On>Tue, 10 Feb 2004 00:14:44 +0000 (UTC) >Tim Tyler tim{at}tt1lock. wrote:

>> Do you really think that information from the environment regulates the 
>> function of our genes ? 
>
>Of course.
>
>> Can you substantiate this Lamarckian concept?
>
>It is not especially Lamarckian - since it doesn't involve acquired traits
>being inherited.
>
>The environment coming to affect gene expression - and even the 
>inheritance of genes - is old news - see "The Baldwin Effect".
>-- 

Sorry, but my question was neither the one you "quote" nor
related to "The
environment coming to affect gene expression - and even the inheritance of
genes." My question was essentially different: "If information
implies a sender
and a receiver, do you believe that the environment is the sender and genes are
the receivers of environmental information?"
"Can you substantiate this Lamarckian concept?"

I don't know whether your response to the above question will again  "Yes".
Personally I can't imagine the environment being sender of information for
individual development. Such an instructive function of the environment on the
development of organisms is Lamarckian idea (it is clearly less than the theory
of Lamarck), in the meaning that it has propounded it for the first time.

You say that your idea on the instructive role of the environment "is not
especially Lamarckian - since it doesn't involve acquired traits being
inherited." But, again you contradict yourself when you try to substantiate
your  idea on the instructive function of the environment by "The Baldwin
Effect" (which, being a  century-old unproven hypothesis can't substantiate
anything)
---
þ RIMEGate(tm)/RGXPost V1.14 at BBSWORLD * Info{at}bbsworld.com

---
 * RIMEGate(tm)V10.2áÿ* RelayNet(tm) NNTP Gateway * MoonDog BBS
 * RgateImp.MoonDog.BBS at 2/10/04 8:31:26 PM