Second Evolution-feedback4

the second evolution

the final piece of the evolution puzzle

feedback + discussion

page 4

page 1 page 2 page 3 page 4

Dr. Fiona Yih Ling Chan (1) Monash University	Hi Danny, I'm a medical doctor currently doing a PhD on the role of the insulin gene in diabetes. I read the article about you in The Age today and subsequently your website and paper with great interest as ncDNA is in my field of study. I had a couple of issues relating to the genetic aspects of your theory. Firstly, I think it is widely accepted that non-coding DNA (specifically, the promoter regions and introns of genes and some other elements) can play a very important role in modifying the expression of proteins and is therefore not actually 'junk' DNA. Secondly, I do not think the divided DNA hypothesis is a new idea. There is actually a branch of genetics known as epigenetics which deals with a second mode of inheritance not directly encoded by the DNA sequence but rather through modifications of the DNA such as methylation, chromatin conformation and a phenomenon known as imprinting. Some of these modifications are transmissible from parent to offspring. There is emerging evidence that some of these 'epigenetic marks' are also responsive to environmental stresses and can provide a sort of 'genetic memory'. (It is not too great a leap to imagine that emotions, if sufficiently strong or sustained, could also affect these marks) However, all of these modifications ultimately affect the expression of proteins to give the phenotype of the animal/plant. I can give you references for these things if you're interested. Hope the feedback was useful. I think epigenetics could provide the molecular mechanisms you're looking for. Best wishes, Fiona Chan
DV, Reply: (1)	Dear Fiona, Thank you for your thoughtful comments. They're much appreciated. While the evolutionary function of ncDNA was initially derided, then cautiously acknowledged, particularly when it was found that ncDNA is highly conserved in a variety of metazoan genomes, the latest opinions is that ncDNA performs a variety of little understood function in relation to protein coding genes, and especially, as you point out, in promoter and regulatory regions. However, I argue that in addition to these regulatory roles, ncDNA has a completely different evolutionary function related to the encryption of emotions, which are not encoded inside protein coding genes, but within introns and other noncoding regions of the DNA molecule. The divided DNA hypothesis is as far as I know the first time anyone has suggested that two quite separate modes of genetic inheritance coexist within the DNA molecule, one that uses protein coding genes to code for physical traits and another that uses ncDNa to code exclusively for 'non-physical information obtained from the organism's current environment, something that was thought to be impossible, especially because coding genes are tenaciously resistant to all but the most toxic environmental forces - things like radioactivity and chemical mutagens. This is quite different from epigenetics, methylation, X chromosome inactivation and genomic imprinting which relate to protein coding genes and physical traits. When I was searching for a molecular mechanism by which emotions, instincts and innate behaviours (from the environment) could be encoded into the genome, I initially suspected some epigenetic mechanism was involved. Eventually though, I realised that methylation and other epigenetic mechanisms evolved to perform important regulatory roles in relation to the expression of protein coding genes, for example in relation to phenotypic plasticity, (silencing genes in response to certain environmental factors), developmental cues and so on, and did not have the molecular complexity to code for, store and retrieve complex behaviours. As you say, "all of these modifications ultimately affect the expression of proteins" but proteins, according to teem theory are only half the story - admittedly the 'physical' half. The other half - the emotional-behavioural matrix are not, I assert, fabricated form proteins, but from teems. Thanks again for your fascinating and thought provoking comments. best wishes Danny
Dr. Fiona Yih Ling Chan (2)	Hi Danny, I think I see what you mean but as you have stated, 'emotions' are patterns of neuronal activity which are the result of sensory stimuli transduced through the 'CNS'. However, these sensory stimuli are physical phenomena, as are the neurons, their activity and the 'CNS' so I am confused as to what "bit" of a given emotion is actually 'non-physical'. Cheers, Fiona
DV, Reply: (2)	Very good point Fiona. I'm the first to agree that the distinction I draw between physical and emotional can be problematical. Obviously, in the final analysis, everything is physical, but the distinction is nevertheless important, and I'd even suggest the failure of biologists to understand the subtle but complex difference has been one of the major reasons why teem theory wasn't discovered ages ago. The distinction between physical and emotional relates specifically to inheritance and in particular, the molecular mechanisms governing protein coding genes. Emotions are acquired from the organism's current environment and as the central dogma tells us, nothing acquired from the environment during the life of the organism can be inherited inside a gene because it can cause contamination of the germline. This can result in the inheritance of acquired disabilities (like cancer) which would