Federico wrote: As I will explain in more detail in my answer to Mr.Samsa's queries, from the point of view of developmental cytology and molecular biology, there is little difference between insulin-producing cells of the pancreas, and neurones in brain areas which are responsive to and/or responsible for music.

Could someone please ask Federico if he really believes there are neurons which are specifically responsilbe for the enjoyment and performance of music, in the same way that there are pancreatic cells specifically responsible for secreting insulin?

Shrunk wrote:

Federico wrote: As I will explain in more detail in my answer to Mr.Samsa's queries, from the point of view of developmental cytology and molecular biology, there is little difference between insulin-producing cells of the pancreas, and neurones in brain areas which are responsive to and/or responsible for music.

Could someone please ask Federico if he really believes there are neurons which are specifically responsilbe for the enjoyment and performance of music, in the same way that there are pancreatic cells specifically responsible for secreting insulin?

Or bile???

Federico wrote:Studies with songbirds -- with which man shares the capacity to make and use music -- also have greatly improved our understanding of the development and role of music in our dayly lives.
Sarah Woolley, a professor of behavior neuroscience in the psychology department of Columbia University, studies different species of finches to figure out how the brain recognizes and processes sounds and vocalizations.

<<....finch matures very quickly, so you can actually raise a number of generations in relatively short period in a lab
And we can follow song development. We can follow how the song-learning process takes place, the different phases of song learning. We can draw parallels between those phases of song learning and the development of speech in humans. And we can analyze how the brain changes during that learning.>>

More tomorrow.

Hopefully tomorrow's installment will actually support Federico's point, rather than refuting it. Just as when he ineptly cited lactose tolerance as an example of "epigenetics", this very interesting interview also has nothing to do with epigenetics as he is defining it:

SIEGEL: What would happen if one kind of finch were placed in a cage or, in effect, with a tutor who is another kind of finch?

Dr. WOOLLEY: Right. So in the laboratory, one of the ways we asked the question of how does learning change perception and change the brain is by doing what we call cross-fostering and cross-tutoring birds. So we can take a baby zebra finch who's still in the egg or just hatched, and place it in the family of a Bengalese finch. So he grows up a zebra finch, but in the family of a Bengalese finch, and he learns the Bengalese finch song.

SIEGEL: And they will accept him as an...

Dr. WOOLLEY: They will. They will.

SIEGEL ...honorary Bengalese finch?

IOW, this shows how conventional neo-Darwinian genetics and environment can interact to produce a phenotypic trait, but there is no evidence for a role of "epigenetics" here. Now, if we knew that when the zebra finch learns a song this involves heritable changes in regulation of genetic trancription, and that these changes remained in the progeny of the zebra finch such that, even if raised by Bengalese finches, they continued to sing like their biological parents, that would mean something. But that's not what is being demonstrated here.

Shrunk wrote:

Federico wrote: As I will explain in more detail in my answer to Mr.Samsa's queries, from the point of view of developmental cytology and molecular biology, there is little difference between insulin-producing cells of the pancreas, and neurones in brain areas which are responsive to and/or responsible for music.

Could someone please ask Federico if he really believes there are neurons which are specifically responsilbe for the enjoyment and performance of music, in the same way that there are pancreatic cells specifically responsible for secreting insulin?

Exploring the Musical Brain
Music may be even more ancient than the human race, over which it holds tremendous sway. Scientists are beginning to find out why
By Kristin Leutwyler |Scientific American January 22, 2001

Federico wrote:

Shrunk wrote:

Federico wrote: As I will explain in more detail in my answer to Mr.Samsa's queries, from the point of view of developmental cytology and molecular biology, there is little difference between insulin-producing cells of the pancreas, and neurones in brain areas which are responsive to and/or responsible for music.

Could someone please ask Federico if he really believes there are neurons which are specifically responsilbe for the enjoyment and performance of music, in the same way that there are pancreatic cells specifically responsible for secreting insulin?

Exploring the Musical Brain
Music may be even more ancient than the human race, over which it holds tremendous sway. Scientists are beginning to find out why
By Kristin Leutwyler |Scientific American January 22, 2001

Could someone please ask Federico to at least make an effort to understand the questions he has been asked before making yet another of his completely irrelevant responses?

I have another question. What if a Jewish child is taken from his/her birth family as a baby, and is raised by a Muslim family, with the restrictions on music and learning. Would his/her genes survive the environment? what if they never learn that they are Jewish?

