From ScienceDaily:
Our brain cells have different genomes from one another. The study shows for the first time that mutations in somatic cells — that is, any cell in the body except sperm and eggs — are present in significant numbers in the brains of healthy people. These mutations appear to occur more often in the genes a neuron uses most. Patterns of mutation allow researchers to trace brain cell lineages.
…
The study, published Oct. 2 in Science, shows for the first time that mutations in somatic cells–that is, any cell in the body except sperm and eggs–are present in significant numbers in the brains of healthy people. This finding lays the foundation for exploring the role of these post-conception mutations in human development and disease.
“A lot of people have been asking lately whether somatic mutations contribute to a range of neurodevelopmental and neurodegenerative diseases, but they couldn’t answer the question because of the limitations of technology,” said the study’s co-senior author, Peter Park, associate professor of biomedical informatics at HMS.
Whatever happened to one gene, one protein? And all the other simplicities?
It got updated in the light of new data. What do you think this study has to with that?
We don’t have a brain. I think we just gave a giant memory machine and connected with soul and body.
So these genes would only be affecting memory operations. All neuro problems are memory triggering problems I’m sure.
The brain is as a concept should be dead as a dodo.
As to this comment from the article:
Actually, contrary to what the researchers believe from the central dogma of the modern synthesis, (that they were, apparently, erroneously taught in school via neo-Darwinism), it has been known for a while now that mutations to DNA caused by ultraviolet light and errors in DNA replication are not the only source of variations to DNA.
In fact, replication errors and ultraviolet damage are now known to not even be the main source of variations to DNA as was, and apparently still is, presupposed in neo-Darwinian thought.
Also of interest from the preceding paper, on page 22, is a simplified list of the ‘epigenetic’ information flow in the cell that directly contradicts what was expected from the central dogma (Genetic Reductionism/modern synthesis model) of neo-Darwinism.
In fact mutations, instead of occurring randomly as is presupposed in neo-Darwinian thought, are now best thought of as being ‘directed’:
Besides the neurons of the brain, the tissues and cells of the body, as they differentiate, are also found to modify their DNA to suit their needs. As Dr. Jonathan Wells states in the following article, “It’s the organism controlling the DNA, not the DNA controlling the organism.”
In fact, in the following paper, and in direct contradiction to neo-Darwinian thought found that, from a genetic point of view, we are ‘individual in the truest sense of the word’ and also found that ‘we need to fundamentally rethink the view of genes that every schoolchild has learned since Gregor Mendel’s time’
Moreover, as if all that was not bad enough for the committed neo-Darwinist, the following study revealed, contrary to neo-Darwinian thought which holds that the genome ‘is a stable structure that changes rarely and accidentally’, it is now found that neurons are ‘dynamic’ and are ‘constantly rewriting their DNA’:
Also of related interest, it is now found that the ‘mind’, which neo-Darwinists do not believe in by the way, can have pronounced effects on the function of the brain in what is termed ‘brain plasticity’.
Jeffrey Schwartz’s work in ‘brain plasticity’ is gone over at the 4:03 minute mark of the following video
Moreover, besides the brain, it is also now found that ‘mindfulness’ can reach all the way down to the molecular level of your body and ‘Can Cause Specific Molecular Changes To Your Genes’:
To say the preceding findings contradict neo-Darwinian expectations would be an understatement. The preceding findings of ‘top down’ control by ‘mind’, for both the brain and the body, are completely inexplicable to the ‘bottom up’ materialistic explanations of neo-Darwinism and should, if neo-Darwinism were a proper science instead of being basically a faith based religion for atheists, count as a solid refutation of the ‘bottom up’ modern synthesis of neo-Darwinism.