely to be spread than others and so they do. Why they are more likely (agrees with other existing widely held views or are compatible with our brain setup so they can be adapted or take advantage of weak points in design or encourage the survival of the "hosts" that hold the idea) is another matter entirely but that single aspect taken itself seems obviously true to me, in the same way "survival of the fittest" seems obviously true. Beyond that, that's where things get questionable really fast.

[Dave1001]

Once upon a time, there was a "Journal of Memetics" and I would have thought we could look at the results it has published in the expectation of finding such breakthrough results there. Well, as I mentioned somewhere before, I think that journal folded because its published data was seemingly not found to be of much real value.

Where can we read a good assessment of the material published in the journal of memetics, it's history, and how and why it folded.

[Schneibster]

Apparently, according to entries in the Wikipedia article on memetics, and I was able to confirm it by browsing a few of the last articles from the JoM, the idea is that memetics has reached the end of its "childhood," so to speak, when the initial ideas were laid down, and entered the period when it must be shown to be properly scientific, that is, conforming to Occam's Razor, and falsifiability, and so forth. If it passes this period, then it may become a science; if it does not, then it was nothing but a good idea (meme, heh).

The JoM is on-line, apparently; unlike many more mature journals, its content was available without paying a high price, and potentially for free; certainly it is all now available for free. This may have contributed to its demise; it is, after all, a rather thankless task to publish free literature.

[Schneibster]

So, I'll take that as a vote for protoscience, then?

If it's "relatively plausible", right now, that ought to be good enough for such a vote. Unlike real pseudoscience, which is never plausible, from a scientific stand point.

Of course, in the event (which I think is unlikely) that memetics gets definitively disproven, you could then argue that anyone who still promotes it, is doing pseudoscience.
Since we can't tell if that is going to happen, yet, it is "proto", for now.

How about that?Well, really, I think the question at this point (and my opinion has changed somewhat from last night) is whether it will survive; i.e., whether someone with vision and background will come along and pick the idea up, and put together material that will make it a science. Kind of like Newton did for physics. If that happens, then I feel it will become scientific; if it does not, it may linger around a while in the dustbin of good ideas that never quite went anywhere.

I think that a certain amount of its attractiveness (and it's clear to me from your thoughts that you see that aspect just as I do) is that it is such a neat explanation. It's not really any more refutable than the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection- creatures that have characteristics that give them advantages in survival are more likely to mate, passing on those characteristics. Ideas that have characteristics that make them more likely to survive in our minds and be transmitted are more likely to be... well, transmitted, passing on those characteristics. I think the real problem is that proof of the mechanisms involved await a far more thorough understanding of our minds/brains so that we can see enough similar cognitive structures between two minds to see what sort of "hooks" a meme might use to get replicated.

[John Hewitt]

Where can we read a good assessment of the material published in the journal of memetics, it's history, and how and why it folded.

I believe the journal of memetics was an online journal and that its articles are generally accessible. Here are some relevant links.

Bad science - a discussion forum of which I am not currently a member

Meme Poll
http://www.badscience.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1061
What is the evidence for the existence of memes - a very long thread.
http://www.badscience.net/forum/viewtopic.php?t=1060&start=0

journal of memetics
http://cfpm.org/jom-emit/
Critique of memetics from that site
http://cfpm.org/jom-emit/2005/vol9/edmonds_b.html

[Dark Jaguar]

Well, really, I think the question at this point (and my opinion has changed somewhat from last night) is whether it will survive; i.e., whether someone with vision and background will come along and pick the idea up, and put together material that will make it a science. Kind of like Newton did for physics. If that happens, then I feel it will become scientific; if it does not, it may linger around a while in the dustbin of good ideas that never quite went anywhere.

I think that a certain amount of its attractiveness (and it's clear to me from your thoughts that you see that aspect just as I do) is that it is such a neat explanation. It's not really any more refutable than the Theory of Evolution by Natural Selection- creatures that have characteristics that give them advantages in survival are more likely to mate, passing on those characteristics. Ideas that have characteristics that make them more likely to survive in our minds and be transmitted are more likely to be... well, transmitted, passing on those characteristics. I think the real problem is that proof of the mechanisms involved await a far more thorough understanding of our minds/brains so that we can see enough similar cognitive structures between two minds to see what sort of "hooks" a meme might use to get replicated.

Well I suppose a start would be to not really think of it too much like a virus and just start thinking maybe about ideas that allow the vessels holding them to survive better, like how to make fire or hunt a mammoth, as opposed to ideas more likely to end with the death of the holder, such as how to make longjohns out of your own intestines for fun and profit. I think that we already have a good idea of certain situations where we can predict things obviously anyway, like if you live in Salem during an... unfortunate era... certain ideas are more likely to get you killed and thus less likely to be spread around as often as ideas that favor the church, which are much more likely to spread, and so on in a cycle. The real question is instead of just rephrasing something we already knew in a memetic way can we get some NEW information by using the memetic model? That's certainly something I'd be interested in.

[Schneibster]

Well I suppose a start would be to not really think of it too much like a virus and just start thinking maybe about ideas that allow the vessels holding them to survive better, like how to make fire or hunt a mammoth, as opposed to ideas more likely to end with the death of the holder, such as how to make longjohns out of your own intestines for fun and profit.I think that might have less to do with the ideas themselves, and I think the point of memetics is that the ideas are themselves replicators. Watch a fad grow and die; think pet rocks, think Fonzie. Aaaaayyyy.

Then think about people who craft memes, perhaps ones that already exist, perhaps new ones, and use them to get people to, oh, for example, believe that a magic box with dials and stuff can tell them how they're doing on improving their minds, or that drinking the kool-aid is a really good idea, or that the aliens are coming in the comet and if you kill yourself they'll pick up your soul. Whatever, you get the idea.

I think part of the interesting thing about such memes is not the effects they have on people, although those are pretty awful and someone oughta do something about them. I think the interesting thing is that they actually get transmitted. And they are accepted, by at least some people. And then there's the big religion memes; particularly the real fundies, who do stuff like believe jebus made the universe and it's really, really, really small, or that Satan makes televisions, or that women are evil and should cover their bodies so they don't make men helplessly lust after them. And if you think I'm kidding or exaggerating in any way whatsoever, let me tell you, friend, I ain't; most likely you know it. So, how come these ideas actually exist, not to mention how come so many people believe them? You got some other explanation than they're riding along with something that's really good at replicating? Because they sure are some pretty damn stupid ideas.

[drkitten]

So, how come these ideas actually exist, not to mention how come so many people believe them? You got some other explanation than they're riding along with something that's really good at replicating? Because they sure are some pretty damn stupid ideas.

Well, this is one of the less-examined assumptions of "meme" theory; the idea that the ideas -- memes -- themselves have properties including ones that affect their ability to replicate.

In some contexts, this makes intuitive sense. For example, I hear more jokes than I re-tell myself; the ones I retell are the ones that I find both memorable and funny. We can then talk about the intrinsic "funnyness" of a joke and draw elaborate graphs of perceived funnyness vs. probability of retelling, and so forth, and we get something that looks pretty much like a population genetics study.

On the other hand, there are also things that are replicated, not because of intrinsic properties, but because of extrinsic ones. There are a lot of pyramids scattered all over Egypt, not because the pyramid was an inherently pleasing shape that lots of people wanted to build, but because there was this damn great overseer with a whip telling you to make a pyramid. (Perhaps not, depending upon which historical theory you buy.) There are a lot of theories about why something might be widespread that don't hinge on "replicability" as a theory or property.

The strength of "mimetics" is that it forces us to look at ideas-as-replicators and figure out what properties they themselves have to encourage or discourage replication., But at the same time, that's a weakness of mimetics, precisely because it encourages -- forces -- us to think about replication as a quality of the ideas, and not simply as a consequence of a persistant environment.

[Dark Jaguar]

I think that might have less to do with the ideas themselves, and I think the point of memetics is that the ideas are themselves replicators. Watch a fad grow and die; think pet rocks, think Fonzie. Aaaaayyyy.

Then think about people who craft memes, perhaps ones that already exist, perhaps new ones, and use them to get people to, oh, for example, believe that a magic box with dials and stuff can tell them how they're doing on improving their minds, or that drinking the kool-aid is a really good idea, or that the aliens are coming in the comet and if you kill yourself they'll pick up your soul. Whatever, you get the idea.

I think part of the interesting thing about such memes is not the effects they have on people, although those are pretty awful and someone oughta do something about them. I think the interesting thing is that they actually get transmitted. And they are accepted, by at least some people. And then there's the big religion memes; particularly the real fundies, who do stuff like believe jebus made the universe and it's really, really, really small, or that Satan makes televisions, or that women are evil and should cover their bodies so they don't make men helplessly lust after them. And if you think I'm kidding or exaggerating in any way whatsoever, let me tell you, friend, I ain't; most likely you know it. So, how come these ideas actually exist, not to mention how come so many people believe them? You got some other explanation than they're riding along with something that's really good at replicating? Because they sure are some pretty damn stupid ideas.

Well even genes don't replicate themselves so much as require a cell, a body, to DO the replicating for them, they just design how that process goes about. A single gene on it's own can't replicate for jack. I'm not so sure the idea actually is that a meme is "self replicating" so much as it is replicated by certain systems.

[drkitten]

Well even genes don't replicate themselves so much as require a cell, a body, to DO the replicating for them, they just design how that process goes about. A single gene on it's own can't replicate for jack. I'm not so sure the idea actually is that a meme is "self replicating" so much as it is replicated by certain systems.

But if you take this approach, then "memetics" loses all content and drops back from protoscience to pseudoscience. If you think that mimetics is simply the study of "things that replicate," including hailstones and forest fires, then there's no content to the meme=gene analogy.

We know of a number of things that replicate without anything gene-like involved. Fires are a good example. DIfferent fires will have different properties -- they can be hotter or colder, smokier or less smoky, steady or flickering, and differently coloured. However, these aren't heritable properties, but properties of the burning substrate. This is one reason that no one in their senses would study "the evolution of fire."

If you take the analogy of memes to genes seriously, you have to believe that the properties of the memes themselves are influential in their reproduction; they're not just slaves to the environment in which they reproduce. Without this, "memetics" is empty.

So the key unasked question is whether the reproduction of ideas is more like the reproduction of cells and genes, or the reproduction of fire. Dawkins' suggestion, way back in Selfish Gene is that they are more like genes. But that's a suggestion and a hypothesis, not a reasoned conclusion.

[Schneibster]

drkitten, have you read any of the books on memetics, particularly The Meme Machine by Susan Blackwood? She develops the case for memes farther than Dawkins did, although I'm not sure I'm comfortable saying she proves it.

I think there is more work to do. I think there are hints in the existence of both computer viruses and biological viruses, but I think memes are more like bacteria or even multicellular organisms than they are like viruses; and I think computer programs might be a better analogy than computer viruses. I think there are probably things like computer viruses in peoples' minds, but I'm not sure how I'd differentiate those things from "memes," or even if I'd differentiate them. I suspect such things have to do with why these stupid things are as successful as they are. I also suspect that memes are probably more likely to be easily identified and classified as simple ideas rather than the complex ideas that have built our societies.

Finally, I frankly speculate that the situation with memes is very much like the situation with genes. What precisely is a gene? The biochemical description is that it is the code for a protein or non-coding RNA molecule, along with its regulators; however, genes may overlap one another, so one can't point to a particular locus along a particular chromosome and say, "That's the gene for..." and name either some particular protein or RNA molecule, or even some particular phenotypical characteristic uniquely, because multiple molecules and/or characteristics might be partly coded for by the same sequence. For Wilhelm Johanssen, a gene was "that which directed" the formation of some particular phenotypical characteristic; and that is a very, very abstract idea from the point of view of molecular biology. I speculate that the same obtains with memes; when we are done figuring out what's underneath, its "units" will have little directly to do with the characteristics of most memes.

[John Hewitt]

drkitten, have you read any of the books on memetics, particularly The Meme Machine by Susan Blackwood? She develops the case for memes farther than Dawkins did, although I'm not sure I'm comfortable saying she proves it.

I think there is more work to do. I think there are hints in the existence of both computer viruses and biological viruses, but I think memes are more like bacteria or even multicellular organisms than they are like viruses; and I think computer programs might be a better analogy than computer viruses. I think there are probably things like computer viruses in peoples' minds, but I'm not sure how I'd differentiate those things from "memes," or even if I'd differentiate them. I suspect such things have to do with why these stupid things are as successful as they are. I also suspect that memes are probably more likely to be easily identified and classified as simple ideas rather than the complex ideas that have built our societies.

Finally, I frankly speculate that the situation with memes is very much like the situation with genes. What precisely is a gene? The biochemical description is that it is the code for a protein or non-coding RNA molecule, along with its regulators; however, genes may overlap one another, so one can't point to a particular locus along a particular chromosome and say, "That's the gene for..." and name either some particular protein or RNA molecule, or even some particular phenotypical characteristic uniquely, because multiple molecules and/or characteristics might be partly coded for by the same sequence. For Wilhelm Johanssen, a gene was "that which directed" the formation of some particular phenotypical characteristic; and that is a very, very abstract idea from the point of view of molecular biology. I speculate that the same obtains with memes; when we are done figuring out what's underneath, its "units" will have little directly to do with the characteristics of most memes.

Actually, Schneibster, there is no generally usable and agreed definition of the word "gene," and you do indicate some of the problems.

(I do give a bioepistemic definition of gene, namely
"Genes are subsets of the data set defined by the nucleotide sequence of DNA. To qualify as a gene, the data subset must be so formatted that it can be interpreted by an organism into a distinct biochemical activity. An important implication of this definition is that, because biochemical activities are distinct and chemically separable from other such activities, genes may become manifest as distinct and distinguishable, biological phenotypes. (I would like to refine this definition to maximise its generality and would like to hear any critiques.)")

Whatever precise deifnition is eventually accepted, most people mean the same thing when the say the word, "gene."

Meme, is rather different. There seem to be a great many discussions which are more about the definition of meme, rather than any application of that meaning. I would be interested in any defintion, provided it was capable of being used in serious, predictive theory construction.

[Schneibster]

But see, JH, there's a problem here. We DO understand molecular biology, we DO understand the central paradigm of DNA, and we DO know how sequences are expressed and proteins produced, and how production is inhibited or promoted to control the expression. And while we don't yet understand precisely how these expressions, inhibitions, proteins, and non-coding RNA sequences PRECISELY specify EVERY phenotype, we know FOR CERTAIN that they do; and we can in fact identify quite a few phenotypes' precise loci (although most of them require multiple different proteins, expressions, inhibitions, non-conding RNA sequences, and/or promotions). No question about it. So when you make arguments against genes because they are not precisely quantifiable, you are basically ignoring the facts in order to concentrate on a weakness in an old theory that's meaningless except as a paradigm in the first place.

Please don't try to claim that I am giving you ammunition against evilution- nothing could be further from the case. In my carefully considered and deeply researched opinion, no one can deny evolution who does not misunderstand, obfuscate, or ignore evidence.

And I have the same complaint about people who label memetics as pseudo-science because we cannot precisely quantify a meme- albeit, I admit, with considerably less underpinning in terms of direct evidence of and understanding of the underlying mechanisms. Nevertheless, I believe those mechanisms are present, however little we may understand them yet, though this opinion is CONSIDERABLY less well-supported than genetics, molecular biology, and evolution.

[John Hewitt]

But see, JH, there's a problem here. We DO understand molecular biology, we DO understand the central paradigm of DNA, and we DO know how sequences are expressed and proteins produced, and how production is inhibited or promoted to control the expression. And while we don't yet understand precisely how these expressions, inhibitions, proteins, and non-coding RNA sequences PRECISELY specify EVERY phenotype, we know FOR CERTAIN that they do; and we can in fact identify quite a few phenotypes' precise loci (although most of them require multiple different proteins, expressions, inhibitions, non-conding RNA sequences, and/or promotions). No question about it. So when you make arguments against genes because they are not precisely quantifiable, you are basically ignoring the facts in order to concentrate on a weakness in an old theory that's meaningless except as a paradigm in the first place.

<snip>

And I have the same complaint about people who label memetics as pseudo-science because we cannot precisely quantify a meme- albeit, I admit, with considerably less underpinning in terms of direct evidence of and understanding of the underlying mechanisms. Nevertheless, I believe those mechanisms are present, however little we may understand them yet, though this opinion is CONSIDERABLY less well-supported than genetics, molecular biology, and evolution.

Yes, I agree with you that we understand a lot of molecular biology and it is clear that organisms bear an evolutionary relatedness to one another and, I think, have arisen from one another by an evolutionary process. I have no problem with that of with evolution as a matter of fact. I do have a problem with the construction of modern evolutionary theory, the theory that supposedly describes that fact, which I find well-nigh indefensible.

Genes, we are told, are the fundamental basis for evolution. Actually, genes are not even definable from within molecular biology and, when used as a foundation for evolutionary theory, they produce a theory that is grossly inconsistent with other fields of science.

You are trying to understand social evolution by introducing a meme, as analogous to a gene, and then saying that, of course, a meme is not really like a gene at all. Presumably, when you say "UP" you might really mean "DOWN." Sorry, I just thing that's nonsense.

The correct way to construct a general form of evolutionary theory is to seek measurable attributes, characteristics and processes that are necessarily present in ALL forms of evolution and construct the theory around them. Bioepistemic evolution argues that data is necessarily present in all forms of evolution and that evolutionary theory should be built around data and the processes to which it is necessarily subject.

Social data is formatted differently from genetic data and is subject to different interpretative and selective processes. I argue that a theory of social evolution should investigate the format of social data and the interpretative and selective processes to which that data is subject. I think it is completely meaningless to simply declare, as memetics effectively does, that the formatting of social data must be like that of a gene. That is patently not so.

[Dave1001]

But at the same time, that's a weakness of mimetics, precisely because it encourages -- forces -- us to think about replication as a quality of the ideas, and not simply as a consequence of a persistant environment.

I don't see why mimetics can't do both, just like genetics/evolutionary biology does for analyzing how certain genes become widespread.

[Dave1001]

But if you take this approach, then "memetics" loses all content and drops back from protoscience to pseudoscience. If you think that mimetics is simply the study of "things that replicate," including hailstones and forest fires, then there's no content to the meme=gene analogy.

We know of a number of things that replicate without anything gene-like involved. Fires are a good example. DIfferent fires will have different properties -- they can be hotter or colder, smokier or less smoky, steady or flickering, and differently coloured. However, these aren't heritable properties, but properties of the burning substrate. This is one reason that no one in their senses would study "the evolution of fire."

If you take the analogy of memes to genes seriously, you have to believe that the properties of the memes themselves are influential in their reproduction; they're not just slaves to the environment in which they reproduce. Without this, "memetics" is empty.

So the key unasked question is whether the reproduction of ideas is more like the reproduction of cells and genes, or the reproduction of fire. Dawkins' suggestion, way back in Selfish Gene is that they are more like genes. But that's a suggestion and a hypothesis, not a reasoned conclusion.

I'm no expert on the subject, but I'd be suprised if people don't study how forest fires replicate (and persist) phenomenologically. I'm not sure the analogy between fire and genes is entirely empty: genes like fire, may arise spontaneously in the right environments, and may be extinguished when they exhaust the resources of their environment and it changes. It may be a bit of an anthropic conceit to think there isn't a parallel there. It can be good science to study how genes, fire, and memes/ideas all propagate. Of course, I'm not suggesting that fires self-replicate in a manner identical to genes, it seems from what I've read that it's often a more complex process than "burn baby burn". I'm curious to the degree forest fires can persist and even self-regulate (if the answer is "they can't self-regulate at all, Id like to know that too.:p ) in the matter of other apparently non-conscious, apparently "unorganized" phenomena like tornados and markets.


I do think memes aren't "things that replicate" but rather "ideas that replicate". I would make a dna/protein analogy for memes vs. environmental results. Genes express proteins in my understanding, similarly ideas presumably located in our brains may be expressed in the external environment as speech, actions, social formations, and built structures.

Overall this seems like a valuable area to subject to rigorous scrutiny, and I hope it is.

[drkitten]

I'm no expert on the subject, but I'd be suprised if people don't study how forest fires replicate (and persist) phenomenologically. I'm not sure the analogy between fire and genes is entirely empty: genes like fire, may arise spontaneously in the right environments, and may be extinguished when they exhaust the resources of their environment and it changes.

They also attract all other object in the universe with a force proportional to the product of their masses and inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them. Genetics isn't chemistry and it isn't physics.

Here's an example of what I'm talking about:

Suppose that I take a set of a hundred identical candles. I will light twenty-five of those candles from matches. I will light twenty-five of those candles from cigarette lighters. I will then light twenty-five candles -- one each -- from each of the twenty-five match-lit candles, and twenty-five from the lighter-lit candle.

Is there a test that can be performed on the second generation candles to determine whether the parent candle was lit from a match or not?

I submit that there isn't -- that this would qualify as supernatural and win Randi's million if it could be done. The reason, of course, is that fires reproduce, but do not inhereit.

Conversely, if I did the same thing with two bacterial cultures -- say I took two different bacteria, and bred several generations from each founding sample in identical environments -- I would have no problem distinguishing their g'g'g'g'g'g-great-grand-bacteria. Because bacteria not only reproduce, they inherit.

Genetics is the study of inheritable reproduction in biological organisms. That's why people don't study "the genetics of birth order" (If your parents were both first-born, are you more likely to be first-born?), since birth order isn't inheritable. There are no properties of fire that are inheritable.

I would make a dna/protein analogy for memes vs. environmental results.

Yup. And that's what makes it pseudoscience. If all you have is an analogy, you're not doing science, but sympathetic magic.

[Halden]

Memetics is an interesting allegory for the propagation of ideas, cultures etc. but I do not know that there is enough data or even the potential to test for such data to support Memetics as a solid science. I enjoy the intellectual exercise of studying and discussing it but I am unsure that it can ever move beyond a hypothesis and hence always be a protoscience why great potential to be abused by pseudoscientists.

[Dark Jaguar]

Well certainly this is food for thought. I have to say that yes, my ideas probably just turn memetics into a bankrupt exercise in semantics, if it isn't already that.

I could take it or leave it at this point, but I can see the parallels in computer software and even printing press. At the very least, it's an interesting way of looking at it, even if it in and of itself doesn't really reveal anything new. I do find it interesting to think of a local group of people as an "environment" with an existing collection of thoughts. As new thoughts are introduced or produced, whether they persist or not largely depends on the existing environment. An environment of christians is very unlikely to sustain ideas such as "there is no god" or "the bible is merely a historical document" and those will be put out. Those that are a little more well adapted such as "not ALL of the bible should be taken literally" are more likely to survive, perhaps with some mutation. It is an interesting way to see it at least...

But what happens if you get an environment where everyone just accepts every single idea as equally valid, and nothing is weeded out or modified for the goal of perfect acceptance? All ideas being preserved in all their triteness, an "it's not my fault, it's not your fault" group, like the intertubes? I think that in this case any memetic parallel to evolution will stagnate and stop completely. Maybe this is the sort of falsifiable prediction that memetics can provide?

[Wowbagger]

Time for me to chime in, a little bit.

Genes, we are told, are the fundamental basis for evolution. Actually, genes are not even definable from within molecular biology and, when used as a foundation for evolutionary theory, they produce a theory that is grossly inconsistent with other fields of science.I think you are suffering, a little, from the Tyranny of a Discontinuous Mind (a term Dawkins uses to describe our difficulty to conceptualize non-discrete categories). Genes are not straight-forward separable from each other, and into phenotypic effects, because nature is not obligated to make things easy for us to delineate. But, that does not mean that genes, as a model for bits of material that express phenotypic effects, that are subject to selection pressures*, can not work within science. As such a model, genes work tremendously better than anything previous.

Read more closely to what Schneibster, had said (emphasis mine):
We DO understand molecular biology, we DO understand the central paradigm of DNA, and we DO know how sequences are expressed and proteins produced, and how production is inhibited or promoted to control the expression. And while we don't yet understand precisely how these expressions, inhibitions, proteins, and non-coding RNA sequences PRECISELY specify EVERY phenotype, we know FOR CERTAIN that they do; and we can in fact identify quite a few phenotypes' precise loci (although most of them require multiple different proteins, expressions, inhibitions, non-conding RNA sequences, and/or promotions).


(*germ-line more so than somatic, of course)

You are trying to understand social evolution by introducing a meme, as analogous to a gene, and then saying that, of course, a meme is not really like a gene at all. Presumably, when you say "UP" you might really mean "DOWN." Sorry, I just thing that's nonsense. Okay, now would be an excellent time to write about how genes and memes are fundamentally similar to each other, and how they differ in their environment:

Genes and Memes are both basic replicators. For scientific purposes, Replicators can be called such, if they exhibit the following properties** very well:

Longevity: The longevity of a single copy is not as important as the longevity of any copy of that "information". A single instance of a gene may die, but it has the ability to live on, as new copies in offspring. A single instance of a meme may "die" (if a specific person dies, or merely forgets the idea), but the idea it conveys has some ability to live on, as new copies in other people.

Fecundity: The ability to reproduce. Some specific items may reproduce more effectively than others, because they are subject to selection pressures. Genes that are more successful in passing themselves on, have higher fecundity. This usually means they are beneficial to the overall survival of the host, but not always.
Memes have the ability to reproduce, by getting "absorbed" into people's minds. (Humans are particularly susceptible to these replicators, because of our pliable brain structure.) Some are more successful than others, and, like genes, this success is not always to the overall benefit of the host. They copy well, because they copy well.

Copy-Fidelity: The ability to be copied with minimal, if any, errors. Genes clearly have an advantage, here, because they are reliant on a physical structure. Memes are more prone to errors, because they have no physical presence. Memes "sacrifice" physical presence for more efficient fecundity. But, even so, it is possible that the evolution of social ideas can be tracked, and broken down into individual memes.


When someone says memes are analogous to genes, they mean both can be demonstrated to exhibit these properties. Clearly, though, there are differences in their environment and how they replicate.

(** personal note: in my thread for listing non-living replicators (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=69697), the "definition" of a replicator is much looser. For the purposes of that thread, Crystals are considered replicators, though in the above definition, they clearly would not be.)

The differences, to reiterate, stem from the fact that genes have physical material to work off of, and memes do not. Genes are passed on through germ-line transmission, and that means only to offspring of the parent(s). Memes transmit more effectively, jumping to any brain that will absorb them, no matter their physical relationship (although their cultural upbringing could have an impact on whether they will absorb any given meme or not).

Since memes can propagate with more freedom than genes, it is going to be more difficult specifying and measuring each individual one, according to their "phenotypic" effects on the person.
But, that does not mean the endeavor is impossible. Just like genes, we are starting to identify basic trends in social evolution, in which the model of memes is at least some-what useful.
This is unlike pseudoscience, which is counterproductive in nature.

The correct way to construct a general form of evolutionary theory is to seek measurable attributes, characteristics and processes that are necessarily present in ALL forms of evolution and construct the theory around them. Bioepistemic evolution argues that data is necessarily present in all forms of evolution and that evolutionary theory should be built around data and the processes to which it is necessarily subject.
The only comment I want to add here, is only somewhat relevant, but important to communicate:

It is possible that, like physical evolution, social evolution can work at different levels of units. Physically, we can map evolution at the species, family, individual life-form, cell, and ultimately gene. Perhaps memes can be identified at certain levels, as well: world-level, country or national level, community level, circle-of-friends-and-family level, etc. And, some levels at which they could overlap those: age group, religion, etc.

The point of bringing this up, here, is to communicate the idea that perhaps some of the conflicting views about what separates one meme from another could come from some people measuring the population at different levels.

The theory of memes was constructed out of the recognition that social ideas evolve, and that certain specific ideas seem to permeate people, at different levels of observation.

Social data is formatted differently from genetic data and is subject to different interpretative and selective processes. I argue that a theory of social evolution should investigate the format of social data and the interpretative and selective processes to which that data is subject. I think it is completely meaningless to simply declare, as memetics effectively does, that the formatting of social data must be like that of a gene. That is patently not so. Actually, I think your ideas of meme theory is a little distorted. Memetics already tries to model social data to the selective processes to which it is subject. Why would it be developed otherwise?

No one is saying memes MUST be like a gene, in ALL respects: declaring that is almost straw-man like: Scientists already understand memes are not like genes. However, they do share quite a bit in common, and not just at a superficial level. Check out those three properties I listed above, again, if you must.

So, with that, I continue to argue that memes, at worst, can still be classified as a protoscience.

[articulett]

It's not science or pseudoscience--it's a language tool--a concept for understanding. It's just a way of talking about what makes an idea get passed on. Systems evolve from the bottom up--be it planets, solar systems, humans, cities, technology, forums, languages, currency systems, libraries (and/or they die out)--Meme is just a way to refer to the why and how they do so.

Something as small as an atom combined with something as simple as an idea can evolve to become the atomic bomb (complexity). The meme would be the information part of the equation. (Atomic theory is a meme...we harness the info. we gather from this meme for Chemistry classes, nanotechnology, atomic energy, etc.

The only people who seem to want to define it as pseudoscience or who "don't believe there is such a thing" seem to be those who have a vested interested in not accepting evolution. It's an easy concept--I teach it to high schoolers. This classification thing seems like a slam to Richard Dawkins by intelligent designers who hate him for his atheism and his dismissal of their intelligent designer.

