Path: ...!npeer.as286.net!npeer-ng0.as286.net!3.eu.feeder.erje.net!feeder.erje.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Jeroen Belleman Newsgroups: sci.electronics.design Subject: Re: OT: Dynamic DNA structures and the formation of memory Date: Mon, 13 May 2024 19:32:47 +0200 Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 100 Message-ID: References: <77r24jloc6k59o98o9nb47j8ul3n3ngh6a@4ax.com> <70744jl77r3gfd4emv9963073u37ocrnhn@4ax.com> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit Injection-Date: Mon, 13 May 2024 19:30:49 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="052c3891a3d02445bb3b80166ef6aef5"; logging-data="3777795"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/U9VINwMXpLNz80lgRjtwV" User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101 Thunderbird/102.13.0 Cancel-Lock: sha1:hMkUQgQUxtn01/OMpeTK9lAg7xA= In-Reply-To: Content-Language: en-US Bytes: 5445 On 5/13/24 18:31, John Larkin wrote: > 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. > And you implement all of them? No, of course. So you *are* weeding out the ones you judge inferior. Jeroen Belleman