Discussion:
OT: Dynamic DNA structures and the formation of memory
(too old to reply)
Jan Panteltje
2024-05-05 05:36:06 UTC
Permalink
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...
Bill Sloman
2024-05-05 13:08:30 UTC
Permalink
Post by Jan Panteltje
Dynamic DNA structures and the formation of memory
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2024/05/240501125755.htm
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.
That's interesting, if extremely vague and unspecific.
Post by Jan Panteltje
I have always though that memory could be stored as DNA sequenxes...
As if you opinion on the subject were worth having.
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
John Larkin
2024-05-05 22:00:42 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 05 May 2024 05:36:06 GMT, Jan Panteltje
Post by Jan Panteltje
Dynamic DNA structures and the formation of memory
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2024/05/240501125755.htm
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.

We do have short-term memory too. We don't want to junk up our
chromosones remembering every grocery list.
Bill Sloman
2024-05-06 00:51:51 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Larkin
On Sun, 05 May 2024 05:36:06 GMT, Jan Panteltje
Post by Jan Panteltje
Dynamic DNA structures and the formation of memory
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2024/05/240501125755.htm
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.
Only an idiot could think that. The DNA that ends up in eggs and sperm
gets there very early, and isn't in a position to benefit from the life
experience of the potential parent.
Post by John Larkin
But remembering where you left your glasses is probably
handled at a lower level than editing your chromosones.
Chromosome editing by methylation (which we do know about) and the
vaguely specified "structural changes" that Jan Panteltje's waffle
invokes isn't going to edit the chromosomes you pass on to the next
generation.
Post by John Larkin
We do have short-term memory too. We don't want to junk up our
chromosomes remembering every grocery list.
What we want doesn't come into evolution. It's a process of putting
changes into a our genome at random, and selecting out the changes that
don't work. The only "want" involved is the desire to stay alive and
have off-spring.
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
Tom Del Rosso
2024-05-13 01:21:56 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Larkin
On Sun, 05 May 2024 05:36:06 GMT, Jan Panteltje
Post by Jan Panteltje
Dynamic DNA structures and the formation of memory
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2024/05/240501125755.htm
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?
Post by John Larkin
We do have short-term memory too. We don't want to junk up our
chromosones remembering every grocery list.
We also have very-short-term instantaneous memory but we only use it to
speak and listen to language. You have to instantly remember the
syllable from 100ms ago. Chimps can look at a picture of a set of
objects that flashes on for a quarter second, and they remember where
everything was. We repurposed that kind of memory for language.
--
Defund the Thought Police
John Larkin
2024-05-13 01:30:32 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 12 May 2024 21:21:56 -0400, "Tom Del Rosso"
Post by Tom Del Rosso
Post by John Larkin
On Sun, 05 May 2024 05:36:06 GMT, Jan Panteltje
Post by Jan Panteltje
Dynamic DNA structures and the formation of memory
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2024/05/240501125755.htm
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.
Tom Del Rosso
2024-05-13 02:11:18 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Larkin
If it is advantageous for a woman's life experiences to be passed onto
her children, nature will find a way.
Not via her DNA. My mother tought me "FEB like February" - flour, egg,
breadcrumbs - when frying fish or cutlets. No DNA used.
--
Defund the Thought Police
John Larkin
2024-05-13 03:36:51 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 12 May 2024 22:11:18 -0400, "Tom Del Rosso"
Post by Tom Del Rosso
Post by John Larkin
If it is advantageous for a woman's life experiences to be passed onto
her children, nature will find a way.
Not via her DNA.
Why not? It might be useful. The history of biology is the institution
declaring things to be impossible, until someone discovers it actually
happens.
Post by Tom Del Rosso
My mother tought me "FEB like February" - flour, egg,
breadcrumbs - when frying fish or cutlets. No DNA used.
Dredge the fish or shrimp in a flour/milk mix, then shake in seasoned
panko.

I prefer flour, milk, and shrimp that all contain DNA. I'm thinking
that the panko doesn't.

