5 ms·

Indeed, they do not evolve randomly. There’s this thing called natural selection that is relatively crucial. Your interpretation of bioelectric effects as summ

Indeed, they do not evolve randomly. There’s this thing called natural selection that is relatively crucial. Your interpretation of bioelectric effects as summarized in this article seems to have missed something. The bioelectric network is itself an expression of the genes involved in development. It’s not a separate magical force.

empath75 2y ago
It's not any different from the nervous system, really, it's just that we're now recognizing that those fields are involved in things other than sensation, perception, etc..
spacetimeuser5 2y ago
>>The bioelectric network is itself an expression of the genes involved in development. Yes, you may need genes to express the proteins of ion channels and gap junctions, but there is no anatomy coded by genes, no genes code for how many limbs will a biosystem have (as reiterated by Levin). And it is this level of resolution that actually mattered for years before the launch of molecular biology and medicine. >>It’s not a separate magical force. Indeed, it sort of (suppose - by up to 70%) is. If the fine structure constant, which defines the strength of the interaction between a charge and an electric field, were 4% less or more than its current value, the current world and biosphere wouldn't exist. So far physics can't explain why the fine structure constant has this exact value (~1/137, which is also unique that it is a dimenionless constant). (I'm not inferring anything, just presenting raw data).
- thaumasiotes 2y ago
  > but there is no anatomy coded by genes, no genes code for how many limbs will a biosystem have (as reiterated by Levin) What's this supposed to mean? We are already able to develop bugs with missing or additional limbs by modifying their genes.
  - spacetimeuser5 2y ago
    At least in a specific experimental context and with specific animal models. When they mixed the embryos of a frog and an axolotl, there were no genes in their genome which could predict whether a "frogolotl" will have legs.
    - thaumasiotes 2y ago
      > When they mixed the embryos of a frog and an axolotl, there were no genes in their genome which could predict whether a "frogolotl" will have legs. You do realize this is untrue?
      - spacetimeuser5 2y ago
        That's been reiterated by Levin at almost every presentation. Maybe he's overgeneralizing or there's actually a lack of specific experimental context or reference to a specific study. Maybe "anatomy" is a bit too broad of a term, and the thing inferred is some overall macroscopic patterning, so can't say definitely "untrue", as I haven't yet dedicated time to delve into specific articles and been just consuming lectures/presentations. But I remember he was mentioning some study in left/right asymmetry in DevBio, where they've shown that it's cell potentials/bioelectric signalling and not genes that determine the left/right asymmetry in embryos.
        thaumasiotes 2y ago
        > where they've shown that it's cell potentials/bioelectric signalling and not genes that determine the left/right asymmetry in embryos. No, they've shown that electric signaling is how the genes determine the left/right asymmetry in embryos. How do you think it is that the same thing happens so consistently every time a new organism develops? Where do you think the electric gradients come from?

empath75 2y ago

It's not any different from the nervous system, really, it's just that we're now recognizing that those fields are involved in things other than sensation, perception, etc..

spacetimeuser5 2y ago

>>The bioelectric network is itself an expression of the genes involved in development. Yes, you may need genes to express the proteins of ion channels and gap junctions, but there is no anatomy coded by genes, no genes code for how many limbs will a biosystem have (as reiterated by Levin). And it is this level of resolution that actually mattered for years before the launch of molecular biology and medicine. >>It’s not a separate magical force. Indeed, it sort of (suppose - by up to 70%) is. If the fine structure constant, which defines the strength of the interaction between a charge and an electric field, were 4% less or more than its current value, the current world and biosphere wouldn't exist. So far physics can't explain why the fine structure constant has this exact value (~1/137, which is also unique that it is a dimenionless constant). (I'm not inferring anything, just presenting raw data).

thaumasiotes 2y ago
> but there is no anatomy coded by genes, no genes code for how many limbs will a biosystem have (as reiterated by Levin) What's this supposed to mean? We are already able to develop bugs with missing or additional limbs by modifying their genes.
- spacetimeuser5 2y ago
  At least in a specific experimental context and with specific animal models. When they mixed the embryos of a frog and an axolotl, there were no genes in their genome which could predict whether a "frogolotl" will have legs.
  - thaumasiotes 2y ago
    > When they mixed the embryos of a frog and an axolotl, there were no genes in their genome which could predict whether a "frogolotl" will have legs. You do realize this is untrue?
    - spacetimeuser5 2y ago
      That's been reiterated by Levin at almost every presentation. Maybe he's overgeneralizing or there's actually a lack of specific experimental context or reference to a specific study. Maybe "anatomy" is a bit too broad of a term, and the thing inferred is some overall macroscopic patterning, so can't say definitely "untrue", as I haven't yet dedicated time to delve into specific articles and been just consuming lectures/presentations. But I remember he was mentioning some study in left/right asymmetry in DevBio, where they've shown that it's cell potentials/bioelectric signalling and not genes that determine the left/right asymmetry in embryos.
      - thaumasiotes 2y ago
        > where they've shown that it's cell potentials/bioelectric signalling and not genes that determine the left/right asymmetry in embryos. No, they've shown that electric signaling is how the genes determine the left/right asymmetry in embryos. How do you think it is that the same thing happens so consistently every time a new organism develops? Where do you think the electric gradients come from?