It's a useful term--like bytes. The meme concept is a meme itself. It spreads because it's useful. But useful concepts don't always spread and useless ideas can spread if they have some other trick (like promising eternal rewards or threatening eternal damnation or being catchy such as a mneumonic rhyme "I before e, except after c...")

[articulett]

I don't believe in "gerunds"...please give me some statistical data and studies to show me that they exist and what they can do. I say they are pseudoscience.
:) That's how John Hewitt sounds to me. Prove to me this spherical earth theory is true--let me see the statistical data that prove it--and how is it useful...it's such an unnecessary concept. If you can answer those questions, John--you will have probably reach similar answers to those we would give to you.

[articulett]

[quote=Wowbagger; 2161052]
I think you gave slightly more intelligent criticism on my other Replicator thread.
[/group]
This is patronizing.


Dawkins antipathy toward group selection is a good example of how poor his work is. There is no doubt in my mind that group selection is valid in humans and I am happy to see that E.O. Wilson has come to appreciate that.


Absolutely, lets hear some arguments that can hope to address observable facts.

Dawkins doesn't have antipathy toward group selection--it's just that religionists use it to imply mystical things--like morality and empathy--even though we know that social groups have survival advantages in the species that have them--and such groups develop things that look an awful lot like reciprocity--giving up one's life for other group members...group caring of the young--the basics of morality--all selected for in the genes (because the entities that have these cooperative genes have a vector that is more likely to live and procreate than it's less cooperative competetors.) It explains group selection in dog packs too. It's your bias towards your preferred delusion that keeps you from being able to understand this and incorrectly attribute traits to Dawkins (antipathy) that seem more applicable to yourself.

Did you watch the Beyond Belief tapes at www.edge.org by chance?

[Dark Jaguar]

You know I'd always thought that genes would have to be more complicated than just "this does exactly that". I'd think there would have to be various modules built up, for example a basic translation module to make sense of a lot of the instructions, without which the rest would be garbage. Of course, I'm using my programming experience as analogy when I say this, and as such I may be way off, as genes are not completely analogous to programming at all.

[articulett]

Does the B.F. Skinner stuff look at how ideas spread, decline, and modify in populations over time? Also how ideas "compete" with each other in the medium of human brains (for example attaching an idea such as "Jesus is God and died and was reborn" or "Muhammed was Allah's propheit" to commands to proselytize and be fruitful and multiply)?

Actually Dennet has a lot of Data--but the meme is pretty easy to understand...it's similar to Santa or chain letters; regimes use it too. -- (and it helps to have people who are told that faith and obedience are good while they are trusting children):

Promise rewards for belief and the spreading of the belief; threaten the lack of belief. Tell believers it's arrogant or unpatriotic to ask questions (or simply ignore questions) and presto!--an evolving memeplex.

Religions tend to have added memes for extra good spreading power.
Humans ask why--but they make up answers and accept most any answer proffered. Really. (see Cialdini's book Influence). Plus, once they believe something, they dismiss or ignore the evidence that negates their belief and readily notice all evidence that seems to support their belief. So here are some memes to fortify various religions (and predicts which religions evolve into assorted sects and which ones die out...obviously the ones that require castration die out. So do the ones that promote mass suicide...the memes lose their their vectors of replication.

Are you following? It's pretty easy. We don't even need to plug in data yet, as I think the concepts are self evident.

Some of the memes of successful religious sects include the following.

Make up a horrifically terrifying problem--like an eternal soul that can suffer damnation; offer the key to solve the problem and expect gratitude, humility.
Tell people they are arrogant if they question "god" (code word for leader of the cult) and that it's noble to have the "gift" of faith. Promise everlasting rewards of unimaginable bliss for "belief". Test that belief on occasion to reinforce it. Reward those who are most obedient with access to some powers, added sexual opportunities, a financial boost, favors, etc. Tell group members that they are chosen--more moral, right, and good than those who don't believe. Call doubters "doubting Thomas" or defectors or apostates or devils or traitors. Tell group memebers you must fight the evil others before they ruin your salvation or cause your faith to waiver. Threaten people who ask questions with "biting from the tree of knowledge" stories...or pandora's box stories (aim your stories at the women--they tend to be more credulous and it's easier to induce unwarranted guilt in them). Tell group members that they are to go forth and multiply...that god won't give them more than they can handle...that all they give up for their beliefs will be rewarded tenfold in the afterlife (or with 72 virgins)...tell them that birth control and abortion is bad--that life is precious (except for those evil others)--Tell them that getting others to believe brings extra goodies in this life and the next. Tell them that god wants them to convert others--it's part of their "testing".

Stuff like that. There are a lot of studies on cults and groupthink and how authority can make good people do bad things (google Zimbardo or Ron Jones "the wave"). I think it's all pretty easy to understand; you seem intelligent.

We call the above memes--they are mental constructs that people are encouraged to spread. Lots of memes spread because they are useful to humans. If you still can't comprehend the use and meaning of the word or doubt that they exist (a meaningless phrase) you may be meme infected. Suspect indoctrination in youth when you were a trusting child--ill equipped to separate belief from facts and never having learned how to distinguish between the two. Parents can't help but spread it--they're meme infected; they don't want their beloved children to suffer eternally.

[John Hewitt]

I think you are suffering, a little, from the Tyranny of a Discontinuous Mind (a term Dawkins uses to describe our difficulty to conceptualize non-discrete categories). Genes are not straight-forward separable from each other, and into phenotypic effects, because nature is not obligated to make things easy for us to delineate.
No, I want operational meanings, not just babbling. Genes arise from breeding experiments and, in most cases, operationally correlate with molecular biology. Memes have no operational meaning that I am aware of. I am asking you to provide one.

Okay, now would be an excellent time to write about how genes and memes are fundamentally similar to each other, and how they differ in their environment:

No, now would be a good time to do what I asked. Define the word meme, either from physics and chemistry or from operational activities.


Genes and Memes are both basic replicators. For scientific purposes, Replicators can be called such, if they exhibit the following properties** very well:

Longevity: The longevity of a single copy is not as important as the longevity of any copy of that "information". A single instance of a gene may die, but it has the ability to live on, as new copies in offspring. A single instance of a meme may "die" (if a specific person dies, or merely forgets the idea), but the idea it conveys has some ability to live on, as new copies in other people.

Fecundity: The ability to reproduce. Some specific items may reproduce more effectively than others, because they are subject to selection pressures. Genes that are more successful in passing themselves on, have higher fecundity. This usually means they are beneficial to the overall survival of the host, but not always.
Memes have the ability to reproduce, by getting "absorbed" into people's minds. (Humans are particularly susceptible to these replicators, because of our pliable brain structure.) Some are more successful than others, and, like genes, this success is not always to the overall benefit of the host. They copy well, because they copy well.

Copy-Fidelity: The ability to be copied with minimal, if any, errors. Genes clearly have an advantage, here, because they are reliant on a physical structure. Memes are more prone to errors, because they have no physical presence. Memes "sacrifice" physical presence for more efficient fecundity. But, even so, it is possible that the evolution of social ideas can be tracked, and broken down into individual memes.


When someone says memes are analogous to genes, they mean both can be demonstrated to exhibit these properties. Clearly, though, there are differences in their environment and how they replicate.

(** personal note: in my thread for listing non-living replicators (http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=69697), the "definition" of a replicator is much looser. For the purposes of that thread, Crystals are considered replicators, though in the above definition, they clearly would not be.)

The differences, to reiterate, stem from the fact that genes have physical material to work off of, and memes do not. Genes are passed on through germ-line transmission, and that means only to offspring of the parent(s). Memes transmit more effectively, jumping to any brain that will absorb them, no matter their physical relationship (although their cultural upbringing could have an impact on whether they will absorb any given meme or not).

Since memes can propagate with more freedom than genes, it is going to be more difficult specifying and measuring each individual one, according to their "phenotypic" effects on the person.
But, that does not mean the endeavor is impossible. Just like genes, we are starting to identify basic trends in social evolution, in which the model of memes is at least some-what useful.
This is unlike pseudoscience, which is counterproductive in nature.


The only comment I want to add here, is only somewhat relevant, but important to communicate:

It is possible that, like physical evolution, social evolution can work at different levels of units. Physically, we can map evolution at the species, family, individual life-form, cell, and ultimately gene. Perhaps memes can be identified at certain levels, as well: world-level, country or national level, community level, circle-of-friends-and-family level, etc. And, some levels at which they could overlap those: age group, religion, etc.

The point of bringing this up, here, is to communicate the idea that perhaps some of the conflicting views about what separates one meme from another could come from some people measuring the population at different levels.

The theory of memes was constructed out of the recognition that social ideas evolve, and that certain specific ideas seem to permeate people, at different levels of observation.

Actually, I think your ideas of meme theory is a little distorted. Memetics already tries to model social data to the selective processes to which it is subject. Why would it be developed otherwise?

No one is saying memes MUST be like a gene, in ALL respects: declaring that is almost straw-man like: Scientists already understand memes are not like genes. However, they do share quite a bit in common, and not just at a superficial level. Check out those three properties I listed above, again, if you must.

So, with that, I continue to argue that memes, at worst, can still be classified as a protoscience.
All of which is your meaning today and has no operational applicability. Your friend has some other meaning and tomorrow you will swap things around yet again.

[John Hewitt]

Actually Dennet has a lot of Data--but the meme is pretty easy to understand...it's similar to Santa or chain letters; regimes use it too. -- (and it helps to have people who are told that faith and obedience are good while they are trusting children):

Dennet has data about what? The operational useability of memetics?

Promise rewards for belief and the spreading of the belief; threaten the lack of belief. Tell believers it's arrogant or unpatriotic to ask questions (or simply ignore questions) and presto!--an evolving memeplex.

Religions tend to have added memes for extra good spreading power.
Humans ask why--but they make up answers and accept most any answer proffered. Really. (see Cialdini's book Influence). Plus, once they believe something, they dismiss or ignore the evidence that negates their belief and readily notice all evidence that seems to support their belief. So here are some memes to fortify various religions (and predicts which religions evolve into assorted sects and which ones die out...obviously the ones that require castration die out. So do the ones that promote mass suicide...the memes lose their their vectors of replication.

Are you following? It's pretty easy.
No, weeping. Easy is not the word your looking for - cheap, empty of content. These do much better.

We don't even need to plug in data yet, as I think the concepts are self evident.
Or indeed ever; why, after all, would such self-evident concepts ever need observational data to support them? I shall refrain from answering the rest of your comments.

[John Hewitt]

[quote=John Hewitt;2162125]

Dawkins doesn't have antipathy toward group selection

Dawkins is quoted in this way about Sloan Wilson and group selection
Plenty of respected people still disagree with him, Oxford's famous evolutionist Richard Dawkins not least among them. Dawkins has denounced Wilson's ideas on group selection as "sheer, wanton, head-in-the-bag perversity."

http://www.binghamton.edu/inside/January-February/JAN-23-97/Wilson.htm

"sheer, wanton, head-in-the-bag perversity" - seems like antipathy toward group selection to me. And keep in mind that this is the man who thinks that genes "replicate" - even though they don't.

[Wowbagger]

No, I want operational meanings, not just babbling. Genes arise from breeding experiments and, in most cases, operationally correlate with molecular biology. Memes have no operational meaning that I am aware of. I am asking you to provide one. Babbling?! What is wrong with "a unit of cultural information, that can pass from one mind to another"?

No, now would be a good time to do what I asked. Define the word meme, either from physics and chemistry or from operational activities. Memes are not physical things. The structure of a meme in one brain may be different for the same meme in a different brain. It is not the brain structure that transfers, just the idea that the brain holds. How can you expect to define a meme within physics or chemistry?

Perhaps it was not the Tyranny of Discontinuous Mind you suffer from, after all. Perhaps it is over zealousness of materiality.

All of which is your meaning today and has no operational applicability. Oh, well then what alternative would you apply for the spread and evolution of religion?

Your friend has some other meaning and tomorrow you will swap things around yet again.Which "friend"? Schneibster? I am not responsible for what he says. But, the quote I copied from him, in my last post, happens to be correct about genes. I was going to say something similar to that quote, myself, but decided his wording was good enough.

Dennet has data about what? The operational useability of memetics? In fact, he makes use of memes to help unravel how consciousness works, at least to the extent of a plausible theory. Read his book "Consciousness Explained" for details on his "Multiple Drafts" theory of consciousness.
Note that this is not a very easy book to digest: you may have to read it twice, to fully grasp the concepts, like I did.

why, after all, would such self-evident concepts ever need observational data to support them? In general, one of the roles of science is to investigate beyond intuition. Someone may have a gut, 'self-evident' feeling about something, which may or may not turn out to be true, upon further investigation.

The behavior of Memes may seem self evident, but the next question is, do they hold up to further scrutiny? Well, so far, the model has been demonstrated to show new insight into various aspects of culture, such as religion, and the spread of catchy tunes and phrases, and more practical ideas, such as the building of bridges or vehicles.
But, perhaps memetics is not a hard science, yet. Perhaps it is slowly emerging from its existence as a protoscience.

You have yet to demonstrate how it is counter-productive to science, and so you also have yet to show us it is junk science.



Dawkins is quoted in this way about Sloan Wilson and group selection

http://www.binghamton.edu/inside/January-February/JAN-23-97/Wilson.htm

"sheer, wanton, head-in-the-bag perversity" - seems like antipathy toward group selection to me. And keep in mind that this is the man who thinks that genes "replicate" - even though they don't.

As far as I can remember, I think it is in "The Ancestor's Tale", that Dawkins retracts some of that antipathy, by admitting the model of group-selection has value when investigating life forms at the group level. Sorry I can not offer a quote and page number at this time. Give me a couple of more hours, and I will probably find the reference.

And, how do you know genes do not replicate? Isn't the fact that they replicate proof enough that they replicate? Are you not the product of replication of genes from your parents?

[John Hewitt]

Babbling?! What is wrong with "a unit of cultural information, (as a definition of meme) that can pass from one mind to another"?
It is not a definition with operational meaning or which is derived from fundamental principles. You can just substitute the term idea concept or whatever.


How can you expect to define a meme within physics or chemistry?
I wouldn't but I would derive evolutionary theory from data which can be defined in terms of statistical mechanics - physics.

Oh, well then what alternative would you apply for the spread and evolution of religion? I would talk about social evolution and the data set that is shared as social knowledge by different members of the same group.

Which "friend"? It was a non-specific friend. I am making the point that the meaning of the term meme can easily vary from person to person.

As far as I can remember, I think it is in "The Ancestor's Tale", that Dawkins retracts some of that antipathy, by admitting the model of group-selection has value when investigating life forms at the group level. Sorry I can not offer a quote and page number at this time. Give me a couple of more hours, and I will probably find the reference.

It would be useful but, in bioepistemic terms, group selection is more than just a model. Social data, shared within a group is shared between members of that group. Its exitence is ignored by conventional genetic proofs that group selection can't be right.


And, how do you know genes do not replicate? Isn't the fact that they replicate proof enough that they replicate? Are you not the product of replication of genes from your parents?

Genes do not replicate themselves, any more than proteins do. Genes are copied by the cell - this is just standard cell biology. The idea of genes as replicators is just empty hypothesis - it is very influential but has no observational support. My parents' cells copied the genes that made me, they did not copy themselves.

[Wowbagger]

It is not a definition with operational meaning or which is derived from fundamental principles. You can just substitute the term idea concept or whatever. Ah, so perhaps I should expand my definition a little: "a unit of cultural information, that can pass from one mind to another, that demonstrates properties of longevity, fecundity, and copy-fidelity."

Of course, the idea of a unit of cultural evolution was not a new idea from Dawkins. The first thing Dawkins did was come up with the name "meme". So, in retrospect, you could be a little right: you could substitute other words. But, by using this one, it emphasizess the evolutionary aspects that are similar to genes. (although they clearly operate in a different manner).

I wouldn't but I would derive evolutionary theory from data which can be defined in terms of statistical mechanics - physics. In that case, memes was derrived from examining similar statistical data about cultures.

I would talk about social evolution and the data set that is shared as social knowledge by different members of the same group. Okay. That's a good start. Now, what model would you use for tracking this data between specific individuals?

It would be useful but, in bioepistemic terms, group selection is more than just a model. Social data, shared within a group is shared between members of that group. Its exitence is ignored by conventional genetic proofs that group selection can't be right.
Fine. Just like the periodic table ignores the various quarks.

But, just because the periodic table is used more often, that does not mean that more fundamental particles do not exist.

Just because group selection is used to study groups, that does not mean that more fundamental selection pressures do not exist.

Genes do not replicate themselves, any more than proteins do. Genes are copied by the cell - this is just standard cell biology. The idea of genes as replicators is just empty hypothesis - it is very influential but has no observational support. My parents' cells copied the genes that made me, they did not copy themselves. Did you read "The Selfish Gene"? How do you know the cell could not simply be a vehicle for genes to spread themselves?

In fact, I already showed you examples of genes observed duplicating themselves: Look up the word "Transposon" or "jumping gene" in your favorite biology reference source.
Transposons can best be explained by the model of genes being the fundamental unit of selection.

[John Hewitt]

Ah, so perhaps I should expand my definition a little: "a unit of cultural information, that can pass from one mind to another, that demonstrates properties of longevity, fecundity, and copy-fidelity."
Don't just expand it, attach some operational meanings to it. Define it in such a way that you can do experiments on it, or make observations on it or run simulations about it (without taking simulations too seriously). In other words, insert operational utility into the theory. If you think those extensions achive that (and I don't) start using the theory to make operational predictions.

Memes was derrived from examining similar statistical data about cultures.
No, they are said to be analogous to genes, they did not arise from statistical observations.


Okay. That's a good start. Now, what model would you use for tracking this data between specific individuals?
I don't do that, that would be historical sociology and I do science. I looked for the biological implications of humans possessing a large, inherited data set that that is not included in genetic approaches to evolution. That is where my work on sexuality and humour came from.


Just because group selection is used to study groups, that does not mean that more fundamental selection pressures do not exist.
I consider group selection valid because all that data is associated with groups not individuals. The boundary around a group can determine the boundary around a social data set and therefore social data can become self-bounding or the joint action of social and biological data can become self-bounding. Therefore, social data sets can become subject to evolution. Since humans possess a great deal of social knowledge, I expect that the biological traits that arise from its evolution will be such as to arise from group selection not individual selection.


Did you read "The Selfish Gene"? How do you know the cell could not simply be a vehicle for genes to spread themselves?

In fact, I already showed you examples of genes observed duplicating themselves: Look up the word "Transposon" or "jumping gene" in your favorite biology reference source.
Transposons can best be explained by the model of genes being the fundamental unit of selection.
The word "vehicle" seems to undefined in Dawkins' work - in any fundamental or operational sense that is.

All genes, everywhere, are copied and moved under the action of proteins from their host cell.

[articulett]

Well, scientists do not consider the cells the replicators...it's the DNA that tells which cells to differentiate into what, and it's the DNA that must be right for the replication to take place at all. We can take the DNA out of a cell, and it won't replicate. We can put other DNA in, and it will--under the direction of the new DNA. The Cell happens to be a good medium for gene replication, but when we run PCR amplification, we copy large amounts of DNA without cells. And if we hope to get genetic modifications in an organization, then we must get the DNA into the genome, not just the cell of whatever we are modifying. You are playing word games that we don't play in science, and it may be why you don't understand why meme is a useful word.

But then again, as I recall, you are a creationist. You have antipathy for anything Dawkins says and aren't particular current on genes or memes nor the genetics involved in group selection--or even how we can alter those groups by adding certain hormones to the prenatal environment.

Yes, information is passed to people culturally--although people don't inherent religion or language--it looks like vertical transmission as most people acquire both from their parents. But we know this is from the culture because children adopted by other parents have their religion and language rather than anything their parents had. However, ones linquistic potential or ease with languages has a heritable component as does one's credulity.

How does your theory explain the transmission of these constructs and how do you account for group selection. There is a lot of information about which groups grow and evolve to splinter off and religions are a great way to study these "branching" memeplexes. They all started somewhere you will admit. How do you account for the spread of information from one human to another--Where did your language come from--and do all languages have a common root? Although you may not find it useful because someone who disagrees with you about god etc. coined the term...there are huge numbers of people who do find it useful. Clearly, some things make ideas more likely to spread and "evolve" through time. Math is a memeplex--it started somewhere and spread because it was useful in understanding our world, trading items, marking time, etc.

Religion spreads often because of promises to believers and threats for failing to believe. That's a good meme for spreading stuff. It works in chain letters too. I think it's obvious, and others can too. Santa is a meme. How did it start...we can study that...why do children believe....we can study that -- by studying the "memes" it comes from... I don't think anyone is changing the terms...and Dawkins antipathy towards group selection has more to do with people confusing that which is good for getting a gene passed on to "that which is good for humans"--they argue that the selfish gene can't account for morality... but it can and does...because in social species, genes that make an animal more cooperative have a survival advantage. In fact, dogs are genetically modified wolves with their "human cooperation" genes emphasized.
It has given them a survival advantage. If an animal has a survival advantage by living in a group then the group members can be presumed to have genes that select for group living--just as cells form organisms when it gives them a reproductive advantage. But this is true of tumors as well as humans.

You dislike the term memes because it explains morality and where people get their religious notions and you want to believe it comes from your intelligent designer. Those who don't have an "intelligent designer" don't seem to have a problem with the term "meme".

[John Hewitt]

Well, scientists do not consider the cells the replicators...it's the DNA that tells which cells to differentiate into what, and it's the DNA that must be right for the replication to take place at all. We can take the DNA out of a cell, and it won't replicate. We can put other DNA in, and it will--under the direction of the new DNA. The Cell happens to be a good medium for gene replication, but when we run PCR amplification, we copy large amounts of DNA without cells. And if we hope to get genetic modifications in an organization, then we must get the DNA into the genome, not just the cell of whatever we are modifying. You are playing word games that we don't play in science, and it may be why you don't understand why meme is a useful word.

But then again, as I recall, you are a creationist. You have antipathy for anything Dawkins says and aren't particular current on genes or memes nor the genetics involved in group selection--or even how we can alter those groups by adding certain hormones to the prenatal environment.

Yes, information is passed to people culturally--although people don't inherent religion or language--it looks like vertical transmission as most people acquire both from their parents. But we know this is from the culture because children adopted by other parents have their religion and language rather than anything their parents had. However, ones linquistic potential or ease with languages has a heritable component as does one's credulity.

How does your theory explain the transmission of these constructs and how do you account for group selection. There is a lot of information about which groups grow and evolve to splinter off and religions are a great way to study these "branching" memeplexes. They all started somewhere you will admit. How do you account for the spread of information from one human to another--Where did your language come from--and do all languages have a common root? Although you may not find it useful because someone who disagrees with you about god etc. coined the term...there are huge numbers of people who do find it useful. Clearly, some things make ideas more likely to spread and "evolve" through time. Math is a memeplex--it started somewhere and spread because it was useful in understanding our world, trading items, marking time, etc.

Religion spreads often because of promises to believers and threats for failing to believe. That's a good meme for spreading stuff. It works in chain letters too. I think it's obvious, and others can too. Santa is a meme. How did it start...we can study that...why do children believe....we can study that -- by studying the "memes" it comes from... I don't think anyone is changing the terms...and Dawkins antipathy towards group selection has more to do with people confusing that which is good for getting a gene passed on to "that which is good for humans"--they argue that the selfish gene can't account for morality... but it can and does...because in social species, genes that make an animal more cooperative have a survival advantage. In fact, dogs are genetically modified wolves with their "human cooperation" genes emphasized.
It has given them a survival advantage. If an animal has a survival advantage by living in a group then the group members can be presumed to have genes that select for group living--just as cells form organisms when it gives them a reproductive advantage. But this is true of tumors as well as humans.

You dislike the term memes because it explains morality and where people get their religious notions and you want to believe it comes from your intelligent designer. Those who don't have an "intelligent designer" don't seem to have a problem with the term "meme".

I dislike Dawkins' work because it is inaccurate and dogmatic. I dislike memetics because it is vacuous and encourages inaccurate and dogmatic claims. I dislike you postings because they are inaccurate and dogmatic. I suspect that they are intentionally so.

[Wowbagger]

Whose being dogmatic?

You have yet to demonstrate how memes or the idea of genes-as-fundamental-replicators is either inaccurate, counter-productive, or otherwise junk.

[John Hewitt]

Whose being dogmatic?

You have yet to demonstrate how memes or the idea of genes-as-fundamental-replicators is either inaccurate, counter-productive, or otherwise junk.
It is not for me to show the lack of utility in memetics, it is for memeticists to show its utility. I reject the idea of genes as replicators because I worked for years as a molecular biologist. Here is a fact - genes do not replicate themselves. Given the food, cells replicate themselves, genes are part of cells. If you do not believe this, find a suitable textbook on molecular biology and point to a single example of a gene that can REPLICATE ITSELF.

Here is a dogmatic assertion. It is unproductive and unhelpful for anyone to keep on making an assertion that is manifestly untrue and is well known to be untrue.

[hammegk]

I dislike you postings because they are inaccurate and dogmatic. I suspect that they are intentionally so.
I suspect unintentionally so. ;)

You got'ta work with what you got.

[Wowbagger]

It is not for me to show the lack of utility in memetics, it is for memeticists to show its utility. What you say is correct. But, memeticists have already demonstrated the utility of the way of thought: "Classic" social evolution theories only go so far, and focus on cost/benefits to groups as a whole. Memetics, if it holds true, goes into further fundamental features: For the "individual" idea, how does it survive? Can we track the evolution ideas from specific person to specific person? How do catchy tunes spread? Why are useless industries, such as religion, so pervasive, even today, when we have science to answer questions about the Universe? Can we trace the evolution in bridge and tunnel design, through instruction given from person to person?
Classic ideas have trouble answering these questions in refined detail. It is entirely possible that memes will turn out to be the wrong answer, but it is foolhardy to flat-out declare there is no utility for them.

I reject the idea of genes as replicators because I worked for years as a molecular biologist. Here is a fact - genes do not replicate themselves. Given the food, cells replicate themselves, genes are part of cells. Do you have a model for how the cell evolved, and learned to split apart and replicate?
The "Selfish Gene" model has DNA or RNA-like structures evolving first, then the cell around them. Eventually, the cell became a vehicle for gene replication, and genes may have lost some of their ability to replicate on their own.

Furthermore, just what makes a cell a cell anyway? Aren't they built by the layout of genes in the nucleus? You can remove almost any single part of the cell, and it could still replicate as a cell. You take out the DNA strands, however, and it can not.

Also ask yourself this: What part of the cell are impacted by selection pressures, the most? Answer this question for pressures impacting both the individual cell, and for the life form as a whole.

If you do not believe this, find a suitable textbook on molecular biology and point to a single example of a gene that can REPLICATE ITSELF. I already did that! Look up the word "transposon" in any suitable text book. In the meantime, I will offer a couple of web links.

http://users.rcn.com/jkimball.ma.ultranet/BiologyPages/T/Transposons.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transposon (I know you hate Wiki, but this article explains it fairly well)

From FreeDictionary.com: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/transposon
trans•po•son
n.
A segment of DNA that is capable of independently replicating itself and inserting the copy into a new position within the same or another chromosome or plasmid.


Or, read "The Extended Phenotype" by Richard Dawkins. It is only slightly outdated on the subject. Looks for the chapter called "Jumping Genes".

Here is a dogmatic assertion. It is unproductive and unhelpful for anyone to keep on making an assertion that is manifestly untrue and is well known to be untrue. "Manifestly untrue"?! How about if you stop being so gosh-darn dogmatic, and learn to accept the idea that there could be more than one way to look at social behavior. Your theories could be just fine, but that does not mean memetics must lack utility. On the contrary, it has the potential power to explain a lot of social oddities in more refined detail.

[John Hewitt]

Do you have a model for how the cell evolved, and learned to split apart and replicate?
yes


The "Selfish Gene" model has DNA or RNA-like structures evolving first, then the cell around them. Eventually, the cell became a vehicle for gene replication, and genes may have lost some of their ability to replicate on their own.
<snip>

I already did that! (Suggested a single example of a gene that can REPLICATE ITSELF.) Look up the word "transposon" in any suitable text book. In the meantime, I will offer a couple of web links.

http://users.rcn.com/jkimball.ma.ultranet/BiologyPages/T/Transposons.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transposon (I know you hate Wiki, but this article explains it fairly well)

From FreeDictionary.com: http://www.thefreedictionary.com/transposon


Or, read "The Extended Phenotype" by Richard Dawkins. It is only slightly outdated on the subject. Looks for the chapter called "Jumping Genes".

I don't hate wiki, it is a useful institution but not always correct. Neither, evidently, is the free dictionary. Transposons do not move or copy themselves. There are several mechanisms for generating junk DNA. As I recall, transposons arise from reverse trasncription of mRNA (which has itself already been processed by having its intervening sequences removed) into DNA and this DNA is then inserted into the genome, again by enzymes. Note well, enzymes do this, it does not just happen and it is not just a property of DNA. Each step of these sequences is performed by enzymes which are separately coded on the genome. In other words, the transposon does not move or copy itself, it is moved and copied by the cell.

