Interesting.
Note, however, that it is conceivable that those other examples of plant
and bacterial adaptation could be explained as situation-specific - in
the sense that the particular cause of the adaptation could have worked
in ways that were not generalizable to other, similar factors. So, some
very specific factors could be inherited while others could never have
an effect because they just don't happen to affect methylation.
But if the neural results hold up, this would be a whole new ball game:
a completely general mechanism for storing memories in an inheritable
form. Not just [memory-for-your-first-kiss] affecting the DNA, but the
whole shebang.
If it turns out that this is the correct interpretation, then this is
one hell of a historic moment.
I must say, I am still a little skeptical, but we'll see how it plays out.
Richard Loosemore
Ben Goertzel wrote:
Note also,
http://sciencelinks.jp/j-east/article/200308/000020030803A0129895.php
Jean Baptiste de Lamarck (1744-1829) maintained that characteristics
that were acquired during an organism's lifetime are passed on to its
offspring. This theory, known as Lamarckian inheritance, was later
completely discredited. However, recent progress in epigenetics
research suggests it needs to be reexamined in consideration of DNA
methylation. In this article, I summarize our observations, which
support Lamarckian inheritance. Initial experiments indicate that (1)
artificially induced demethylation of rice genomic DNA results in
heritable dwarfism, and (2) cold stress induces extensive
demethylation in somatic cells of the maize root. Based on these
results, I propose the hypothesis that traits that are acquired during
plant growth are sometimes inherited by their progeny through
persistent alteration of the DNA methylation status. (author abst.)
I wonder how this relates to adaptive mutagenesis
http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=1206667
which has been rather controversial
http://www.genetics.org/cgi/content/full/165/4/2319
ben
On Wed, Dec 3, 2008 at 11:11 AM, Richard Loosemore <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Am I right in thinking that what these people:
http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg20026845.000-memories-may-be-stored-on-your-dna.html
are saying is that memories can be stored as changes in the DNA inside
neurons?
If so, that would upset a few apple carts.
Would it mean that memories (including cultural adaptations) could be passed
from mother to child?
Implication for neuroscientists proposing to build a WBE (whole brain
emulation): the resolution you need may now have to include all the DNA in
every neuron. Any bets on when they will have the resolution to do that?
Richard Loosemore
-------------------------------------------
agi
Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now
RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/
Modify Your Subscription:
https://www.listbox.com/member/?&;
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
-------------------------------------------
agi
Archives: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/303/=now
RSS Feed: https://www.listbox.com/member/archive/rss/303/
Modify Your Subscription:
https://www.listbox.com/member/?member_id=8660244&id_secret=120640061-aded06
Powered by Listbox: http://www.listbox.com
