Lets take those points 1 by 1 1) "Information is transmitted genetically".
a) Instead of information being transmitted as am electronic series (string) of "0"s and "1"s" (ie. base 2 encoding), its transmitted as a chemical series (string) of base 4 proteins, both series being "readable". b) The statement does not imply that information cannot be transmitted by books or converstaions or culture or upbringing etc. c) The 19th century reference is probaby with reference to experiments by Sir Jagdish Chandra Bose, who did some work on what would be termed nowadays as "memory RNA" (involving plants and not planaria soup). d) Data such as "blue eyes" are transmitted (imperfectly) genetically onto copies using GCTA, just as I suppose a colour photocopier does using CMYK. Sarbajit On 3/16/12, John Kennison <jkenni...@clarku.edu> wrote: > > > Yes, sometimes scientific theories resemble religions and vice-versa and > sometimes the debate on how genes evolve looks a bit like a battle between > competing religions. > > I would disagree with principles (1) and (2): As for (1) I sometimes find > that knowledge is transmitted via books or conversations or even lectures > but none of these transmissions seem to be genetic. As for (2) we are not > the sum of our ancestors because we are affected by our upbringing, our > culture, our education etc. (I don't see how statement (2) could have been > "proven" in the nineteenth century.) > > As for (3) and (4), I'm not certain what they mean. Can someone explain them > to me? > > --John > ________________________________________ > From: friam-boun...@redfish.com [friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of > Sarbajit Roy [sroy...@gmail.com] > Sent: Friday, March 16, 2012 1:09 AM > To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group > Subject: Re: [FRIAM] FW: See this? > > W.r.t to your pointwise comments to John's points. > This to me seems a clear case of reinventing the wheel. > It also seems that the inventors do not know that the wheel has been > invented. > > Referring to at least 5,000 years of evolved human history > http://brahmo.org/brahmoism-genetics-memetics.html > There is at least 1 religion (yes "religion" and not "science") which > holds as follows: > > "# 1) Information / knowledge is transmitted genetically (this was > experimentaly proveable in 19th century and is trivial to prove today) > # 2) That we are the sum of our ancestors > # 3) That we contain all our ancestors in our genes and our bodies and > within us > # 4) Godhood of father." > > What is curious is that this "belief" (or variations) seems to span > many leading cultures separated by time and distance, and is used as a > device to propagate an "idea" or "belief" . > > I apologise for not being able to state the proposition in the formal > manner/practice of Judeo-Christian Western "civilisation" > > Sarbajit > > On 3/16/12, Nicholas Thompson <nickthomp...@earthlink.net> wrote: >> Hi, everybody, >> >> Am I the only person that the FRIAM server mucks with the head of? >> >> >> >> Anyway, the following was sent in response to John Kennison's interesting >> set of questions concerning my gripes about the E. O. Wilson interview. >> Yet, John never got it and it does not, so far as I can see, appear in the >> FRIAM archive. >> >> >> >> So, here it is again, in case anyone else missed it. >> >> >> >> From: Nicholas Thompson [mailto:nickthomp...@earthlink.net] >> >> Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2012 10:23 AM >> >> To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group' >> >> Subject: RE: [FRIAM] FW: See this? >> >> >> >> Thanks for writing, John. >> >> >> >> You missed the most important objection. Genes are not the object of >> greed. >> They are not analogous to coins, in reverse. With a nickel, it makes a >> difference whether it came from your pocket or mine. With genes, it only >> makes a difference which coin is in the pocket, not who put it there. >> Genes >> are all about type, not token. >> >> >> >> Comments on your specific points below: >> >> >> >> JK: I understand that you are irked by the phrase "genetic greed" but I am >> not clear about why this phrase irks you. Here are several possible >> reasons: >> >> >> >> (1) Genes are not capable of being greedy. >> >> >> >> [NST ==>] Greed is a behavior pattern. An individual genes just makes a >> protein or tells another gene when to make a protein. Gene's can't vary >> their behavior in telic ways. >> >> >> >> JK:(2) Genetic greed suggests that evolution is largely a >> competition between genes thus overlooking the competition between >> groups. >> >> >> >> [NST ==>] Well, as I suggested above, you are missing Wilson and Trivers >> focus on the INDIVIDUAL. To take the greed metaphor seriously, remember >> that gold is not greedy; it's people who are greedy for gold. Genetic >> greed (I think) is the idea that people are eager to give away "their" >> genes. >> >> >> >> (3) Genetic greed overlooks that genes often compete by inducing >> cooperative attitudes rather than greedy ones. >> >> >> >> [NST ==>] I will agree with that position so long as you record my >> skepticism about how resemblance between parents and offspring comes >> about. >> Given the webby nature of genetic transmission, it's hard for me to see >> how >> it happens. I am inclined