I repeat what I have previously said. I know of no example of a gene that replicates itself and I would add that I cannot begin to imagine how such a process might work


"Manifestly untrue"?! How about if you stop being so gosh-darn dogmatic, and learn to accept the idea that there could be more than one way to look at social behavior. Your theories could be just fine, but that does not mean memetics must lack utility. On the contrary, it has the potential power to explain a lot of social oddities in more refined detail.
I think it is manifestly untrue that genes are replicators and I assert that it is unproductive and unhelpful for Dawkins, or anyone else, to keep on making an assertion that is contradicted by well-established facts.

As an aside, I would remind you that the phenomena of junk DNA and transposons seems to have arisen at the time of the Cambrian explosion, 550 million years ago, or at least of the developmental changes that become manifest in those then new species. Older organisms, earlier eukaryotes, such as yeast and prokaryotes, do not seem to exhibit this sort of behaviour, their genomes are much tighter with much less waste DNA. You are, therefore, introducing a discussion about a quite recent biological innovation which seems irrelevant to models of the early phases of life's emergence and the question of whether primordial genes were replicators.

[Wowbagger]

Do you have a model for how the cell evolved, and learned to split apart and replicate? yes Can you tell me what it is?

Transposons do not move or copy themselves. There are several mechanisms for generating junk DNA. Correct. But: Many of them work independently from the cell. Read up on them, again.

Each step of these sequences is performed by enzymes which are separately coded on the genome. In other words, the transposon does not move or copy itself, it is moved and copied by the cell. Ah, but you admit they are being copied within the cell? And it is not just the cell replicating itself to make more of them.

I know of no example of a gene that replicates itself and I would add that I cannot begin to imagine how such a process might work. You just gave one! You just, successfully, described a process by which genes can copy themselves. It is not the cell, itself, that is being copied. It is the genes within it. Understand, yet?

If not, think about this: What is most responsible for the formation of those enzymes? Is it the cell, is it the gene sequences, (or is it something else)?

I assert that it is unproductive and unhelpful for Dawkins, or anyone else, to keep on making an assertion that is contradicted by well-established facts. It is a well established fact that cells are not the only replicating unit in town.

And, I would still like you to answer this question:
What part of the cell is impacted by selection pressures, the most? Answer this question for pressures impacting both the individual cell, and for the life form as a whole.

As an aside, I would remind you that the phenomena of junk DNA and transposons seems to have arisen at the time of the Cambrian explosion, 550 million years ago, or at least of the developmental changes that become manifest in those then new species. I think much of your information about the Cambrian Explosion is out of date. But, you will have to give me some time to find the references. I may start a new thread on this topic, as well, since it is not one I am terribly familiar with.
But, to summarize, I think it was worked out, after careful examination, that the Cambrian explosion was not unique in the development of new life forms. It was merely unique in the amount of preserved soft tissue and other stuff that usually don't preserve well.
Again, I will research the details, and get back to you, with more on this.

Older organisms, earlier eukaryotes, such as yeast and prokaryotes, do not seem to exhibit this sort of behaviour, their genomes are much tighter with much less waste DNA. You are, therefore, introducing a discussion about a quite recent biological innovation which seems irrelevant to models of the early phases of life's emergence and the question of whether primordial genes were replicators. First of all, how do we know this? How much DNA survived from that time period?

Second of all, assuming it is true, this could also be evidence that the genes are replicators: Genes replicate themselves faster than the cells around them, so the junk-to-useful ratio falls more to the junk side, over time.
Early eukaryotes could not afford to maintain junk DNA, so most of the ones that produced some died off. But, the few that survived had their junk producing more junk.

Third of all, I will cite thermodynamics: Over time, things get less organized. Life could be the same way.


There is no shame in no knowing something. There is only shame in not accepting knowledge once it has been granted to you.

[John Hewitt]

Can you tell me what it is?
http://www.sexandphilosophy.co.uk/pe00_prebiotic_index.htm

The argument about protocells is in the "catalysts and membranes" file but you may need to have read the evolution of oscillations file and the membrane chemistry file in order to follow it.

Correct. But: Many of them work independently from the cell. Read up on them, again.They all require cell coded enzymes.


Ah, but you admit they are being copied within the cell? And it is not just the cell replicating itself to make more of them.

You just gave one! You just, successfully, described a process by which genes can copy themselves. It is not the cell, itself, that is being copied. It is the genes within it. Understand, yet?

If not, think about this: What is most responsible for the formation of those enzymes? Is it the cell, is it the gene sequences, (or is it something else)?

It is a well established fact that cells are not the only replicating unit in town.

And, I would still like you to answer this question:
What part of the cell is impacted by selection pressures, the most? Answer this question for pressures impacting both the individual cell, and for the life form as a whole.

I think much of your information about the Cambrian Explosion is out of date. But, you will have to give me some time to find the references. I may start a new thread on this topic, as well, since it is not one I am terribly familiar with.
But, to summarize, I think it was worked out, after careful examination, that the Cambrian explosion was not unique in the development of new life forms. It was merely unique in the amount of preserved soft tissue and other stuff that usually don't preserve well.
Again, I will research the details, and get back to you, with more on this.

First of all, how do we know this? How much DNA survived from that time period?

Second of all, assuming it is true, this could also be evidence that the genes are replicators: Genes replicate themselves faster than the cells around them, so the junk-to-useful ratio falls more to the junk side, over time.
Early eukaryotes could not afford to maintain junk DNA, so most of the ones that produced some died off. But, the few that survived had their junk producing more junk.

Third of all, I will cite thermodynamics: Over time, things get less organized. Life could be the same way.

There is no shame in no knowing something. There is only shame in not accepting knowledge once it has been granted to you.You are missing the point here. The oldest known organisms are prokaryotes and are about 3 -3.5 billion years old.
Later came simple eukaryotes such as yeast - about 1.2 billion years. Present versions of these organisms largely lack introns and junk DNA. I am not interested in speculating about whether, once upon a time, they may have had junk DNA.
Modern, multicellular organisms, such as are thought to have led to man, emerged during the cambrian phase. That period is said to have lasted for about 30 million years about 550 million years ago but the exact time frame does not matter. During that process, the genome of these organisms seems to have become much more fluid and variable than it was in earlier, more simple organisms. Introns, the whole junk DNA think, hox genes and other development control genes involved in defining complex body plans all seem linked to that process - but I may be missing important points in there.
The role or signifiance of those changes is a matter of considerable debate and my opinion would be worthless. What is clear is that this DNA is moving and being copied by cell coded enzymes. In other words, the cell handles all these DNA activities, genes are doing nothing independently.

[Schneibster]

I'd like to compliment Wowbagger on the excellent post on the last page. Yes, longevity, fecundity, and fidelity are excellent measures of the properties of genes and memes, and I had forgotten that part of Blackmore's book. Nicely done.

[Schneibster]

What is clear is that this DNA is moving and being copied by cell coded enzymes. In other words, the cell handles all these DNA activities, genes are doing nothing independently.But the DNA codes for the proteins. What then, in your mind, is its purpose?

[articulett]

I dislike Dawkins' work because it is inaccurate and dogmatic. I dislike memetics because it is vacuous and encourages inaccurate and dogmatic claims. I dislike you postings because they are inaccurate and dogmatic. I suspect that they are intentionally so.

I am so flattered to be amongst your enemies--which apparently include Dawkins and everyone who disagrees with you. There's Wowbagger, and Paul and Yatzi and Dr. Kitten, and Dave, and Schneibster and Mercutio-- I feel as if I am in very fine company indeed.

[John Hewitt]

But the DNA codes for the proteins. What then, in your mind, is its purpose?
The junk DNA being discussed here is unexpressed and even genes that are expressed do nothing independently of other genes. I do not consider genes to have a purpose, only properties.

[Wowbagger]

At the risk of being accused of posting a "fluff" post, I just wish to state that I am preparing a response to Mr. Hewitt's paper. It is taking longer than I would like it to have taken, given everything else I am doing (I do have a life outside this forum, you know).

The bottom line is that while some ideas of Hewitt's might be plausible, its ideas and that of the Selfish Gene are not necessarily mutually exclusive. The truth could involve elements from both. And I continue to defend memes and genes-as-replicators as useful ideas.

I am working on a longer, more detailed response. I hope to have it posted by Friday (again, I am doing other things besides this!). Until then, keep the battle going! This has been a great read!

[John Hewitt]

At the risk of being accused of posting a "fluff" post, I just wish to state that I am preparing a response to Mr. Hewitt's paper. It is taking longer than I would like it to have taken, given everything else I am doing (I do have a life outside this forum, you know).

The bottom line is that while some ideas of Hewitt's might be plausible, its ideas and that of the Selfish Gene are not necessarily mutually exclusive. The truth could involve elements from both. And I continue to defend memes and genes-as-replicators as useful ideas.

I am working on a longer, more detailed response. I hope to have it posted by Friday (again, I am doing other things besides this!). Until then, keep the battle going! This has been a great read!
That seems good and I shall look forward to reading it.

[Schneibster]

The junk DNA being discussed here is unexpressed and even genes that are expressed do nothing independently of other genes. I do not consider genes to have a purpose, only properties.Hmmm, well since the conversation is in memetics originally, and we've moved on to genetics, I wasn't under the impression that the discussion was restricted to so-called "junk" DNA. (I don't mean to indicate that there isn't any such thing, but that we don't know what DNA is actually non-functional and what is just doing something we haven't noticed yet, or haven't seen it do yet.)

When I speak of "purpose," what I mean is, its function from the point of view of the cellular functioning that permits the cell to live, and to reproduce. In your view, from that definition of "purpose," what is the purpose of DNA? I will point out that there is a great deal of well-known activity surrounding this molecule, and a great deal of energy spent by the cell in this activity, which if DNA has no functional purpose from the point of view of the cell, is simply wasted- and therefore an evolutionary disadvantage to the cell. I will also point out that ALL cells have DNA, and engage in this activity.

What I am basically asking is, do you accept the central dogma of molecular biology, that DNA is a template, or diagram, or source of information, for the formation of proteins by the cellular machinery? And if not, what mechanism do you propose accomplishes this function?

[John Hewitt]

Hmmm, well since the conversation is in memetics originally, and we've moved on to genetics, I wasn't under the impression that the discussion was restricted to so-called "junk" DNA. (I don't mean to indicate that there isn't any such thing, but that we don't know what DNA is actually non-functional and what is just doing something we haven't noticed yet, or haven't seen it do yet.)

When I speak of "purpose," what I mean is, its function from the point of view of the cellular functioning that permits the cell to live, and to reproduce. In your view, from that definition of "purpose," what is the purpose of DNA? I will point out that there is a great deal of well-known activity surrounding this molecule, and a great deal of energy spent by the cell in this activity, which if DNA has no functional purpose from the point of view of the cell, is simply wasted- and therefore an evolutionary disadvantage to the cell. I will also point out that ALL cells have DNA, and engage in this activity.

What I am basically asking is, do you accept the central dogma of molecular biology, that DNA is a template, or diagram, or source of information, for the formation of proteins by the cellular machinery? And if not, what mechanism do you propose accomplishes this function?
I think the biological function of all this apparently "junk" has to be a matter for debate. Since the emergence of this feature has some links with the emergence of complex multicellular structures I would speculate, with great willingness to be corrected, that it is linked to changes in genome organization that are themselves linked to the emergence of developmental control processes. This whole business of genes copying or being moved around in the genome and creating variability in which genes are activated by development control genes, such as the hox genes.
However, this whole subject is not something I am very familiar with and I am sure that there are better speculations than mine available.

[Schneibster]

I think the biological function of all this apparently "junk" has to be a matter for debate. Since the emergence of this feature has some links with the emergence of complex multicellular structures I would speculate, with great willingness to be corrected, that it is linked to changes in genome organization that are themselves linked to the emergence of developmental control processes. See, here's the thing: I think you've misunderstood the meaning of the term, "junk DNA." This is comprised of, specifically, segments of DNA in the chromosomes which, as far as we know, are never expressed (i.e. a ribosome never comes along and creates a protein from them, and they have no known regulatory function for other sequences). Yet, these sequences are not only duplicated during mitosis, they are even recombined after meiosis and sexual reproduction, despite the fact that they have no apparent function. Some molecular biologists suspect that some of this so-called "junk DNA" actually DOES serve a function. How well this is understood, and to what extent it has been proven or disproven or might still be under discussion and investigation, I have no idea, not being a molecular biologist myself. Nevertheless, I think based merely on the amount of such material (in humans, over 98% of the genetic material) that there do exist genes that serve no functional purpose for the organism, at any stage of its development.

All of this is aside from the point, which is that from the point of view of the gene, an organism is a gene-replication machine. To attribute any sort of purpose other than functionally to a gene is wrong, just as it is for an organism; but the functional purpose of both still remains. This is a point that Dawkins makes most forcefully in The Selfish Gene, and he follows it up with the discussion about memes that has led (eventually) to this very thread. And the fact that "junk DNA" exists, some of which is certainly completely without functional purpose as far as any stage of the DNA's replication, direct or indirect, makes the point that there exists genetic material that is not actually part of the organism's characteristics, but that has merely "come along for the ride" to be replicated by the cellular and organismic machinery. And it is the survival of this material that eventually (according to Dawkins' thesis in the book) provides the raw material for evolution. Note that the ability of this material to "hitch a ride" and remain unexpressed yet be replicated therefore does not provide an advantage to either the organism or the species, but it does provide an advantage to the genes. Similarly, memes do not necessarily provide any functional purpose (and therefore any benefit) for the mind that holds them; nevertheless, they are replicated, and to the extent that they manage to be replicated, they are successful, just as is the case with genes.

The reason for the fact that memetics has come to a hiatus is (IMHO) that the mechanisms that work in the human mind to replicate memes are far less well known than the mechanisms that work in cells to replicate genes. There is no "molecular biology of the mind," if you will. And there is, furthermore, no compelling account of the "evolution of societies," the overarching idea whose counterpart in biology, Darwin's The Origin of the Species and Theory of Evolution By Natural Selection made it clearly apparent that there must be some such replication mechanism involved, and set off the hunt that led Gregor Mendel to his discoveries, and eventually led Crick and Watson to identify the underlying mechanism of DNA. I believe that memetics may provide a "crack in the wall" (or perhaps a better analogy would be "hole in the fence") through which, if cognitive and non-therapeutic psychological researchers would pay a bit more attention, some of the mechanisms could be discerned; whether anyone will actually pay attention enough to develop this looks, at this point, questionable. Nevertheless, I believe that eventually we will discern these underlying mechanisms, and develop this overarching theory, and when we do, we will find memetics waiting patiently for us.

This whole business of genes copying or being moved around in the genome and creating variability in which genes are activated by development control genes, such as the hox genes.I did a bit of research, and it is apparent to me that I don't have enough information to discuss the Hox genes in any detail. I'm also not clear, and I don't think that stems from my lack of knowledge about Hox genes, what point precisely you are trying to make.

However, this whole subject is not something I am very familiar with and I am sure that there are better speculations than mine available.When I see you question evolution, and then state that you know essentially nothing of molecular biology, I have to question whether you actually understand what it is you claim to be skeptical of in the first place. That is not intended as an insult; it is an observation. I think that you should do a great deal more research before you come to enough conclusions to state definitively that you are skeptical of evolution; I believe that, in fact, you do not have enough information at this time to so state. And I argue that this lack of information may also extend to memetics.

[Wowbagger]

Man, I totally did not have any time to work on my response, today! (nor do anything else in this forum) But, I promise to get it out first thing tomorrow! Unless a disaster happens, I will post it by Saturday afternoon.

[Schneibster]

Just for grins, John Hewitt, try reading At Home in the Universe by Stuart Kauffman. A really interesting twist on the "metabolism first" idea, using chaos math.

[John Hewitt]

All of this is aside from the point, which is that from the point of view of the gene, an organism is a gene-replication machine. To attribute any sort of purpose other than functionally to a gene is wrong, just as it is for an organism; but the functional purpose of both still remains. This is a point that Dawkins makes most forcefully in The Selfish Gene, and he follows it up with the discussion about memes that has led (eventually) to this very thread. And the fact that "junk DNA" exists, some of which is certainly completely without functional purpose as far as any stage of the DNA's replication, direct or indirect, makes the point that there exists genetic material that is not actually part of the organism's characteristics, but that has merely "come along for the ride" to be replicated by the cellular and organismic machinery. And it is the survival of this material that eventually (according to Dawkins' thesis in the book) provides the raw material for evolution. Note that the ability of this material to "hitch a ride" and remain unexpressed yet be replicated therefore does not provide an advantage to either the organism or the species, but it does provide an advantage to the genes. Similarly, memes do not necessarily provide any functional purpose (and therefore any benefit) for the mind that holds them; nevertheless, they are replicated, and to the extent that they manage to be replicated, they are successful, just as is the case with genes.

The reason for the fact that memetics has come to a hiatus is (IMHO) that the mechanisms that work in the human mind to replicate memes are far less well known than the mechanisms that work in cells to replicate genes. There is no "molecular biology of the mind," if you will. And there is, furthermore, no compelling account of the "evolution of societies," the overarching idea whose counterpart in biology, Darwin's The Origin of the Species and Theory of Evolution By Natural Selection made it clearly apparent that there must be some such replication mechanism involved, and set off the hunt that led Gregor Mendel to his discoveries, and eventually led Crick and Watson to identify the underlying mechanism of DNA. I believe that memetics may provide a "crack in the wall" (or perhaps a better analogy would be "hole in the fence") through which, if cognitive and non-therapeutic psychological researchers would pay a bit more attention, some of the mechanisms could be discerned; whether anyone will actually pay attention enough to develop this looks, at this point, questionable. Nevertheless, I believe that eventually we will discern these underlying mechanisms, and develop this overarching theory, and when we do, we will find memetics waiting patiently for us.

I did a bit of research, and it is apparent to me that I don't have enough information to discuss the Hox genes in any detail. I'm also not clear, and I don't think that stems from my lack of knowledge about Hox genes, what point precisely you are trying to make.

When I see you question evolution, and then state that you know essentially nothing of molecular biology, I have to question whether you actually understand what it is you claim to be skeptical of in the first place. That is not intended as an insult; it is an observation. I think that you should do a great deal more research before you come to enough conclusions to state definitively that you are skeptical of evolution; I believe that, in fact, you do not have enough information at this time to so state. And I argue that this lack of information may also extend to memetics.
I do not know whether junk DNA serves a direct cellular function or not - I will leave others to speculate on that. I do know that this has nothing to do with whether genes are replicators.

The essence of the point here is that genes do not copy THEMSELVES and are, therefore, not replicators. If a gene or some other piece of DNA happens to be adventitiously associated with the cell as it, the cell, replicates then that adventitiously associated DNA will be copied along with the rest of the cell. My point is simply that cells replicate, not genes.

I have not stated that I know no molecular biology, only that I am not familiar with the details of developmental genetics. If you want details about current views on hox genes or the role of junk DNA, you should seek advice from someone else and not put words into my mouth.

I would further add that I do not understand why you accuse me of challenging evolution. My work is entirely evolutionary, I simply want to see a rational, sensible construction placed on evolutionary theory. That means getting rid of silly ideas like "genes are replicator" or memes are err ... anything.

[Wowbagger]

I generally appreciate well-informed opinions, even those that disagree with my own, provided, of course, that they really seem well-informed.
John Hewitt is one such a person who seems well informed on matters of microbiology, scientific integrity, and information theory, etc. There are many ideas in his paper that seem very plausible to me, (though I am no expert on these matters, myself). However, there are several statements, mostly regarding genes, that seem to demonstrate a lack of understanding in that field. I find his harsh attitude against memetics and selfish gene theory to be unjustified. In fact, the truth could lie somewhere in both his Prebotic Oscillations theory and Selfish Gene theory. They may not necessarily be mutually exclusive.
At the very least, it seems horribly unjustified to refer to memes and genes-as-replicators as "junk", when his understanding of them is flawed, and his own ideas provide no stronger a substitute.

Mr. Hewitt's paper begins on this page, with a "bare bones" description: http://www.sexandphilosophy.co.uk/pe00_prebiotic_index.htm

He develops an alternative evolutionary theory for the origins of life, in which genes do not play a role, but energy oscillations within chemical compounds would. Again, there is no reason to think both can't be right, in certain respects.

My commentary begins with this page, considered to be "Part 1":
http://www.sexandphilosophy.co.uk/pe01_introduction.htm

Nonetheless, the genetic theory of evolution is an incomplete theory.

Three major problems are -

* The concept of "gene" was undefined even in Fisher's time; he treated the gene simply as an atom of evolution. Today, despite our vastly increased understanding of molecular biology and genetic mechanisms, the gene still lacks any adequate and generally accepted definition. This is almost a straw-man-like argument. Modern genetics is not concerned that genes are not "atoms" of evolution. They are more like "ingredients" in a "recipe". Nature selects which variations of recipes will survive. These ingredients can have more than one effect in the recipe, sometimes more than ingredient will share in expressing a single aspect of the recipe.

* There remain some aspects of evolution, even of biological evolution, that cannot be described in terms of population genetics. For example, while genes can be regarded as formatting some of the data on DNA, genes behave differently depending on their chromosomal location. Hence, some of the data on the chromosome, including data about the chromosomal location of genes, is extra-genetic so that genes cannot be treated simply as "atoms of evolution." Doing so leads to an incomplete theory of biological evolution. Well, of course, a sequence of DNA is going to have a different effect depending on where it lands in the strand! This is not a weakness of genetics, but a strength! This is one mechanism by which variation can be generated!

* Even if our understanding of biological evolution were complete, we could not claim a general understanding of evolution since evolutionary thought is applied to several other fields besides biology. It is, for example, applied to the social sciences, epistemology, neurobiology, immunology and in the use of evolutionary algorithms in information technology (IT.) Among all these fields, only biology uses genes to transfer data from generation to generation and it follows that all those other fields fall outside the observational data set from which population genetics grew. In other words, population genetic arguments cannot be properly applied to any of them. Not surprisingly, attempts to shoehorn such fields into a genetic mould have met with limited success.
Mr. Hewitt seems to misunderstand something, here. For evolution to be applied to anything, there must be some aspect of that thing for selection pressures to work off of. In biology, that would be mostly genes. Now, whatever else any system has, that selection pressure could act on, does not have to be called "genes". It could be something else:

In IT, it could be a lot of different things: virtual "genes" (in a bio simulation), state machines, "neurons" in a neural net, etc.

In social sciences, the targets of selection could be thought of as memes.

It is in response to this situation this author has, in recent years, developed bioepistemic evolution, a form of evolutionary theory based on the concept of "data" rather than genes. So, it sounds like you are using "data" as just another word for the target of selection pressures. That does not mean genes can not be an example of "data".

Part 2: http://www.sexandphilosophy.co.uk/pe02_bioepistemic.htm

In addition, many living things contain forms of evolving data that are not present in DNA sequence at all, important examples being sensory and social data. Sensory Data: Well, duh, if that could be passed onto offspring, it would be awfully Lamarckian! (DNA is not obligated to describe anything it does not need to, for its own survival.)
Social Data: This need not rely on genes to carry it, either. Perhaps memes work better?

2.2 The Meaning of "Data" I just want to mention that most of the stuff in this section, and the following sections, is actually pretty good. I do have a few minor comments, but for the sake of brevity, I am leaving them out of this post.

Natural selection is a selective data process but it is fundamentally different in character from those previously mentioned processes. Natural selection is governed by chance and thus draws its free energy supply from the increase in entropy associated with randomizing events. Thus natural selection has only one input which provides both data and power. As will become clear in section 3.2.1, the presence of separate power and data inputs into data process is a mark of previous design, be it adaptive or intelligent design. Natural selection has only one input, which delivers both data and power. First of all "by chance" is a risky phrasing. It leads creationists to say misleading accusations of evolution. It would be more accurate to say "Natural selection is blind to the cares of its targets. It draws the energy it needs, for non-random accumulated changes to occur, from the increase in entropy in its seemingly-chaotic environment.". Or, something like that. But, that is merely a semantic argument.
Second of all, I would not place such assurance that natural selection has only "one input". What if it has multiple inputs, each of which function as both data and power?

2.5.3 Boundaries around Evolving Systems Of course, if your theory is going to focus on boundaries of evolving systems, it would seem intuitive that cell membranes came before anything else. But, I will argue that with a little more imagination, this does not have to be the case.

2.5.4 Note about "Vehicles" and Evolution

Evolutionary theorists (e.g. Dawkins, 1986) sometimes use the term "vehicle" to indicate that an organism essentially functions as a carrier for its own genes, while giving it a meaning that, in some ways, resembles that of a bounded evolving system. However, the author dislikes this word "vehicle," which misses the evolutionary point and connotes little that is accurate about evolving systems. The word "vehicle" implies some kind of mobile machine but evolving systems are not actually machines, do not need to be mobile and do not need to be bounded in physical space. This author prefers the term evolving system to "vehicle." You seem to misunderstand the distinct role "vehicles" play within an evolutionary system. In general biological terms, the word "vehicle" is any part of an evolving system, that is not, itself, the principal replicator (nor directly the target of selection), but merely a tool the replicator would use to survive and get itself replicated.
You can disagree that cells are "vehicles" of genes, and you can use a word other than "vehicle", if you like. But, using the words "evolving system" as a substitute is a poor choice, because the vehicle is only part of that system.
(Then again, this is only a semantic argument.)

Part 3: http://www.sexandphilosophy.co.uk/pe03_prebiot_oscillations.htm
There is very little worth saying about this section, here, other than a few trivial comments. I might as well offer at least one of them:

Mr. Hewitt makes a point that the rising and setting of the sun, is a distinct, "very boring" pattern: 0,1,0,1...
But, he neglects to mention that, from the prebiotic chemical's point of view, this might not always be the case. Some days are brighter than others, so there could be a scale of energy between 1 and 0, during the day. Very cloudy days could "insert" extra "zeros".
This is not a problem for the general idea he is expressing, however. It could still work.
I am merely commenting that the pattern might not necessarily be so utterly "boring".

Part 4: http://www.sexandphilosophy.co.uk/pe04_evolution_oscillations.htm
Here, Mr. Hewitt's theory is further fleshed out. Most of it seems plausible enough. He makes a good case for the evolution of oscillating chemicals, by providing general ideas of how two of them could feed into each other, to form one "circle".
Along the way, describes some ideas for the emergence of enzymes and metabolic cycles.
then

I like this idea, but have yet to see how it conflicts with Selfish Gene theory.

Here are a few possibilities, for how they could work together:

1. Genes and membranes developed independently, but near other, so they could merge, at a very early stage, and become a "circle" of chemical oscillation themselves. (unlikely, but it only had to happen once!)

2. Membranes came first, but once RNA/DNA came into play, they took over as principal replicators, and their membranes became merely their "vehicles". This would only replace the "origins portion" of Selfish Gene Theory, the rest remains pretty much intact.

3. RNA/DNA-like units came first, and their chemical make-up happened to work out a way for membranes to develop around them, in this particular way. Perhaps the enzymes that Mr. Hewitt has catalyzing the construction of membranes are, themselves, the early ancestors or RNA/DNA. As the chemical complexity grew, so did the pressures to develop complex chemical compounds that will survive!

Part 5: http://www.sexandphilosophy.co.uk/pe05_membrane_chemistry.htm
This section goes into more detail about membrane chemistry, and how combinations of water, lipids, and amphiphilic substances can work to create them.
Also very good stuff, but don't have much to say, here.

Part 6: http://www.sexandphilosophy.co.uk/pe06_catalysts_membranes.htm

In part of this section, Mr. Hewitt describes the emergence of various properties of life, form the behavior these membranes need to maintain themselves. Eventually, he says:
This discussion has gone far enough to make a case for "move, feed, grow, reproduce and respond to stimulus," while "excrete" seems to follow. "Breathe" would be irrelevant during prebiosis as it occurred prior to the emergence of an oxygenated atmosphere.
Just one question: Wouldn't "breathe" be just another form of "feed"? One that develops after life starts relying on the atmosphere for components, for sure, but it is not fundamentally different from "feeding".

So, that's my commentary for parts 1 to 6, and I am out of time, for now! I did write commentary for parts 7 to 10. But, since I did not have time to final proof them, I will delay posting them, for a little while. (Part 7 is especially long!) I hope to have it posted by Sunday afternoon.

TO BE CONTINUED...

[Schneibster]

I do not know whether junk DNA serves a direct cellular function or not - I will leave others to speculate on that. I do know that this has nothing to do with whether genes are replicators. And this is my point, which you repeatedly ignore. You use a different definition of "replicator," i.e., "that which is capable of direct self-replication," as opposed to "that which is capable of providing all the information needed to build a system (cell) that can replicate it." By this change in definition, you have erected a straw man argument. In addition, by ignoring the fact that at least some junk DNA has no function in the cell, direct or indirect, you also ignore the fact that that DNA is clearly just "along for the ride," getting copied without providing any phenotypical characteristic that provides an advantage to either the cell or the organism of which it is a part. Yet, this point is essential; it proves that from DNA's point of view, a cell is simply a replication machine for the DNA. You can't get around arguments by ignoring them; you have to face up to them.

The essence of the point here is that genes do not copy THEMSELVES and are, therefore, not replicators. You have, as I said above, redefined "replicator," and this is therefore the premise of a straw-man argument.