Egg contains DNA.
Bill Sloman
2024-05-13 02:39:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Larkin
On Sun, 12 May 2024 21:21:56 -0400, "Tom Del Rosso"
Post by Tom Del Rosso
Post by John Larkin
On Sun, 05 May 2024 05:36:06 GMT, Jan Panteltje
Post by Jan Panteltje
Dynamic DNA structures and the formation of memory
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2024/05/240501125755.htm
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.
That's why humans invented language - and, much later, writing.

John Larkin is fond of magical thinking, which is to say he doesn't seem
to be able to think in any kind of useful way.
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
Jeroen Belleman
2024-05-13 08:30:09 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Larkin
On Sun, 12 May 2024 21:21:56 -0400, "Tom Del Rosso"
Post by Tom Del Rosso
Post by John Larkin
On Sun, 05 May 2024 05:36:06 GMT, Jan Panteltje
Post by Jan Panteltje
Dynamic DNA structures and the formation of memory
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2024/05/240501125755.htm
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
John Larkin
2024-05-13 14:10:26 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 13 May 2024 10:30:09 +0200, Jeroen Belleman
Post by Jeroen Belleman
Post by John Larkin
On Sun, 12 May 2024 21:21:56 -0400, "Tom Del Rosso"
Post by Tom Del Rosso
Post by John Larkin
On Sun, 05 May 2024 05:36:06 GMT, Jan Panteltje
Post by Jan Panteltje
Dynamic DNA structures and the formation of memory
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2024/05/240501125755.htm
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.

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.
Bill Sloman
2024-05-13 14:52:14 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Larkin
On Mon, 13 May 2024 10:30:09 +0200, Jeroen Belleman
Post by Jeroen Belleman
Post by John Larkin
On Sun, 12 May 2024 21:21:56 -0400, "Tom Del Rosso"
Post by Tom Del Rosso
Post by John Larkin
On Sun, 05 May 2024 05:36:06 GMT, Jan Panteltje
Post by Jan Panteltje
Dynamic DNA structures and the formation of memory
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2024/05/240501125755.htm
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.
But you've invented an improbable mechanism without having a shred of
evidence that might suggest that it might exist.
Post by John Larkin
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.
You don't know what you are talking about.
Post by John Larkin
Evolution by random mutation and natural selection is for losers.
Losers are also known as lunch.
True, but it has been the only game in town for the last billion years
or so. We've finally worked some of the nuts and bolts, and have some
kind of grasp of what has been going on - you don't seem to, even if you
think you do.

Intelligent design will probably work better - you don't seem to know
how that works either - but tinkering with poorly designed gear that you
don't understand doesn't.
Post by John Larkin
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.
People with more sense - and more education - than you have, do get
hostile to bad ideas. Unorthodox ideas are trickier, and you do have to
sort the wheat from the chaff (and there is a lot of chaff). You don't
seem to be able to manage that.

You want an audience which is just as gullible as you are, and you get
testy when your ineptitude gets pointed out. Climate change denial isn't
"unorthodox" - it's just self-interested lies from the fossil carbon
extraction industry, and you haven't woken up to that yet.
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
Jeroen Belleman
2024-05-13 15:01:27 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Larkin
On Mon, 13 May 2024 10:30:09 +0200, Jeroen Belleman
Post by Jeroen Belleman
Post by John Larkin
On Sun, 12 May 2024 21:21:56 -0400, "Tom Del Rosso"
Post by Tom Del Rosso
Post by John Larkin
On Sun, 05 May 2024 05:36:06 GMT, Jan Panteltje
Post by Jan Panteltje
Dynamic DNA structures and the formation of memory
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2024/05/240501125755.htm
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.
Post by John Larkin
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.

