Path: ...!Xl.tags.giganews.com!local-2.nntp.ord.giganews.com!news.giganews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
NNTP-Posting-Date: Mon, 13 May 2024 15:18:13 +0000
From: Joe Gwinn <joegwinn@comcast.net>
Newsgroups: sci.electronics.design
Subject: Re: OT: Dynamic DNA structures and the formation of memory
Date: Mon, 13 May 2024 11:18:13 -0400
Message-ID: <bib44j1cv49j2ev4t9sd2d62f38q1hg7e3@4ax.com>
References: <v175s8$1mprm$1@dont-email.me> <vsvf3jt621a4kvtj2rq4162nhcpvsubeda@4ax.com> <v1rpvh$335cp$1@dont-email.me> <77r24jloc6k59o98o9nb47j8ul3n3ngh6a@4ax.com> <f6644jhqdkgo00numinfft8mbuj89kbq5r@4ax.com> <jr744j5mjf6bhrdt5kfmepdiq4imjeomje@4ax.com>
User-Agent: ForteAgent/8.00.32.1272
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Lines: 78
X-Usenet-Provider: http://www.giganews.com
X-Trace: sv3-5SZ/dWQHahd1M2M/MDhR49HAw1Aij2q5wZSw+/wUYqcngxzQ4ImtuVFNGKFXxaBkusY0z3A61qZGXWT!/NBOw2lyERWBkHZ9mIwV2M/gvqPrX9FUxZBitF2erD1DMvIxqSIM1vlaZR2A7sSAEJh8NQ0=
X-Complaints-To: abuse@giganews.com
X-DMCA-Notifications: http://www.giganews.com/info/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: 4635

On Mon, 13 May 2024 07:13:48 -0700, John Larkin
<jjSNIPlarkin@highNONOlandtechnology.com> wrote:

>On Mon, 13 May 2024 09:54:25 -0400, Joe Gwinn <joegwinn@comcast.net>
>wrote:
>
>>On Sun, 12 May 2024 18:30:32 -0700, John Larkin
>><jjSNIPlarkin@highNONOlandtechnology.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Sun, 12 May 2024 21:21:56 -0400, "Tom Del Rosso"
>>><fizzbintuesday@that-google-mail-domain.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>>John Larkin wrote:
>>>>> On Sun, 05 May 2024 05:36:06 GMT, Jan Panteltje
>>>>> <pNaonStpealmtje@yahoo.com> 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":
>>
>>.<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%96verkalix_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.  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