If a gene or some other piece of DNA happens to be adventitiously associated with the cell as it, the cell, replicates then that adventitiously associated DNA will be copied along with the rest of the cell. My point is simply that cells replicate, not genes.With the point that cells are replicators, I agree; however, you ignore the role of DNA in that replication. If there can be said to be a "most important piece" of the cell that aids, no, DRIVES, that replication, it is DNA. There is no question; it has been established beyond reasonable doubt. And if the active part of that DNA changes, i.e. mutates, then the phenotype of the cell will change as well. And there is almost no other part of the cell that can change in that manner without killing it.

I have not stated that I know no molecular biology, only that I am not familiar with the details of developmental genetics. If you want details about current views on hox genes or the role of junk DNA, you should seek advice from someone else and not put words into my mouth.I sought nothing. You wrote something unclear, and I misunderstood you. My bad.

I would further add that I do not understand why you accuse me of challenging evolution. Because you said you do.

My work is entirely evolutionary, I simply want to see a rational, sensible construction placed on evolutionary theory. That means getting rid of silly ideas like "genes are replicator" or memes are err ... anything.I don't think you've proven anything; I think you've redefined a term, or perhaps misunderstood that term from the beginning. You apparently do not understand the meaning of "replicator," and you base your arguments on that.

From the content of this post, I begin to suspect that perhaps your views are different from what you have stated (or at least different from what I understood you to state). I believe that it is possible that you have misunderstood the entire argument of The Selfish Gene from the beginning. Your straw-man argument may not be intentional; it may be inadvertent because you do not understand the definition of the term "replicator." I have reviewed your web site briefly, and nothing leaped out at me as being "wrong." We'll see what 'bagger has to say. I think that you misunderstand Dawkins' point, which is not that the replicator idea should REPLACE cellular, organismic, or other types of evolutionary mechanisms, but that it should be ADDED TO them. And if it is, then we have an explanation for how it is that new traits can appear under stress when needed; the DNA that codes for them was ALREADY THERE, at least potentially, waiting in the "junk DNA" for the right opportunity to be expressed. And the evolution of the structure of DNA, at least in life that has a significant amount of it, is not governed by what evolutionary advantage that DNA confers upon the organism, but instead (assuming the organism is minimally fit) by how good that DNA is at getting itself replicated. And this confers advantage not to the organism, or even its species, but TO THE DNA ITSELF, or perhaps even to LIFE itself.

[Dave1001]

I generally appreciate well-informed opinions, even those that disagree with my own, provided, of course, that they really seem well-informed.
John Hewitt is one such a person who seems well informed on matters of microbiology, scientific integrity, and information theory, etc. There are many ideas in his paper that seem very plausible to me, (though I am no expert on these matters, myself). However, there are several statements, mostly regarding genes, that seem to demonstrate a lack of understanding in that field. I find his harsh attitude against memetics and selfish gene theory to be unjustified. In fact, the truth could lie somewhere in both his Prebotic Oscillations theory and Selfish Gene theory. They may not necessarily be mutually exclusive.
At the very least, it seems horribly unjustified to refer to memes and genes-as-replicators as "junk", when his understanding of them is flawed, and his own ideas provide no stronger a substitute.

Mr. Hewitt's paper begins on this page, with a "bare bones" description: http://www.sexandphilosophy.co.uk/pe00_prebiotic_index.htm

He develops an alternative evolutionary theory for the origins of life, in which genes do not play a role, but energy oscillations within chemical compounds would. Again, there is no reason to think both can't be right, in certain respects.

My commentary begins with this page, considered to be "Part 1":
http://www.sexandphilosophy.co.uk/pe01_introduction.htm

This is almost a straw-man-like argument. Modern genetics is not concerned that genes are not "atoms" of evolution. They are more like "ingredients" in a "recipe". Nature selects which variations of recipes will survive. These ingredients can have more than one effect in the recipe, sometimes more than ingredient will share in expressing a single aspect of the recipe.

Well, of course, a sequence of DNA is going to have a different effect depending on where it lands in the strand! This is not a weakness of genetics, but a strength! This is one mechanism by which variation can be generated!


Mr. Hewitt seems to misunderstand something, here. For evolution to be applied to anything, there must be some aspect of that thing for selection pressures to work off of. In biology, that would be mostly genes. Now, whatever else any system has, that selection pressure could act on, does not have to be called "genes". It could be something else:

In IT, it could be a lot of different things: virtual "genes" (in a bio simulation), state machines, "neurons" in a neural net, etc.

In social sciences, the targets of selection could be thought of as memes.

So, it sounds like you are using "data" as just another word for the target of selection pressures. That does not mean genes can not be an example of "data".

Part 2: http://www.sexandphilosophy.co.uk/pe02_bioepistemic.htm

Sensory Data: Well, duh, if that could be passed onto offspring, it would be awfully Lamarckian! (DNA is not obligated to describe anything it does not need to, for its own survival.)
Social Data: This need not rely on genes to carry it, either. Perhaps memes work better?

I just want to mention that most of the stuff in this section, and the following sections, is actually pretty good. I do have a few minor comments, but for the sake of brevity, I am leaving them out of this post.

First of all "by chance" is a risky phrasing. It leads creationists to say misleading accusations of evolution. It would be more accurate to say "Natural selection is blind to the cares of its targets. It draws the energy it needs, for non-random accumulated changes to occur, from the increase in entropy in its seemingly-chaotic environment.". Or, something like that. But, that is merely a semantic argument.
Second of all, I would not place such assurance that natural selection has only "one input". What if it has multiple inputs, each of which function as both data and power?

Of course, if your theory is going to focus on boundaries of evolving systems, it would seem intuitive that cell membranes came before anything else. But, I will argue that with a little more imagination, this does not have to be the case.

You seem to misunderstand the distinct role "vehicles" play within an evolutionary system. In general biological terms, the word "vehicle" is any part of an evolving system, that is not, itself, the principal replicator (nor directly the target of selection), but merely a tool the replicator would use to survive and get itself replicated.
You can disagree that cells are "vehicles" of genes, and you can use a word other than "vehicle", if you like. But, using the words "evolving system" as a substitute is a poor choice, because the vehicle is only part of that system.
(Then again, this is only a semantic argument.)

Part 3: http://www.sexandphilosophy.co.uk/pe03_prebiot_oscillations.htm
There is very little worth saying about this section, here, other than a few trivial comments. I might as well offer at least one of them:

Mr. Hewitt makes a point that the rising and setting of the sun, is a distinct, "very boring" pattern: 0,1,0,1...
But, he neglects to mention that, from the prebiotic chemical's point of view, this might not always be the case. Some days are brighter than others, so there could be a scale of energy between 1 and 0, during the day. Very cloudy days could "insert" extra "zeros".
This is not a problem for the general idea he is expressing, however. It could still work.
I am merely commenting that the pattern might not necessarily be so utterly "boring".

Part 4: http://www.sexandphilosophy.co.uk/pe04_evolution_oscillations.htm
Here, Mr. Hewitt's theory is further fleshed out. Most of it seems plausible enough. He makes a good case for the evolution of oscillating chemicals, by providing general ideas of how two of them could feed into each other, to form one "circle".
Along the way, describes some ideas for the emergence of enzymes and metabolic cycles.
then

I like this idea, but have yet to see how it conflicts with Selfish Gene theory.

Here are a few possibilities, for how they could work together:

1. Genes and membranes developed independently, but near other, so they could merge, at a very early stage, and become a "circle" of chemical oscillation themselves. (unlikely, but it only had to happen once!)

2. Membranes came first, but once RNA/DNA came into play, they took over as principal replicators, and their membranes became merely their "vehicles". This would only replace the "origins portion" of Selfish Gene Theory, the rest remains pretty much intact.

3. RNA/DNA-like units came first, and their chemical make-up happened to work out a way for membranes to develop around them, in this particular way. Perhaps the enzymes that Mr. Hewitt has catalyzing the construction of membranes are, themselves, the early ancestors or RNA/DNA. As the chemical complexity grew, so did the pressures to develop complex chemical compounds that will survive!

Part 5: http://www.sexandphilosophy.co.uk/pe05_membrane_chemistry.htm
This section goes into more detail about membrane chemistry, and how combinations of water, lipids, and amphiphilic substances can work to create them.
Also very good stuff, but don't have much to say, here.

Part 6: http://www.sexandphilosophy.co.uk/pe06_catalysts_membranes.htm

In part of this section, Mr. Hewitt describes the emergence of various properties of life, form the behavior these membranes need to maintain themselves. Eventually, he says:

Just one question: Wouldn't "breathe" be just another form of "feed"? One that develops after life starts relying on the atmosphere for components, for sure, but it is not fundamentally different from "feeding".

So, that's my commentary for parts 1 to 6, and I am out of time, for now! I did write commentary for parts 7 to 10. But, since I did not have time to final proof them, I will delay posting them, for a little while. (Part 7 is especially long!) I hope to have it posted by Sunday afternoon.

TO BE CONTINUED...

Fascinating conversation to observe between Mr. Hewitt and Wowbagger.:)

[John Hewitt]

I generally appreciate well-informed opinions, even those that disagree with my own, provided, of course, that they really seem well-informed.
John Hewitt is one such a person who seems well informed on matters of microbiology, scientific integrity, and information theory, etc. There are many ideas in his paper that seem very plausible to me, (though I am no expert on these matters, myself).

TO BE CONTINUED...

This is just a message to Wowbagger express my thanks for this detailed and carefully considered critique. I may not always agree with you, but constructive criticism is a rare commodity. Any recipient of a critique such as yours owes a debt to the critic and I owe a debt to you.

I will come back, but it will be after christmas, and I hope you will have a good one.

[Wowbagger]

Continuing my commentary from my last post in this thread:

Part 7: http://www.sexandphilosophy.co.uk/pe07_theories_of_prebiosis.htm

Whew boy! Lots to say here! He starts off very nicely, describing the sorts of criteria one ought to use for judging theories of prebiosis (although they are good for other lines of science, as well.) But, then things break down a bit, when he begins to criticize the competition.

In principle, irreducible complexity could provide a criterion to distinguish evolution from design but, although Darwin devised this test, he identified no clear way to determine whether any particular structure is, or is not, irreducibly complex. As a result, one cannot say, beyond all possible doubt whether any one structure is, or is not, evidence of intelligent design and these debates tend to be moot. Well, how about studying each example of "irreducible complexity", until you find a plausible way for it to have evolved?! ID is nothing more than personal incredulity.

In fairness, I should say that, overall, Mr. Hewitt does seem to understand that ID is not a scientifically testable or useable in any way. So, his brain is in the right place. He just gives ID too much credit as a "debate-worthy" idea.

For Silicate Surfaces and "RNA World" theories:
The theory offers no a priori basis for defining the fitness of a defect structure. Rather, fitness is defined, a posteriori, as that structure that will catalyze the formation of a self-replicating RNA molecule. I believe this because this was a theory born out of experimental results. Controlled experiments show hints that such a thing could happen. Whether this is likely to occur in an uncontrolled environment would be the real question.

Offers no indication of how high energy precursors for RNA synthesis might be produced and selected from the primordial soup or the nature of the energy source that produces these precursors.

Does not indicate why other molecules from the soup do not adsorb onto the bare catalytic surface of this defect structure and poison its catalytic activity. These are things that are not impossible. They merely have yet to be worked out completely, and may have already been worked out, to some partial degree.
(Although, most of the "working out" has been done in computer simulations, as far as I can tell. So, who knows if reality is like that?)

Fails in one of its main claims of explaining how the reagents might be kept together, why the small molecular weight components in the prebiotic mixture do not simply diffuse apart. If surface binding were really so tight as to prevent this diffusion then, by the same token, it is likely that lateral diffusion would also slow down and slow the reaction. "Fails" is a strong word. Plausible explanations have been thought out. Though, no one is sure which one is the right one. From your wording, it makes it sound as if no one has any idea how these things could possibly work!

Finally, since the products of RNA synthesis are postulated to be large molecules, they should be held to the surface by multiple bonds which, in their totality, would be stronger than those which hold small molecules onto the surface. Hence, it is hard to see how a large RNA molecule could ever emerge from the rocky surface, let alone become an independent replicator floating free in solution. I don't think the theory postulates this. I think it postulates a "scaffolding" that would bring smaller bits together into large bits, but all in a process of cumulative evolution. To think that RNA molecules could emerge from a rocky surface, in one sudden get-go is no better than ID, and thankfully, that is not what the RNA-World theorists think!

It is very hard to see how the silicate component of such an organism, with the correct defect structure, would have been replicated. Moreover, if small pieces of silicate were really part of some protocellular genetic apparatus, then those small pieces might be expected to have survived fossilization and be observable in the fossil record. There is no reported evidence for them. No archaic silico-organic organism has ever been found and many species are known that do not seem to need silicon at all, even as a trace element. (Though humans may require silicon in that role.) Some of this is valid criticism. There is no observable evidence in the fossil record, and no "silico-organic organisms" exist, today. All we have are some hints found in some controlled experiments.

Finally, one notes that many of the above arguments can be applied not just to RNA but to the formation of any large biopolymer at a silicate surface. Hence, this author finds it hard to justify the silicate surface theory. It is undeniable arguable that any reactions catalyzed at such surfaces would have been factors in producing the primordial soup but it seems unlikely that early cells were made there. Maybe they moved. You have early-part-silicon-RNA-ancestors falling off, into puddles of other stuff, or something, where some of them developed membranes around themselves. And the ones that could form membranes were selected for survival.

... interprets its own data content but one should note that proteins also do this. Ah, but the difference is that RNA happened to take on a higher role in becoming the inheritable target of selection pressures.

First, RNA is chemically labile and, unless protected by a protein coat, it breaks down much more easily than does either DNA or protein. It is hard to see how an RNA world would have survived the depredations of random chemical events and yet been stable enough for the process of evolution to be maintained. So, here is another opportunity for examining ways to combine various theories. Perhaps the experimental data that supports both RNA-World and Prebiotic-Oscillations could both happen in an uncontrolled environment, and sometimes occurred together, in some form or order. Early RNA that did not form membranes did have these problems, and were not selected for survival. Perhaps the enzymes that catalyzed or otherwise induced the formation of lipid membranes are, themselves, that early form of RNA.

Second, at the heart of the RNA world theory, there is a special entity, an extraordinary RNA molecule or replicator ribozyme complex that is stable enough to survive in a hostile environment, able to catalyze its own replication and able to catalytically copy other RNA molecules. This special RNA molecule cannot have emerged by selective adaptation but still needs to have some remarkable properties. The whole theory hinges on the idea that this specially "fit" RNA will emerge by chance synthesis, possibly on a silicate template. It must be synthesized de novo and immediately possess all the catalytic activities needed to copy both itself and other RNA molecules. Subsequently, it must have lost this capacity because, even under laboratory conditions, no current RNA molecule is able to do these things. This would be a valid criticism, if scientists actually believed this! If, they did, the whole RNA-world would be no better than ID. Thankfully, they speculate otherwise! They would say that many variations arose, at various times, in various different cumulative ways. The "winner" happened to be the one to copy most effectively, and also offer a good opportunity for variation, at the same time.
Remember: Variation opportunity has to be "balanced" to a certain degree: Too little, and the unit can not adapt to changing environments. Too much, and you lose copy-fidelity and other such things.
This balance only needs to be "perfect" in comparison to the competition. It need not be optimal to any mathematical law we favor.
I would even say that RNA world provides a better opportunity for this balance to emerge, than a pure oscillation theory. So, again, maybe elements from both are needed.

Fourth, the RNA world theory does not address, let alone solve, the bounding problem...
it is very hard to see how this special RNA molecule could marshal all these small molecular weight substrates and energy sources needed for its catalytic role. First of all, that is a lack of imagination. Second of all, it is a non-problem: Evolving systems do not necessarily need physical boundaries built around them. Evolution could begin without them. But, those that do form them, are more likely to be selected for continued survival. There is no reason to think evolving systems can not begin within a mish-mash of mixed-up chemical bits.
In fact, some experiments demonstrate how organic compounds could "spontaneously*" generate, and even begin alter themselves, in a vat of inorganic compounds.
(*I use the word "spontaneously" a little facetiously here. In reality, scientists have a solid understanding of what is going on in the flask, to cause these chemicals to form.)

The idea of a replicator is closely related to the RNA world and to the special ribozyme described in the previous section but the idea of a primordial replicator has roots in general evolutionary theorizing rather than in discussions of prebiosis. In fact, the idea of a replicator arises from a basic error in modern evolutionary theory and from the need to merge two different but closely related strands of biological science - Darwinism and genetics.

In Darwin's original conception, the theory of natural selection depends upon the ability of whole organisms to reproduce or replicate. The theory considers the degree of success, the fitness, of a whole organism in replicating or reproducing itself. Fitness is simply a measure of the ability to produce succeeding generations.Emphasis added.

The need for a replicator arises from the basic fact that life replicates!!! What kind of silly nonsense is this, about an "error" in the need to merge to ideas?!

Perhaps you are missing a key point. Selection (natural or otherwise) need something to select from! That something could be considered a replicator, if that something happens to replicate!!!

Genes are the driving force of replication, and also the source of inherited traits, and therefore the principal target of selection. No one came up with the idea for a replicator, after realizing Darwin's concept of organisms as the smallest reproducer was flawed, in light of genetics. That is fiction. What we realized is that genes could be thought of as a replicator, themselves, after demonstrating the necessary properties.

Genes do not self-replicate, they are copied, along with the rest of the cell or the organism as it replicates. Yes, they do. Transposons are one example: Some genes express the necessary phenotypes to get themselves copied into multiple places at once.

For example, Dawkins' well-known work, The Selfish Gene, explicitly sets out to reduce all evolutionary theorizing to its fundamental unit which is, supposedly, the gene. The error in this argument is that genes are not fundamental to evolution, only to biology, and this error becomes significant whenever the evolutionary process under study does not primarily involve genetic data. I already discussed this, a bit. But, to reiterate:
Selection pressures are fundamental to evolution. And, it has been worked out quite conclusively, that genes are the fundamental target of selection pressures in reproducing life forms. Therefore, the gene has every right to be fundamental to biological evolution, and not necessarily other forms of evolution. Other forms of evolution have other ways selection selects from them.

Prebiosis is one of the places where these errors become manifest, with the widely known claim that all evolution must involves replicators, which is incorrect, and that genes somehow emerged from primordial replicators, which they almost certainly did not. Maybe some systems, such as prebiotic evolution, do not need replicators: they can evolve "in place". But, once a replicator of some sort (you know, defined as something that simply replicates itself!) emerges, it is almost impossible for such systems to not evolve. In fact, the evolution becomes only more apparent over successive generations.
If you disagree that genes are replicators, you have to explain why they can copy themselves faster than their cell can copy itself? In other words, you have to explain the existence of "junk" DNA and transposons, using an idea where the gene is not actually creating more copies of itself. Good luck with that.

There is no more evidence for the notion of genes as replicators than there is for the idea that God created the heavens and the earth.Now, this line I find particularly insulting.

Here are several good reasons why Genes-as-Replicators is a better idea than God-Created-Heaven-And Earth:
1. Genes demonstrate the 3 important properties all replicators must show well: Longevity, Fecundity, and Copy-Fidelity.

2. Transposons. You may think the cell is making them. But, look again: it is the genes directing what is going on.

3. Other forms of "junk" DNA seems to copy faster, inside a cell, than the cell itself.

4. You are the replication of your parents: Your genes replicated from your parents' genes.

5. It is easier to see how genes can be selected for forming cells, than it is for dividable cell membranes to evolve genes. (Although, this is debatable, I guess.)

6. Cells will not induce their own replication after its DNA is removed. However, if you remove almost anything else from a cell, it can still induce its own replication (with varying degrees of success).

7. Mitochondria: They can reproduce independently inside a cell. And, guess what: They have their own DNA to that with! (This DNA may be vestigial: left over from when the mitochondria was, itself, an independent life form. It may have stayed in the cell, as an act of mutually beneficial symbiosis.)

8. At least we know genes exist. We can not test for the existence of God.

So, it is possible for in-place transformations to be considered evolution. But, generally speaking, in Biological Evolution, something needs to replicate (produce offspring). Whether that replicator is a gene, a cell, or whatever, is debatable. But, to say that the idea of a replicator is flawed, is nuts!! And, it demonstrates your misunderstanding of basic biological concepts. Saying replicators are not necessary for evolution, is like saying you can do math without numbers. Replicators are favored by selection, because they open opportunities for variation and fecundity. If a life form does not replicate, it stagnates, and may not survive changes in the environment.

By the way, even if genes were not the original replicators, even if membranes came first, and somehow generated genes, then that would only invalidate the "origins" portion of Selfish Gene theory, not the whole thing. Once genes arrived on the scene, they became the fundamental unit of selection, and they do seem quite "selfish", today.

7.2.7 Undersea Vents
So, this whole section is really just a change in location. Not a new theory. So, there is nothing more to say, here.

For example, Copley, Smith and Morowitz (2005) have argued that the early code was based on a two base pair codon, basing their arguments on the pattern of amino acid biosynthesis. This whole discussion is a major topic that cannot be pursued within the bounds of this study.
Actually, other numbers of base pairs, from 2 to many numbers higher, may have emerged. But, four was selected as "optimal" at some very early stage. And, now we seem to be stuck with it.

The arguments for DNA arising before RNA are, first, DNA is chemically more stable than RNA, which would give it survival value in the prebiotic soup, second, DNA makes use of only four bases whereas RNA adds several minor bases and, third, under unusual conditions, single stranded DNA can serve as a template for protein synthesis, giving it potential to both self-copy and to direct protein synthesis. Weak arguments. The fact that DNA is more stable means it is less likely to emerge from uncontrolled chemistry, first. The fact that RNA has several minor bases could also mean it is more primitive (although, this does not prove the point). And, finally, who says early RNA could not also direct protein synthesis, in a similar manner than DNA?

The next stage in the development of this discussion would be to address the origin of the genetic code that converts the data of nucleic acid sequence to that of protein sequence. Such a study would be of value but this would be a large undertaking and it seems most natural to stop this discussion here.
I recommend you develop some ways to go about producing these studies. If you want your theory to compete with the ones all ready well-developed, you are going to need all the details you can get!

Continued in my next post:

[Wowbagger]

Continuing my commentary, started from my Part A post, in this thread:

Part 8: http://www.sexandphilosophy.co.uk/pe08_bioepistemic_interpretation.htm
Actually, since this section is just a review of other parts, it makes many of the same mistakes, so I am not going to bother repeating myself, here.

Part 9: http://www.sexandphilosophy.co.uk/pe09_axioms_of_evolution.htm

The result is that evolution has become a de facto theory of origin, even though neither the theory itself, nor the facts that Darwin adduces, really speak to that issue So, Darwin demonstrates that life forms have evolved, and are continuing to evolve, via facts from intense field research, and somehow all of this still does not "speak to the issue"?
I would say that Evolution is the de facto theory of origin, because no other theory explains the evidence to such a refined manner.

In truth there are grounds to doubt evolution as a theory of origin. The theory it is not well-evidenced and many of the mechanisms suggested for the early evolutionary process are chemically absurd. Do you really mean this? If you think evolution is doubtful, then you provide a viable scientific alternative!

Religious ideas are usually untestable and the lack of good supportive evidence for intelligent design may stem from its inability to make testable predictions. In that sense, ID is a poor scientific theory but, nonetheless, this author feels more sympathy toward the ID movement than might be expected. As a theory of origins, most articulations of evolutionary theory palpably suffer from many of the same failings as does the ID.(Emphasis added.)

<sarcasm>
Oh, I get it! So, the statement "God did it" is somehow the same failing evolution suffers, when it says "cumulative adaptation has been carefully documented, in several places, from the microscope, to whole herds of animals"! Well, how about that! You learn something new, every day!
</sarcasm>

...it seems to me, the sole argument for the superiority of rationalism is that it provides a better source of reliable knowledge than does faith. And, yet, you still think evolution and ID suffer the same failings. Hmm...

The result is that, far too often, advocates of intelligent design make fair points when they criticize evolutionary theory and accuse scientists of following an "evolutionary faith." Well, scientists are human, and many take faith in evolution or their other pet theories, too seriously. But, ultimately, you can not argue with results! If you compare how often evolution has been shown to work, versus Intelligent Design, the score is a billion to zero, in evolution's favor!

First, says Johnson, evolutionary theory gives tautological definitions and, in part at least, he is right – a "fit" species will reproduce, where "fitness" is defined as survival to reproduce. It does sound circular, when phrased this way. But, we can take care of that, by saying: "Those species the reproduce the most, clearly had what it takes to do such a thing, in their current environment. As the environment changes, what is necessary to reproduce the most changes. Furthermore, as genetic drift takes place, there are new things to select from."
It is long winded, but not circular nor tautological.

A more important and related criticism is that evolutionary theory fails to provide definitions of many of its key terms that are rooted in something more than folklore; concepts such as gene, species and organism, for example. Reminds me of a gag from The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy (paraphrased here, not original wording): Population of the Universe: Zero. Any finite number, when compared to infinity is as close to zero, as makes no odds. And, therefore, any people you see along the way are merely the products of a deranged imagination.

So, you heard it here, first! John Hewitt thinks all organisms are folklore! Maybe someone should remind him that he is an organism, who is presumably a member of the human species, and that he has inherited the genes from his parents. I doubt it will work, but we could try.

Second, argues Johnson, evolutionary theory is vacuous, and can never make testable predictions because it is consistent with virtually any observation. Despite the contrary protestations of the scientific community, this is largely right - conventional expressions of evolutionary theory are largely vacuous. I see, so the predicted existence of transitional fossils, which were found in rock of the right age, does not count? Neither, I suppose, did the prediction of how bacteria will develop a resistance to poisons? Nor any of the other dozens of examples of predictions made, in medical research, that helped develop treatments for various things?!

Third, says Johnson, evolutionary theory has no deductive power and, again, the charge is fair. Evolutionary theorists cannot predict the pathway down which any one species will evolve and, even if they could, they could not wait around for their predictions to be tested by practice. This is because it is an application of Chaos (or Complexity) Theory: There are simply too many factors involved in making precise predictions. It is like predicting the weather. This is not a failing of evolutionary theory! Merely a failing of our ability to grasp massive amounts of inputs and outputs.
But, general predictions can be made: Polar bears that develop adaptations for swimming longer distances will more likely survive global warming, than those that do not. Exactly how those adaptations are going to come about, it up in the air. But, the general prediction is probably going to work.

This next paragraph, is such a dozy, I decided to break it up:

Evolutionary theory rarely guides us in finding anything new, But, at least we do find new stuff using it, sometimes, is what you are saying.

fails to tell us what we do not expect to find, I thought you said evolution can not make predictions?! If we deduce what we are going to find, and actually find it, wouldn't that verify evolution?
What, exactly, do you mean by this statement?

does not account for otherwise unexpected observations What observations? So far, every aspect of living entities that an evolutionary explanation was search for, has succeeded in finding one. What are you referring to here?

and does not suggest experiments that might lead to the kind of surprising results that would compel acceptance of the theory. You should study cancer. Lots of surprising results emerging from its evolution!

Moving along...
If evolution is not a theory of origin why, exactly, do scientists become so concerned about creation science or intelligent design? Because Intelligent Design is not science. I think that's the reason.

The episode shows that science needs to decide, is evolution a theory of biology, concerned purely with the processes that change and reshape the properties of organisms that have already been created, or is evolution also a theory for the origin of life? Evolution is an algorithm: it was an algorithm at work in the origin of life (of which there are several viable theories), and it continues to work today, and will forever into the future. Does that answer the question?

It cannot be overstressed that genetics and genes can never be the basis for an evolutionary theory of the origins of biology. Are you sure?

More than any other objects, it is genes, cells and organisms that give the appearance of irreducible complexity and one should not cite any object that appears so complex within the axioms of any serious evolutionary theory of biological origin.
It is worth reiterating, here, that Selfish Gene theory does not presume genes popped out of nowhere! They are the result of cumulative adaptation, just like everything else in life. The theory merely states that once established, the role of genes became that of the fundamental units of natural selection targets.

To say that genes are "irreducibly complex", if it were true, would toss your own theory down the drain, as well. You can not escape the fact that genes (or the DNA strands that make them) exist, so your origins theory has to account for their evolution, as well. If it does not, you might well become a full-on ID advocate.

9.3 The Intelligent Design of Evolutionary Theory
You have such a way with words!

However, an evolutionary theory of origins can, and in fact must, incorporate a process of design that will produce the first accumulating design pool that will feed that design from the first to subsequent generations. It is the task of the theoretician to identify that process and to do so using axioms that come only from chemistry and physics. Such as thing is called "Bootstrapping". Look it up, for its applications in evolution.

Part 10: http://www.sexandphilosophy.co.uk/pe10_discussion_conclusions.htm

When compared with other theories of prebiosis, the theory of prebiotic oscillations is unusual for its detail and the number of steps that can be incorporated into its development. What detail? Your general idea may be good. But, you've hardly offered any details into the precise make-up and inner workings of these chemical oscillations. Do you have detailed data available?

Other theories of prebiosis begin with biology and work their way backwards, creating elaborate assumptions in their attempts to squeeze biological concepts into a chemical, physical or IT moulds. The theory of prebiotic oscillations is better and more parsimonious because it works the other way round; it begins with chemistry, physics or IT and identifies selective processes and evolution occurring within purely chemical mixtures. Thus it is, conceptually, a physico-chemical theory of evolution that works its way forward toward biology. Did it ever occur to you that, maybe, those other theories were developed that way out of the need to have experimental data?