Jeroen Belleman
John Larkin
2024-05-13 16:31:31 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 13 May 2024 17:01:27 +0200, Jeroen Belleman
Post by Jeroen Belleman
Post by John Larkin
On Mon, 13 May 2024 10:30:09 +0200, Jeroen Belleman
Post by Jeroen Belleman
Post by John Larkin
On Sun, 12 May 2024 21:21:56 -0400, "Tom Del Rosso"
Post by Tom Del Rosso
Post by John Larkin
On Sun, 05 May 2024 05:36:06 GMT, Jan Panteltje
Post by Jan Panteltje
Dynamic DNA structures and the formation of memory
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2024/05/240501125755.htm
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.
Post by Jeroen Belleman
Post by John Larkin
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.
Jeroen Belleman
2024-05-13 17:32:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Larkin
On Mon, 13 May 2024 17:01:27 +0200, Jeroen Belleman
Post by Jeroen Belleman
Post by John Larkin
On Mon, 13 May 2024 10:30:09 +0200, Jeroen Belleman
Post by Jeroen Belleman
Post by John Larkin
On Sun, 12 May 2024 21:21:56 -0400, "Tom Del Rosso"
Post by Tom Del Rosso
Post by John Larkin
On Sun, 05 May 2024 05:36:06 GMT, Jan Panteltje
Post by Jan Panteltje
Dynamic DNA structures and the formation of memory
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2024/05/240501125755.htm
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.
Post by Jeroen Belleman
Post by John Larkin
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
John Larkin
2024-05-13 18:32:16 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 13 May 2024 19:32:47 +0200, Jeroen Belleman
Post by Jeroen Belleman
Post by John Larkin
On Mon, 13 May 2024 17:01:27 +0200, Jeroen Belleman
Post by Jeroen Belleman
Post by John Larkin
On Mon, 13 May 2024 10:30:09 +0200, Jeroen Belleman
Post by Jeroen Belleman
Post by John Larkin
On Sun, 12 May 2024 21:21:56 -0400, "Tom Del Rosso"
Post by Tom Del Rosso
Post by John Larkin
On Sun, 05 May 2024 05:36:06 GMT, Jan Panteltje
Post by Jan Panteltje
Dynamic DNA structures and the formation of memory
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2024/05/240501125755.htm
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.
Post by Jeroen Belleman
Post by John Larkin
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.
After giving all of them a chance, I just pick the best one to build.

Background thinking is like brainstorming, in that good ideas can lurk
behind, and be inspired by, stupid ideas.

You are arguing for rejecting ideas ASAP because there's not enough
mental bandwidth available. I suggest that our brains are quantum
computers with essentially unlimited parallel-processing power, and we
can afford to give everything a chance, to explore the infinite
solution space for a while.

What's a simpler concept is that social pressures make most people
afraid of having unorthodox ideas.

Half of electronic design is psychology. The other 60% is packaging.
The rest is thermal.
Bill Sloman
2024-05-14 07:39:34 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Larkin
On Mon, 13 May 2024 19:32:47 +0200, Jeroen Belleman
Post by Jeroen Belleman
Post by John Larkin
On Mon, 13 May 2024 17:01:27 +0200, Jeroen Belleman
Post by Jeroen Belleman
Post by John Larkin
On Mon, 13 May 2024 10:30:09 +0200, Jeroen Belleman
Post by Jeroen Belleman
Post by John Larkin
On Sun, 12 May 2024 21:21:56 -0400, "Tom Del Rosso"
Post by Tom Del Rosso
Post by John Larkin
On Sun, 05 May 2024 05:36:06 GMT, Jan Panteltje
Post by Jan Panteltje
Dynamic DNA structures and the formation of memory
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2024/05/240501125755.htm
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.
Post by Jeroen Belleman
Post by John Larkin
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.
After giving all of them a chance, I just pick the best one to build.
The best one you could come up with.
Post by John Larkin
Background thinking is like brainstorming, in that good ideas can lurk
behind, and be inspired by, stupid ideas.
And - like brainstorming - can miss perfectly obvious better ideas.
Post by John Larkin
You are arguing for rejecting ideas ASAP because there's not enough
mental bandwidth available. I suggest that our brains are quantum
computers with essentially unlimited parallel-processing power, and we
can afford to give everything a chance, to explore the infinite
solution space for a while.
Unfortunately, the solution space is limited by the available
knowledge, and if haven't got the background information that you missed
by skipping lectures as a n undergraduate, the soltion space isn't
remotely infinite.
Post by John Larkin
What's a simpler concept is that social pressures make most people
afraid of having unorthodox ideas.
Sensible people are properly nervous about presenting half-baked ideas -
brainstorming is designed to reduce that barrier - but everybody wants
good ideas.
Post by John Larkin
Half of electronic design is psychology. The other 60% is packaging.
The rest is thermal.
50% plus 60% is 110%. A certain grasp of arithmetic needs to be added
into the mix, and John Larkin seems to lack that.

