Memes: Protoscience or Pseudoscience?

[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]

Wowbagger's reply to John Hewitt's reply

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.

 

[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?