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

On 14/05/2024 12:10 am, John Larkin wrote:

On Mon, 13 May 2024 10:30:09 +0200, Jeroen Belleman
<jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:
 

On 5/13/24 03:30, John Larkin 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, 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.

 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.

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.

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