Re: OT: Dynamic DNA structures and the formation of memory

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