In a Muslim family with such restrictions, I'm sure you mean. The valedictorian of my highschool class was a religious Muslim with no such restrictions I'm aware of. He was a Westinghouse competition finalist as well. I thought him not to actually be the smartest, but he was quite well-organized and he's doing fine and married out. It was also the conviction of some teachers that the best mathematician out of the school in previous years was a Muslim who would have put me to shame.

Federico wrote:

Mr.Samsa wrote:

Federico wrote:I'll come back to music and heredity. Just start considering music like food: You have it, and your soul grows, you don't have it and your soul shrivels.

Just to try to understand your position a bit better, Frederico, can you tell me how you separate out:

1) Neurons changing as a function of their environment (i.e. through learning, experience, with no genetic change), and
2) Your idea that the epigenetic changes from environmental factors cause a change in the development of neurons.

OK, but don't forget we are still on speculative ground, and my name is Federico not Frederico

Sorry. I suppose we're even now for you calling me Mr.Salsa.. (Apologies if I call you Frederico again in the future, it's stuck in my head now, although I will endeavour to fix that).

Federico wrote:Mr.Samsa,
I believe we have done some progress together, but there is still some reluctance on your part to accept even as speculative some of my assertions. So, lets try again.

Do you accept the statement that every cell of the human body is endowed with all the paraphernalia that we have inherited from our ancestors? That machinery consisting in all the 20,000-30,000 known coding genes which collectively are called the Genome, as well as all mechanisms known and unknown which are collectively called the Epigenome, and which are essential for the control of genes activity?

Sure.

Federico wrote:Do you agree that humans start their development from a single pluripotential stem cell which then will diffentiate into neurones in the brain, into enterocytes in the gut , into myocytes in the muscles, into insulin-producing cells in the Pancreas, etc?

Sure.

Federico wrote:Then, how does one explain that a neurone in the brain doesn't produce insulin? Presumably because during the differentiation of the stem cell into a neurone and its positioning in the brain (under the control of still little known differentiating factors) the machinery for insulin production remains inactive, while music responsive neurones acquire their specific machinery.

Hmm... not quite. The stem cells form as a function of a number of things, but for simplicity's sake we can say they form due to their location (i.e. you put a stem cell into the spine, then it will form into a cell that becomes part of the spinal cord, etc), but it's not really a case of them "turning off" code in that we couldn't take a cell and (with advanced technology) turn it back "on" and make a liver cell turn into a neuron. Stem cells don't operate on epigenetic principles like that.

Secondly, you'd need to demonstrate that neurons for music responsive were there from birth, and not developed over the course of our lives (i.e. without any epigenetic influence).

Federico wrote:Now we have to ask ourselves how, when, and why did we acquire the highly complex, system to make and enjoy music, starting with primitive, amusical ancestors, which we can suppose were totally lacking the musical genes as well as their regulatory machinery .
We can suppose that in prehistoric times a mutation occurred in a gene (s) which resulted in some primitive men becoming capable of singing (the machinery to regulate the gene(s) had also to be in place), which gave them an evolutionary advantage.
Indeed, although initially only utilitarian, as a mating call, as a means to alert, transmit information, ask for help and support, singing and later making instrumental music became (in the interplay of music neurones and environmental pressures) more sophisticated and engrossing.

I don't accept any of the above. Not without evidence. As a speculative guess, it might have been possible, sure. But it's not the most likely speculation and it requires a number of leaps in logic.

Federico wrote:According to Petr Janata, a cognitive neuroscientist at the Center for Mind and Brain at the University of California Davis campus, music is a force so compelling that it can bind people together, stir memories and lift depression.

Sure, but that has nothing to do with epigenetics. Our neurons develop and grow without any change in our genetics.

Federico wrote:Studies with songbirds -- with which man shares the capacity to make and use music -- also have greatly improved our understanding of the development and role of music in our dayly lives.
Sarah Woolley, a professor of behavior neuroscience in the psychology department of Columbia University, studies different species of finches to figure out how the brain recognizes and processes sounds and vocalizations.

<<....finch matures very quickly, so you can actually raise a number of generations in relatively short period in a lab
And we can follow song development. We can follow how the song-learning process takes place, the different phases of song learning. We can draw parallels between those phases of song learning and the development of speech in humans. And we can analyze how the brain changes during that learning.>>

More tomorrow.

What does this have to do with epigenetics though?

Simple question for you: Do you accept that the brain can grow and connect neurons in different formations, and grow entire brain structures, without any change at all in the genetic structure?

And if so, why are you arguing that this basic, well-understood, process is better understood in epigenetic terms when no scientist agrees with you?

