Keanumoreira Posted January 3, 2012 Share Posted January 3, 2012 (edited) The theory of Cellular Memory proposes that memories are stored in our DNA in individual cells from our parents, or, if you've received an organ transplant; the memories of other people, as well as the experiences of those cells themselves. It is believed that these memories are locked in our genes by a genetic code in what can be thought of as a genetic filing cabinet for memories, so to speak. If one where to take a cell from the brain of a genius, and implant it in the brain of someone who was of a normal IQ, and then unlock the memories within; then that person can obtain that knowledge of that genius, sorta like downloading a file from a computer and uploading it somewhere else. One could also take the cell from a physically strong individual, place it in an average Joe, that overtime, he would develop those muscles without any effort of his own. Is this theory possible, is there any proof backing this up, and if it were to be proven; how would it change our lives forever? Edited January 3, 2012 by Keanumoreira Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marxist ßastard Posted January 3, 2012 Share Posted January 3, 2012 http://www.harkavagrant.com/history/lamarck.png Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
McclaudEagle Posted January 3, 2012 Share Posted January 3, 2012 I would think of it like a game on a PC. Would you be able to run a game like Skyrim on an old PC from early 2000? Probably not. Even if you have that genius' memory, if you lack the IQ, your brain won't be able to process it properly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
marharth Posted January 4, 2012 Share Posted January 4, 2012 inb4 animus Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aurielius Posted January 4, 2012 Share Posted January 4, 2012 I admit that I was not as current with the topic as I would like, so I did just an hour or two research. I think that on a lower order meaning cellular there might be a limited coded memory as in regressive DNA traits but find that there is nothing but anecdotal evidence for this being part of the higher brain functions. So no I don't believe that if I get a liver transplant from a teetotaler that I will sudden desire to give up single malt whiskey. So count me in the 'this is a fad theory' camp. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marxist ßastard Posted January 4, 2012 Share Posted January 4, 2012 And you know, it's so sad. Because when suffering a bacterial infection, I've often found myself wondering: Were these happy bacteria? What were their dreams? It's such a shame I may never know. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SilverDNA Posted January 4, 2012 Share Posted January 4, 2012 This is up to date only a debated scientific hypothesis on humans in scientific circles.But since i knew of a one legged man that has Phantom pains (Wiki link) on special occasions, I know that nerves and the brain can remember limbs that aren't there any more (neurology)I leave this now up to you to debate here if it is possible to rule out or rule not out that there is or is not a Cellular Memory, because there are a bit too much if's in this still, so I remain sceptical at large. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DeadSpace Posted January 4, 2012 Share Posted January 4, 2012 anecdotal evidence, things i've come across that lack any other reasonable explanation except some kind of genetic/cellular memory. Predators, big cats and wolves specifically tend to avoid man...why? we're easy prey if you only take into account how difficult it would be for a wolf pack or tiger to take down a human. plenty of meat too. If you factor in that we'll band together to hunt down and destroy any mankiller than it makes sense why we're avoided. but how do they know that? it's not just man shaped, as primates of all kinds will be killed for food. it's a specific avoidance that only the weaker, injured, or starving tend to break. unless animals have their own language, how would that information be passed on? that humans will kill any that attack just one of us? Gamers, some research has suggested that children of gamers have faster reflexes overall than children of non-gamers. this stacks with evidence that children with fathers/mothers in certain trades tend to gravitate towards those trades, and be better at them than anyone coming into them fresh. Why would children of gamers be better able to game? just watching does nothing to improve response times or reflexes. so that rules out babies watching their parents play as any sort of a primer. the reflexes lie in hand eye coordination, not just visual. now...there is a theory that says evolution is faster when survival is threatened which some apply to the gamer conundrum, 'i died' in a video game may be enough to spark that for the next generation. very flimsy to be sure...but the sense of failure in addition to the 'death' seems logical if survival triggered evolution/adaption works faster than anyone ever thought. Throwing...a complex calculation...but babies start doing it at an early age even with no examples such as seeing their parents throw things. it is a survival trait for humans, we can deter predators at range, cause injury, a powerful survival trait. sidenote...animals, predators specifically, seem to shy from just the throwing motion...programmed? can you transplant memories? most likely not. at least not through the organs commonly transplanted now. no logical reason for for any sort of memory to be stored there not related to that organs function. intentionally attempting to through RNA and/or brain tissue...has been tried at a few points in history...limited success in mice. what might be interesting...can transplanted organs affect children born after? would be subtle if any effect most likely :\ fascinating subject ^_^ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Marxist ßastard Posted January 4, 2012 Share Posted January 4, 2012 Okay. Seriously, guys? Are we really having this debate? Because the last time someone suggested a revival of Lamarckian evolution, we got Lysenkoism, which contributed to the Soviet Famine and the Great Chinese Famine. Millions died. Plants don't grow better in winter if you soak their seeds in ice water. Giraffes don't have long necks because they tried really hard at stretching them out over thousands of years. And if you watch a movie, the movie won't be encoded in your kidneys, to be passed on during a transplant. To reiterate: "What I am saying is no, that is the stupidest thing anyone has ever heard of." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ihoe Posted January 4, 2012 Share Posted January 4, 2012 (edited) http://www.harkavagrant.com/history/lamarck.pngRofl.I can surely say that anyone can come up to This Page while doing search for information regarding the above mentioned hypothesis on a search engine. for instance, google.Touchy scientific (or superstitious) subjects like this are not left to much of a debate. Very few people can be accounted for a credible post graduate academic degree on the Internet, and mind you, what us commoners and unprofessionals think about this matter would denigrate the overall authenticity of this topic in general. Edited January 4, 2012 by Ihoe Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts