4 ms·

For those interested in more details and quite mind blowing examples, here is a fascinating interview with Michael Levin (one of the researchers mentioned in th

For those interested in more details and quite mind blowing examples, here is a fascinating interview with Michael Levin (one of the researchers mentioned in the article). https://youtu.be/c8iFtaltX-s?t=4751 https://youtu.be/c8iFtaltX-s?t=4751 Start at 1:19:11, the stuff before is him talking about biology, but from an intelligence perspective. After this time stamp is his retrospective on his bioelectricity research over the years, showing also examples of how they got a frog embryo to produce eyes, and many more things.

joel_liu 8mo ago
Thanks for sharing this timestamp - Levin's retrospective on bioelectricity research is compelling. What fascinates me most is how his work challenges the gene-centric view of development. The experiments showing bioelectric patterns can override genetic instructions (like inducing eye formation in non-eye tissue) reveal a whole layer of morphogenetic information we're just beginning to understand.
- nandomrumber 8mo ago
  I don’t believe genetics ever claimed to provide a theory of why eyes grow where eyes grow. The cells in your eyes have exactly the same DNA as the cells in your big toe, so developmental morphology cannot be explained with DNA alone.
  - mojosam 8mo ago
    > I don’t believe genetics ever claimed to provide a theory of why eyes grow where eyes grow. That’s the whole point of developmental biology, to show how features of the human body form and develop based on gene expression, the timing of which during embryonic and fetal development itself is dictated by your genes. If not your genes, what else would determine why you have eyes in about the same place in your head as every other human? > The cells in your eyes have exactly the same DNA as the cells in your big toe, so developmental morphology cannot be explained with DNA alone. Sure it can, because while every cell has essentially the same DNA, the expression of genes differs between cells, which is what causes cells to differentiate. And this differentiation also controls development; look up the Hox genes as an example.
    - zmgsabst 8mo ago
      Your last paragraph is their point: genes are regulated to produce that effect. The genes themselves aren’t doing it, but eg diffusion of chemical signals to inactivate genes. Morphology is determined by the combination of genes, chemical signals, original cell machinery, and apparently electrical signals. But we never believed that genes determined morphology alone, eg, we know that chemical signals can cause anomalies.
      - mmooss 8mo ago
        > Morphology is determined by the combination of genes, chemical signals, original cell machinery, and apparently electrical signals. But we never believed that genes determined morphology alone, eg, we know that chemical signals can cause anomalies. For the consistent parts - eyes may be different colors but are overwhelmingly consistent - what else could be the ultimate cause but DNA? For example, if those chemical signals, cell machinary, and electrical signals produce the same results billions of times over 200,000 years, then they must function the same overall. How does that happen if the chemical signals, cell machinary, and electrical signals aren't determined, even if indirectly, by DNA?
        zmgsabst 8mo ago
        An example of the contrary: Your eyes would be misplaced if the process from cell clump to mat to tubule failed due to chemical signaling failure, but the whole embryo tends to be spontaneously aborted when gestation fails so catastrophically. And despite genitalia being roughly one of two forms and similarly positioned, chemical signals can disrupt their formation. > How does that happen if the chemical signals, cell machinary, and electrical signals aren't determined, even if indirectly, by DNA? They don’t produce the same results with perfect accuracy — 75% of pregnancies are spontaneously aborted, at least in part due to developmental failures. But the problem with this argument is simple: you have a human cell everywhere you have human DNA, so those correlations with DNA are also correlations with cellular machinery and with particular chemical signals from the mother. There was no point in those 200,000 years where DNA operated independently of those other mechanisms — we can only say the system as a whole reliably creates those features.
  - RaftPeople 8mo ago
    > The cells in your eyes have exactly the same DNA as the cells in your big toe Is that true? I know that cells in the brain have significant variability in DNA, but not really aware of what non-neuronal and non-brain cells in general typically have.
    - arrosenberg 8mo ago
      Every cell in your body (excepting red blood cells) has a complete copy of your genome. What differs is which portions are activated.
      - RaftPeople 8mo ago
        Except for in the brain (13% to 41% of neurons with variation, deletions, additions, etc., first discovered in 2001, study below from 2013 confirmed). https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.1243472 https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.1243472
jnpnj 8mo ago
Great link, he also discusses the start of his lab. The discovery of bioelectricity induced eye "modeling" was ..kinda crazy. Also, I've been trying to find people to discuss this, so I set up a discord server: https://discord.gg/gdaSgDgC5y https://discord.gg/gdaSgDgC5y if anyone is interest (note: i'm just a software engineer, not in biomedicine or bioelectricity yet). if there are already long running discord servers then i'd rather join these instead :)
seanclayton 8mo ago
Just want to say, the "stuff" before is absolutely necessary groundwork to even begin comprehending the implications.