be highly maladaptive. The solution that natural selection found (by trial and error) was to create an alternative system of inheritance that doesn't use protein coding genes and therefore doesn't involve the inheritance of physical traits. Importantly, the teemosis process doesn't involve the inheritance of any physical trait - no brain, bones, blood, hormones, cells, nothing. It only passes on emotions coded inside ncDNA as a nucleotide sequence. Once the emotions are passed down from one generation to the next, they are decoded using existing physical traits (that evolved by natural selection.) So there's no problem with physicality in each generation, it's simply the transition (or inheritance) that can't involve a physical trait. I hope this explains it, but I suspect I have a long way to go before I can communicate this important evolutionary distinction in a way that people can easily understand. Let me put it another way, although emotions can have a physical manifestation, for the purposes of inheriting emotions from one generation and the next, emotions cannot be inherited by the Mendelian process that normally regulates the inheritance of physical traits because they would contaminate the germline. They need to be transferred by a special (non-physical) system of inheritance to prevent them violating the central dogma. Is that better? Danny
Dr. Fiona Yih Ling Chan (3)	Right! I'm getting the picture. Would it be right to say then that TEEMs basically form a DNA matrix in which protein-encoding exons are "embedded"? Thus they provide the behavioural context in which those proteins are expressed? In the context of modern times, would your theory predict that the 'baby boomer' generation should have a characteristic pattern of TEEMs (or nucleotide changes in ncDNA) as a result of their parents' wartime experiences? It would be good if you could find evidence that the germline mutation rate in ncDNA was higher than in coding DNA. It would be even better if you could show that it changed through the life of the organism. Sir Alec Jeffreys is a UK expert on (human) DNA fingerprinting & has an interest in micro/minisatellite DNA as well as meiotic recombination. His papers should give you some idea. Cheers, Fiona
DV, Reply: (3)	Hi Fiona, I'm afraid I don't quite understand what you mean by 'embedded in a matrix.' Teems, like all ncDNA get spliced out prior to protein synthesis, so they are inherited to the next generation but do not code for proteins. If you think about it, there's an awful lot of very complex biochemestry needed to splice out the ncDNA and prevent it from coding for amino acids, polypeptides and proteins but still allow it to be inherited to the next generaiton. It must perform some important functional purpose, and that purpose is, I suggest, to ensure the separation of information acquired from the enviorment from protein coding genes that code for phsyical traits. Teems encoded within introns and other ncDNA sequences make the trip to the next generation but in a way that they don't contaminate or compromise the transmission of physical traits. Re your second very interesting question about children inheriitng the war time experiences of their parents thorugh the temosis process, I did a bit of research and yesterday came across a study of Australian Vietnam veterans that is very interesting. Thanks for suggesting it to me. The study - http://www.aihw.gov.au/publications/health/mvv-svvc/mvv-svvc.pdf showed that veterans suicided a three times the normal rate, which is not surprising given the trauma of war. But the study also showed that their children also killed themselves at three times the normal rate. Could this be because their fathers encoded a stressful 'combat teem' (which included toxic emotions like horror, panic, anxiety, depression, and hopelessness) and passed it on to their children? It's difficult to know for sure because it's impossible to separate the cultural, psychological, family dynamic influences from the genetic. Still, I'm mulling over the findings. Thanks for the tip re Sir Alec Jefferys. I've written to him about my work. I noticed that one of his papers was about the role of the insulin minisatellite in susceptibility to type 1 diabetes. Interesting. It's completely outside my field but was wondering - given that minisatellites mutate in resposne to stress, could stress or other toxic emotions be a factor in precipitaitng diabetes? As far as I knew, the risk factors - age, obesity, ethnic backgorund, family history were well known, but decided to check up anyway. I found a study that linked depression with type 2 diabetes. "11,615 healthy adults were followed for six years. At baseline all persons were evaluated for depression. Those people in the highest quartile (top 25 percent) for depressive symptoms had a 63 percent increased risk of developing diabetes during the six year follow-up compared to the 25 percent for people with the fewest depression symptoms." See: http://vanderbiltowc.wellsource.com/dh/Content.asp?ID=1547 Interesting. It fits with teem theory's view that high potency emotions shuffle ncDNA, sometimes resulting in diseases like diabetes. Anyway, it was just a thought. danny
