Summations Only

Well, it may not technically be DNA that passes on these life experiences, but knowledge is being passed on just the same. Does it matter if its physically our DNA doing this, or some other genetic pathway-just as long as it in in fact happening? You saying that this is impossible sounds rather naive.

What is impossible is the knowledge being passed on via DNA.From your source:

quote:

---

Epigenetics adds a whole new layer to genes beyond the DNA.

---

From wiki:

quote:

---

In biology, and specifically genetics, epigenetics is the study of heritable changes in phenotype (appearance) or gene expression caused by mechanisms other than changes in the underlying DNA sequence,

---

But so what, what's your point?The knowledge of the organisms lifetime is being passed on genetically. Why does it matter if its located in the DNA? Its somewhere.

Zi ko's harebrained idea is that it is passed on through the DNA and he is wrong.

Hi, Dash. I have no idea how the knowledge of an organism's lifetime could be passed on genetically. Knowledge is, by definition, an acquired trait, and we've seen precious little reason to believe that acquired traits can be passed on hereditarily.I can't think of a feasible means of taking a mother's knowledge and experience, and encoding it somehow in genes, or in epigenetic chemical states, or somewhere in the cytoplasm, such that it can be "hardwired" into a one-celled embryo (that lacks specialized tissues for storing knowledge in the traditional way) that will later grow up into a new adult with all the mother's experience and knowledge available to it.If there is such a feasible means of accomplishing this, it would certainly be very interesting and I would want to learn about it. However, Zi Ko's approach to the topic is highly questionable, and I have no confidence that any revolutions or innovations of the magnitude of this "neurogenic evolution" idea are going to come from this avenue.

---

-Bluejay (a.k.a. Mantis, Thylacosmilus)Darwin loves you.

They have never denied it's existence. In fact, they have found (tentitively) what many believe are neurons that were the pre-curser to empathy: mirror neurons

quote:

---

A mirror neuron is a neuron that fires both when an animal acts and when the animal observes the same action performed by another. Thus, the neuron "mirrors" the behavior of the other, as though the observer were itself acting.

---

What this says is, if I grab something a neuron fires in my head, but also, if you grab something the same neuron fires in my head as though I were the one grabbing it. So my brain mimics and experiences what it visually observes you, or anyone else, do.To the point of empathy: If I get bitten by a lion, a neuron fires in my head telling me a number of things from: I'm in danger, I'm in pain, I may die. The amazing thing discovered was that the same neuron fires when I observe YOU getting bitten. The difference being, neurons in my skin are also sending a signal to my brain telling it, 'don't worry, we're not being bitten.' So I don't feel your pain, but my brain does recognize it, even without any language, or communication, or having to hear you in pain. My brain registers your pain the same way it would if it happened to me.Many like Ramachandran believe this was the earliest emergence of what later became empathy. Also it is believed that these neurons play an important role in mimicry and language acquisition.- Oni

But how many neurons are on a strand of DNA or in a gene?

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

Then please outline the experiments that could be used to test your hypothesis. However, good theories do make predictions of what should happen in an experiment. Yes, there is. You claim that the nervous system is producing changes in the genome. These diseases are due to changes in the genome. Therefore, your theory must explain them.

Also, epigenetic changes only extend to a few generations. They are not permanent by any menas. They can not explain changes that occur over thousands of generations.

I have seen this before. People who are not experienced scientists sometimes have a strange view of how science is actually done, or even how theories are constructed to begin with. They think that scientists have eureka moments where this completely off the wall idea pops into their head that is unattached to reality in anyway. They then propose this idea to their peers who all say how brilliant it is because of it's originality.Well, it doesn't work that way unfortunately. Theories take a lot of hard work. Darwin spent many years testing his ideas and gathering data before he proposed the theory of evolution. Einstein worked hard to create a mathematical basis for his ideas of Relativity so that it could be tested, and still explain the data of the time. What scientists do NOT do is just throw their hair brained ideas into the scientific community and expect everyone else to do the hard work.I don't mean this to be insulting. It's great to have new ideas and talk about them. However, before you can start pushing it as science you need to put in some hard work first to bolster your position. You need to understand genetics and cell biology. You need to understand how these things interact and how your theory fits in with this knowledge. Your hard work will be noticed which will lead to people having more respect for your ideas. As it is, the idea that neurons specifically mutate the genomes of sperm and eggs isn't worth serious consideration.

Really?How is this the question that you would ask me based on the post I wrote?- Oni

This silly thread began with the idea that "empathy" somehow transmits genetic information from generation to generation.Granted, we are learning more about the mechanics of the human brain and even a little about other brains, but there are no neurons involved in genetics or in most living organisms either.My point was that mirror neurons might well give us some insight into how empathy works and perhaps even some insight into how it evolved, but it has nothing to do with the asserted "new theory" that is being marketed in the OP.

---

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

Yeah, I noticed that. I was just responding to his/her notion that scientist don't know anything about empathy, as though it was a mystery to them, or that they don't even admit empathy exists. Which is, well, dumb to suggest.I agree with the rest you posted and I can assure everyone reading this that my intentions were not to provide the mechanism to support the "theory" being proposed in this thread.- Oni

Yup. That is what got me pissed.As if empathy has never been studied. As you American's sometimes say: sheesh!

Surely you didn't want to give me the mechanism to my "silly theory",(why, were you afraid?) but in a way you dit it. Thank you .Sorry, i didn't know how much science knows about empathy, and as this knowledg, is a fact, it fits well with my theory, which is great.But i see as well it a prediction of this theory, that came true.