Someone wrote:In a Muslim family with such restrictions, I'm sure you mean. The valedictorian of my highschool class was a religious Muslim with no such restrictions I'm aware of. He was a Westinghouse competition finalist as well. I thought him not to actually be the smartest, but he was quite well-organized and he's doing fine and married out. It was also the conviction of some teachers that the best mathematician out of the school in previous years was a Muslim who would have put me to shame.

I'm talking about a Muslim family who adopt a child (in a fantasy world) not knowing that he/she is of Jewish origin. Of course in the real world a Muslim would not adopt a Jewish child but for argument's sake. Say a fundamentalist family, who do not have music or art in their home, adopted a Jewish child, would the child lose his 'innate' musical ability as Federico would have us believe, or would the child still be able to become a concert violinist despite being raised without ever hearing violin music?

In SA we have people who adopt children across the colour line. Because there are so many orphans, a lot of "white" families adopt "black" babies and raise them with their own children in their own culture. These children when they are confronted by their own 'racial' group are called "coconuts" (white inside brown outside) because they are not at all culturally "black" unless their parents have raised them in a way that includes their cultural learning. But even then, without close family in the cultural group, they don't revert to their culture when they are adults. With our society now fully integrated and all children being educated in the same way, more and more young Africans are discarding their ethnic identity. We have a middle class of people who now all speak with the same accent, drive the same cars, do the same jobs, live in the same suburbs and the people who stick to their cultural roots are becoming, more and more, the minority. This really worries the older generation who see their ethnic cultures disappearing. According to Federico's theory, this should not be happening. People should be culturally African despite living, being educated in, and working in a western environment. So how has this happened, if not for mere association with western culture?

I don't understand why a Muslim family would not adopt a Jewish child. Is it historically true that it's never happened? That would be a huge shocker to me, even if only knowingly, and it would be surprising were I to be told that today, as bad as things are, there is no single child with a Jewish mother being legally raised by Muslims. It's a big world and there are a lot of kinds of Muslims and Jews. I didn't read the rest and I'm very tired. No offense intended by responding to only this. I might have waited, but I'm about to go on sabbatical.

Edit: I should respond better to the earlier post, actually. The hypothetical almost seems like an odd morphing of the blood libel, not a parallel or willful one, but almost Freudian connected with victimhood history. I wish I could engage further, but I'm assuming it's best if I do to wait anyway for quite a while. It probably won't seem like a topic, but if you PM about a continuation,
we can do that. Give me 3 months. I am seriously behind.

Edit2: It may have more to do with the difficult world you now inhabit if there's anything dubious in the least. I'm tired, so I'm mostly gone already. I'll just change my profile to indicate as much.

Someone wrote:I don't understand why a Muslim family would not adopt a Jewish child. Is it historically true that it's never happened? That would be a huge shocker to me, even if only knowingly, and it would be surprising were I to be told that today, as bad as things are, there is no single child with a Jewish mother being legally raised by Muslims. It's a big world and there are a lot of kinds of Muslims and Jews. I didn't read the rest and I'm very tired. No offense intended by responding to only this. I might have waited, but I'm about to go on sabbatical.

Edit: I should respond better to the earlier post, actually. The hypothetical almost seems like an odd morphing of the blood libel, not a parallel or willful one, but almost Freudian connected with victimhood history. I wish I could engage further, but I'm assuming it's best if I do to wait anyway for quite a while. It probably won't seem like a topic, but if you PM about a continuation,
we can do that. Give me 3 months. I am seriously behind.

Edit2: It may have more to do with the difficult world you now inhabit if there's anything dubious in the least. I'm tired, so I'm mostly gone already. I'll just change my profile to indicate as much.

I'm not stating statistics or citing an actual event. It's merely a supposition. And "imagine if" in response to Federico's theory that musical genius is hard-wired into Jews. What I'm saying is that if it is in fact 'hard-wired" then no amount of removal from exposure to violin music should prevent a person who has never been exposed to it to be able to play the instrument. Forget "muslim" let's use an aborigine family in Australia finding a child lost in the desert, and not knowing where the child came from, raising the child as an aborigine. Would that child growing up in that environment be able to play the violin despite being raised in the Australian outback without any exposure to the music?

This isn't science, it's just conversation.

Let me change the example, extrapolating from what Federico claims, then all cultural activities have to be hard-wired into us. Thereby all Welsh people should be able to sing, all Italians should be able to sing, all Kenyans should be able to outrun other 'races' (forgive the pun) and all Eskimos should be able to catch fish. This is not true. We know there are Welsh people who can't sing, and Italians who don't even like opera, let alone sing it, we also know that not all Africans win every race in every athletic event, therefore it has to follow that not all Jews are musically gifted.

