Dear Elinor:
How interesting to have a co-reader challenging some of the assumptions of
the Newtonian model using the same references as I have been using. Capra
has done a bang up job in my opinion in tying together "systems" thinking in
a way that makes sense. I have long felt an affinity to certain strands of
thought that seem quite unscientific and illogical and have not been able to
find "official" positions I was comfortable with. Economics and evolution
theory being two. I am beginning to sense it is a "your are from mars, I am
from venus" type of situation with a twist. I have been forced to learn the
"mars" language because of the culture I am in while the "venus" language is
the natural fit. Those writers and conversationalists that also have a
natural "venus" language predisposition sound very logical. I wonder if you
have been having any of the same thoughts?
Respectfully,
Thomas Lunde
PS I note that I have not seen an answer from the "gene equal trait school"
from the paragraph you quoted.
-----Original Message-----
From: Elinor Mosher <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Date: March 5, 1998 12:22 PM
Subject: Selfish genes
>It may be a misunderstanding on my part, but I think the person who first
coined the
>phrase "The selfish gene" which I associate with Richard Dawkins, made a
semantic mistake, as it brings into the picture a quality we commonly
associate with human personality/character; that is, muddies the water. I
picture the selfishness of the gene as a tendancy to act so that the gene
can be transmitted, a determination to survive. I would prefer to call it a
"persistent gene" (not a persistence gene).
> On page 225 of Capra's "Web of Life" he states "The great
achievements of molecular biology ...have resulted in the tendency to
picture the genome as a linear array of independent genes, each
corresponding to a biological trait.
> "Research has shown, however, that a single gene may affect a wide
range of traits, and that, conversely many separate genes combine to produce
a single trait. It is thus quite mysterious how complex structures, like an
eye or a flower, could have evolved through successive mutations of
individual genes. Evidently the study of the coordinating and integrating
activities of the whole genome is of paramount importance ...Only very
recently have biologists begun to understand the genome of an organism as a
highly interwoven network and to study its activities from a systemic
perspective."
> He mentions punctuated equilibrium, referred to by Saul, and
discusses it in terms of complexity theory."Accordingly, systems biologists
have begun to portray the genome as a self-organizing network capable of
spontaneously producing new forms of order. "
> The whole thing is so complex that I can't hope to understand it
without a
>real grounding in the subject, but so fascinating that I can't leave it
alone.
>However, I am ready to be enlightened by Jay, who really does know about
this stuff, as he is a genetic biologist.
>