Well, anyway, that's all there is for now! I could write even more detailed commentary than this. (In fact, I might! If I do, it will be posted on my own web site, not this forum.) But, there is just so much I can write for one forum thread!

I won't bother commenting on the last two sections, which is references and summaries, at this point in time.

Sorry it took so long, but I hope it was worth it.

[articulett]

That was fantastic Wowbagger--I know it will not mean much to him but you told him exactly what he needs to know if every wants any peer reviewed scientist to listen to him. Scientists care about Intelligent Design, because believers want to teach it as science--but, thankfully, In the Dover case, the judge saw through the "breathtaking inanity"--and understood it was a faith based claim--it merits not a mention in science. It has no data supporting it.

Darwin never even knew about DNA--any person can now look at a human genome and a chimpanzee genome and literally SEE FOR THEMSELVES what the changes are. Darwin predicted we shared a common ancestor--that all life on earth does--and that has been proven in spades with everything we look at with the advent of molecular genetics. His theory told us where to look for these magical "units of information" passed in the gametes. And we found them--they look just as Watson and Crick (and Rosalind) described! That is predictive value. We can tell a persons paternity with unprecedented accuracy--that is predictive value. We can tell how closely related two species are and estimate how far back in town they shared an ancestor and what that ancestor is--that is predictive! And we can see forms of life that are inbetween living and not living--and that just illustrates that life is a continuum--there's no need for an intelligent designer in any part of the process.

Evolution is a meme that explains way more and furthers human understanding way better than any supernatural explanation ever did. Evolution is a meme. So is intelligent design. The former works in so many areas--the latter seems to work only in the minds of the faithful.

John Hewitt is using his intelligence to convince himself and others that evolution isn't true--and that abiogenesis can't be true-- But that would be similar to arguing that the earth wasn't spherical after increasing evidence began to show it was. What would you do to try and convince a flat earther of their errors? What if they responded like John? No scientist will pause their lives forever to try and prove anything to those who have a vested interest in "belief"--to those who think some "belief" is necessary for their salvation.

John, we hope you won't waste your life forever on theories without any facts behind them...we hope that kids aren't infected with these memes that make actual knowledge harder to obtain...we care that you are trying to put this crap in our kids' head--but otherwise we take it as seriously as we take the astrology meme. You have got to quit lying to yourself and others about the strength of your theory, the interest of scientists, and the ever increasing evidence confirming evolution. It's dishonest. Even if you really really think that it's not. Wow bagger summed it up pretty clearly. At least get your knowledge base up to date.

[Schneibster]

I could not have said it better myself, articulett, and I've been trying for a couple weeks.

[Wowbagger]

My response to Hewitt's paper could easily have been longer. If he requests an even more detailed edition, I might be able to prepare one within a couple of weeks. But, I think the gist of it is sufficient, for now, in what I wrote so far.

[articulett]

I could not have said it better myself, articulett, and I've been trying for a couple weeks.

And I think you have been doing a great job as well. (And Hewitt has made it clear he doesn't read me, so I'm glad to know someone else is.) I really am impressed with the careful time people are taking to help others understand what is known and what isn't and where they are misinterpreting information. Because it helps me fill in gaps in knowledge and helps me understand when someone is just spouting nonsense with high hifalutin words that may sound impressive--but mean nothing.

I know he won't or can't thank anyone for the time they have taken on his behalf--nor will he realize what a gift Wowbagger's analysis is, but it was easy to follow and you did a fairly thorough job in pointing out where his claims were particularly weak. And I suspect he may be too set on his beliefs to understand much, but I think others might stumble upon this thread and learn something valuable.

Saying that memes aren't anything useful is like saying "themes" aren't useful because they can't be proven to exist. It's missing the point entirely. And though it's honest to say that evolution can't explain everything--it's dishonest to even imply that Intelligent Design explains anything at all. The evidence in support of evolution is so friggin enormous and amazing that you have to really force yourself to be ignorant to pretend that it's still being debated among serious scientists. Evolution is as true as the earth is spherical, and there is NO data to support ANY alternate theory--The things we discover are exactly what we'd expect to be discovering if evolution is true--what could we even begin to look for if someone designed it? A lack of waste--well, the fact that a man makes over 250 billion sperm in a lifetime negates that doesn't it? The gazillion potential lives that become nothing negate that theory. A lack of suffering and cruelty in nature?--nope...there is no shortage of that. Irreducible complexity--if there was actually something that came about that couldn't have evolved that might suggest a designer--but there isn't. Not the eye nor the flagellum nor the blood cascade. And we've proven it. We've gone in and looked at the DNA and looked at various expressions of it and we figured out how such things can and do evolve. But the proof was there even before we ever knew about DNA. And they evolve away when they are no longer useful just like the eyes of naked mole rats disappeared when evolution made their eyes an unnecessary liability to underground living. We've also proven that there are remnants of no longer used ancestral DNA in all life forms--humans have inactive genes in their junk DNA that is active in our Chimpanzee cousins.

This is really exciting information. No one could have known this before. And there are people so eager to share this information--to show others exactly how we've come to know it--and yet the faith meme leaps up to stifle understanding and obfuscate knowledge to promote more faith...all the while telling the vector of that meme (in this case Hewitt) that ignorance on the topic is good--searching for the truth you want is noble....memes don't exist.

Irony.

If John can discover the tools for breaking this belief that "faith is good"--if he could see his way out of his biases--he could really benefit humanity. Think of how many uses we could find for that bit of wisdom. What is the key to free someone from brainwashing? from a cult? --propaganda? --indoctrination? --belief in invisible task masters? We could use it to free the North Koreans from the notions inflicted upon them and all who are taught that we are their enemies--if only John or Kleinman would show us that it can be done--and how.

It's like telling the Amish that technology won't lead them to hell, I guess. You feel like there is so much to offer--but you will be insulted and considered a "tempter" every time you try to broach the topic.

[John Hewitt]

I generally appreciate well-informed opinions, even those that disagree with my own, provided, of course, that they really seem well-informed.


John Hewitt’s reply to Wowbagger.

Having a little time after Christmas, I now feel able to reply to Wowbagger's posting. This reply will largely be to his first posting, which is the only one that directly concerns my work on prebiotic oscillations. Later I shall reply to his response to my own critique of conventional views on evolutionary theory. However, in response to Wowbagger's suggestion that he might post his opinions elsewhere I can only say that my work is intended to be a public document. Within normal parameters, I am happy for you to post what you like wherever you like.

I, for my part do appreciate considered commentary from someone who has read and has thought about my work, which you (and here I address Wowbagger) have clearly done. I disagree with a number of your comments but that does not imply that I do not regard them as valuable. I certainly have every intention of using them during further revisions of this study and would value the more extensive notes to which you refer. (You should note, however, that I will not acknowledge your contribution under the name of Wowbagger; if you want an acknowledgement your comments I require proper identification.)

I do not know your background but I am uneasy about some of your comments and I think you know little chemistry or molecular biology. For example, you confuse the number of bases in a codon, which is three, with four, the number of bases in the genetic code’s alphabet. Further, you do not seem to understand the chemical difficulties inherent in some of your later comments, blithely suggesting that genes might wrap themselves in lipids, rather than acknowledging that such an outcome must evolve and that you need to suggest the selective mechanisms that could produce such an outcome. In addition, you seem to me too enamoured of your own perceptions, which you, sometimes incorrectly, perceive to be the conventional wisdom. You seem, in essence, unwilling to think through or even countenance any criticism of your current position.

I am uneasy about that reluctance, especially as you do not acknowledge even some fairly obvious corrections to your own claims – such as your incorrect claim that transposons are replicating genes. Will you please stop conflating events that are separated in time by 3 billion years. The fact is that no modern gene replicates - even Dawkins accepts that - and there is no evidence at all that any gene was ever a replicator. In any event, science should always defer to empirical fact and it is a fact that genes don’t copy themselves, they are not currently replicators and there is no evidence that they ever were. You should stop saying that they are, or that they ever were.

So, I read your comments with that proviso and retain some doubts about the weight to attach to your comments.

Contrary to your claim, I do not take a harsh a view of genetics, I see it as an empirically well founded science but I do not see it as a fundamental science. I feel it should be applied only across the range of its empirical applicability. My problem is that genetics is often treated if it were the fundamental science of evolution and, logically, I do not think it should have such a status. I do argue that my ideas of bioepistemic evolution - evolution based on data - is the most fundamental description of evolution yet offered and is compatible with genetics. Thus genetics should be seen as a special case of a more general evolutionary theory – bioepistemic evolution.

I do take a harsh view of memes. In my opinion, memetics possesses neither a body of empirical data to be systematised nor a theoretical foundation. I simply cannot see any merit in such work at all – except, perhaps for an ability to generate large volumes of pseudoexplanatory verbiage.

I am glad that you acknowledge that my work on prebiosis may be correct. I agree with you, but I would have liked more of your commentary to be directed toward a criticism of the original content of that work. You didn't really need to read the later files to know my opinion of genes as replicators or of memes.

You seem to suggest a compromise, that both genes (as replicators) and oscillations may be correct and that they could serve as parallel foundations of early evolution. I disagree and would never countenance attempts at such a merger. My approach, the evolutionary emergence of life from prebiotic oscillations is very parsimonious – its basic assumptions are not open to serious challenge, they are just simple chemistry. By contrast, the idea that genes were once replicators is basically ridiculous, and drips with improbable, not to say impossible, postulates and implications. Trying to compromise by merging that idea with the theory of prebiotic oscillations would eradicate the parsimony that is one of the main attractions of my work.

"Modern genetics" may say that it is not concerned that genes are not atoms of evolution but that is immaterial. The historic fact is that Fisher developed population genetics from analyses inspired by statistical mechanics, which assumed that genes were atoms of evolution. Population genetics is still used today whenever theoreticians reduce an evolutionary issue to "fundamental" genes and the assumption of atomicity is still there. At any such time, that erroneous assumption of atomicity might rear its head and become a problem. It is certainly true that one could write population genetic equations in which the properties of genes are variables, but doing so would seriously weaken the resulting calculations – if everything is a variable, you have no theory.

Evolution, as you acknowledges, is applied to several fields besides biology but you seem to be claiming that there is some reason for treating biology as a prototype of all evolutions. I can see no such reason. One does want a common description of all these fields but it cannot be correct to just choose biology because it was the first evolution discovered and then claim that all evolutions must be like biology. Rather, the better way of finding a general theory of evolution it is to ask what factor all those fields must have in common. Then, one can then hope to base a general evolutionary theory on that common factor. I argue that the factor they all have in common is data and therefore use data as the basis for bioepistemic evolution. In its turn, it was bioepistemic evolution and the fact that the earth is subject to a high powered data flux from the sun, that led me to the theory of prebiotic oscillations. In other words, my work has a logical foundation in evolutionary analysis. By contrast, Dawkins’ notion that genes are the offspring of primordial replicators is a more or less random suggestion.

Contrary to your misunderstanding, I do accept that, in all forms of evolution, "something" must evolve but that something is not an object, except in the IT sense of that word, it is a data pattern. Hence I assert that, during biological evolution it is the data pattern in DNA, not DNA itself, which evolves. Where other forms of evolution arise, they reflect the evolution of other data patterns. As you say, those data patterns could arise in many ways, but that means there is no reason to suppose these other evolving data patterns need to be analogous to the data patterns that are genes. Thus, social data patterns do not need to be analogous to genetic data patterns except in being data patterns. I did not assert that genes do not contain data, that is ridiculous, I assert that genes format some of the data on DNA but I also assert that it is the data on DNA, not the gene that matters in evolution. However, I think this whole question deserves a more extended discussion.

Please do not "Duh" me, especially when you don't know the field in question. Sensory data is processed in the brain (usually) which is presently theorized to be a Darwinian machine. In other words, sensory data is thought to be subject to evolution within an organism. (See Gerald Edelman or Henry Plotkin.)

"Social Data: This need not rely on genes to carry it, either. Perhaps memes work better?" I do not assert that social data is carried by genes, I assert that social learning involves data communications within social groups. Social data is carried by within group communication and social learning. Memes are undefined and do not belong in any theory. You should define entities before using them in scientific theories – and so should Dawkins.

I agree that natural selection mechanisms can have more than one data/power input but I do not think that alters my argument in any material way.

"2.5.3 Boundaries around Evolving Systems
Of course, if your theory is going to focus on boundaries of evolving systems, it would seem intuitive that cell membranes came before anything else. But, I will argue that with a little more imagination, this does not have to be the case."

My theory, as I repeatedly say, is focused on data not boundaries. However, it is true that much of my thinking about evolution concerns boundaries, and self-bounding mechanisms. This is because the whole issue of the boundaries around evolving systems is an important and virtually unexplored aspect of evolutionary theory. An organism is often an object and an object must be delineated, bounded in some way, if it is to compete with other objects. Evolution does not work without identifiable objects to compete with one another and identifiable attributes on which to base selection. Hence, bounding and attribute generation are plainly vital to this aspect of evolution. Genes, you will note, are self-bounding objects (bounded by the need for functionality in the protein, but memes, being undefined, have no obvious boundary or self-bounding mechanism.

I use the phrase "evolving system" not merely as a random substitution for organism, which vehicle is, but to emphasise that organisms are systems in the IT sense of that word and are usefully described in terms of their data inputs, the data processes occurring within them and their data outputs. In addition, there are other evolving systems besides organisms. I cannot see value in using the word "vehicle" instead of organism. The primary aim of that substitution is to enable the pretence that organisms do nothing but carry genes around, which I regard as untrue. It is organisms, not genes, that are fit or unfit and that are ultimately subject to selection.

The mechanism of evolution by selection of prebiotic oscillations would not work unless the sun's cycle were regular – in other words boring, but I shall probably remove that word.

Section 4
Most observers take a "one or the other but not both simultaneously" approach to prebiosis. Either data carrying molecules evolved first or metabolism evolved first. I agree with their approach and my mechanism is a metabolism first theory – I don't think data carrying molecules would have arisen before phenotypes existed to be described by data. Thus, I think phenotype came before genotype. You are, apparently, motivated to keep Dawkins' "genes as replicators" approach but I see no point trying to preserve something I find to be indefensible. The idea of genes as primordial replicators is just a speculation, a random, unparsimonious hypothesis, unlinked to genetics as a biological science or to chemistry or physics as foundation sciences.

The sequence "move, breathe, feed, grow, excrete, reproduce and respond to stimuli" comes from my school biology classes. These are, I was told, the defining characteristics of life. There is a difference between breathe and feed but in fact breathe is not a general aspect of life - anaerobes don't breathe, even though they do feed. I borrowed the other six criteria to compare with the hypothetical protocells that I describe.

Insofar as those hypothetical protocells meet those criteria you could regard them as alive. On that basis, I assert that life, life defined by its ability to move, feed, grow, excrete, reproduce and respond to stimuli, could have emerged, by the evolution of prebiotic oscillations, from the primordial soup. That life would initially have contained no DNA, no genes and no genetic apparatus.

But it would have contained an energy metabolism, presumably involving nucleotides, and thus a supply of precursors for nucleic acid synthesis that would create the potential for data carrying nucleic acids to emerge via further evolution. In other words, such protocells would have solved virtually all the dilemmas that lead us to feel that the emergence of life is so improbable. They would have provided us with an excellent environment within which a genome and a genetic apparatus could have emerged. Exactly why and how such an apparatus might have emerged by evolutionary selection is another topic.

[Wowbagger]

in response to Wowbagger's suggestion that he might post his opinions elsewhere I can only say that my work is intended to be a public document. Within normal parameters, I am happy for you to post what you like wherever you like.Thanks. It is a matter of priorities, though. I may simply decide the more-detailed write-up is simply not worth my time. But, if I do write up such a thing, I will give you a copy, before I post it, anyway. Just in case you find a valid criticism in it, (although that is a rare occurrence for you).

(You should note, however, that I will not acknowledge your contribution under the name of Wowbagger; if you want an acknowledgement your comments I require proper identification.) If you must know, my real name is Mitchell S. Lampert. Let me know if you use my name, but you really do not have to, unless you quote me directly.

If I publish any criticisms of your work, somewhere other than this forum, it will be located somewhere on my web site: www.MitchLampert.net . I will give you a more precise URL for my critiques, when and if I publish any.

I do not know your background but I am uneasy about some of your comments and I think you know little chemistry or molecular biology. I never claimed to be an expert. I am a professional software developer and an amateur film maker. But, I also take an amateur interest in several scientific topics, including biology. I can say, with confidence, that I have read more biology books than the average person.
You may be a proficient in molecular biology, which is why many of your ideas could work. However, your expertise has made you blind to some of the general ideas of evolving systems, such as what makes a replicator are replicator. But, we'll get more into that, later.

For example, you confuse the number of bases in a codon, which is three, with four, the number of bases in the genetic code’s alphabet.Ah, perhaps. But, the general idea is still valid: many variations of many different numbers emerged, at different times, before an "optimal" number was settled on, and stuck with.

Further, you do not seem to understand the chemical difficulties inherent in some of your later comments, blithely suggesting that genes might wrap themselves in lipids, rather than acknowledging that such an outcome must evolve and that you need to suggest the selective mechanisms that could produce such an outcome. Emphasis mine. What I suggested is a product of evolution. I do acknowledge such an outcome must evolve.

The bottom line is that your idea of prebiotic catalysts forming membranes from chains of lipids, under the influence of oscillating forces, could be right on. But, while you seem to think this must have happened before replicators came about, I say your theory could describe how the replicators formed their membranes, if they were to either come first, or at roughly the same time.
I don't think it is a stretch to say that your catalysts could have been the ancestors of RNA/DNA. I don't have any details to back this up, but RNA does, in effect, catalyze the development of protein sequences, among other things.

In addition, you seem to me too enamoured of your own perceptions, which you, sometimes incorrectly, perceive to be the conventional wisdom. You seem, in essence, unwilling to think through or even countenance any criticism of your current position. This does not address the points I made, out of my perceptions.
I do, in fact, tolerate criticism of my positions. I hardly think your ideas are enough to knock them down. For example, I mentioned that if "Selfish Gene" theory was garbage, then you need another theory that could explain why genes became the target of natural selection, and why they replicate themselves faster than the cell they are in, etc. So far, you have failed to provide an alternative.

* Genes are considered the target of natural selection, because they are what passes through germ-line transmission, to became the data the embryo is built upon.

* Genes seems to replicate within the cell, perhaps not by themselves, but with the help of "other stuff" around them, faster than the cell makes copies of itself. And, by the way, all that "other stuff" would not exist if genes were not there to transcribe its existence.

* Genes can be considered "selfish" because they have been noted to aid and secure their own survival (or at least the survival of the data they carry, if not the actual structure), more so than the life form they happen to be in. For example: genes that express the phenotype of thicker membranes to ward off infection by viruses, at the expense of material to generate more gametes.

I restate these, again, not to hold onto my precious belief systems, but so that you can address them with your own theory.

I am uneasy about that reluctance, especially as you do not acknowledge even some fairly obvious corrections to your own claims – such as your incorrect claim that transposons are replicating genes. Oh, well, if they are not replicating genes, then why are they replications of the same genes in different places?
Perhaps you argue they are not self-replicating. But, then I would argue that the process that does replicate them is, itself, a product of gene expression. So, what were you correcting, again?

My point is not to knock you down. My point is that Selfish Gene theory, nor the idea of genes-as-replicators is not the junk you thought it was. There is actual evidence that demonstrates the idea, that you have yet to address fully with your own ideas.

The fact is that no modern gene replicates - even Dawkins accepts that - and there is no evidence at all that any gene was ever a replicator. Last time I checked, (and I could be wrong), Dawkins accepts the fact that genes need a little help to replicate, but that since they are the fundamental target of selection, it is not a stretch to claim they were the fundamental replicator. Perhaps he acknowledges there is no empirical evidence for the "origins" part, yet. (again, I could be wrong. I hate putting words into people's mouths). But, the idea has merit, based on what studies have been done in various fields, including embryology, and controlled experiments with chemicals, and computer models.

As a science, it has value, and is neither junk nor pseudo-science.
The following is admittedly an Argument from Authority, but: Do you think Dawkins would be wasting his time with it, if it were? Do you think he is that stupid?

My problem is that genetics is often treated if it were the fundamental science of evolution and, logically, I do not think it should have such a status. It is only a fundamental science of biological evolution, because it is the genes that primarily express how an embryo develops, or at least that aspect of embryology that is inherited from the parents. (Various environmental factors in and around the womb, could also play a role, but they are not inherited.)
If genes are not fundamental, what pray tell, do you offer as an alternative that explains this equally or better?

I do argue that my ideas of bioepistemic evolution - evolution based on data - is the most fundamental description of evolution yet offered and is compatible with genetics. Thus genetics should be seen as a special case of a more general evolutionary theory – bioepistemic evolution. Fine. So, your "data" is more fundamental. And, I say that "data" for biology, is in the form of genes, therefore genes are fundamental. What is the problem?
Even if your lipid membranes and chemical oscillations came before genes as we know them, you have to at least admit that genes, today, are the fundamental aspect of biological evolution. That is why they are treated as such.

I do take a harsh view of memes. In my opinion, memetics possesses neither a body of empirical data to be systematised nor a theoretical foundation. I simply cannot see any merit in such work at all – except, perhaps for an ability to generate large volumes of pseudoexplanatory verbiage.
I like what articulett had to say on this matter of memes:
It's not science or pseudoscience--it's a language tool--a concept for understanding. It's just a way of talking about what makes an idea get passed on. Systems evolve from the bottom up--be it planets, solar systems, humans, cities, technology, forums, languages, currency systems, libraries (and/or they die out)--Meme is just a way to refer to the why and how they do so.
But, perhaps your harsh view has more to do with your failure to conceptualize just what defines a replicator, in a general sense. Memes, which can demonstrate a certain level of longevity, fecundity, and fidelity, is what makes them so.

Admittedly, not the most evidence-laden idea, in the world, but powerful and useful for understanding social evolution, and hardly "pseudoexplanatory".

I am glad that you acknowledge that my work on prebiosis may be correct. I agree with you, but I would have liked more of your commentary to be directed toward a criticism of the original content of that work. You didn't really need to read the later files to know my opinion of genes as replicators or of memes. Well, since the specifics of the chemistry was out of my league, I decided not to comment on them. Only to acknowledge that, in general, the idea could work, even if the specifics turn out to be less than accurate.
And, I commented on the later files, because I was concerned about a lot of what you said.

By contrast, the idea that genes were once replicators is basically ridiculous, and drips with improbable, not to say impossible, postulates and implications. Why couldn't genes-as-replicators also be the process of simple chemistry? Or at least cumulative adaptation, over time, that lead initially simple chemistry to more complex structures? The best evidence we have, as far as I know, are computer models, so far. But, it is not like genes-as-replicators is as improbable as you make it out to be.

Trying to compromise by merging that idea with the theory of prebiotic oscillations would eradicate the parsimony that is one of the main attractions of my work. It does take more than parsimony to make a good scientific theory. It also takes empirical studies, if any can be done.
I would say that it is more realistic to think several factors went into play to generate the earliest forms of life. Maybe my specific methods of combining the ideas are not correct. But, just because your idea is simpler, does not automatically indicate it is correct, either.
And, at least we have some potential, (if somewhat improbable?), models for how the origin of genes could come about.

if everything is a variable, you have no theory.Since when is nature obligated to make anything non-variable? Modern genetics deals with what nature tosses us. Genes are only a model, to help describe what is going on. They are not intended to be the be-all, end-all, well-delimited units of inheritance, any more. If Fisher felt that way, that's his problem, not the modern geneticist. Your idea that it carried-over is an exaggeration. (You could blame the media, somewhat, which still belches out stories about "genes for something" getting discovered.)

Evolution, as you acknowledges, is applied to several fields besides biology but you seem to be claiming that there is some reason for treating biology as a prototype of all evolutions. I did not say that! I said all forms of evolution need something that can vary to the whims of selection pressures. In biology, that is genes. For other forms of evolution, that may be something else.
In other words, "something to be the target of selection pressure" could be the prototype of all evolutions. Not anything more specific to biology.

Hence I assert that, during biological evolution it is the data pattern in DNA, not DNA itself, which evolves. So, then how is your "data pattern" different from "genes"?

Thus, social data patterns do not need to be analogous to genetic data patterns except in being data patterns.Why can't those social "data patterns" be called "memes"?

Please do not "Duh" me, especially when you don't know the field in question. Alright, I should not have used the word "duh". Sorry about that.
It seemed like you were indicating that a lack of storing social data was a weakness of genetics. Perhaps I misinterpreted your meaning. But, that is why I wanted to bring to your attention that genes are not obligated to store social data. That is what "plastic" brains are for.

I already defined the meme, earlier. The fact that each one is difficult to delineate from another does not mean the whole idea is totally flawed. It just takes more work. As a model, it has merit. And, it existed, in several forms, before Dawkins ever came up with that word.

I agree that natural selection mechanisms can have more than one data/power input but I do not think that alters my argument in any material way.Acknowledged. And, I agree.
I also mostly agreed with your next long paragraph, which I will not bother quoting here, to save some space.

I cannot see value in using the word "vehicle" instead of organism.You misunderstand. The "vehicle" is not the organism. It is those aspects of the organism that are not, themselves, the principal subject of natural selection. Merely, what aids what is the "principal subject" in its survival. That is the general concept.
You might disagree that cells are "vehicles", and you can even assert that there is no such thing as a "vehicle", since the whole organism is "subject to selection". But, at least acknowledge what the word "vehicle" is supposed to represent.

However, I must say this:
Since it is the genes that get passed through germ-line transmission, and ultimately "decide" the development of the embryo, they are considered the replicators, according to the theory, and the cells they form are considered the vehicles, according to the theory. Cells are subject to natural selection, but since cells are formed by the expression of genes, it seems the genes are ultimately the subject of selection. At least this is true, today.
If you argue that this was not the case in prebiotic times, that does not lessen what is true, today.

The mechanism of evolution by selection of prebiotic oscillations would not work unless the sun's cycle were regular – in other words boring, but I shall probably remove that word. The problem was not the word "boring", so much as the implication that the pattern is purely a simple 1,0,1,0. This is only a minor point, and also does not alter your idea in any material way. But, it may be worth noting that, strictly speaking, since some days are going to be brighter than others, the pattern could more realistically be something like: .8, 0, .72, 0, .631, 0, .999; or on "bad" weeks: .4, 0,.21, 0, 0, 0, .112, 0
This point is probably worthy of just a footnote, at least.

Either data carrying molecules evolved first or metabolism evolved first. I agree with their approach and my mechanism is a metabolism first theory – I don't think data carrying molecules would have arisen before phenotypes existed to be described by data. Thus, I think phenotype came before genotype. Sounds almost like a false-choice. Maybe both developed at the same time. Maybe "data carrying" is the phenotype of molecules subject to replication and selection.

Insofar as those hypothetical protocells meet those criteria you could regard them as alive. On that basis, I assert that life, life defined by its ability to move, feed, grow, excrete, reproduce and respond to stimuli, could have emerged, by the evolution of prebiotic oscillations, from the primordial soup. That life would initially have contained no DNA, no genes and no genetic apparatus. Perhaps. But, until you develop the level of evidence that Selfish Gene theory has going for it, I am going to side with what seems more plausible, based on what we know, today. And, today, we can clearly see that genes are "in charge".

But it would have contained an energy metabolism, presumably involving nucleotides, and thus a supply of precursors for nucleic acid synthesis that would create the potential for data carrying nucleic acids to emerge via further evolution. In other words, such protocells would have solved virtually all the dilemmas that lead us to feel that the emergence of life is so improbable. They would have provided us with an excellent environment within which a genome and a genetic apparatus could have emerged. Exactly why and how such an apparatus might have emerged by evolutionary selection is another topic. Perhaps. I hope you are able to develop this idea, with further studies and experiments. I acknowledge that it could have merit. But, until the ideas I communicated in favor of genes-as-replicators are fully addressed, I am unlikely to shake off the idea as purely "junk". And certainly, I would hope you recognize that is more scientifically plausible than "God created heaven and Earth."!

[John Hewitt]

Continuing my commentary from my last post in this thread:

Part 7: http://www.sexandphilosophy.co.uk/pe07_theories_of_prebiosis.htm

Whew boy! Lots to say here! He starts off very nicely, describing the sorts of criteria one ought to use for judging theories of prebiosis (although they are good for other lines of science, as well.) But, then things break down a bit, when he begins to criticize the competition.

This will continue my reply to Wowbagger's commentary. However, I will not reply by addressing each detail because we are here addressing not the original ideas in my own work but my criticism of the more conventional ideas on prebiosis. I really have two problems with his commentary; first, that he takes some of the conventional notions seriously and does not seem to understand the magnitude of the problems those theories entail. Essentially, he just waves his hand over problems that are, in fact, profound and, prior to my work, seemingly intractable. In addition, he suffers from a failure to understand some accepted aspects of evolutionary theory itself.

Let us begin with the second point. Wowbagger attacks "my" assertion that evolution, as usually articulated, is not a theory of origin but a theory of change. Well, that is certainly my opinion but I claim no credit and would refer instead to Stephen Jay Gould, who emphasised this point to Judge Scalia - his commentary is available on the internet.
http://www.stephenjaygould.org/library/gould_justice-scalia.html
You need to be near the end of page 4. (I have to say that Gould was being rather unfair to Scalia. Evolution is often presented as being a theory for life's origin, even though it is in fact, only a theory for the change of one life form to another.)

