$95t$1{at}darwin.ediacara.org> 








MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Organization: Race towards an early grave
User-Agent: MacSOUP/2.5b2 (Mac OS X version 10.2.8)
NNTP-Posting-Host: machine193.wehi.edu.au
X-Original-NNTP-Posting-Host: machine193.wehi.edu.au
X-Trace: news.unimelb.edu.au 1065136836 128.250.252.193 (3 Oct 2003 09:20:36 +1000)
X-Original-Trace: 3 Oct 2003 09:20:36 +1000, machine193.wehi.edu.au
Lines: 53

Paul Gallagher  wrote:

> In  Guy Hoelzer
 writes:
> 
> >> 
> >> "Replication" has an advantage over
"reproduction" there - since the
> >> former denotes hi-fi information transfer (of the type necessary to
> >> life) - while the latter does not.
> 
> >This is quite a claim.  Can you please explain why you think that the type
> >of hi-fi information transfer exhibited by genes is NECESSARY for life?  It
> >would probably be best to avoid getting into definitions of life here, so I
> >am happy to focus on life as we know it on earth.
> 
> I think Harold Morowitz proposed that the earliest living things lacked
> a genetic system and reproduced by splitting alone.

So does Eörs Száthmáry and John Maynard Smith.
> 
> There are lots of other problems with the idea of replicators. The
> word connotes that DNA replicates by itself, but of course it doesn't,
> since a cellular environment is necessary. 
> http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=6h5e3l%241as6%241%40nntp6.u.washingto
> n.edu
> 
> Also, there's the question of what portion of DNA constitutes a 
> replicator. It may be a mistake to identify the individual gene as
> a "replicator." The existence of non-random union of
gametes, non-random
> association of alleles at different loci, and epistatic interactions
> may mean it is more useful to identify groups of genes or the genome as
> a whole as the replicated unit.
> http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=6i53u2%241r2u%241%40nntp6.u.washingto
> n.edu

There is no need to "entify" the replicator to that degree - all you
need is that there are aspects of the organism that is instantiated in
each generation to a high degree of fidelity. It is a case of affirming
the consequent, though. Or, if you like, a Type II error in statistics
:-)
> 
> Also, the term gene is itself ambiguous. 
> http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=7jultd%24527%241%40darwin.ediacara.org
> http://groups.google.com/groups?selm=79sfcd%24l7k%241%40darwin.ediacara.org
> n.ediacara.org
> 
> Paul

Absolutely...
-- 
John Wilkins wilkins.id.au
For long you live and high you fly, 
and smiles you'll give and tears you'll cry
and all you touch and all you see is all your life will ever be
---
ţ RIMEGate(tm)/RGXPost V1.14 at BBSWORLD * Info{at}bbsworld.com

---
 * RIMEGate(tm)V10.2á˙* RelayNet(tm) NNTP Gateway * MoonDog BBS
 * RgateImp.MoonDog.BBS at 10/3/03 11:01:44 AM