I wrote
:> > I don't want to defend this superorganism view explicitly here, but
> > there are more analogies than Paulo indicates when one interpretes
> > the data carefully.
>
Don Mickulecky wrote
> Once again...these are not really analogies in the sense of analogical
> models, they are metaphors.
You explained the difference between analogy and metaphor.
However, I didn't find explicit reasons of why the organism -
superorganism comparison could not be an analogy. Could you explain better?
What if it is only a metaphor. Does it imply that this discussion
list doesn't make much sense any longer?
I wrote:
> > Cells have indeed identical genetic potential, but this is differently
> > expressed. Phenotypically this comes down to a colony of very
> > different cells working together, and could be compared to human
> > individuals putting together their specific skills.
> > But you may be right that the motivation for cooperation is
> > different: cells are identical and their 'altruism' is perfectly
> > explainable from a genetic point of view. Motivation for cooperation
> > in humans is somewhat more complicated.
>
Don Mickulecky wrote:
> Please see Oyama's book on the "Ontogeny of information". She does a
> good job of sorting out the issues here. You are clearly bringing us
> into nature/nurture issues where they have questionable application, if
> any at all.
I don't see what my writing has to do with the nature/nurture
discussion. I have no
problems in agreeing that the phenotype, and especially behaviour, is
the product of continuous strong interaction between gene and environment and
thus the or nature/ or nurture discussion as rather useless, but this
is not at stake here.
Mario Vaneechoutte
Laboratory Bacteriology & Virology
Blok A, De Pintelaan 185
University Hospital Ghent
Belgium 9000 Ghent
Tel: +32 9 240 36 92
Fax: +32 9 240 36 59
E-mail: Mario.Vaneechoutte@rug.ac.be