This issue, of evolution as a theory of origin or a theory of change is very significant. It seems to me, and I elaborate the point at some length, that evolution can only be a theory of change if it takes axiomatic inputs from biology. To be a theory of origin, evolution must draw axiomatic inputs only from fields that are logically prior to biology, namely chemistry and physics, the latter including IT. This whole issue has parallels with the famous dialogues involving Frege, Russell and Wittgenstein concerning the logical foundations of arithmetic. They were, in essence, resolved by Godel, with his theorem and, so it seems to me, much the same argument leads to the conclusion I summarise above. In any case, the result seems obvious. A theory of origin is a theory of how life arose from chemistry and physics, so you want physics and chemistry as an input and life as an output. If such a theory takes a concept from biology as an input, it will fail through infinite regression.

I turn now to some of these other theories with which you seem very enamoured, even though the problems with them are very serious indeed. A great many very good chemists have pondered over the problem of the origin of life – Arrhenius, Orgel and Crick is one series we will mention, though Crick began as a physicist. Arrhenius was one of the great chemists of the 20th century and laid the foundations of chemical kinetics. He was completely unable to propose a mechanism for the origin of life. Orgel, a superb '60s and '70s, armed with modern knowledge of the emerging results of molecular biology, agreed with him and began to discuss an origin from spaceships. Francis Crick, who needs no introduction, joined with Orgel and concurred. They agreed that life coming to earth in spaceships was more likely than life emerging on our planet.

Let us look at some of the notions floating around.
Silicate surfaces. We can demonstrate that some clays, notably montmorilonite, are catalytically active. What we need to do is clean them chemically, then bake them to drive chemical residues off the surface, then dry them out. Oh, and we need certain clays, no clays work without being pretreated and most deposits don't work at all. Then we feed them activated RNA precursors. I won't go on, I will just say that these conditions do not seem to me relevant to a prebiotic soup.

Lets try another. Silicate crystals, Cairns-Smith suggests were once the genome of primitive cells. Now, please, wowbagger tell me there is evidence for this. I will say no more about and just await the presentation of this evidence.

Perhaps the most popular current idea is that life once depended on RNA. All organisms consisted of RNA and then, later, protein and DNA came along and took over. These RNA molecules were presumably your replicating genes. But where, I wonder, did all those little RNA precursors come from and how did they all stay together? Could it have been clays that did it? No, it couldn't. Honestly, Orgel is right, spaceships really are more probable.

Then there are hypercycles, (the idea was, I recall, originated by Schuster, but do correct me). Hypercycles are catalytic cycles that feed on themselves. I understand that, after years of effort, they have managed to demonstrate a hypercycle in a test tube. Now all they need do is explain how all those years of effort could have been mimicked in the prebiotic oceans. I think hypercycles were what Orgel was referring to when talked of "an appeal to magic." However, I didn't look up the reference and I am willing to be corrected. The idea is still unreal though.

Or Kauffman, life is self-organizing. Oh, right, so chemistry doesn't matter because there is another organisational principle at work? It sounds a bit like ID to me.

A popular theory is that life emerged at the oceanic ridge in black smokers. I suggest you consider that one. Is it a theory of origin, or is it a theory of where the origin took place? Is the fact that some simple life forms are found there now good evidence of that location? I'll let you decide.

I will just say that, to the best of my knowledge, there is only one, parsimonious theory for the origin of life, and you read it on my site.

[Wowbagger]

I really have two problems with his commentary; first, that he takes some of the conventional notions seriously and does not seem to understand the magnitude of the problems those theories entail. Essentially, he just waves his hand over problems that are, in fact, profound and, prior to my work, seemingly intractable. Your work still does not address the issues I brought up, as nicely as the "conventional" theories do. Read my last post (the response to your response), for the details about them, again.

In addition, he suffers from a failure to understand some accepted aspects of evolutionary theory itself.

Let us begin with the second point. Wowbagger attacks "my" assertion that evolution, as usually articulated, is not a theory of origin but a theory of change.

...(snip)...

To be a theory of origin, evolution must draw axiomatic inputs only from fields that are logically prior to biology, namely chemistry and physics, the latter including IT. The "origins" portion of evolutionary theory already does that. Granted, the empirical evidence for what actually happened is relatively thin, given that it took place eons ago.
But, it is not like "RNA-World" has no merit what-so-ever, to be that origins portion, which is what you seem to imply. I would like to see what empirical evidence you have compiled for your work.

A theory of origin is a theory of how life arose from chemistry and physics, so you want physics and chemistry as an input and life as an output. If such a theory takes a concept from biology as an input, it will fail through infinite regression. Nature does not divide its "concepts" so easily into "physics", "chemistry", and "biology". These are merely words we humans invented, to help categorize our scientific models. I fail to see how simply bringing a "concept" from biology as an input into "biology" would automatically create an infinite regress. What is biology but an application of chemistry and physics?

Having said that, I think I know what you mean: Life forms, as we define them, could not have originated from other life forms, because that would lead to infinite regress. That does not mean that using a "concept" from biology in the origins of life forms must also do so.

Evolution, as an algorithm, does not necessarily have to occur only to what we define as biological life forms. The "Algorithm of Evolution" could have happened to bits of misc. chemicals, before those chemicals formed into life as we define it.

Francis Crick, who needs no introduction, joined with Orgel and concurred. They agreed that life coming to earth in spaceships was more likely than life emerging on our planet. I am trying to be very patient with you. Don't insult me by bringing up "spaceships" as a serious alternative for the origins of life! If you do it again, I am afraid I am going to have to make fun of you, somehow.
And, don't you dare imply that I would think that idea has any merit, unless someone has some mighty powerful evidence to back it up!

Silicate surfaces. We can demonstrate that some clays, notably montmorilonite, are catalytically active. What we need to do is clean them chemically, then bake them to drive chemical residues off the surface, then dry them out. Oh, and we need certain clays, no clays work without being pretreated and most deposits don't work at all. Then we feed them activated RNA precursors. I won't go on, I will just say that these conditions do not seem to me relevant to a prebiotic soup. I'll admit these very controlled experiments are less than conclusive on what actually happened. But, the chemistry works. As long as it does, I would say it is relevant to continue research in that direction. Maybe someone smarter than you will figure out how similar reactions could have occurred, in an uncontrolled environment.

Lets try another. Silicate crystals, Cairns-Smith suggests were once the genome of primitive cells. Now, please, wowbagger tell me there is evidence for this. I will say no more about and just await the presentation of this evidence. I'll ask Cairns-Smith about that, next time I see him or one of his colleagues.

Perhaps the most popular current idea is that life once depended on RNA. All organisms consisted of RNA and then, later, protein and DNA came along and took over. These RNA molecules were presumably your replicating genes. But where, I wonder, did all those little RNA precursors come from and how did they all stay together? Could it have been clays that did it? No, it couldn't. Honestly, Orgel is right, spaceships really are more probable. (emphasis added)
Arrogance and Personal Incredulity. That's all I see when I read this.

A popular theory is that life emerged at the oceanic ridge in black smokers. I suggest you consider that one. Is it a theory of origin, or is it a theory of where the origin took place? Is the fact that some simple life forms are found there now good evidence of that location? I'll let you decide. I'm not the one to decide such things, thanks.
But, the locale and the method do seem plausible, near as I can gather.

I will just say that, to the best of my knowledge, there is only one, parsimonious theory for the origin of life, and you read it on my site.(Emphasis added.)
As I said before, your ideas have merit. But, I wouldn't act so absolutist, if I were you. How do expect to gain respect among scientists?

[John Hewitt]

The "origins" portion of evolutionary theory already does that. Granted, the empirical evidence for what actually happened is relatively thin, given that it took place eons ago.
But, it is not like "RNA-World" has no merit what-so-ever, to be that origins portion, which is what you seem to imply. I would like to see what empirical evidence you have compiled for your work.

Nature does not divide its "concepts" so easily into "physics", "chemistry", and "biology". These are merely words we humans invented, to help categorize our scientific models. I fail to see how simply bringing a "concept" from biology as an input into "biology" would automatically create an infinite regress. What is biology but an application of chemistry and physics?

Having said that, I think I know what you mean: Life forms, as we define them, could not have originated from other life forms, because that would lead to infinite regress. That does not mean that using a "concept" from biology in the origins of life forms must also do so.


As I said, I think it was Gould who pointed out that evolution is not a theory of the origin of life but a theory of its change. The occasion was Gould's response to Scalia's dissenting opinion following the one of the creation science trials and Gould was making. I don't think anyone has attempted to correct Gould's point and I do agree with him. It would be hard not to do so, it is quite clear that Darwin's theory describes how one species changes into another, it does not describe how chemistry can lead to biology. The theory takes input from one organism, and the properties of that organism, and describes a process of evolutionary change to another organism.

There is no serious observational evidence to support any of the theories of abiogenesis and I am not in any position to purse experimental studies of my own, though model studies on the theory of prebiotic oscillations would be worthwhile. My preference for that theory is not just that it is parsimonious but that it has a valid logical structure, and here I just mean structurally valid, not objectively correct.

As I have also pointed out, this is a matter of the necessary relationships between logic systems. A structurally valid theory must be based on logically antecedent and relevant inputs. Chemistry and physics are logically antecedent to biology and can be used to build a valid evolutionary theory of origin. Theories for the evolutionary origin of biology that begin with biology, or with things or ideas from biology, cannot be logically valid in the same way. They are not logically antecedent axioms of a theory of biological origins and I see no reason not to be absolutist about that. Using them would lead to infinite regression, much as was shown in discussions about the foundations of arithmetic and the origins of Godel's theorem.

I think we do know what is biological and what is not and the difference between biochemical and chemical is also clear enough, albeit not absolute. In general terms, an evolutionary theory of the origin of life should begin with chemicals not biochemicals. Any other inputs beg questions about the source of the input material. Genes, RNA, replicators etc are all, basically biological concepts.



Incidentally, I am not insulting anyone with spaceships. That is Cricks work, the book is called "Life Itself: its meaning and nature" or some such. I do not consider it a realistic theory but neither do I think Crick was a fool. (I knew him a bit, since I worked in that lab.) I am emphasizing to you that the problems with these theories run very deep, so deep that an able scientist like Crick preferred to chase spaceships.

In any case, in my opinion this thread is becoming too varied, with too many separate issues being chased. It is difficult to deal with each of them and it would help if you could specify which particular points you want to focus on.

[Wowbagger]

In any case, in my opinion this thread is becoming too varied, with too many separate issues being chased. It is difficult to deal with each of them and it would help if you could specify which particular points you want to focus on.Fine. We'll narrow it back down to one issue:

You don't think Crick was being foolish, when he was developing Directed Panspermia; and yet you seem to think Dawkins is a fool for pursuing memes. My question is this: How much of an arrogant snob does one have to be, to decide what "crazy" ideas should and should not be worthy of serious investigation?

[articulett]

Fine. We'll narrow it back down to one issue:

You don't think Crick was being foolish, when he was developing Directed Panspermia; and yet you seem to think Dawkins is a fool for pursuing memes. My question is this: How much of an arrogant snob does one have to be, to decide what "crazy" ideas should and should not be worthy of serious investigation?

You don't really even need to be an arrogant snob...you just have to have an "intelligent designer" that Dawkins' doesn't believe in.

[John Hewitt]

Fine. We'll narrow it back down to one issue:

You don't think Crick was being foolish, when he was developing Directed Panspermia; and yet you seem to think Dawkins is a fool for pursuing memes. My question is this: How much of an arrogant snob does one have to be, to decide what "crazy" ideas should and should not be worthy of serious investigation?

I don't think that I have called anybody names and I do not consider my comments to be arrogant. In general, I think it a bad idea to personalise scientific debate. I am trying to explain the difference between a theory that has a valid logical structure and one that doesn't. In my opinion, many of the theories of abiogenesis (prebiosis) have invalid logical structures.

A meme is just a word, with no meaningful definition associated with it. In consequence, I think that a meme cannot play a central role in a valid theory of social evolution.

[Wowbagger]

You don't really even need to be an arrogant snob...you just have to have an "intelligent designer" that Dawkins' doesn't believe in.
I don't think John Hewitt is an "intelligent designer". He is clearly insistent on prebiotic evolutionary explanations for the origins of life. He only brought up the topic of Panspermia to claim that smart folks thought it was "more plausible" than "RNA World", in the past, and that he claims his own theory is even more plausible than both.

The strongest "evidence" Panspermia has in the form of extremophiles that currently exist on Earth. But, it is a long way from demonstrating extremophiles, to showing that such things have spread in outer space to seed life on Earth.

The evidence for an "RNA World" is admittedly inconclusive, but stronger than Panspermia. We have lots of controlled experiments, semi-"chaotic" computer models, contemporary evidence in the form of "selfish" DNA behavior, and a strong sense of logical deduction based on other observations. Does that still sound like junk?

I don't think that I have called anybody names and I do not consider my comments to be arrogant. If any of these were not meant to be arrogant, perhaps you should retract them, and rephrase them:


I dislike Dawkins' work because it is inaccurate and dogmatic.

But where, I wonder, did all those little RNA precursors come from and how did they all stay together? Could it have been clays that did it? No, it couldn't. Honestly, Orgel is right, spaceships really are more probable.

I will just say that, to the best of my knowledge, there is only one, parsimonious theory for the origin of life, and you read it on my site.

From your paper:
There is no more evidence for the notion of genes as replicators than there is for the idea that God created the heavens and the earth.


In general, I think it a bad idea to personalise scientific debate.I agree. But, I can't help it, when someone claims they are a lone genius and that everyone else is automatically wrong.

I am trying to explain the difference between a theory that has a valid logical structure and one that doesn't. In my opinion, many of the theories of abiogenesis (prebiosis) have invalid logical structures. On what basis? That "biological concepts" were used in it? That's nonsense logic. At least the currently accepted batch of abiogenesis theories have some empirical evidence to support them. Logic has to work around the evidence. You can't assume the evidence is wrong, simply because it doesn't fit your logic.
(If Edwin Hubble thought that way, he never would have helped publicize the Big Bang Theory.)

A meme is just a word, with no meaningful definition associated with it. In consequence, I think that a meme cannot play a central role in a valid theory of social evolution.Even if it never plays a central role, it is hardly "junk science", as you called it.

I already gave you a meaningful definition. And, as a model, memetics could very well play a central role in thinking about how ideas spread, and die out. They spread and die out through social selection pressures, with each idea (meme) competing against all the others, for survival. Why is that such a hard concept to swallow?

[John Hewitt]

I already gave you a meaningful definition. And, as a model, memetics could very well play a central role in thinking about how ideas spread, and die out. They spread and die out through social selection pressures, with each idea (meme) competing against all the others, for survival. Why is that such a hard concept to swallow?

I do not think there is any point talking about memetics any more. We are not about to agree with one another and memetics is not what I am actively interested in. There are others who feel about it as I do memetics and who can argue that case if they wish. The ultimate proof of the pudding is in the eating and, if memetics ever achieves anything, that will be the proof.

I am much more interested in origin of life scenarios and, as you say,
"The evidence for an "RNA World" is admittedly inconclusive but" includes "lots of controlled experiments."
Actually I am not aware of any experiments that are controlled to mimic the conditions thought to have existed on the prebiotic earth and which have led to significant concentrations of RNA precursors.

"Semi-"chaotic" computer models." That is a field you would know better than me so perhaps you could identify the most compelling such programs.

"Contemporary evidence in the form of "selfish" DNA behavior." That one can describe evolution with a model based on selfish genes does not seem to me evidence that genes were ever replicators. Such selfishness is a matter of the apparently atomic nature of genes which we can now observe comes about because individual genes code for separate, biochemically active proteins. It is the separability of proteins that gives rise to the approximate separability of phenotypes and hence to the apparently atomic nature of genes.

"And a strong sense of logical deduction based on other observations. Does that still sound like junk?" I find it hard to follow the phrase "a strong sense of logical deduction."

Finally, I do insist that it is wrong to include biological concepts or materials in evolutionary accounts of prebiosis. This is a matter of logic. It is a nonsense to try to explain biology with biology. To explain biology you must make use of systems of ideas that are logically antecedent to biology and the same would apply to any other attempt at explanation.

[Wowbagger]

Finally, I do insist that it is wrong to include biological concepts or materials in evolutionary accounts of prebiosis. Emphasis added.

Materials: You are probably right. You can't have what we call organic materials evolving from organic materials. That would, indeed, lead to infinite regress.

Concepts: I think your logic, there, needs to be re-examined. Biological "concepts" are, themselves, merely applications of physics and chemistry, and possibly other "lower level" sciences. I see no reason to exclude certain biological concepts from origins theories. In fact, you do it yourself: You explain how the oscillations in your theory develop into acts of "feeding" and "metabolism" and "motion", etc.

[Soapy Sam]

While much of the above is fascinating, I find it well off topic. (Not that that's a crime on this board).
I do feel the OP inadvertently sets up a classic excluded middle fallacy which we are being sucked into.
There is no reason to think "memetics" is either pseudoscience or protoscience. I don't think it's "a science" at all.
It's an alternative - and in some cases fertile- view of how behaviour, culture and other forms of information based activity may evolve in the context of humans or human machines. (In 1976, computer viruses were at the abiogenesis stage)

As I recall my copy of TSG, Dawkins was asking "are there non-biological replicator equivalents to the gene". (A scientist who saw X as a replicator, rather than the gene, might equally have asked "are there non biological equivalents to X?" X itself is irrelevant to the argument. We need only accept that an X exists.)
The word "meme", chosen for brevity, ease of recall and happy similarity to the French "Meme" (No idea how to type a circumflex) , was as good as any other.

The point of the meme, as others have stated here, is that the meme might reproduce purely because it could in the appropriate environment.
Dawkins was actually stepping away from any hardline neoDarwinist utilitarian adaptationist orthodoxy. He was saying that human behaviour might well evolve for reasons that has nothing at all to do with it's utility to humans, evolutionary or otherwise. He even gave a religious example, predating "The God Delusion" by 30 years- along the lines of "You will burn in eternal torment if you do not accept this message and pass it on to others." Such a message has no proven value to humans at all, but just such a message has been successfully propagating itself for millennia.

A behaviour , if it attracts emulation, can spread even if it is destructive or costly to those who display it. Think of the Potlatch or any show of ostentatious wealth, where communities bankrupted themselves not to be outdone in generosity. Or ludicrously thin models in silly skirts that millions of women strive to resemble.
The behaviour is not survival positive, yet spreads because it is fashionable. That IS a meme. It cannot be explained by natural selection. It requires another selective explanation. Sexual selection IS memetic behaviour- certainly in humans, arguably in other animals.

Human brains are susceptible to certain types of behavioural program, because human brains are built in such a way as to be susceptible.
Just so doesWindows offer a fertile breeding ground to viruses Linux may reject. The hardware, or the basic operating system software, has a built in tendency to run certain programs, even if it damages itself in the process. The program reproduces in the process and spreads outside the machine by a network. In humans, the network is language and behaviour. Culture.
Parasitism, pure and simple. Parasitism by information.

There is no memetic theory of evolution of biological organisms- we don't need one. We have Natural selection.
There is an evolutionary theory of memetic information.

[Wowbagger]

I do feel the OP inadvertently sets up a classic excluded middle fallacy which we are being sucked into. That was inadvertent. If you have another option, you can offer it, as you did.

However...

There is no reason to think "memetics" is either pseudoscience or protoscience. I don't think it's "a science" at all.
It's an alternative - and in some cases fertile- view of how behaviour, culture and other forms of information based activity may evolve in the context of humans or human machines. ...How is this "alternative" different from a protoscience, though? If it is a fertile idea, with potential scientific merit, whose details have yet to be ironed out precisely, I would say that is a good protoscience. But, if your definition of a protoscience differs, let me know.

The point of the meme, as others have stated here, is that the meme might reproduce purely because it could in the appropriate environment.
Dawkins was actually stepping away from any hardline neoDarwinist utilitarian adaptationist orthodoxy. He was saying that human behaviour might well evolve for reasons that has nothing at all to do with it's utility to humans, evolutionary or otherwise. He even gave a religious example, predating "The God Delusion" by 30 years- along the lines of "You will burn in eternal torment if you do not accept this message and pass it on to others." Such a message has no proven value to humans at all, but just such a message has been successfully propagating itself for millennia. Emphasis added.

A good summary. And, I like your example. I should have picked that one, myself! But, I kept referring to religion generically.

The behaviour is not survival positive, yet spreads because it is fashionable. That IS a meme. It cannot be explained by natural selection. It requires another selective explanation. Sexual selection IS memetic behaviour- certainly in humans, arguably in other animals.More good examples.

There is no memetic theory of evolution of biological organisms- we don't need one. We have Natural selection.
There is an evolutionary theory of memetic information.And, again, if there is a theory, how is it not at least a "protoscience"?

BTW, Since I'm the one who started this thread, I can allow it to get derailed, if I want to. ;)

[Lord Muck oGentry]

SS,

May I offer you a circumflex?

http://facweb.furman.edu/~pecoy/mfl195/accents.htm

[John Hewitt]

Concepts: I think your logic, there, needs to be re-examined. Biological "concepts" are, themselves, merely applications of physics and chemistry, and possibly other "lower level" sciences. I see no reason to exclude certain biological concepts from origins theories. In fact, you do it yourself: You explain how the oscillations in your theory develop into acts of "feeding" and "metabolism" and "motion", etc.
It remains my opinion and that is why my work goes into Godel's theorem. In addition, I do not use concepts like "feeding" and "metabolism" and "motion", etc. as *inputs* into the theory; rather, I try to show how the selection of chemical oscillations can lead to behaviours that have these properties. In other words, I am describing how biological type behaviour can emerge from entirely chemical selections.

In other words, the exercise is doing what was intended, showing how biology can emerge from chemistry.

[Soapy Sam]

...How is this "alternative" different from a protoscience, though? If it is a fertile idea, with potential scientific merit, whose details have yet to be ironed out precisely, I would say that is a good protoscience. But, if your definition of a protoscience differs, let me know.

Thou catchest me on the hop. I never heard the term "protoscience" before. I inferred it's meaning from it's structure. Sciences tend to start with observations, which become increasingly detailed and methodical. At some point an explanatory model is proposed. But does anything following that pattern merit the label "science"?
Consider- I keep records of ghost sightings. My hundred disciples extend those records as do their 10,000 etc. After a century, someone puts it all together and points out that an excellent explanation of the accumulated data is that there are no such things as ghosts. Is that a science? At what point in the process does data collection become a protoscience? If the conclusion after a century is that the data add to nothing, is it now a post-science, or was it just hooey from the start?

There seems to be no observational phase in the case of memetics. Nobody collected meme sightings for 100 years. RD just went straight from the gene to a metaphorical analogue in the information pool. It's a potentially very fertile idea in my opinion, because it gives a potential mechanism for cultural / behavioural "evolution" free of the need for adaptationist arguments and also gives us a key to the way wetware must work in order for particular memes to thrive there. I'm still not convinced that constitutes a science. But we're on a definition hunt, really.

BTW, Since I'm the one who started this thread, I can allow it to get derailed, if I want to. ;)
Anything not forbidden, is mandatory.:)

I'd just add- After "TSG" I expected Dawkins to take the meme idea further. In fact, he backed off and let others run with the idea to see where it went. Even in his foreword to Blackmore's book, I felt he rather damned the whole idea with faint praise. I think he's ambivalent about it himself and perhaps a wee bit miffed that many people see it as somehow more significant than his primary work as an ethologist. I'd love to hear him discuss the whole idea, off the record.

Lord Muck- Thanks for your examples, but this is a Russian keyboard and it produces some odd characters. ALT 136 gives ♪ for instance.
ALT137 closes the browser , which I just learned to my disgust.:eek:

[Wowbagger]

It remains my opinion and that is why my work goes into Godel's theorem. In addition, I do not use concepts like "feeding" and "metabolism" and "motion", etc. as *inputs* into the theory; rather, I try to show how the selection of chemical oscillations can lead to behaviours that have these properties. In other words, I am describing how biological type behaviour can emerge from entirely chemical selections.

In other words, the exercise is doing what was intended, showing how biology can emerge from chemistry.
Very good.
But, that's also what RNA-World does. It shows how biochemistry can emerge from chemistry. It does not use biochemicals as "inputs". I guess all I'm really trying to point out is that the line between the chemistries is not distinct, but blurry.
As is the line between a biological function and a chemical reaction, in your theory. Where does the non-biological chemical reaction end, and the "feeding" begin? It seems you could apply the general concept of feeding to even the earliest stages of the transition, depending on how specific you insist on being.


Soapy Sam: Have you seen Wiki's article on "protoscience"? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protoscience
Although, since it is Wikipedia, it should not be construed as the definitive take on the subject. But, anyway, based on that, would say memes are a protoscience or not, and if not, what else?

[Soapy Sam]

Very good.

Soapy Sam: Have you seen Wiki's article on "protoscience"? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protoscience
Although, since it is Wikipedia, it should not be construed as the definitive take on the subject. But, anyway, based on that, would say memes are a protoscience or not, and if not, what else?

No, I had never heard the term before this thread, so far as I recall. Here's the definition:-
"
Protoscience is a field of study that appears to conform to the initial phase of the scientific method (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_method), with information gathering and formulation of a hypothesis, but involves speculation that is either not yet experimentally falsifiable (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Falsifiability) or not yet verified (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Verification) or accepted by a consensus of scientists. Protoscience is distinguished from other forms of speculation in that its formulation strives to remain coherent with all relevant fields of scientific research so as to achieve to falsifiability and verification as soon as possible."

Well that's a pretty wide definition.

Has there been a memetic data gathering phase? What is the hypothesis being formulated? In what way does the formulation of memetics strive to remain etc?

I'm not sure I find the term "protoscience" particularly useful, to be honest.

I like memes. I like the idea. I like the shift from "adaptationism on behalf of the vehicle" to " things reproduce that are capable of reproducing" I like the fact that a biologist can think widely enough to see that biology is not limited to natural selection and that natural selection may not be limited to biology. I think it's one of the best and most original ideas I ever heard. I still recall the shock I felt when I read it, because like Huxley with Natural Selection itself I could not imagine why I hadn't thought of it too. It's so bloody obviously right. A memorable moment in my reading life.

But would I say memetics is a protoscience? No.
But I wonder if "Protoscience" is a meme?

[John Hewitt]

But, that's also what RNA-World does. It shows how biochemistry can emerge from chemistry. It does not use biochemicals as "inputs". I guess all I'm really trying to point out is that the line between the chemistries is not distinct, but blurry.
As is the line between a biological function and a chemical reaction, in your theory. Where does the non-biological chemical reaction end, and the "feeding" begin? It seems you could apply the general concept of feeding to even the earliest stages of the transition, depending on how specific you insist on being.

I disagree that the RNA world shows biochemistry emerging from chemistry. DNA and RNA are biochemicals. Nucleic acids are made from certain nitrogenous bases, which are converted to nucleosides and then nucleotides. The processes of making those bases, selecting them from other possible bases, attaching ribose or other sugar molecules and phosphorylating them into nucleotides are all energy consuming processes. Thus, I feel that suggesting these processes as a basis for life already posits some kind of controlled energy supply or feeding process which, so it seems to me, is already an aspect of life.

On that basis, an RNA world would need to be the offspring of some earlier life process but, if such an earlier life process had existed, one must question the need for any RNA world stage in life's origin.

The only purely chemical reactions I know of that I would describe as "feeding" are self-oscillatory or wave generating chemical reactions, such as the Belousov-Zhabotinsky reaction ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Belousov-Zhabotinsky_reaction ). There you have a reaction between bromate and an organic acid, often malonic acid, to produce bromine (red/brown). The concentration of the bromine visibly oscillates so long as an energy supply from malonic acid and oxidizer is available. (The colour changes are often made more dramatic by the inclusion of redox indicators.) It is the unusual chemical kinetics that cause the oscillation. In principle, reactions of this type can be used to build data processing devices, so one does have a link there to evolution being based on data.

I would be very interested to learn of any other forms of purely chemical "feeding."

[Wowbagger]

Has there been a memetic data gathering phase? What is the hypothesis being formulated? In what way does the formulation of memetics strive to remain etc? I do recall some experiment to gather information on memes, in a game of "Telephone" or "Chinese Whispers". I still have yet to find that reference, again, though. I'll have to ask some friends of mine for help with that, soon.

I'm not sure I find the term "protoscience" particularly useful, to be honest. Well, I would say it is useful way of distinguishing ideas with strong scientific potential, but not yet verified or falsified experimentally; from ideas that are completely and utterly junk and pseudoscience.

I like memes. I like the idea. I like the shift from "adaptationism on behalf of the vehicle" to " things reproduce that are capable of reproducing" I like the fact that a biologist can think widely enough to see that biology is not limited to natural selection and that natural selection may not be limited to biology. I think it's one of the best and most original ideas I ever heard. I still recall the shock I felt when I read it, because like Huxley with Natural Selection itself I could not imagine why I hadn't thought of it too. It's so bloody obviously right. A memorable moment in my reading life. Just because it "feels right", does not necessarily make it so, of course. But, liking an idea is a good first step to unraveling it, scientifically.