Agrippina wrote:

Someone wrote:I don't understand why a Muslim family would not adopt a Jewish child. Is it historically true that it's never happened? That would be a huge shocker to me, even if only knowingly, and it would be surprising were I to be told that today, as bad as things are, there is no single child with a Jewish mother being legally raised by Muslims. It's a big world and there are a lot of kinds of Muslims and Jews. I didn't read the rest and I'm very tired. No offense intended by responding to only this. I might have waited, but I'm about to go on sabbatical.

Edit: I should respond better to the earlier post, actually. The hypothetical almost seems like an odd morphing of the blood libel, not a parallel or willful one, but almost Freudian connected with victimhood history. I wish I could engage further, but I'm assuming it's best if I do to wait anyway for quite a while. It probably won't seem like a topic, but if you PM about a continuation,
we can do that. Give me 3 months. I am seriously behind.

Edit2: It may have more to do with the difficult world you now inhabit if there's anything dubious in the least. I'm tired, so I'm mostly gone already. I'll just change my profile to indicate as much.

I'm not stating statistics or citing an actual event. It's merely a supposition. And "imagine if" in response to Federico's theory that musical genius is hard-wired into Jews. What I'm saying is that if it is in fact 'hard-wired" then no amount of removal from exposure to violin music should prevent a person who has never been exposed to it to be able to play the instrument. Forget "muslim" let's use an aborigine family in Australia finding a child lost in the desert, and not knowing where the child came from, raising the child as an aborigine. Would that child growing up in that environment be able to play the violin despite being raised in the Australian outback without any exposure to the music?

This isn't science, it's just conversation.

Let me change the example, extrapolating from what Federico claims, then all cultural activities have to be hard-wired into us. Thereby all Welsh people should be able to sing, all Italians should be able to sing, all Kenyans should be able to outrun other 'races' (forgive the pun) and all Eskimos should be able to catch fish. This is not true. We know there are Welsh people who can't sing, and Italians who don't even like opera, let alone sing it, we also know that not all Africans win every race in every athletic event, therefore it has to follow that not all Jews are musically gifted.

Im puzzled ..what does this have to do with what the poster was talking about...which was about adoption..

I think i should start a thread "do females prefer to talk over each other rather than try and figure out whats what ?" ..

It could be scientific. We talk a random assortment of threads. Classify them by number of female posters. Then delete any indications of the posters sex.

We then ask for an independent vote to rate whether any problem solving or progress on the topic actually took place.

Federico wrote:

natselrox wrote:But your audacity is fucking annoying. So don't expect me to reply to your posts from now on.

It suits me fine, since your contribution to this Thread has been quite limited until now.

Natselrox,
I would be remiss if I didn't clarify my point of view about your explanation of what caused the terrible Hongerwinter in the last few months of Nazi occupation of Holland, particularly for those amongst the forumists who had never heard of it until now.
When you first wrote about this event, you made it sound as if it had been brought about intentionally by striking Dutch railway workers : <<...the Dutch Railway Strike that led to a famine... >>, while, as you know, it was all due to an act of reprisal perpetrated by the criminal SS.
Actually, this reminded me of another case of reprisal by he Nazis which occurred in Rome when Italian partisans killed 42 German soldiers by throwing a bomb. Immediately afterwards, the SS collected 335 innocent Italians and 57 blameless Jews, and killed them all in the Fosse Ardeatine in the outskirts of Rome.

IMO, whenever atrocious deeds committed by Nazi criminals resurface, no doubt should be left to linger about their responsibility.

PS. My wife is of Dutch extraction and explained to me exactly what happened in the Hongerwinter as it was told to her by members of her family living in Maastricht.

Federico wrote:

Federico wrote:

natselrox wrote:But your audacity is fucking annoying. So don't expect me to reply to your posts from now on.

It suits me fine, since your contribution to this Thread has been quite limited until now.

Natselrox,
I would be remiss if I didn't clarify my point of view about your explanation of what caused the terrible Hongerwinter in the last few months of Nazi occupation of Holland, particularly for those amongst the forumists who had never heard of it until now.
When you first wrote about this event, you made it sound as if it had been brought about intentionally by striking Dutch railway workers : <<...the Dutch Railway Strike that led to a famine... >>, while, as you know, it was all due to an act of reprisal perpetrated by the criminal SS.
Actually, this reminded me of another case of reprisal by he Nazis which occurred in Rome when Italian partisans killed 42 German soldiers by throwing a bomb. Immediately afterwards, the SS collected 335 innocent Italians and 57 blameless Jews, and killed them all in the Fosse Ardeatine in the outskirts of Rome.