to think of the gene as a construction of >> evolution, as much as the basis for it. >> >> >> >> (4) You disagree with the statement that, "evolution does not >> operate to benefit the group". >> >> >> >> [NST ==>] Well, that statement is patently false. Groups have evolved. >> The >> author confuses natural selection with evolution. And I do agree that >> natural selection does operate to benefit the group." [corrected in the >> current version - sorry.] >> >> >> >> (5) You disagree with Hamilton's equation. >> >> >> >> [NST ==>] >> >> >> >> Hard to disagree with an equation. Full stop. >> >> >> >> (6) You think that sociobiology sucks. >> >> >> >> [NST ==>] Well, I prefer Evolutionary Psychology, which is more inclined >> to >> take history and development into account. But I am on board with using >> evolutionary history as a way to understand human behavior. >> >> >> >> >> >> -----Original Message----- >> From: friam-boun...@redfish.com [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On >> Behalf >> Of John Kennison >> Sent: Tuesday, March 13, 2012 6:51 AM >> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group >> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] FW: See this? >> >> >> >> >> >> Hi Nick, >> >> >> >> I understand that you are irked by the phrase "genetic greed" but I am not >> clear about why this phrase irks you. Here are several possible reasons: >> >> (1) Genes are not capable of being greedy. >> >> (2) Genetic greed suggests that evolution is largely a >> competition >> between genes thus overlooking the competition between groups. >> >> (3) Genetic greed overlooks that genes often compete by inducing >> cooperative attitudes rather than greedy ones. >> >> (4) You disagree with the statement that, "evolution does not >> operate to benefit the group". >> >> (5) You disagree with Hamilton's equation. >> >> (6) You think that sociobiology sucks. >> >> Am I on the right track with any of these reasons? >> >> --John >> >> ________________________________________ >> >> From: <mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com> friam-boun...@redfish.com >> [friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of Nicholas Thompson >> [nickthomp...@earthlink.net] >> >> Sent: Sunday, March 11, 2012 6:08 PM >> >> To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group' >> >> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] FW: See this? >> >> >> >> Dear Frank >> >> >> >> I am in a rain engulfed open plan, bay-side, house with 5 other adults >> and >> two kids, and many competitors for the one copy of the new Yorker, and for >> the space to rethink what I wrote. So it may be some time before I can >> get >> you a proper response. In the meantime, here is an improper one. >> >> >> >> My explicit beef was with the interviewer, not with Wilson. It is >> certainly >> news to Wilson that, having believed something dumb for decades, he now >> comes, in old age, to the obvious truth. But why is it news to us?! The >> news, it seems to me, that there were a few people who stood up to the >> deluge of Reagen-biology that saturated the field, and it is to THOSE >> people, not Wilson, that we should look for insight. >> >> >> >> I am not sure there IS redemption for an academic who has killed off many >> good ideas (and presumably graduate students) to make a towering academic >> career, and then sees the truth in his dotage. At least, he has to do >> more >> than just change he mind. He has to make restitution: hasto pay back his >> royalties and recompense damages to those whom he has injured. And >> probably all the other items in the 12 step list, as well. >> >> >> >> Worse than the belated discovery of the truth, is the belated discovery of >> foolishness. Perhaps the most dramatic instance of this was Donald >> Griffin, who after a career of tough minded neurophys, woke one day as a >> mentalist. >> >> >> >> Oh was that ugly. >> >> >> >> Nick >> >> >> >> From: <mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com> friam-boun...@redfish.com >> <mailto:[mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com]> >> [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com] On Behalf Of Frank Wimberly >> >> Sent: Sunday, March 11, 2012 1:58 PM >> >> To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group' >> >> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] FW: See this? >> >> >> >> But, Nick, later in the article it says, ".even as Wilson campaigned for >> sociobiology, he began to grow dismayed with the scientific framework that >> made it possible. 'I noticed that the foundations of inclusive fitness >> were >> crumbling,' Wilson says. 'The reasoning that had convinced me it was >> correct no longer held.' For instance, after pursuing Hamilton's >> haplodipoidy hypothesis, scientists discovered that many of the most >> cooperative insect species, such as termites and ambrosia beetles, >> weren't >> actually haplodiploid. Furthermore, tens of thousands of species that >> did >> manifest haplodiploidy never evolved eusociality-although these insects >> were >> closely related, they didn't share food or serve the queen.[Wilson] >> concluded that inclusive fitness was no longer a tenable concept." >> >> >> >> Didn't he redeem himself by your lights? >> >> >> >> Frank >> >> >> >> Frank C. Wimberly >> >> 140 Calle Ojo Feliz >> >> Santa Fe, NM 87505 >> >> >> >> <mailto:wimber...