A lot of good electronic design is knowing what needs to done, and dim
newbies showing up here asking for help are seldom specific enough about
what they are trying to do or why they need to do it.

John Larkin waffles on a lot about psychology, which is a trifle ironic
granting his obvious problem with narcissism.
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
Joe Gwinn
2024-05-13 13:54:25 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 12 May 2024 18:30:32 -0700, John Larkin
Post by John Larkin
On Sun, 12 May 2024 21:21:56 -0400, "Tom Del Rosso"
Post by Tom Del Rosso
Post by John Larkin
On Sun, 05 May 2024 05:36:06 GMT, Jan Panteltje
Post by Jan Panteltje
Dynamic DNA structures and the formation of memory
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2024/05/240501125755.htm
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
John Larkin
2024-05-13 14:13:48 UTC
Permalink
Post by Joe Gwinn
On Sun, 12 May 2024 18:30:32 -0700, John Larkin
Post by John Larkin
On Sun, 12 May 2024 21:21:56 -0400, "Tom Del Rosso"
Post by Tom Del Rosso
Post by John Larkin
On Sun, 05 May 2024 05:36:06 GMT, Jan Panteltje
Post by Jan Panteltje
Dynamic DNA structures and the formation of memory
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2024/05/240501125755.htm
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
.<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?
Jeroen Belleman
2024-05-13 15:03:20 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Larkin
Post by Joe Gwinn
On Sun, 12 May 2024 18:30:32 -0700, John Larkin
Post by John Larkin
On Sun, 12 May 2024 21:21:56 -0400, "Tom Del Rosso"
Post by Tom Del Rosso
Post by John Larkin
On Sun, 05 May 2024 05:36:06 GMT, Jan Panteltje
Post by Jan Panteltje
Dynamic DNA structures and the formation of memory
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2024/05/240501125755.htm
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
.<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
Joe Gwinn
2024-05-13 15:18:13 UTC
Permalink
On Mon, 13 May 2024 07:13:48 -0700, John Larkin
Post by John Larkin
Post by Joe Gwinn
On Sun, 12 May 2024 18:30:32 -0700, John Larkin
Post by John Larkin
On Sun, 12 May 2024 21:21:56 -0400, "Tom Del Rosso"
Post by Tom Del Rosso
Post by John Larkin
On Sun, 05 May 2024 05:36:06 GMT, Jan Panteltje
Post by Jan Panteltje
Dynamic DNA structures and the formation of memory
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2024/05/240501125755.htm
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
.<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
John Larkin
2024-05-13 16:20:24 UTC
Permalink
Post by Joe Gwinn
On Mon, 13 May 2024 07:13:48 -0700, John Larkin
Post by John Larkin
Post by Joe Gwinn
On Sun, 12 May 2024 18:30:32 -0700, John Larkin
Post by John Larkin
On Sun, 12 May 2024 21:21:56 -0400, "Tom Del Rosso"
Post by Tom Del Rosso
Post by John Larkin
On Sun, 05 May 2024 05:36:06 GMT, Jan Panteltje
Post by Jan Panteltje
Dynamic DNA structures and the formation of memory
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2024/05/240501125755.htm
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
.<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.
It has been. Because species compete.
Post by Joe Gwinn
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?
Bill Sloman
2024-05-13 15:25:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Larkin
Post by Joe Gwinn
On Sun, 12 May 2024 18:30:32 -0700, John Larkin
Post by John Larkin
On Sun, 12 May 2024 21:21:56 -0400, "Tom Del Rosso"
Post by Tom Del Rosso
Post by John Larkin
On Sun, 05 May 2024 05:36:06 GMT, Jan Panteltje
Post by Jan Panteltje
Dynamic DNA structures and the formation of memory
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2024/05/240501125755.htm
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
.<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%96verkalix_study>
Classic evolution, random mutation and selection, is absurdly
inefficient. Why wouldn't species use something better? Because the
scientific establishment doesn't approve?
No. Because design by changing stuff at random and throwing out the
changes that don't work is absurdly inefficient. If animals knew what
they were doing, they might be able to do better, but they don't.