Professor Timothy Mousseau (1) Dept of Biological Sciences University of South Carolina	Hi Danny, You really must work on the transmission from soma to germ line (i.e. inheritance) aspects of your ideas before anyone will take them seriously. Otherwise you will be labeled a Lamarkian. There are many mechanisms for non-genetic transmission (i.e. see my book and papers on maternal effects!), and there are a few recent papers on genomic instability and bystander effects that suggest heritable responses to stress (radiation, in this case) that can be expression by non-target cells or in later generations (i.e. long after the stressor has stopped). This is an emerging field motivated by cancer studies showing that cancers can sometimes arise in tissues not targeted by radiation therapy. Good luck! Tim
DV, Reply:	Dear Tim, Thanks for your response to my work. In my MH paper, in the five additional papers on my web site, and in several pages of the web site, I stress that the teemosis evolutionary process is nonLamarckian because it does not affect protein-coding genes or the inheritance of physical traits. This ensures it does not contravene the central dogma of biology. Teemosis only regulates the inheritance of emotions. Regarding the transmission from soma to germ line, I cite clinical evidence that clearly demonstrates that stress induced mutations of noncoding DNA can be inherited to offspring, precisely as predicted by teem theory. Thanks for mentioning your work on maternal effects. In Paper 5, The teem theory of nonMendelian Inheritance, http://www.thesecondevolution.com/paper5dna.pdf I argue that instances of phenotypic plasticity, including maternal effects may be activated by high salience emotions encoded in teems. To quote from the paper - "teemosis provides the means by which environmentalcircumstances can generate emotional traumas that initiate a change in phenotype. This may occur when anomalous environmental conditions (AEC) generate an emotional trauma in an individual that is transduced by sensory organs into an Emlanic 'sentence.' The sentence binds to ncDNA receptor molecules, that in turn trigger transcriptional activators that moderate regulatory regions of specific genes and alters their expression. One consequence is to activate methylation to silence the existing phenotype and activate a dormant phenotype. For example, the emotional trauma experienced by numerous amphibian species of tadpoles caused by the evaporation of their ponds can alter the expression of genes that accelerate metamorphosis." Of course, it's only a theory. kind regards, Danny
Professor Timothy Mousseau (2)	Hi Danny, Very interesting. Time to do some experiments, eh? cheers (From Nagasaki, Japan). Tim
Melina Ellis	Greetings Mr. Vendramini, I read the article written about you in The Age on the 3/1/06 and was prompted to contact you regarding your hypothesis of TEEMs. I'm curious to find out if you have read much of Richard Dawkins or are familiar with the theory of MEMEs? Dawkins, describes similar attributes for ncDNA contributing to emotional and behavioural phenotypes inherited through repeated exposure and/or imitation, what he coins memes. The reason I ask is having read much on this topic (out of personal interest) I find many links between your respective ideas, insomuch as to think that these ideas are built on the same foundations and differ little. Others, who have written on this idea and are worth a read if you're interested include: Jared Diamond, Daniel C. Dennett or Susan Blackmore's 'The Meme Machine'. Granted also, the article in the Age presented an oversimplifed view of your idea to the degree that they misquoted, saying it is the central nervous system and not the brain which plays a more important role, when the brain (along with the spinal cord make up the central nervous system). It is difficult to present ideas without having them misconstrued or translated into laymen's terms such that any meaning is rendered insignificant, however there are many ideas out there which extend upon what you say and could help to develop yours further. Kind regards, M. Ellis
DV: Reply	Dear Melina, Thanks for your response to the article on teem theory and for suggesting Richard Dawkins to me. As you'd expect, I'm quite familiar with Dawkins. Unfortunately, I'm not a fan of his 'meme theory' - to be honest I can't quite work out the difference between a 'meme' and an 'idea.' It's like he's just appropriated the word 'idea' given it a new name, dressed it up in scientific jargon and pinned his name to it as its discover. Information is spread by ideas, communication and culture. What's original about that? Similarly, I thought Susan Blackmore's 'The Meme Machine' was an inferior and sloppy work. Sorry about that. Danny
Tim ORourke Bathurst NSW Australia	I think your teem theory is absolutly fantastic. A proud Darwinist myself I often contemplated introvertently that there must be something missing from natural selection. Its about time that someone like yourself projected something fresh (and not to mention plausable) into the scientific community to compliment the origin of species. I also think that you are in a fantastic position to propose such a theory, (having no qualifications in the specific field) and I have nothing but admiration for the obvious hard work you've put into formulating your ideas. You have my thanks and support. Tim
George Spragens	The biological mechanisms for the genetic encoding of traumatic experience have been described by cellular biologist Dr. Bruce Lipton, author of "The Biology of Belief." (His website is www.brucelipton.com.) A web search for "epigenetics" might also turn up relevant and interesting ideas.
DV, Reply:	Dear George, Thanks for your response to the article on teem theory and for suggesting Bruce Lipton's work. I'll check it out. best wishes, Danny

Home