Ed, I copied my recent FW messages to a molecular biologist friend to comment on and he reminded me of what are called "regulatory genes", and perhaps I ought to explain what these are in order to round out the picture I've given so far.
He was joking somewhat, because regulatory genes are presently the subject of much research and they are very complex indeed. However, it's known that some genes are not the "ordinary" genes that I've described so far -- that is, one gene instructs a ribosome which makes one protein which does a particular job in the body. It would seem that "ordinary" genes probably belong to sets or modules which are influenced by "higher-level" genes. Thus, when the foetus is developing, one regulatory gene may cause a module of other genes to kick into action at a particular stage so they all act in a harmonious way. In the adult, some regulatory genes may act for temporary periods only. If, say, we fell into an ice-cold river, or we underwent a long period of drought, then it's probable that in each case several genes will be turned on by a regulator but then disassembled when a particular environmental condition changes. It's as though our body is like a huge orchestra which is playing a complex piece of music with its finer moments of interpretation controlled by one section leader (leader of the second violins, say) or another from time to time -- though not by a master conductor. Although we have scarcely any more genes than a chimpanzee (about 1% more) and our brains are structurally almost identical (though ours is larger with a proportionately much larger frontal brain), we are certainly able to think in different ways. It's likely that this is the result of the evolution of regulatory genes in our spur of the primate tree from which we separated about 6 million years ago. In some way, regulatory genes might be able to organise modules of neuron-forming genes which the chimpanzee cannot, and adding extra degrees of functionality to, otherwise, largely similar types of brain cells. (Some think that the failure of a regulatory gene is the cause of schizophrenia.) For example, a chimpanzee has a slight swelling of the left-hand brain just as we do and which we call the speech centre. But a chimpanzee can't speak, possibly only because its larynx is not in the right place. In our case, the gene which moves the larynx further down the throat doesn't click in until a child is about six months' old. But it *does* become turned on, and it's likely that a regulatory gene has also evolved sometime which corals this gene within a larger suite of "speech genes". The young child is therefore enabled not only to make a quite new repertoire of noises but these become associated directly with what are called "grannie" cells in the speech centre in which the meanings of words are concentrated. I think Richard Dawkins did a great disservice to the wider understanding of genetics and evolution by calling genes "selfish". This is nonsense. They are no more selfish than they are unselfish. They just do what they have to do, no more and no less. They are purely automatic mini-factories churning our precise products which the structure of our bodies need. They are either turned on or turned off, or they are regulated to work in association with others, or not, but they can no more "decide" what to do than fly in the sky. I think Dawkins' early books (e.g. "The Extended Phenotype", "Selfish Gene") are quite brilliant, but his use of the word "selfish", which has unfortunately stuck, has exposed molecular biology and evolution to a lot of unnecessary criticism. Indeed, I find that in his later books which are intended to promote science (his professorial chair is supported by Bill Gates) he becomes as evangelical in his own way as the fundamentalists he constantly attacks. I find his recent books quite as tedious as any fundamentalist tract. He protests too much. He condemns the fundamentalists for having a faith and yet wants to retain the right to his own! (The faith that science is capable of explaining all.) He ought to shut up and quietly get on with developing his science. The development of molecular biology for the benefit of mankind (and of the ecosystem generally) is a much more eloquent way of undermining arguments of simple-minded creationists. This would also obviate the disgraceful criticisms of Lewontin, Rose and others, which take up so much time of many other scientists to rebut. Keith H ---------------------------------------------------------------------------- ------------ Keith Hudson, General Editor, Handlo Music, http://www.handlo.com 6 Upper Camden Place, Bath BA1 5HX, England Tel: +44 1225 312622; Fax: +44 1225 447727; mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] ________________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________ Futurework mailing list [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://scribe.uwaterloo.ca/mailman/listinfo/futurework
