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

On 5/13/24 18:31, John Larkin wrote:

On Mon, 13 May 2024 17:01:27 +0200, Jeroen Belleman
<jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:
 

On 5/13/24 16:10, 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.
>
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.
 

>
>

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