Have I not posted data, Mr. T? In a previous ‘life’ I managed citizen science databases (many). Here’s a list of various data analysis (other researcher’s data with my analysis) in my documents I’ve provided.
This one is particularly interesting, though not related to ecology:
I love data, but data is useless if one forgets how to see. Reminds me of a chapter from book by Oliver Sachs on how a man lost his eyesight as a child and regained sight as a forty-something. Afterward, all he saw was colors and pattern and it couldn’t make sense of any of it. It was all too overwhelming for him and he lost his sight once again due to another reason. This really and truly is the story of humanity.
T_aquaticus
(The Friendly Neighborhood Atheist)
103
Those appear to be the stuff we already discussed, where all you do is rename stuff that we already understand so that we can no longer understand it.
You mean like someone saying landscapes store memories like neurons, even though they don’t?
You are right that I can’t see the fantasies you imagine in your head, but I can see reality.
Questions for you, Mr. T: what defines the boundary of an organism? Is a virus an organism? Is a fetus an organism? Is a tree an organism? Acorn? Watershed? Your thinking has canalized. Think bigger, Mr. T, rather than just, “I pity the fool! [headshake].”
T_aquaticus
(The Friendly Neighborhood Atheist)
105
Why, because I don’t invent stuff out of whole cloth?
What do you think about lichens? A well-studied lichen from my own backyard is Lobaria pulmonaria. Falls off the trees out here this time of year in wind storms and fertilizes the understory. It is a symbiosis primarily between:
Fungal mycobiont: Main structural partner; genome ~50–60 Mbp.
Green algal photobiont: Provides photosynthate; genome ~100 Mbp.
These three genomes interact to form a single functional thallus. Research shows that growth patterns, stress tolerance, and secondary “food” production depend on cross-”communication” among all three genomes, not just the fungal genome alone. This seems to demonstrate a multi-genomic “memory” encoded at the system level rather than in any single DNA source. Thoughts?
Lichens are an example of multi-species symbiosis (the different genomes of the species have evolved to interact/communicate closely with each other as you have noted). The structure and function of the lichen is still ultimately based on DNA-encoded traits, though, it’s just that in this case the DNA happens to be derived from 3 species. This is still no evidence of a “memory” encoded anywhere else than in the DNA of the interacting organisms though.
I think we need dive into language. The action verbs of memory. Memory is not just static storage. It acts. Core verbs include: recall, reactivate, redistribute, reorganize, reconfigure, persist, maintain, adapt, adjust, signal, communicate, coordinate, integrate, suppress, inhibit, amplify, thread, AND store.
Yes, I’m a clumper rather than a splitter. You might argue that’s too broad, but let’s look at what DNA does. Memory in DNA:
Stores: Genetic sequences hold information about proteins, developmental pathways, and behaviors.
Recalls: Gene expression turns DNA instructions on/off in response to environmental cues.
Persists: DNA is passed through generations.
Adapts: Epigenetic mechanisms adjust gene expression based on environmental signals.
Coordinates: Regulatory networks synchronize cell differentiation and organismal development. (Some seriously fascinating chemical symbiotic ACTION happenin’ within the cell.)
Suppresses: Silencing genes prevents maladaptive expression.
In lichens, the memory of the system isn’t hidden in any single genome, it lives in the symbiosis itself, in how the partners reorganize, persist, and even redistribute nutrients after every windstorm to the trees that depend on them for not only nutrients, but also holding moisture during our hot summer dry months. Notice the verbs “redistribute, persist, reorganize, and hold": the action verbs of memory!
To a biologist, these verbs of what organisms might do are a result of “information” encoded in the DNA causing the organism to act in a certain way in relation to the environment it is currently experiencing, not memory. There is no need to postulate a disembodied “fabric of memory” outside the DNA of the organisms to explain these biological processes in an ecosystem. If you want to call the information in DNA “memory”, that just seems to be an exercise in semantics (and a confusing one for biologists) by substituting the well-defined and understood terms of DNA and genomes with a vague and squishy term “fabric memory”. I do not want to be harsh, but here I have to agree with @T_aquaticus that as a scientist, this redefining of terms comes across as the generation of a word salad that obfuscates, as opposed to clarifies, the evolution of structure and function of organisms.
I do think your gift of creative thinking serves you well in your poetry.
Anyways, I have actual scientific papers that I need to revise for the reviewers– and the deadlines are looming so I am going to bail from this discussion at this point to attend to those.
Not harsh. You’re actually mostly polite, thank you, except the derogatory “word salad” which has become a recent meme out there with the invent of AI, for those who don’t want to think beyond the confines of convention, which is actually how invention occurs.
I’m intrigued, I’m not aware of lichens consisting of more than two species; a fungus and an alga or cyanobacterium. I recently realised that I’d been looking at a large colony of dog lichen for several tears. Most pleasing.
T_aquaticus
(The Friendly Neighborhood Atheist)
112
“Word salad” has been around for a while, well before AI came to prominence. Invention doesn’t work by using Find and Replace in a word processor. Science uses agreed upon terms so we can understand each other. Making up your own terms only confuses.
Hi, Yeah, I learned in my undergrad biology classes back in the day that there were just 2 species involved in lichens. But relatively recent research has revealed a third partner, a yeast. I’m not a lichen expert, but a popular science review of it is here FYI. Pretty cool stuff, those lichens…
2 Likes
T_aquaticus
(The Friendly Neighborhood Atheist)
114
It is also possible for horizontal genetic transfer between symbiont and host. I’m not sure how often this occurs in lichens, but it has certainly occurred between mitochondria and nuclear genomes. In fact, nuclear mitochondrial DNA (NUMTs) are useful phylogenetic markers in vertebrates.
Lichens are very cool. And you have been very polite. Thank you for that. It’s tough defending a new way to look at reality and you’ve been considerate and thoughtful.
I guess these gents from the 20th Century and those from the past few years shouldn’t have created their own terms? Some terms have held and others have not.
Cladogenesis
Clade
Stasigenesis
Stasis
Punctuated Equilibria
Exaptation
Spandrels
Evo-Devo
Anagenesis
Heterochrony
Transgenerational Epigenetic Inheritance (TEI)
Evolutionary Rescue
Niche Construction
Evolvability
And lastly, ”Trained Immunity,” which is a form of biological memory. From Nature.com: “‘trained immunity’, which refers to the memory-type responses that occur in the innate immune system.”
Now about precision and words, where is the “Friendly” part of the atheist in the neighborhood? Reminds me of a Mr. Rogers song. Just for you!
It’s a beautiful day in this neighborhood
A beautiful day for an neighbor
Would you be my atheist?
Could you be my atheist?
It’s a neighborly day in this beautywood
A neighborly day for a B = ∇C
Would you be my atheist?
Could you be my atheist?
I have always wanted to have an atheist just like you
I’ve always wanted to live in a neighborhood with you
So let’s make the most of this beautiful day
Since we’re together, we might as well say
Would you be my atheist?
Could you be my atheist?
Won’t you be my neighbor?
Won’t you please
Won’t you please
Please won’t you be my atheist?
Generally, new terms are introduced by not just gents, but giants. They have first earned that prerogative by virtue of having made real seminal and influential contributions, and in so doing introduced substantial new concepts which are best served by a neologism. To be direct, I have not engaged with your posts because I have no interest in deciphering what it is you are trying to say.
May I recommend Stephen Weinberg’s book To Explain the World: The Discovery of Modern Science, for content, but also as a splendid exhibit of exemplary communication. One of the most brilliant minds of the past century, he wrote with a grade school simplicity and clarity that belied his status at the pinnacle of physics.