@gmail.com%3cmailto:wimber...@gmail.com> >> wimber...@gmail.com<mailto:wimber...@gmail.com> >> <mailto:wimbe...@cal.berkeley.edu%3cmailto:wimbe...@cal.berkeley.edu> >> wimbe...@cal.berkeley.edu<mailto:wimbe...@cal.berkeley.edu> >> >> Phone: (505) 995-8715 Cell: (505) 670-9918 >> >> >> >> From: >> <mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com%3cmailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com> >> friam-boun...@redfish.com<mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com> >> <mailto:[mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com]> >> [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com]< >> <mailto:[mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com]> >> mailto:[mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com]> On Behalf Of Nicholas Thompson >> >> Sent: Sunday, March 11, 2012 11:10 AM >> >> To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group' >> >> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] FW: See this? >> >> >> >> Owen, etc., >> >> >> >> Even after having been carefully instructed by the young concerning how to >> access my new yorker subscription on the web, the best I can do is send >> you >> a screen shot of the part of the article that irked me. As I read it >> now, >> I am in danger of experiencing "irk-guilt", but here it is, anyway. >> >> >> >> I really am thrown into an irrational rage by the cult of the individual >> thing that goes on in interviews. >> >> >> >> "picking his teeth with a straw, the old biologist ." >> >> >> >> Nick >> >> >> >> <mailto:[cid:image001.png@01CCFF96.50F2F9E0]> >> [cid:image001.png@01CCFF96.50F2F9E0] >> >> >> >> From: >> <mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com%3cmailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com> >> friam-boun...@redfish.com<mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com> >> <mailto:[mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com]> >> [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com]< >> <mailto:[mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com]> >> mailto:[mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com]> On Behalf Of Frank Wimberly >> >> Sent: Sunday, March 11, 2012 9:57 AM >> >> To: 'The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group' >> >> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] FW: See this? >> >> >> >> Definitely not. The full article is in the March 5 issue. >> >> >> >> Frank >> >> >> >> >> >> Frank C. Wimberly >> >> 140 Calle Ojo Feliz >> >> Santa Fe, NM 87505 >> >> >> >> <mailto:wimber...@gmail.com%3cmailto:wimber...@gmail.com> >> wimber...@gmail.com<mailto:wimber...@gmail.com> >> <mailto:wimbe...@cal.berkeley.edu%3cmailto:wimbe...@cal.berkeley.edu> >> wimbe...@cal.berkeley.edu<mailto:wimbe...@cal.berkeley.edu> >> >> Phone: (505) 995-8715 Cell: (505) 670-9918 >> >> >> >> From: >> <mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com%3cmailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com> >> friam-boun...@redfish.com<mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com> >> <mailto:[mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com]> >> [mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com]< >> <mailto:[mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com]> >> mailto:[mailto:friam-boun...@redfish.com]> On Behalf Of Owen Densmore >> >> Sent: Sunday, March 11, 2012 9:10 AM >> >> To: The Friday Morning Applied Complexity Coffee Group >> >> Subject: Re: [FRIAM] FW: See this? >> >> >> >> This is just the abstract .. is it sufficient? >> >> On Sat, Mar 10, 2012 at 9:58 PM, Nicholas Thompson < >> <mailto:nickthomp...@earthlink.net%3cmailto:nickthomp...@earthlink.net> >> nickthomp...@earthlink.net<mailto:nickthomp...@earthlink.net>> wrote: >> >> Robert, 'n all, >> >> >> >> Here is an electronic version of the E.O. Wilson interview that irked me, >> courtesy of Frank Wimberly. I get irked by U.S. Mail. >> >> >> >> >> >> <http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2012/03/05/120305fa_fact_lehrer> >> http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2012/03/05/120305fa_fact_lehrer >> >> >> >> Nick >> >> >> >> ============================================================ >> >> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv >> >> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, >> unsubscribe, maps at <http://www.friam.org> http://www.friam.org >> >> >> >> >> >> ============================================================ >> >> FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv >> >> Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, >> unsubscribe, maps at <http://www.friam.org> http://www.friam.org >> >> > > ============================================================ > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org > > ============================================================ > FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv > Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College > lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org > ============================================================ FRIAM Applied Complexity Group listserv Meets Fridays 9a-11:30 at cafe at St. John's College lectures, archives, unsubscribe, maps at http://www.friam.org
