• OT: Dynamic DNA structures and the formation of memory

    From Jan Panteltje@21:1/5 to All on Sun May 5 05:36:06 2024
    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...

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Bill Sloman@21:1/5 to Jan Panteltje on Sun May 5 23:08:30 2024
    On 5/05/2024 3:36 pm, Jan Panteltje 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.

    That's interesting, if extremely vague and unspecific.

    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

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From John Larkin@21:1/5 to pNaonStpealmtje@yahoo.com on Sun May 5 15:00:42 2024
    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.

    We do have short-term memory too. We don't want to junk up our
    chromosones remembering every grocery list.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Bill Sloman@21:1/5 to John Larkin on Mon May 6 10:51:51 2024
    On 6/05/2024 8:00 am, 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.

    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.

    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.

    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

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From John Larkin@21:1/5 to pNaonStpealmtje@yahoo.com on Sun May 12 18:25:13 2024
    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...

    And I have always thought that our brains are quantum-mechanical
    computers.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R6G1D2UQ3gg

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Tom Del Rosso@21:1/5 to John Larkin on Sun May 12 21:21:56 2024
    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?


    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

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Tom Del Rosso@21:1/5 to John Larkin on Sun May 12 22:11:18 2024
    John Larkin wrote:

    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

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From John Larkin@21:1/5 to fizzbintuesday@that-google-mail-dom on Sun May 12 18:30:32 2024
    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.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Bill Sloman@21:1/5 to John Larkin on Mon May 13 12:54:47 2024
    On 13/05/2024 11:25 am, 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...

    And I have always thought that our brains are quantum-mechanical
    computers.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=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

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Bill Sloman@21:1/5 to John Larkin on Mon May 13 12:39:15 2024
    On 13/05/2024 11:30 am, 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.

    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

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From John Larkin@21:1/5 to fizzbintuesday@that-google-mail-dom on Sun May 12 20:36:51 2024
    On Sun, 12 May 2024 22:11:18 -0400, "Tom Del Rosso" <fizzbintuesday@that-google-mail-domain.com> wrote:

    John Larkin wrote:

    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.


    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.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Jeroen Belleman@21:1/5 to John Larkin on Mon May 13 10:30:09 2024
    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

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Joe Gwinn@21:1/5 to jjSNIPlarkin@highNONOlandtechnology on Mon May 13 09:54:25 2024
    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

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From John Larkin@21:1/5 to jeroen@nospam.please on Mon May 13 07:10:26 2024
    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.

    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.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From John Larkin@21:1/5 to All on Mon May 13 07:13:48 2024
    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?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Joe Gwinn@21:1/5 to All on Mon May 13 10:39:58 2024
    On Mon, 13 May 2024 09:54:26 -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. 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


    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

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Bill Sloman@21:1/5 to John Larkin on Tue May 14 00:52:14 2024
    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

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Jeroen Belleman@21:1/5 to John Larkin on Mon May 13 17:01:27 2024
    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.


    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

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Bill Sloman@21:1/5 to Joe Gwinn on Tue May 14 01:14:15 2024
    On 13/05/2024 11:54 pm, Joe Gwinn 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>

    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

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Jeroen Belleman@21:1/5 to John Larkin on Mon May 13 17:03:20 2024
    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

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Joe Gwinn@21:1/5 to jjSNIPlarkin@highNONOlandtechnology on Mon May 13 11:18:13 2024
    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

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Bill Sloman@21:1/5 to John Larkin on Tue May 14 01:25:55 2024
    On 14/05/2024 12:13 am, 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>

    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

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From John Larkin@21:1/5 to All on Mon May 13 09:20:24 2024
    On Mon, 13 May 2024 11:18:13 -0400, Joe Gwinn <joegwinn@comcast.net>
    wrote:

    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.

    It has been. Because species compete.

    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?

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From John Larkin@21:1/5 to jeroen@nospam.please on Mon May 13 09:31:31 2024
    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.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Jeroen Belleman@21:1/5 to John Larkin on Mon May 13 19:32:47 2024
    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

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From John Larkin@21:1/5 to jeroen@nospam.please on Mon May 13 11:32:16 2024
    On Mon, 13 May 2024 19:32:47 +0200, Jeroen Belleman
    <jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:

    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.


    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.

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)
  • From Bill Sloman@21:1/5 to John Larkin on Tue May 14 17:39:34 2024
    On 14/05/2024 4:32 am, John Larkin wrote:
    On Mon, 13 May 2024 19:32:47 +0200, Jeroen Belleman
    <jeroen@nospam.please> wrote:

    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.


    After giving all of them a chance, I just pick the best one to build.

    The best one you could come up with.
    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.

    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.

    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.

    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

    --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
    * Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)