I disagree that the RNA world shows biochemistry emerging from chemistry. DNA and RNA are biochemicals. I think this could simply be a bit of naïveté on your part. Do you honestly think scientists would take the idea seriously, if it had this glaring problem?
Last time I checked (and there could possibly be better theories nowadays), one of the currently accepted theories is that RNA emerged out of a process of natural selection, from parts originally emerging from silicate "scaffolding" structures. Their emergence occurred slow enough, that the amount of energy needed for the system could be lower than today's standards. Today's RNA and DNA need a lot more energy, because they work much more quickly.

Even if the above is wrong, it seems to me that your ideas seem to be limited to what the requirements for generating DNA would be, today. You fail to acknowledge that others have come up with ideas for adjusting those requirements to what could have been possible, in the past: A past when RNA and DNA were not like they are, today.

I could just as easily take that quote of yours, and say this: "I disagree that your prebiotic oscillations theory shows 'feeding' emerging from chemistry. Feeding is a biological function." Of course, I do not agree with that quote I just gave. I'm simply showing why your argument is silly.

On that basis, an RNA world would need to be the offspring of some earlier life process but, if such an earlier life process had existed, one must question the need for any RNA world stage in life's origin. If an earlier life process existed, RNA would still be at the center of origin theories, because it symbolizes the emergence of a well-developed replicator, as the central target of selection.

[Schneibster]

an RNA world would need to be the offspring of some earlier life process I disagree and challenge you to prove this. RNA is a simpler chemical than DNA, and would be quite capable of being synthesized in a random chemical environment. But even this is not necessary to abiogenesis; you might want to have a look at autocatalytic sets. They are a much more likely explanation of the origin of life on Earth, IMO, than any other; and you will also find that they are a very, very hard target. Particularly since it appears that scientists working for chemical companies have used the ideas behind autocatalytic sets to successfully create (evolve! Note most carefully!) enzymes for various uses, like odor elimination, stain removal, drain clog removal, and other purposes. These enzymes work extremely well. To top it all off, the theory of autocatalytic sets accounts for RNA, too!

It is worthwhile also to point out that templates for the synthesis of proteins are not nearly as limited as many believe. In fact, out of many, many millions or even billions of candidate amino acids, life here on Earth uses only a very, very few. For example, in your body, all of the proteins generated by your DNA are made from only twenty amino acids, out of these billions. These twenty amino acids are coded for by combinations of only four nucleotides in groups of three. You will note that four codons, taken three at a time, gives sixty-four possible combinations; with "start" and "stop" codons, and redundant combinations, this allows the specification of literally trillions of possible proteins, enough to permit an immune response to just about any antigen you will encounter in your lifetime. You should know (would, if you'd do the research) that your immune system does not come pre-programmed to combat diseases; instead, it comes pre-equipped with a "toolkit" of antibody-generating cells that are- have to be!- capable of adapting to and attacking any organism that invades your body. Given the rapid mutation rate of viruses and bacteria, this is an absolute requirement for you to be a robust organism yourself; if you were limited to only the organisms that could be specified in your DNA, you would quickly die on being exposed to a novel virus or bacterium, and this would probably happen in your first year of life.

But those four nucleotides, and those twenty amino acids, are by no means the only ones possible; in fact, there are millions or billions of others, plus combinations and permutations of them, that many believe would yield a viable genetic code, and a viable "toolkit" of proteins it can construct. In fact, alternate genetic codes actually exist on Earth; mitochondria, ciliate protozoa, Mycoplasma, and some yeasts of genus Candida use differing interpretations for at least some codons, hinting that alternate codes may have been dominant in the past.

The question is not, and never has been, "How did this incredibly unlikely genetic code come to be." It is not unlikely; it is instead inevitable. Obvious. Expected. Once, that is, one knows the laws of physics and complexity that govern chemistry. The question at hand is rather, "Of all the possible choices, why did evolution on Earth settle on the particular genetic code it did?" And the answers to that increasingly appear to have to do with robust replication, and robust correction of point mutations. It becomes increasingly obvious that the particular genetic code we use has also been subject to selection pressures. That it has itself evolved. Representations of a genetic code that must necessarily have sprung fully-fledged from nothing are therefore revealed as misrepresentations of the actual state of affairs: we see that the genetic code has evolved, and that other genetic codes are possible; given a billion years or so, and all the world's oceans, with the obvious results of the Miller-Urey experiment in hand, we can see that it is inevitable that life should have developed here.

In any case, the original point was that both genetics and memetics are accurate descriptions of reality on some level. And while I will give you points for at least presenting what you see as an alternative, I also have to point out (although I did not do the detailed critique wowbagger did, I did read it) that both alternatives appear to be relatively unaffected by whether genes preceeded proteins, or succeeded them. It is likely that we will never know for sure; it is equally likely that we will create at some point organisms that have all the necessary attributes for us to call them "living" that do not use the same genetic code we do. And I ask you, will they be "alive," will they be "life," whatever that might mean?

Underlying this conversation is the following point: the meaning of the genetic code is undeniable. We can duplicate most of the functions in vitro. And given that that meaning, the clear, unambiguous mapping between genes and proteins, is unquestioned, the utility of DNA as a blueprint for the creation of proteins, and as the source of the repetition of arrangement of proteins and their actions that we call ontogeny.

Given this known paradigm, and given the complexity with which an organized collection of proteins can act, it must be obvious that there is something that can be acted upon, that can be inherited, that is the source of all our phenotypes. And this must be the place where all changes that can be inherited must come from. And no matter what went before, once this DNA mechanism became dominant in life on Earth, it must be what ultimately is changed whenever a heritable phenotypical change occurs in a population of organisms. It does not matter what other chemical or physical changes occur in an organism; if the DNA, and specifically in the germ plasm, is not changed, then that change is not heritable. And conversely, it does not matter what is changed in germ plasm, that change will be heritable, even if it makes no difference whatsoever to the phenotype of the organism. These are provable facts, and have been proven over and over again; the mere existence of genetically modified organisms is undisputable proof that when evolution occurs in modern life forms, and by modern I mean anything that uses DNA on Earth, which is every organism alive on Earth today, and just about every organism that has lived since the beginning of the Cambrian.

Given that such a mechanism exists, it has to be obvious that there can be no question as to what changes when evolution occurs. Thee can be only one answer. It must be DNA. Nothing else answers the obvious requirement for something that can be inherited, something that determines the phenotype, and something that is both difficult enough to change that it is usable for transmission of phenotypical characteristics, and easy enough to change that it can be that which changes when evolution occurs.

In this low-level sense, then, genetics does not map well to memetics. However, I have to point out that once you posit evolution of chemicals, and point out the similarities to genetic evolution, you have inadvertently made an analogy that improves the viability of memetics, because the way memes evolve is much more like the way that you posit that chemicals evolve prebiotically than the way that we know DNA evolves. Unlike genes, memes are themselves the phenotype; they are the ideas themselves, not "genes of ideas," as would be required by strict analogy with genetic molecular biology.

[Soapy Sam]

It's noticeable that silicates, notably the asbestiforms, but even Silica itself are often implicated in lung cancer. I have wondered why organic tissue would bond to silicates at all unless there is something strangely compatible about the silicate template...

[Schneibster]

Sam, here's food for thought: at the time Gregor Mendel proposed his original theory of genetics, we had no idea what the mechanism might be. Now we know it is DNA, and we know all the details. I see memetics as being in the state of genetics when Mendel proposed it.

As far as evidence, the evidence is as diverse as pet rocks and science; both are examples of environments selecting among ideas and the ones that "catch on" surviving. As far as falsifiability, if pet rocks can survive, then that means that meaningless ideas can, ideas that convey no demonstrable benefit to the adopter; and the falsification would be the absence of such ideas (and incidentally the non-existence of the advertising industry).

[Robin]

If anyone holds that Memetics is either a science or a protoscience, could they please link some recent published papers on the subject. The "Journal of Memetics" appeared to have a good go at rigorously defining what was meant by the term, then got a bit silly and gave up.

Following is a quote from an article in the last issue (2005) from Bruce Edmonds:

I claim that the underlying reason memetics has failed is that it has not provided any extra explanatory or predictive power beyond that available without the gene-meme analogy. Thus whilst the idea of memes has retained its attractiveness for some in terms of a framework for thinking about phenomena, it has not provided any "added value" it terms of providing new understanding of phenomena. The fact that some who wear the theoretical spectacles (Kuhn 1969) of memetics insist of redescribing a host of phenomena in these terms despite the lack of substantive results merely confirms other academics' opinion of the approach. The ability to think of some phenomena in a particular way (or describe it using a certain framework), does not mean that the phenomena has those properties in any significant sense.
(http://cfpm.org/jom-emit/2005/vol9/edmonds_b.html)

I would contend that Memetics is neither a science, proto-science or pseudo-science, but simply an idea who's time has come and gone.

[articulett]

I will agree that memes is not a science or proto science and many on this thread have said as much. It's more of a tool and it's uses are growing. It's similar to the word "theme" or "scheme" or "idea"-- it's refers to that part of communication which makes an idea spread...and evolve. To say it's an idea that has come and gone is like saying that "prepositions are an idea that has come and gone". That doesn't mean anything. Some ideas, thoughts, notions, paradigms, languages, learning tools spread rapidly--others go nowhere. Life evolves via the gene--and "ideas" evolve via memes--religion, languages, mathematics, fads, songs, etc. have a meme behind them which has the power to stick around and evolve. Those with bad memes, aren't around. (Well, astrology is still around...it's a pretty useless meme--but people seem enchanted with it...) Many memes survive because they are useful to humans--they encourage the survival and reproduction of humans...they meet human aims. And others are around because someone long ago said you'd suffer forever if you didn't believe them.

[Schneibster]

And I'd argue that memetics hasn't taken off because we don't have enough knowledge yet of the underlying mental phenomena to attach it to anything like genetics is attached to DNA. I think that attempting to characterize memetics at this time is about like trying to characterize genetics in the time of Gregor Mendel. It will prove its worth or be abandoned, quite frankly, on the basis of criteria that we can't imagine now. Arguing that it's not a science, while perhaps factually true, is IMHO entirely premature.

[Wowbagger]

Whoa, Schneibster keeps answering questions better than I can!

I really gotta start buckling down on these subjects, again!

[John Hewitt]

I think this could simply be a bit of naïveté on your part. Do you honestly think scientists would take the idea seriously, if it had this glaring problem?
Last time I checked (and there could possibly be better theories nowadays), one of the currently accepted theories is that RNA emerged out of a process of natural selection, from parts originally emerging from silicate "scaffolding" structures. Their emergence occurred slow enough, that the amount of energy needed for the system could be lower than today's standards. Today's RNA and DNA need a lot more energy, because they work much more quickly.
Those glaring problems are present - hence my comments about spaceships. Nobody has yet demonstrated a self-replicating RNA molecule except when it is provided with a preformed enzyme replicator and energetically activated biochemical substrates, the triphosphates. Triphosphate activation does not work on silicate surfaces, all these model stidies are performed using a different and more complex activator abbreviated to IMP. Those compounds are not found in living things.

Also, may I remind you of the meaning of the abbreviation RNA - Ribose Nucleic Acid. Ribose is a sugar - derived from life - and is just a small part of each component in an RNA sequence.

Even if the above is wrong, it seems to me that your ideas seem to be limited to what the requirements for generating DNA would be, today. You fail to acknowledge that others have come up with ideas for adjusting those requirements to what could have been possible, in the past: A past when RNA and DNA were not like they are, today.
People have certainly suggested that there may be simpler data encoding molecules but I do not know of anyone suggesting their identity.

I could just as easily take that quote of yours, and say this: "I disagree that your prebiotic oscillations theory shows 'feeding' emerging from chemistry. Feeding is a biological function." Of course, I do not agree with that quote I just gave. I'm simply showing why your argument is silly.

If an earlier life process existed, RNA would still be at the center of origin theories, because it symbolizes the emergence of a well-developed replicator, as the central target of selection.
I do not thik my argument is silly. Oscillating chemical reactions must "feed" in the sense of needing an external energy source to mainat the chemcal oscillation.
RNA is not demonstrated to be a replicator. When it is copied it is copied by enzymes within cells.

[John Hewitt]

It's noticeable that silicates, notably the asbestiforms, but even Silica itself are often implicated in lung cancer. I have wondered why organic tissue would bond to silicates at all unless there is something strangely compatible about the silicate template...
There is nothing strange about it. Weak intermolecular interactions are commonplace and many substances bond to organic tissue - it needs cleaning off the bath for example - and silica also bonds to a great many things, which is one reason it is so widely used in thin layer chromatography.

[John Hewitt]

If anyone holds that Memetics is either a science or a protoscience, could they please link some recent published papers on the subject. The "Journal of Memetics" appeared to have a good go at rigorously defining what was meant by the term, then got a bit silly and gave up.

Following is a quote from an article in the last issue (2005) from Bruce Edmonds:


(http://cfpm.org/jom-emit/2005/vol9/edmonds_b.html)

I would contend that Memetics is neither a science, proto-science or pseudo-science, but simply an idea who's time has come and gone.

I agree with this.

[Schneibster]

I agree with this.Of course you do. The problem is, do you have any data to support your opinion?

[John Hewitt]

Of course you do. The problem is, do you have any data to support your opinion?
In my opinion, the value of a system of thought lies in what it achieves. As I have said before, "The ultimate proof of the pudding is in the eating and, if memetics ever achieves anything, that will be the proof."

[Robin]

And I'd argue that memetics hasn't taken off because we don't have enough knowledge yet of the underlying mental phenomena to attach it to anything like genetics is attached to DNA. I think that attempting to characterize memetics at this time is about like trying to characterize genetics in the time of Gregor Mendel. It will prove its worth or be abandoned, quite frankly, on the basis of criteria that we can't imagine now. Arguing that it's not a science, while perhaps factually true, is IMHO entirely premature.
However memetics does not even live up to the standards of genetics in Mendel's time. Before the discovery of DNA, genetics still had predictive power, you could say that an organism with this characteristic crossed with an organism with that characteristic would produce an offspring with such and such a characteristic.

So genetics was a science even before the underlying mechanism was even guessed at.

There is no such predictive power in memetics and, to my knowledge, no careful experimentation to even attempt to find this.

Study of the transmission of such things as ideas, attitudes and beliefs was occurring before TSG and continue after the vocabulary of memetics fades - many attempts to impose rigour on memetics borrow the methodology from these studies, but appeared to suffer, rather than be enhanced, by the gene analogy.

[Wowbagger]

Mr. Hewitt,
I am curious to know what your response is to Schneibster's post #144 of this thread. He seems to have addressed your criticism of RNA origins better than I did.

[John Hewitt]

Mr. Hewitt,
I am curious to know what your response is to Schneibster's post #144 of this thread. He seems to have addressed your criticism of RNA origins better than I did.
I didn't reply to it because, to me, his comments seemed like total nonsense. He purports to be addressing the question of the origin of biology from chemistry but plainly knows little biology and no chemistry. For some strange reason, pretends to both and seems uninterested in the accuracy, or otherwise, of his claims. I don't have the time to write a textbook for him, so we will deal with just the first paragraph.
from Schneibster
I disagree and challenge you to prove this. RNA is a simpler chemical than DNA, and would be quite capable of being synthesized in a random chemical environment. But even this is not necessary to abiogenesis; you might want to have a look at autocatalytic sets. They are a much more likely explanation of the origin of life on Earth, IMO, than any other; and you will also find that they are a very, very hard target. Particularly since it appears that scientists working for chemical companies have used the ideas behind autocatalytic sets to successfully create (evolve! Note most carefully!) enzymes for various uses, like odor elimination, stain removal, drain clog removal, and other purposes. These enzymes work extremely well. To top it all off, the theory of autocatalytic sets accounts for RNA, too!I don't feel obligated to respond to challenges, only to relevant critiques.
RNA is not simpler than DNA, they differ only by one oxygen atom per link and DNA lacks that atom.
If Schneibster claims to know what is or is not necessary for abiogenesis, he should follow my example and make his ideas public - this is a major research issue.
I have looked at autocatalytic sets and, as a theory of abiogenesis, I consider that idea an "appeal to magic" as Orgel puts it.
I am not aware of scientists from chemical companies using autocatalytic sets to evolve enzymes. I don't expect Schneibster will be citing any RELEVANT literature.
To the best of my knowledge, autocatalytic sets have not been used to account for the prebiotic emergence of RNA.

As I said, this is my reply to his first paragraph. A fuller reply would follow the same pattern.

[Soapy Sam]

There is nothing strange about it. Weak intermolecular interactions are commonplace and many substances bond to organic tissue - it needs cleaning off the bath for example - and silica also bonds to a great many things, which is one reason it is so widely used in thin layer chromatography.

Good points. Thank you.

[Schneibster]

Hmmm, well if you think At Home in the Universe isn't RELEVANT, I don't guess I care much what you have to say after that. One last shot, then the ignore list. Go for it.

[John Hewitt]

Hmmm, well if you think At Home in the Universe isn't RELEVANT, I don't guess I care much what you have to say after that. One last shot, then the ignore list. Go for it.

So, you're just playing games really.
Kauffman is not might favorite theoretician. I haven't read that book and it is not high on my reading list.
To me, going into quantum mechanics seems pointless. His claims about autocatalytic sets are not sensible and a bit too close to Schuster to be original. Moreover, the idea of some self-organising principle as a supplement to Darwinism smacks of vital forces. Still, I think more of him than to think that what you wrote was in any way representative of his work.

If you believe it is, go ahead and give chapter and verse on the arguments you are making. You might with where he says DNA is more complex than RNA.

[Schneibster]

So, you're just playing games really.
Kauffman is not might favorite theoretician. I haven't read that book and it is not high on my reading list.Then you've ignored a great deal of applicable physics and chemistry. I'd suggest you read it.

To me, going into quantum mechanics seems pointless. Why? DNA isn't made of atoms? For that matter, all proteins aren't? You think you can figure out what is happening in molecular biology without understanding the physics of what's happening to the molecules? Sorry, I have to disagree with this right from the word go. If you do this, I guarantee you will not come to rigorous conclusions.

His claims about autocatalytic sets are not sensible and a bit too close to Schuster to be original. How do you know? You haven't read it.

In fact, his most important claim is based on networking and topology; he uses an analogy of strings and buttons to show how the number of different unique molecules in a collection influences the likelihood of autocatalytic sets forming. It is an extremely persuasive argument, coming as it does from very, very basic principles of a type of mathematics that most biologists never bother to learn because they don't think it's "relevant." Problem is, it turns out it IS relevant, and anyone who has ever studied the structure of a pine cone knows it intuitively. These mathematical principles are inherent characteristics of our world, as basic as the 3+1 dimensionality of it; they are in fact basic characteristics of any sort of world that can have differentiable objects and classifiable characteristics for those objects that define probability of associable characteristics greater than zero.

Moreover, the idea of some self-organising principle as a supplement to Darwinism smacks of vital forces. Again, you have not read the book, and you should. The only self-organizing force is the fact that sufficient diversity with non-zero probability of association makes association inevitable. I don't care very much what you think it smacks of, being as how you haven't read it. I'll repeat that it is extremely relevant to your ideas. I really think you should make time to read it.

Still, I think more of him than to think that what you wrote was in any way representative of his work.I repeat yet again: you haven't read it. How dare you negatively characterize what I said based on your not merely incomplete, but virtually nonexistent knowledge? If it is your intent to be insulting, you have succeeded.

If you believe it is, go ahead and give chapter and verse on the arguments you are making. You might with where he says DNA is more complex than RNA.I ain't doing a bunch of research for someone who is being insulting. If you ain't gonna read it yourself, you can at least be polite while I explain it to you. If you're not going to read it, and you're going to be insulting, then you deserve no response whatsoever. Amend this and I'll consider changing course; better yet, read it for yourself, with an open mind and a bit less hubris than you've shown here.

[John Hewitt]

Then you've ignored a great deal of applicable physics and chemistry. I'd suggest you read it.
I have read a couple of his papers, that is why his book is low on my reading list.

Why? DNA isn't made of atoms? For that matter, all proteins aren't? You think you can figure out what is happening in molecular biology without understanding the physics of what's happening to the molecules? Sorry, I have to disagree with this right from the word go. If you do this, I guarantee you will not come to rigorous conclusions.

I know the capabilities of quantum mechanics reasonably well - my first degree was in physical chemistry, followed by a doctorate in molecular biology. I know which tools are appropriate and which are not. With some exceptions, not including this one, quantum mechanics is not the appropriate tool for analysing molecular biology, any more than it would be the right tool for describing the motion of a bus.

In fact, his most important claim is based on networking and topology; he uses an analogy of strings and buttons to show how the number of different unique molecules in a collection influences the likelihood of autocatalytic sets forming. It is an extremely persuasive argument, coming as it does from very, very basic principles of a type of mathematics that most biologists never bother to learn because they don't think it's "relevant." Problem is, it turns out it IS relevant, and anyone who has ever studied the structure of a pine cone knows it intuitively. These mathematical principles are inherent characteristics of our world, as basic as the 3+1 dimensionality of it; they are in fact basic characteristics of any sort of world that can have differentiable objects and classifiable characteristics for those objects that define probability of associable characteristics greater than zero.
Then I suggest you provide an explanation of exactly why it is relevant.

Again, you have not read the book, and you should. The only self-organizing force is the fact that sufficient diversity with non-zero probability of association makes association inevitable. I don't care very much what you think it smacks of, being as how you haven't read it. I'll repeat that it is extremely relevant to your ideas. I really think you should make time to read it. I don't even know what that means.

I repeat yet again: you haven't read it. How dare you negatively characterize what I said based on your not merely incomplete, but virtually nonexistent knowledge? If it is your intent to be insulting, you have succeeded.
You weren't and aren't quoting from Kauffman, you made a whole bunch of claims that had nothing to do with Kauffman's work and which you cannot back up.

I ain't doing a bunch of research for someone who is being insulting. If you ain't gonna read it yourself, you can at least be polite while I explain it to you. If you're not going to read it, and you're going to be insulting, then you deserve no response whatsoever. Amend this and I'll consider changing course; better yet, read it for yourself, with an open mind and a bit less hubris than you've shown here.
Please do not do any research on my behalf.

[Schneibster]

Ferget it. Welcome to ignore. I have no time for people who can't be bothered to be polite, and no interest in talking with people who think they know everything.

[Wowbagger]

With some exceptions, not including this one, quantum mechanics is not the appropriate tool for analysing molecular biology, any more than it would be the right tool for describing the motion of a bus. So, you admit quantum mechanics is very important for describing the motion of a bus, then?

If not, then answer this: Molecules are the product of quantum mechanics, right? So, What part of molecular biology is not made up of molecules?

Then I suggest you provide an explanation of exactly why it is relevant.I can summarize an answer to this one, by adapting something Schneibster already said: Evidence of its applications can be found in numerous places, in nature, including the evolution of the pine cone's shape, for example.

I would not be so quick to dismiss other people's ideas. Especially when they are backed up with observable evidence. "Good logic" is no doubt very important to science, but reliably repeatable observation trumps purely logical deduction.

Everyone on this forum, without exception, (and that includes myself), has limitations in their knowledge. I hope John Hewitt is starting to find out what his limits are, for once.

And Schneibster, please reconsider your Ignore of Mr. Hewitt. I think your discussions with him are very fruitful to everyone here. Even if Hewitt won't listen to them, himself.

[John Hewitt]

So, you admit quantum mechanics is very important for describing the motion of a bus, then?

If not, then answer this: Molecules are the product of quantum mechanics, right? So, What part of molecular biology is not made up of molecules?
What I said was
1. QM cannot sensibly be used to describe the motion of a bus or, with some exceptions, the behaviour of living things.
2. Kauffman's work is speculative and has no observational basis that I am aware of. You might like to read this
http://human-brain.org/kauffman.html
3. The posting by Schneibster, that you asked me to comment on, did not refer to Kauffman or to his work. I presume that Schneibster introduced the reference to Kauffman to avoid explaining himself. In other words, he is playing games.
4. Schneibster's posting does not seem relevant to Kauffman's work. Kauffman's ideas centre on quantum entanglement giving rise to self-organizing of matter through autocatalytic sets. Schneibster's posting, which you asked me to comment upon, did not address or raise any of those topics.

[Schneibster]

At your request (if I get in a fight with him later, do I get to blame you? :D just kidding) wowbagger, I'll try again. I don't guarantee he'll stay off it for long, I really dislike self-righteous impolite people, but if folks are getting something out of it, I really can't refuse.

[Wowbagger]

Having not read At Home in the Universe myself, yet, I can not rightfully comment much on anything regarding it. (I think I will put it on my reading list.) However, the review you linked to, Mr. Hewitt, made this claim:

It is worth noting that kauffman doesn't challange those branches of science (e.g. cell bilogy, thermodynamics) which contradict his ideas. He simply ignores them completely, not only their theories but also their accumulated experimental knowledge. (Note: Typographical errors in there are as copied from original source.)

I would like to see evidence that his ideas are completely and utterly mutually exclusive to these branches. My guess is that Kauffman's ideas could work side-by-side with the others. But, I could be wrong. Would Hewitt or Scheibster care to comment?

Schneibster's posting does not seem relevant to Kauffman's work. Kauffman's ideas centre on quantum entanglement giving rise to self-organizing of matter through autocatalytic sets. Schneibster's posting, which you asked me to comment upon, did not address or raise any of those topics.
Perhaps Scheibster would care to comment on how his posting was relevant?

I would also like to know if Kaufman's ideas have any predictive power to them. This could possibly be relevant to memes: perhaps they self-organize like that, and if so, investigating this angle could yield a better understanding in how they form and could be measured. (But, then again, I could be wrong about that.)

QM cannot sensibly be used to describe the motion of a bus or, with some exceptions, the behaviour of living things. First of all, if QM is not directly useful to molecular biology, then I'll eat my hat with extra salt. (keyword being "molecular", you see)

Second of all, in Murray Gell-Mann's book The Quark and the Jaguar, (which I happened to have read) he makes it quite clear how quantum mechanics can relate to biology, through applications of such concepts as Information Theory and Thermodynamics and how they can evolve into the behavior of Complex Adaptive Systems (such as, for example, life forms). I suggest you read that, yourself, when you get the chance.

[Schneibster]

I have read a couple of his papers, that is why his book is low on my reading list.I haven't; I read the book. It sounds to me like either
a) you missed something important, because it's in the book and not the papers, or
b) you read them, but you didn't understand them.
You can fix a) by reading the book; there's not much you can do about b) unless it's because you have prejudices, in which case you can either discard them and learn something, or continue to be prejudiced and look dumb to everyone here; if it's simple lack of capacity, I can try to help, but you should be polite if you want that. I doubt it's lack of capacity; but I would be remiss in my reasoning if I ignored the possibility.

I know the capabilities of quantum mechanics reasonably well - my first degree was in physical chemistry, followed by a doctorate in molecular biology. I know which tools are appropriate and which are not. With some exceptions, not including this one, quantum mechanics is not the appropriate tool for analysing molecular biology, any more than it would be the right tool for describing the motion of a bus.Again, what you pedantically know, and what you actually understand the implications of in terms of real world events, appear to be very different. And again, I don't and can't know if this is prejudice or lack of capacity, but it has to be one or the other.

Then I suggest you provide an explanation of exactly why it is relevant.I did. You said: I don't even know what that means.OK, well I'll assume then that trying to explain it another way will help you; my real opinion is that it's a matter of prejudice, but at least another different explanation might tell someone else something THEY had not heard before, whether you are capable of discarding your prejudices enough to hear something you don't like or not.

Suppose the probability of two things being associated in a certain way is X. Now suppose that you increase the number of things. What happens to the probability that the collection of things will have a pair that are associated in that way? The answer is relatively obvious. As the number of things increases, the chance that there will be a pair that are related increases. And the number of pairs of things that are related also increases, if the number of things goes high enough.

Now, let us talk about proteins and their interactions. The most important action of a protein from the point of view of this topological model is as an enzyme. In an enzymatic interaction, a protein can be a substrate, which is acted upon by an enzyme, a product, which is created by the action of an enzyme on a substrate, or an enzyme, which acts upon a substrate to create a product. (Yes, yes, I know, the details of this interaction are more complex than this- many enzymes produce multiple products from multiple substrates, but the principle remains; just because the edges represent different interactions, doesn't mean that the mathematical behavior is, in the end, any different. I said it doesn't matter what you define edges or nodes to be, remember?) So let us note that the odds of a particular protein being an enzyme to another, either as product or substrate, are fixed; that is, given two random proteins, there is a small, but fixed, probability that one will turn out to be an enzyme in an interaction that either uses or produces the other.

Now, given a randomly chosen (i.e., randomly produced) set of proteins, what this means is that as the number of proteins increases, the number of proteins that are associated in this way, by enzyme mediated reactions, also increases. And if we increase the number of proteins enough, then eventually, INEVITABLY, we will create a closed set of proteins, all related to one another, capable given the correct (and simple!) chemical input of reproducing itself. This is an autocatalytic set, and I'll point out again that the formation of such sets, given enough different proteins, is inevitable. That's what Kauffman means when he says that life is inevitable; because that which consumes and reproduces is life.

And that's what I meant, and if you'd read the book, you'd know it.

