Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.net!feeder8.news.weretis.net!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!news.eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail
From: Jeroen Belleman <jeroen@nospam.please>
Newsgroups: sci.electronics.design
Subject: Re: OT: Dynamic DNA structures and the formation of memory
Date: Mon, 13 May 2024 17:03:20 +0200
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 71
Message-ID: <v1ta01$3h96u$2@dont-email.me>
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>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Mon, 13 May 2024 17:01:21 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="052c3891a3d02445bb3b80166ef6aef5";
	logging-data="3712222"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/491vlN6YdrpnCYWjgpZm8"
User-Agent: Mozilla/5.0 (X11; Linux x86_64; rv:102.0) Gecko/20100101
 Thunderbird/102.13.0
Cancel-Lock: sha1:Pq9st5eJBTS7hycZlnvEvn3SKTA=
Content-Language: en-US
In-Reply-To: <jr744j5mjf6bhrdt5kfmepdiq4imjeomje@4ax.com>
Bytes: 4438

On 5/13/24 16:13, John Larkin 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?
> 

*One* species may be on the verge of inventing something better...

Jeroen Belleman