Until recently, we didn't even know what was going on.

Any system that works well enough to maintain a breeding population can
survive, and no species that we know about has taken up a better system.
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
Joe Gwinn
2024-05-13 14:39:58 UTC
Permalink
Post by Joe Gwinn
On Sun, 12 May 2024 18:30:32 -0700, John Larkin
Post by John Larkin
On Sun, 12 May 2024 21:21:56 -0400, "Tom Del Rosso"
Post by Tom Del Rosso
Post by John Larkin
On Sun, 05 May 2024 05:36:06 GMT, Jan Panteltje
Post by Jan Panteltje
Dynamic DNA structures and the formation of memory
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2024/05/240501125755.htm
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. Lamarck claimed that it could be done
very quickly, in the lifetime of one woman, versus over generations
(where DNA controls). Actually, Lamarck was focused on Wheat,
specifically can one train wheat to grow in Siberia; this was very
attractive to Stalin. Turns out you cannot.
In Stalin's day, it was Lysenko who sold Lamarckism to Stalin. Pretty
well destroyed Russian Biology, which never really recovered.

.<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lysenkoism>

Joe Gwinn
Post by Joe Gwinn
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
.<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%96verkalix_study>
Joe Gwinn
Bill Sloman
2024-05-13 15:14:15 UTC
Permalink
Post by Joe Gwinn
On Sun, 12 May 2024 18:30:32 -0700, John Larkin
Post by John Larkin
On Sun, 12 May 2024 21:21:56 -0400, "Tom Del Rosso"
Post by Tom Del Rosso
Post by John Larkin
On Sun, 05 May 2024 05:36:06 GMT, Jan Panteltje
Post by Jan Panteltje
Dynamic DNA structures and the formation of memory
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2024/05/240501125755.htm
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
.<https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C3%96verkalix_study>
The one I know about was in the Dutch population - the children of women
conceived during the "hunger winter" at the end of 1944 were smaller
than usual.

The eggs that developed in the embryos growing during the "hunger
winter" had the same epigenetic adaption to inadequate nutrition as all
the other cells in those embryos, and developed into small babies when
they were fertilised twenty to forty years later.

https://www.naturalhistorymag.com/features/142195/beyond-dna-epigenetics

It was a small part of the whole story.
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
John Larkin
2024-05-13 01:25:13 UTC
Permalink
On Sun, 05 May 2024 05:36:06 GMT, Jan Panteltje
Post by Jan Panteltje
Dynamic DNA structures and the formation of memory
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2024/05/240501125755.htm
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...
And I have always thought that our brains are quantum-mechanical
computers.


Bill Sloman
2024-05-13 02:54:47 UTC
Permalink
Post by John Larkin
On Sun, 05 May 2024 05:36:06 GMT, Jan Panteltje
Post by Jan Panteltje
Dynamic DNA structures and the formation of memory
https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2024/05/240501125755.htm
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...
And I have always thought that our brains are quantum-mechanical
computers.
http://youtu.be/R6G1D2UQ3gg
Rodger Penrose wasn't right. He was indulging in a piece of feckless
speculation.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sabine_Hossenfelder

dropped out of physics to peddle "popular science" twaddle. She doesn't
seem to know much about what actually happens inside the brain, which
does involve complicated biochemistry which she doesn't seem to have
been exposed to. Like Rodger Penrose, she has heard the buzz-words, but
doesn't know enough to make sense of them.
--
Bill Sloman, Sydney
Loading...