You weren't and aren't quoting from Kauffman, you made a whole bunch of claims that had nothing to do with Kauffman's work and which you cannot back up.How do you know? You didn't read it.

[Schneibster]

I would like to see evidence that his ideas are completely and utterly mutually exclusive to these branches. My guess is that Kauffman's ideas could work side-by-side with the others. But, I could be wrong. Would Hewitt or Scheibster care to comment?Actually, this is a misunderstanding of how Kauffman's ideas work. They contradict neither cell biology, because they precede it, nor thermodynamics, because they in fact count on thermodynamics to produce the substances from which they form autocatalytic sets. Arguments against self-organization on thermodynamic grounds have the irritating tendency to claim that self organization does not occur because it violates thermodynamics by creating order; what they ignore is that energy flowing from one place to another ALWAYS creates order, and there's this great big source of energy UP THERE IN THE SKY. Some people call it "The Sun." If they're smart enough to remember it's there. Which apparently the writer of that article WAS NOT. I'd say forgetting or ignoring the existence of the Sun is pretty much grounds for stating that the conclusions reached might not be entirely, well, dependable. A few dropped premises here and there, perhaps. Maybe it's just me.

Perhaps Scheibster would care to comment on how his posting was relevant?I think I've covered that in the previous post, for anyone who is not blinded by their prejudices.

I would also like to know if Kaufman's ideas have any predictive power to them. As a matter of fact, they do- and the mathematics that underlies them has been tested and proven. Furthermore, Stuart Kauffman possesses a patent on the evolution of novel enzymes using the process described in my previous post, and in his book. Not only is there a company, Applied Molecular Evolution, that has produced enzymes using this technique, but they are currently involved in litigation with another company, MorphoSys AG, regarding infringement of Kauffman's patents (which apparently they own the rights to produce enzymes under), and have obtained injunctive relief against two other companies, Archemix, and SomaLogic, operating in Europe, under the European patent(s?) Kauffman has obtained. A quick google on the obvious turns will turn up information on this, including this link (http://www.ame.biz/History/020105.htm) to a press release on AME's web site. How's that for prediction? Does making commercial products with it count? :D

Incidentally, John Hewitt's accusation that I was exaggerating or lying about companies using this process to produce products, and his assertion that I could not produce proof, seem now to be either victims of his lack of search skills, or deliberate acts of dishonesty. I'll leave others to form their own opinions. Particularly considering the wording of his statements, which seem to me rather probative. It is worth noting that the first search terms were "Kauffman enzyme engineering," and the one that brought the link above to light was "Kauffman patent." Gee, that was pretty tough to figure out. Took me almost forty-five seconds. Including search time.

This could possibly be relevant to memes: perhaps they self-organize like that, and if so, investigating this angle could yield a better understanding in how they form and could be measured. (But, then again, I could be wrong about that.)I think that how memes behave is far more relevant to Kauffman's autocatalytic sets or even John Hewitt's oscillating chemicals than it is to DNA and genetics.

First of all, if QM is not directly useful to molecular biology, then I'll eat my hat with extra salt. (keyword being "molecular", you see)Me too. Although I'd like a little pepper with mine. Not that it makes any difference.

I'll point out that X-ray crystallography- a physics technique developed using quantum mechanics- was used to confirm the double-helical structure of DNA. That is the barest beginning of the applications of quantum mechanics to the functioning of DNA; for example, the way in which it is replicated, or the way in which it is transcribed into tRNA, both require quantum mechanics for their complete description.

Second of all, in Murray Gell-Mann's book The Quark and the Jaguar, (which I happened to have read) he makes it quite clear how quantum mechanics can relate to biology, through applications of such concepts as Information Theory and Thermodynamics and how they can evolve into the behavior of Complex Adaptive Systems (such as, for example, life forms). I suggest you read that, yourself, when you get the chance.It is a good book; I have not picked it up in quite a long time. I'll have to again soon. I had forgotten it or I might have made these points myself.

Overall, I'd say John's got some 'splainin to do. Excuse me, precisely how does one complete a college course in physical chemistry, and not know how quantum mechanics applies to it? Not to mention, how does one complete the courses to earn a degree in molecular biology without knowing that the proper description of how DNA is lysed, and how it is duplicated, and how it is transcribed, also require knowledge of that discipline?

Again, I will leave others to form their own opinions. Mine is, I think, relatively obvious.

[Schneibster]

However memetics does not even live up to the standards of genetics in Mendel's time. Before the discovery of DNA, genetics still had predictive power, you could say that an organism with this characteristic crossed with an organism with that characteristic would produce an offspring with such and such a characteristic.

So genetics was a science even before the underlying mechanism was even guessed at.

There is no such predictive power in memetics and, to my knowledge, no careful experimentation to even attempt to find this.I don't know that they're using memetics, precisely, but I have to tell you that advertising sure is making a hell of a lot of money coming up with highly memorable jingles and phrases that seem to be on the tip of everyone's tongue for a few weeks.

Bud. Wise. Er.

comes immediately to mind. Memetics at minimum postdicts this.

One of the things that got me started on memetics was a read through Douglas Rushkoff's Coercion. It's a very interesting book. No, it's not memetics- but you'll be able to see why I feel it's a precursor if you read it. Note the clever interweaving of sights and sounds, and where possible smells and textures, to achieve the desired commercial effect. Note how ideas- memes, though I don't recall Rushkoff mentioning them as such- get greater impact from associations with various things we find compelling in one fashion or another.

Besides, memetics postdicts LOTS of things. It postdicts that there will be ideas that "catch on" that have little or no survival value. It postdicts that ideas that have associations with compelling- not necessarily good or bad, but always memorable- events or experiences, will survive longer. It postdicts that ideas that are associated with easily memorized themes- "Bud. Wise. Er." Or, more recently, "B-Lock." "Duh-umb." "Man Rule."- will survive longer. It postdicts that the more "hooks" or "tricks" a meme has, the longer it will survive. And there stands the Catholic Church and its three thousand year old book by the neolithic sheep herders. Using literally "every trick in the book." The altruism trick; the fear trick; Blackstone doesn't even get to them all, because she doesn't have enough book to do so. And friend, it's lasted, yep, 3000 years. Imagine that. What does it take to craft something that durable? How do you go about it? The fact is, we know it in our subconscious- but no one has yet properly explained it. Even Macchievelli- close as he came- never quite explained it all. It postdicts that memes that are more easily memorized will last longer- because they will be copied more faithfully.

So don't tell me memetics doesn't predict things- it's just that the things it predicts are all things we already happen to know, being pretty social creatures. And it definitely doesn't, despite six pages of everyone and their brother trying to shoot it down, predict or postdict anything that DOESN'T happen. So while I'll agree that it's not YET a science, I seriously doubt that anyone who thinks it's dead, or a dead end, or ignorable, has done enough research to have a believable opinion on the subject.

[Schneibster]

By the way:
I do not think there is any point talking about memetics any more. We are not about to agree with one another and memetics is not what I am actively interested in. Da Schneib points mutely at the title of the thread, frowns, shakes his head, and walks away muttering under his breath.

[Wowbagger]

Glad to have you back, Schneibster! You're on top of your game!

I, for one, can appreciate the detail you've put into your answers. They are certainly very useful to me, at least. I think we got to find some way to get more forum members involved with this.

My theory is that John Hewitt doesn't want to talk about memes anymore, because he's got no arguments left in declaring them "junk".

Remember, there is no shame in no knowing something. There is only shame in not acknowledging facts, once evidence has been presented to you.

[John Hewitt]

I disagree and challenge you to prove this. RNA is a simpler chemical than DNA, and would be quite capable of being synthesized in a random chemical environment. But even this is not necessary to abiogenesis; you might want to have a look at autocatalytic sets. They are a much more likely explanation of the origin of life on Earth, IMO, than any other; and you will also find that they are a very, very hard target. Particularly since it appears that scientists working for chemical companies have used the ideas behind autocatalytic sets to successfully create (evolve! Note most carefully!) enzymes for various uses, like odor elimination, stain removal, drain clog removal, and other purposes. These enzymes work extremely well. To top it all off, the theory of autocatalytic sets accounts for RNA, too!

It is worthwhile also to point out that templates for the synthesis of proteins are not nearly as limited as many believe. In fact, out of many, many millions or even billions of candidate amino acids, life here on Earth uses only a very, very few. For example, in your body, all of the proteins generated by your DNA are made from only twenty amino acids, out of these billions. These twenty amino acids are coded for by combinations of only four nucleotides in groups of three. You will note that four codons, taken three at a time, gives sixty-four possible combinations; with "start" and "stop" codons, and redundant combinations, this allows the specification of literally trillions of possible proteins, enough to permit an immune response to just about any antigen you will encounter in your lifetime. You should know (would, if you'd do the research) that your immune system does not come pre-programmed to combat diseases; instead, it comes pre-equipped with a "toolkit" of antibody-generating cells that are- have to be!- capable of adapting to and attacking any organism that invades your body. Given the rapid mutation rate of viruses and bacteria, this is an absolute requirement for you to be a robust organism yourself; if you were limited to only the organisms that could be specified in your DNA, you would quickly die on being exposed to a novel virus or bacterium, and this would probably happen in your first year of life.

But those four nucleotides, and those twenty amino acids, are by no means the only ones possible; in fact, there are millions or billions of others, plus combinations and permutations of them, that many believe would yield a viable genetic code, and a viable "toolkit" of proteins it can construct. In fact, alternate genetic codes actually exist on Earth; mitochondria, ciliate protozoa, Mycoplasma, and some yeasts of genus Candida use differing interpretations for at least some codons, hinting that alternate codes may have been dominant in the past.

The question is not, and never has been, "How did this incredibly unlikely genetic code come to be." It is not unlikely; it is instead inevitable. Obvious. Expected. Once, that is, one knows the laws of physics and complexity that govern chemistry. The question at hand is rather, "Of all the possible choices, why did evolution on Earth settle on the particular genetic code it did?" And the answers to that increasingly appear to have to do with robust replication, and robust correction of point mutations. It becomes increasingly obvious that the particular genetic code we use has also been subject to selection pressures. That it has itself evolved. Representations of a genetic code that must necessarily have sprung fully-fledged from nothing are therefore revealed as misrepresentations of the actual state of affairs: we see that the genetic code has evolved, and that other genetic codes are possible; given a billion years or so, and all the world's oceans, with the obvious results of the Miller-Urey experiment in hand, we can see that it is inevitable that life should have developed here.

In any case, the original point was that both genetics and memetics are accurate descriptions of reality on some level. And while I will give you points for at least presenting what you see as an alternative, I also have to point out (although I did not do the detailed critique wowbagger did, I did read it) that both alternatives appear to be relatively unaffected by whether genes preceeded proteins, or succeeded them. It is likely that we will never know for sure; it is equally likely that we will create at some point organisms that have all the necessary attributes for us to call them "living" that do not use the same genetic code we do. And I ask you, will they be "alive," will they be "life," whatever that might mean?

Underlying this conversation is the following point: the meaning of the genetic code is undeniable. We can duplicate most of the functions in vitro. And given that that meaning, the clear, unambiguous mapping between genes and proteins, is unquestioned, the utility of DNA as a blueprint for the creation of proteins, and as the source of the repetition of arrangement of proteins and their actions that we call ontogeny.

Given this known paradigm, and given the complexity with which an organized collection of proteins can act, it must be obvious that there is something that can be acted upon, that can be inherited, that is the source of all our phenotypes. And this must be the place where all changes that can be inherited must come from. And no matter what went before, once this DNA mechanism became dominant in life on Earth, it must be what ultimately is changed whenever a heritable phenotypical change occurs in a population of organisms. It does not matter what other chemical or physical changes occur in an organism; if the DNA, and specifically in the germ plasm, is not changed, then that change is not heritable. And conversely, it does not matter what is changed in germ plasm, that change will be heritable, even if it makes no difference whatsoever to the phenotype of the organism. These are provable facts, and have been proven over and over again; the mere existence of genetically modified organisms is undisputable proof that when evolution occurs in modern life forms, and by modern I mean anything that uses DNA on Earth, which is every organism alive on Earth today, and just about every organism that has lived since the beginning of the Cambrian.

Given that such a mechanism exists, it has to be obvious that there can be no question as to what changes when evolution occurs. Thee can be only one answer. It must be DNA. Nothing else answers the obvious requirement for something that can be inherited, something that determines the phenotype, and something that is both difficult enough to change that it is usable for transmission of phenotypical characteristics, and easy enough to change that it can be that which changes when evolution occurs.

In this low-level sense, then, genetics does not map well to memetics. However, I have to point out that once you posit evolution of chemicals, and point out the similarities to genetic evolution, you have inadvertently made an analogy that improves the viability of memetics, because the way memes evolve is much more like the way that you posit that chemicals evolve prebiotically than the way that we know DNA evolves. Unlike genes, memes are themselves the phenotype; they are the ideas themselves, not "genes of ideas," as would be required by strict analogy with genetic molecular biology.
Would somebody please tell me where, in this posting Schneibster cites or mentions Kauffman's work? Where does he use Kauffman's work?
Am I being asked to debate this posting or Kauffman's claims.

[Schneibster]

Look, John, you been pwnt. It's obvious now that you have no substantial arguments to present; if you did, you'd have done it. Are we done here, or are you actually gonna respond with something that means something, instead of just pointing and laughing and hoping someone joins you?

[John Hewitt]

Edited here.
This post is deleted and I am off this thread.

[Schneibster]

Well, wowbagger, unfortunately this doesn't seem to have worked out. I hope you got enough out of it to make it worth your while.

[hammegk]

The question is not, and never has been, "How did this incredibly unlikely genetic code come to be." It is not unlikely; it is instead inevitable. Obvious. Expected. Once, that is, one knows the laws of physics and complexity that govern chemistry. The question at hand is rather, "Of all the possible choices, why did evolution on Earth settle on the particular genetic code it did?
Do you find the rise of memes to be as pre-ordained as terran life?

Are you going with Strong Anthropic Principle? Or does your entire argument actually require the prior abiogenesis of "terran life"?

[Wowbagger]

The question is not, and never has been, "How did this incredibly unlikely genetic code come to be." It is not unlikely; it is instead inevitable. Obvious. Expected. Once, that is, one knows the laws of physics and complexity that govern chemistry. The question at hand is rather, "Of all the possible choices, why did evolution on Earth settle on the particular genetic code it did?" Do you find the rise of memes to be as pre-ordained as terran life?

Are you going with Strong Anthropic Principle? Or does your entire argument actually require the prior abiogenesis of "terran life"?
I know these questions were posed to Schneibster. But, I'll give my take on them, as well.

I would say that memes are almost just as "inevitable" as life arising on Earth. Selection pressure drove a certain species to develop a malleable brain, in order to survive ever-changing factors in their challenging environment. And that, when such malleable brains have arisen, it is inevitable they will be hijacked by memes.

I don't think Schneibster was alluding to any Anthropic Principals, strong or weak, as there is hardly any science in either one (well, perhaps a little in the weak version, maybe). If you care to read what Schneibster wrote just after you quoted him, I think he makes it clear:

And the answers to that increasingly appear to have to do with robust replication, and robust correction of point mutations. It becomes increasingly obvious that the particular genetic code we use has also been subject to selection pressures. That it has itself evolved.

The components of life could have come about in any number of different ways. The particular way it did come out is merely a function of which competing possibility was the more "robust", in its particular environment, at the time.

Well, wowbagger, unfortunately this doesn't seem to have worked out. I hope you got enough out of it to make it worth your while.
I certainly got a lot out of this discussion.

I am disappointed John Hewitt is unable to recognize that there is more than one legitimate way of discussing scientific endeavors. I think his "my way or the highway" attitude puts him at risk of not being respected by other scientists in this field, even if some of his ideas could turn out to be right.
But, at least he kept us on our toes. I, for one, will miss the little twerp.

[Schneibster]

OK, hammy, if you want your meat ground too, I guess I'll accommodate you for once.

Do you find the rise of memes to be as pre-ordained as terran life?It's not pre-ordained. It's inevitable. It's obvious you don't understand the difference.

Are you going with Strong Anthropic Principle? Nope. Nor the weak one. Life is life. If the conditions are right, given enough time it will happen. It's an inevitable consequence of having the right chemicals at the place where the energy is flowing. You know, like having ammonia, water, methane, and CO2 inside the "life ring" around a star. Kinda like in our Solar System, here- which seems to be exactly the same, at least in those ways, as about ten billion more solar systems in our galaxy, and pretty much all galaxies for that matter. That would be a basically uncountable number, considering Hubble found 10,000 galaxies in a piece of sky the size of a grain of sand held at arm's length- and it wasn't a particularly special piece of sky, either.

It's my opinion that people like you cannot imagine just how big it is out there in the universe, or how incredibly, unimaginably, absolutely insignificant in both space and time your existence is. Or if you can, then it scares you so badly that you abandon reason and make up stories about how you're special and jebus loves you. But if you can't imagine how big it is, you're in good company; I sat last year, amazed, listening to an idiot complain we were "polluting space." I must have laughed for ten minutes, and every time I think of it, I at least chuckle. This guy can't imagine that space isn't someplace like, you know, maybe the Mojave Desert, or New York, or something. It's right over there, you know? And we're polluting it. Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiight. Makes one wanna pull the guy aside and sit him down and say, "Listen, dumbs**t..." Kinda like it makes me feel to talk to you, hammy.

Or does your entire argument actually require the prior abiogenesis of "terran life"?No, it proposes a mechanism by which abiogenesis can occur. It requires that there be methane, ammonia, water, and CO2, and that there be enough energy flowing to cause amino acids to form. You know the Urey-Miller experiment you like to pretend either never happened, or doesn't mean anything? Like that. Only for a billion years. In the whole ocean.

You'll note that this process is PATENTED and that companies are MAKING MONEY USING IT. And it's probably the way life started, hammy. So don't tell ME it doesn't work like that; go tell the people buying the enzymes and saving peoples' lives with them. But be careful not to get too close, or threaten anyone, or they'll get the guys in the white suits to come and take you away again.

[articulett]

OK, hammy, if you want your meat ground too, I guess I'll accommodate you for once.

It's not pre-ordained. It's inevitable. It's obvious you don't understand the difference.

Nope. Nor the weak one. Life is life. If the conditions are right, given enough time it will happen. It's an inevitable consequence of having the right chemicals at the place where the energy is flowing. You know, like having ammonia, water, methane, and CO2 inside the "life ring" around a star. Kinda like in our Solar System, here- which seems to be exactly the same, at least in those ways, as about ten billion more solar systems in our galaxy, and pretty much all galaxies for that matter. That would be a basically uncountable number, considering Hubble found 10,000 galaxies in a piece of sky the size of a grain of sand held at arm's length- and it wasn't a particularly special piece of sky, either.

It's my opinion that people like you cannot imagine just how big it is out there in the universe, or how incredibly, unimaginably, absolutely insignificant in both space and time your existence is. Or if you can, then it scares you so badly that you abandon reason and make up stories about how you're special and jebus loves you. But if you can't imagine how big it is, you're in good company; I sat last year, amazed, listening to an idiot complain we were "polluting space." I must have laughed for ten minutes, and every time I think of it, I at least chuckle. This guy can't imagine that space isn't someplace like, you know, maybe the Mojave Desert, or New York, or something. It's right over there, you know? And we're polluting it. Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiight. Makes one wanna pull the guy aside and sit him down and say, "Listen, dumbs**t..." Kinda like it makes me feel to talk to you, hammy.

No, it proposes a mechanism by which abiogenesis can occur. It requires that there be methane, ammonia, water, and CO2, and that there be enough energy flowing to cause amino acids to form. You know the Urey-Miller experiment you like to pretend either never happened, or doesn't mean anything? Like that. Only for a billion years. In the whole ocean.

You'll note that this process is PATENTED and that companies are MAKING MONEY USING IT. And it's probably the way life started, hammy. So don't tell ME it doesn't work like that; go tell the people buying the enzymes and saving peoples' lives with them. But be careful not to get too close, or threaten anyone, or they'll get the guys in the white suits to come and take you away again.

And the info. is only getting stronger: http://www.baltimoresun.com/news/health/bal-hs.origins29dec29,0,6082318.story?coll=bal-health-headlines

And yes, memes are predictive. If you tell a kids that they will live happily ever after for believing a certain way and that they will suffer forever for doubting, then you will have even old and curmudgeonly adults believing really imbelievable things...moreso, if you tell them they will live even happier ever after by trying to convince others that their inane ideas are true. And these people will miss learning some of the coolest things humans have the privilege of knowing!--real true knowledge--stuff with ever-accumulating evidence behind it.

I always wonder what will happen to these people as the science gets clearer and clearer--do they just become impenetrably delusional? Will Hammy or Holzman ever realize that their big words don't protect them from being wrong? Do they want the truth--or to just keep thinking they have the truth already? It seems that when you are that entrenched in your beliefs, it is unlikely that you will ever ask yourself if you are wrong. So you just play semantic games. You'd think that amongst all these posts--one of them would have offered a tad of evidence for some of their many claims--but instead they tell themselves that us "skeptics" just "won't listen".

tsk

[hammegk]

wowbagger: Thanks for the rational response.

OK, hammy, if you want your meat ground too...
No, I was searching for a nugget of reality in your (too often usual) cloud of obfuscation.


It's not pre-ordained. It's inevitable. It's obvious you don't understand the difference.
I'd say designed vs. determined.


Nope. Nor the weak one. Life is life. If the conditions are right, given enough time it will happen. It's an inevitable consequence of having the right chemicals at the place where the energy is flowing. You know, like having ammonia, water, methane, and CO2 inside the "life ring" around a star. Kinda like in our Solar System, here- which seems to be exactly the same, at least in those ways, as about ten billion more solar systems in our galaxy, and pretty much all galaxies for that matter. That would be a basically uncountable number, considering Hubble found 10,000 galaxies in a piece of sky the size of a grain of sand held at arm's length- and it wasn't a particularly special piece of sky, either.
And you suggest this is due to factors not covered by Strong Anthopic Principle. What factors do you see operating?


It's my opinion that people like you cannot imagine just how big it is out there in the universe, or how incredibly, unimaginably, absolutely insignificant in both space and time your existence is.
I suspect you are wrong in general, and certainly wrong in my case.


Or if you can, then it scares you so badly that you abandon reason and make up stories about how you're special and jebus loves you.
In my case, wrong, again.


But if you can't imagine how big it is, you're in good company; I sat last year, amazed, listening to an idiot complain we were "polluting space." I must have laughed for ten minutes, and every time I think of it, I at least chuckle. This guy can't imagine that space isn't someplace like, you know, maybe the Mojave Desert, or New York, or something. It's right over there, you know? And we're polluting it. Riiiiiiiiiiiiiiight. Makes one wanna pull the guy aside and sit him down and say, "Listen, dumbs**t..." Kinda like it makes me feel to talk to you, hammy.
Equating my views to that position is something only a fool could manage.


No, it proposes a mechanism by which abiogenesis can occur. It requires that there be methane, ammonia, water, and CO2, and that there be enough energy flowing to cause amino acids to form. You know the Urey-Miller experiment you like to pretend either never happened, or doesn't mean anything? Like that. Only for a billion years. In the whole ocean.
At last! pre-abiogenesis! Thank you for the answer.


You'll note that this process is PATENTED and that companies are MAKING MONEY USING IT. And it's probably the way life started, hammy. So don't tell ME it doesn't work like that; go tell the people buying the enzymes and saving peoples' lives with them. But be careful not to get too close, or threaten anyone, or they'll get the guys in the white suits to come and take you away again.
If you think I reject science, you are wrong again.

I suspect our views agree at 99.99% or more. :)

[Schneibster]

No, I was searching for a nugget of reality in your (too often usual) cloud of obfuscation.If you wanted something other than that, you should have started out on an entirely different path, a very very long time ago. If you want to claim that you're all sensible and rational now, after all that has gone before, I'm sorry but I'll believe it when I see it. I am stretching a point even reading what you wrote; you have managed other than this to avoid some of your insulting ways, although it's obvious you haven't given up on denial yet; I'll therefore go on with this, for the moment, unless or until you get nasty again. But keep in mind that the more times I try it and you hose me, the less likely it is that the next time will ever come again; and you'll note that there are people I have ignored for whom that time will never come.

Perhaps (like the GWDs are doing now, to their great chagrin, and I notice without ever actually apologizing for repeating the oil company lies that Exxon has now stopped funding because it's doing so much damage to their reputation, and everyone has figured it out, and they don't want to go to jail when they get subpoenaed to testify in front of Waxman's committee in the US Congress) you'll eventually wake up and figure out that you're not fooling anyone, and now is as good a time as any to guess you might actually have gotten some cognitive dissonance and started opening your eyes and blinking around at the real world.

I'd say designed vs. determined.Based on what evidence? The book by the neolithic sheep herders? Sorry, not interested, and nobody with two brain cells to rub together is interested in anything neolithic sheep herders have to say either. If you have physical evidence, present it; please don't bother with the same-old-same-old claims that "irreducible complexity" or some other chimera justifies that it was designed, and that the fact it was designed proves it is irreducibly complex, again.

And you suggest this is due to factors not covered by Strong Anthopic Principle. What factors do you see operating?I dunno, physics? Cosmology? You know, real, actual, scientific study of what's going on instead of blind belief (which, see my signature is proof not of faith, but of doubt) in the book by the neolithic sheep herders. Like that.

I suspect you are wrong in general, and certainly wrong in my case.

In my case, wrong, again.

Equating my views to that position is something only a fool could manage.So you claim. The fact that you terminate with an insult shows that I came near the mark on at least one point; it is, however, nothing but speculation, as I freely admitted- stating it as my opinion.

At last! pre-abiogenesis! Thank you for the answer."Pre-abiogenesis?" "Pre-gobbledygook." The two have equal meaning. The processes by which the universe evolved into what we see now are well known, and evidence for them is sufficient that ten thousand scientists met last week to discuss that evidence, and those processes, in Seattle. It's called "The annual meeting of the American Astronomical Society."

If you think I reject science, you are wrong again.No, I'm right- I've seen you do it. You cherry pick the things you like from it; but that has nothing to do with "accepting science." "Accepting science" means you accept it ALL; not part of it. You don't get to pick and choose which proven facts you'll accept and which you'll reject.

I suspect our views agree at 99.99% or more. :)I suspect that the 0.001% that they disagree is the most vital 0.001% imaginable. You know, the part where you actually accept evidence instead of making up conspiracy theories about how all the scientists are lying because what they say doesn't agree with the book by the neolithic sheep herders.

[hammegk]

Perhaps (like the GWDs are doing now
Er, yes, evidence is incontrovertible that earth is in a warming trend. OK?


Based on what evidence? The book by the neolithic sheep herders?
Why the need to tar me with a YEC or even OEC label? As to myths, the Hindu versions resonate more with me.


I dunno, physics? Cosmology? You know, real, actual, scientific study of what's going on instead of blind belief (which, see my signature is proof not of faith, but of doubt) in the book by the neolithic sheep herders. Like that.
More tar, no facts.


"Pre-abiogenesis?" "Pre-gobbledygook."
Yet you do seem to have understood me.


No, I'm right- I've seen you do it. You cherry pick the things you like from it; but that has nothing to do with "accepting science." "Accepting science" means you accept it ALL; not part of it. You don't get to pick and choose which proven facts you'll accept and which you'll reject.
When anyone provides a fact I reject, my view changes to accept that fact. The line between fact and conjecture is too often not a clean one.


I suspect that the 0.001% that they disagree is the most vital 0.001% imaginable. You know, the part where you actually accept evidence instead of making up conspiracy theories about how all the scientists are lying because what they say doesn't agree with the book by the neolithic sheep herders.
99.999 is probably closer ... :)

Where have I suggested any scientific conspiracies?

BTW, the newer thread A Question on Abiogenesis, with an overview recently provided by smaxwell, may be a better place to continue this discussion.

[Schneibster]

Why the need to tar me with a YEC or even OEC label? As to myths, the Hindu versions resonate more with me.Six of one, half a dozen of the other. "Design" implies an agency doing the designing. As has been said a thousand times, prove the existence of such an agency, or admit that it is unscientific to maintain it exists.

More tar, no facts. Cosmology is not a science, built on observations (i.e. facts)? See, this is why no one wants to argue with you, hammy; you don't answer the arguments, and you don't admit you were wrong. You just ignore what you don't like.

When anyone provides a fact I reject, my view changes to accept that fact. The line between fact and conjecture is too often not a clean one.Hammy, if someone provides a fact that you don't like, you ignore it. The proof is above. And in the fact that you didn't respond to the meat of this statement, or the previous one either.

Where have I suggested any scientific conspiracies?When you suggested that the "scientific establishment" (whatever the hell that might be) is suppressing publication of papers that disprove evolution.

[Schneibster]

BTW, the newer thread A Question on Abiogenesis, with an overview recently provided by smaxwell, may be a better place to continue this discussion.smaxwell having been demolished by adding hydrogen to his hot air, thereby causing him to do an excellent imitation of the Hindenburg, perhaps you'd like to reconsider.

[Wowbagger]

(oops! Pasted in wrong thread, sorry!)

[articulett]

memories...

[Mangafranga]

memories...memeories

[articulett]

memeories
punny

[plumjam]

I thought Memetics was the study of Turkish kebab shop owners. :eye-poppi

[Complexity]

proto