Memes: Protoscience or Pseudoscience?

[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]

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, 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]

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.