joel_liu 8mo ago

Thanks for sharing this timestamp - Levin's retrospective on bioelectricity research is compelling. What fascinates me most is how his work challenges the gene-centric view of development. The experiments showing bioelectric patterns can override genetic instructions (like inducing eye formation in non-eye tissue) reveal a whole layer of morphogenetic information we're just beginning to understand.

nandomrumber 8mo ago
I don’t believe genetics ever claimed to provide a theory of why eyes grow where eyes grow. The cells in your eyes have exactly the same DNA as the cells in your big toe, so developmental morphology cannot be explained with DNA alone.
- mojosam 8mo ago
  > I don’t believe genetics ever claimed to provide a theory of why eyes grow where eyes grow. That’s the whole point of developmental biology, to show how features of the human body form and develop based on gene expression, the timing of which during embryonic and fetal development itself is dictated by your genes. If not your genes, what else would determine why you have eyes in about the same place in your head as every other human? > The cells in your eyes have exactly the same DNA as the cells in your big toe, so developmental morphology cannot be explained with DNA alone. Sure it can, because while every cell has essentially the same DNA, the expression of genes differs between cells, which is what causes cells to differentiate. And this differentiation also controls development; look up the Hox genes as an example.
  - zmgsabst 8mo ago
    Your last paragraph is their point: genes are regulated to produce that effect. The genes themselves aren’t doing it, but eg diffusion of chemical signals to inactivate genes. Morphology is determined by the combination of genes, chemical signals, original cell machinery, and apparently electrical signals. But we never believed that genes determined morphology alone, eg, we know that chemical signals can cause anomalies.
    - mmooss 8mo ago
      > Morphology is determined by the combination of genes, chemical signals, original cell machinery, and apparently electrical signals. But we never believed that genes determined morphology alone, eg, we know that chemical signals can cause anomalies. For the consistent parts - eyes may be different colors but are overwhelmingly consistent - what else could be the ultimate cause but DNA? For example, if those chemical signals, cell machinary, and electrical signals produce the same results billions of times over 200,000 years, then they must function the same overall. How does that happen if the chemical signals, cell machinary, and electrical signals aren't determined, even if indirectly, by DNA?
      - zmgsabst 8mo ago
        An example of the contrary: Your eyes would be misplaced if the process from cell clump to mat to tubule failed due to chemical signaling failure, but the whole embryo tends to be spontaneously aborted when gestation fails so catastrophically. And despite genitalia being roughly one of two forms and similarly positioned, chemical signals can disrupt their formation. > How does that happen if the chemical signals, cell machinary, and electrical signals aren't determined, even if indirectly, by DNA? They don’t produce the same results with perfect accuracy — 75% of pregnancies are spontaneously aborted, at least in part due to developmental failures. But the problem with this argument is simple: you have a human cell everywhere you have human DNA, so those correlations with DNA are also correlations with cellular machinery and with particular chemical signals from the mother. There was no point in those 200,000 years where DNA operated independently of those other mechanisms — we can only say the system as a whole reliably creates those features.
- RaftPeople 8mo ago
  > The cells in your eyes have exactly the same DNA as the cells in your big toe Is that true? I know that cells in the brain have significant variability in DNA, but not really aware of what non-neuronal and non-brain cells in general typically have.
  - arrosenberg 8mo ago
    Every cell in your body (excepting red blood cells) has a complete copy of your genome. What differs is which portions are activated.
    - RaftPeople 8mo ago
      Except for in the brain (13% to 41% of neurons with variation, deletions, additions, etc., first discovered in 2001, study below from 2013 confirmed). https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.1243472 https://www.science.org/doi/10.1126/science.1243472

jnpnj 8mo ago

Great link, he also discusses the start of his lab. The discovery of bioelectricity induced eye "modeling" was ..kinda crazy. Also, I've been trying to find people to discuss this, so I set up a discord server: https://discord.gg/gdaSgDgC5y https://discord.gg/gdaSgDgC5y if anyone is interest (note: i'm just a software engineer, not in biomedicine or bioelectricity yet). if there are already long running discord servers then i'd rather join these instead :)

seanclayton 8mo ago

Just want to say, the "stuff" before is absolutely necessary groundwork to even begin comprehending the implications.