Path: Xl.tags.giganews.com!local-1.nntp.ord.giganews.com!nntp.supernews.com!news.supernews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 13 May 2024 16:22:14 +0000 From: John Larkin Newsgroups: sci.electronics.design Subject: Re: OT: Dynamic DNA structures and the formation of memory Date: Mon, 13 May 2024 09:20:24 -0700 Organization: Highland Tech Reply-To: xx@yy.com Message-ID: References: <77r24jloc6k59o98o9nb47j8ul3n3ngh6a@4ax.com> X-Newsreader: Forte Agent 3.1/32.783 MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Lines: 89 X-Trace: sv3-fWBcYcGxt/mBpx3eGI6WHuSWwv+2lAuGgZhiW2DZjfvTmJtO/2kjPv8nG2jA/dSV5cGdDfFM/ZyB+Ka!YGdxdBTDZbhxJg+4wQx4zKWgyJiD0DzlVg6MWFOGTiZuffiYH43hnq63STsvmcEGtRPyGwqkEHkh!9O/e+g== 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: 5034 On Mon, 13 May 2024 11:18:13 -0400, Joe Gwinn wrote: >On Mon, 13 May 2024 07:13:48 -0700, John Larkin > wrote: > >>On Mon, 13 May 2024 09:54:25 -0400, Joe Gwinn >>wrote: >> >>>On Sun, 12 May 2024 18:30:32 -0700, 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, but that is not the issue. Lamark claimed that it could be done >>>very quickly, in the lifetime of one woman, versus over generations >>>(where DNA controls). Actually, Lamark was focused on Wheat, >>>specifically can one train wheat to grow in Siberia; this was very >>>attractive to Stalin. Turns out you cannot. >>> >>>But there is a twist. There was a study of the effect of mass >>>starvation of the Swedish population which showed that one could >>>detect the effect of starvation of grandfathers on their >>>grandchildren. It is thought that this is mediated by epigenetic >>>information carried in methyl tags on the DNA, but I don't know if >>>that was ever sorted out. "Överkalix study": >>> >>>. >>> >>>Joe Gwinn >> >> >>Classic evolution, random mutation and selection, is absurdly >>inefficient. Why wouldn't species use something better? Because the >>scientific establishment doesn't approve? > >But it's good enough at the species level, or it would have been >replaced by now. It has been. Because species compete. >We on SED did discuss the evolution of the eye some >time ago - same framework, and the actual design is pretty rough in >places. > >How "classic evolution" works is itself subject to evolution, and >there are some pretty wild genetic systems in tiny critters. > >Joe Gwinn Yes, the mechanisms of evolution must themselves evolve. Why wouldn't they?