Re: "GENES ARE FOLLOWERS NOT LEADERS". Was: Birds of feather

From: CNCabej (cncabej_at_aol.com)
Date: 01/14/05 

Date: Fri, 14 Jan 2005 19:16:43 +0000 (UTC)

(I am sorry for the delayed response. This post is one of a number of posts I
have missed recently. I hope to fix it soon.)

On January 4, 2005 Tim Tyler wrote:

CNCabej <cncabej{at}aol.com> wrote or quoted:

> In the context of the thread and of the authors you quoted, the
> question is whether the CNS generates information for animal morphology.

TT:
So - to answer the question I would have to say that the CNS generates
no information - since generation of information is likely to be
physically impossible.

NRC:
First, let me remind you that the article you quoted was in response to my idea
that the CNS provides the epigenetic information for establishing trillions of
synaptic connections. In realtion to that yopu pointed out: "The source of
information under discussion is relatively well understood", which I believe
shows that you believed in the role of CNS as provider of information for
synaptic morphology.
 
Second, if we would talk about Universe you "might" be right, but I am afraid
your view may not be as valid for finite systems as our Earth or living systems
are. The physicists dealing with the problem, which I have read, including E.
Schroedinger ("Was Ist Leben? Die lebende Zelle mit Augen des Physikers
betrachtet), Leon Brillouin etc. say that the information in any system can be
increased by "absorbing" information (in Schroedinger's expression,
"negentropy") from the environment.
But we don't need authorities to confirm this; starting from a relatively
simple zygote containing a modest several billions of bits of information you
and I are living proofs of information-increasing systems.
However, probably you mean that there is a difference between the generation of
information and absorbtion of information. In principle I believe that the
generation of information is based on the same principle as the absorption of
information from the environment in the meaning that the information generated
in the CNS is related to the loss of an even greater amount of information in
the environment.

Since the huge amount of information embodied in our structure is not deposited
in gametes, there are no alternatives but to prove that it is introduced
externally to the developing embryo (I'm afraid it would be an extrascientific
idea) or the embryo generates it epigenetically. In the first post of "THE
EPIGENETIC THEORY OF HEREDITY" (January 11, 2005, sbe) I have made an attempt
to demonstrate that the CNS nongenetically generates the epigenetic information
(maternal cytoplasmic factors) deposited in the egg cell. In the following
posts I'm going to show that in the CNS, and only in the CNS, as emphasized by
B.K. Hall (1998), starts a network of inductions that gives rise to different
cells, tissues and organs of the embryo and tha adult.

However I would like to hear more on what you mean when you say that
"generation of information is likely to be physically impossible." The Second
Principle makes it impossible for isolated systems only, but not for open
systems, such as our planet and living systems are.

TT:
However, if we *assume* you are talking about "generation of information"
in the common sense - which regards information as being created
by processes such as throwing a dice, then yes - similar interactions are
likely to occur in the CNS which might well go on to affect morphology.

NRC:
To put it mildly, it would be beyond imagination to believe that the immense
amount of information provided by the CNS to the developing embryo would be
generated randomly, within one generation, within a few days or months, and in
all the individuals of the offspring. A gene centrist knows better than us that
millions and billions of years are needed to produce incomparably smaller
amounts of information by gene mutations, a phenomenon reminiscent to a certain
degree the "processes such as throwing of a dice".

NRC:
> Your answer in the previous reply was clearly "yes". I
> hope you stilll believe that the CNS determines the
> synaptic morphology and morphology in general.

TT:
Certainly, CNS events can /influence/ morphology - in conjunction
with other influences from elsewhere.

NRC:
I have presented adequate evidence on the determining role of the CNS in the
individual development and shown that the information it provides to the
gametes and to the embryo is epigenetic, and that the genome and the genetic
system of heredity is subordinate to the epigenetic system of heredity, with
the CNS as its controller. I would respectfully hear to the possible
challenges.

TT:
 I wouldn't say the CNS "determined" morphology. That would be much, much too
strong.

NRC:
Tim, I understand what you mean, but my theory is clearly presented and I am
looking forward to respectfully consider any arguments against it. My theory is
supported by adequate experimental evidence, and it still is falsifiable and
testable. But, I believe that at the present stage the only way it could be
challenged is to show/argue that the evidence I present DOES NOT PROVE IT, IS
IRRELEVANT, or even DISPROVE it.

Regards,
Nelson R. Cabej

Relevant Pages