Path: Xl.tags.giganews.com!local-2.nntp.ord.giganews.com!nntp.supernews.com!news.supernews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 13 May 2024 16:33:22 +0000 From: John Larkin Newsgroups: sci.electronics.design Subject: Re: OT: Dynamic DNA structures and the formation of memory Date: Mon, 13 May 2024 09:31:31 -0700 Organization: Highland Tech Reply-To: xx@yy.com Message-ID: References: <77r24jloc6k59o98o9nb47j8ul3n3ngh6a@4ax.com> <70744jl77r3gfd4emv9963073u37ocrnhn@4ax.com> X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 3.1/32.783 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Lines: 91 X-Trace: sv3-kFrKyA9gVzZlDgVxjTdxGBnbggYqj2FPb82AC4X27YbbOJ90CBn0YAPFSKGTNu2jYtiWL2ecHaWf+OW!DLYtbViJUv3FL7AMGOes6d6pdWzGWAFqV78J0SJuPGKXToNxVA8MKYEyolV7lLoraDR9iJLhTKlY!YCG8Kg== X-Complaints-To: www.supernews.com/docs/abuse.html X-DMCA-Complaints-To: www.supernews.com/docs/dmca.html X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers X-Abuse-and-DMCA-Info: Otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly X-Postfilter: 1.3.40 Bytes: 5079 On Mon, 13 May 2024 17:01:27 +0200, Jeroen Belleman wrote: >On 5/13/24 16:10, John Larkin wrote: >> On Mon, 13 May 2024 10:30:09 +0200, Jeroen Belleman >> wrote: >> >>> On 5/13/24 03:30, John Larkin wrote: >>>> On Sun, 12 May 2024 21:21:56 -0400, "Tom Del Rosso" >>>> wrote: >>>> >>>>> John Larkin wrote: >>>>>> On Sun, 05 May 2024 05:36:06 GMT, Jan Panteltje >>>>>> wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>>> Dynamic DNA structures and the formation of memory >>>>>>> https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2024/05/240501125755.htm >>>>>>> Summary: >>>>>>> An international collaborative research team has discovered that >>>>>>> G-quadraplex DNA (G4-DNA) accumulates in neurons and dynamically >>>>>>> controls the activation and repression of genes underlying long-term >>>>>>> memory formation. >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> >>>>>>> I have always though that memory could be stored as DNA sequenxes... >>>>>> >>>>>> More likely RNA or some other protein. >>>>>> >>>>>> The oft-mocked Lamarckian concept, of genetic learning (not just >>>>>> natural selection) is probably real, and some reverse transcription >>>>>> does happen, namely that DNA is edited within the life of one >>>>>> organism. But remembering where you left your glasses is probably >>>>>> handled at a lower level than editing your chromosones. >>>>> >>>>> But how can it be passed down as Lamarck thought, if the eggs in the >>>>> ovaries are formed early? If genetic memory could be passed down it >>>>> would be only from the father because sperm are formed recently. But the >>>>> sperm spawn from local cells. If DNA is edited to store memory then >>>>> would these changes be duplicated in all cells in all tissues? How else >>>>> would the changes get into sperm cells? How could they get into eggs? >>>>> >>>> >>>> If it is advantageous for a woman's life experiences to be passed onto >>>> her children, nature will find a way. >>>> >>> >>> Yes, it's called 'education'. No need to invent improbable >>> mechanisms without scientific basis. >>> >>> Jeroen Belleman >> >> No sense in dismissing possibilities because you don't like them. That >> applies to biology and electronics. Nature invents "improbable >> mechanisms" which have a "scientific basis" when shown to exist. >> >> The ideas of jumping genes, reverse transcription, and epignetic >> switching were all mocked, known to be impossible, by the rigid >> neo-Darwinists. I think there's all sorts of cool stuff waiting for >> old farts to die so they can be considered and discovered. >> Mitochondria are sadly neglected. >> >> Evolution by random mutation and natural selection is for losers. >> Losers are also known as lunch. >> > >You missed your vocation. You should have become a biologist. My interest and talent is electronic design. Besides that, biology is too slow. I can invent and simulate and test a new circuit in an afternoon. > > >> Most people, including most engineers, are instantly hostile to >> unauthorized ideas. That's fine with me... it leaves me more stuff to >> invent and sell. >> > >Most people judge the validity of new ideas in the context of their >knowledge base. You have to have some way to quickly weed out >the torrent of harebrained ideas, or you wouldn't get anything >done at all. Yes, this can backfire. Weeding out ideas, as a habit and a priority, is a good way to have no ideas. Playing with ideas is better. A human brain can play with multiple, literally millions, of ideas as effortless parallel background process. In your sleep. If you let it.