IMO, whenever atrocious deeds committed by Nazi criminals resurface, no doubt should be left to linger about their responsibility.

PS. My wife is of Dutch extraction and explained to me exactly what happened in the Hongerwinter as it was told to her by members of her family living in Maastricht.

Thanks for elaborating on that.

Brain man wrote:I think i should start a thread "do females prefer to talk over each other rather than try and figure out whats what ?" ..

It could be scientific. We talk a random assortment of threads. Classify them by number of female posters. Then delete any indications of the posters sex.

We then ask for an independent vote to rate whether any problem solving or progress on the topic actually took place.

Am I the "female" you're talking about?

The question I posed was: if a child was adopted by some other culture (which I stated as Muslim, but could be aborigine, as long as it was a different culture), and didn't know they were of Jewish extraction, would they still have the ability to play the violin, even if they had never heard violin music, or even heard of the instrument? I'm trying to figure out whether Federico, not you, Federico, believes that this imaginary adoptee would be a musical genius simply based on his Jewish genetic history. Do you understand the question, or shall I spell in out in single syllable words for a mere male to understand (*sarcasm alert* no personal attack intended)/

Mr.Samsa wrote:
What does this have to do with epigenetics though?
Simple question for you: Do you accept that the brain can grow and connect neurons in different formations, and grow entire brain structures, without any change at all in the genetic structure?
And if so, why are you arguing that this basic, well-understood, process is better understood in epigenetic terms when no scientist agrees with you?

Mr.Samsa,
let me answer your questions through my usual technique of copying and pasting.

Tackling the epigenome:
challenges and opportunities for collaboration, by John S Satterlee, Dirk Schübeler & Huck-Hui Ng
Nature Biotechnology 28, 1039–1044 (2010)

"....Each of us has essentially one genome; however, each cell type in each individual is believed to have a distinct epigenome that reflects its developmental state. Thus, there are likely to be at least as many human epigenomes as there are distinct cell types in the human body.

The epigenetic state of a cell is affected by developmental as well as environmental influences, and both of these inputs may leave epigenetic traces that the cell 'remembers' (referred to as cellular memory). Furthermore, the history of transcription and environmental influences, such as nutrition, toxins, drugs of abuse, infection, disease state and exposure to toxic agents, can also affect DNA and histone modifications. Thus, the epigenome may provide a crucial interface between the environment and the genome. The stability of chromatin changes can vary: some may be transient changes, whereas others are longer lasting. Some chromatin changes are mitotically heritable and can affect somatic tissues, whereas others may even be inherited through meiosis and affect the next generation. Epigenetic states are also likely to be influenced by an individual's specific constellation of genetic variation; however, the extent to which this is the case is unknown. Thus, there is potentially an extremely large number of possible epigenomes that could be mapped.

Compared with differentiated cells, the epigenomes of human embryonic stem cells (hESCs) are unusual, especially with respect to DNA methylation. Understanding how the epigenomic state of hESCs changes during the differentiation process is crucial for understanding both normal development and disruptions in development that might lead to adverse birth outcomes or disease conditions in the child or adult. Similarly, understanding the extent to which the epigenome can be reprogrammed, as in the case of induced pluripotent stem cells, may be essential to enable regenerative medicine to reach its full potential for treating diseases in which cells have been permanently lost or impaired

...epigenetic states, regardless of whether they are causal for a given disease, have great promise as potential biomarkers for disease states or environmental stressors (e.g., exposure to toxins, infections, drugs of abuse or psychosocial stress) and thus may be useful for diagnosis of disease or disease progression.

A very important paper for you to find the answers you were looking for.
And what about this one which might also interest Shrunk the psychiatrist as well as Agrippina.

Listening to music releases same brain chemicals as food, drugs, sex

"Why do we love music so? A new study suggests it is because listening to music releases dopamine, the same brain chemical associated with food, drugs, and sex.
Scientists have found that the pleasurable experience of listening to music releases dopamine, a neurotransmitter in the brain important for more tangible pleasures associated with rewards such as food, drugs, and sex.

The study is from The Montreal Neurological Institute and Hospital – The Neuro at McGill University. It was published in the journal Nature Neuroscience.
A novel combination of PET and fMRI brain imaging techniques revealed that dopamine release is greater for pleasurable versus neutral music, and that levels of release are correlated with the extent of emotional arousal and pleasurability ratings. Dopamine is known to play a pivotal role in establishing and maintaining behavior that is biologically necessary. Dr. Robert Zatorre, neuroscientist at The Neuro, said.
....The study also showed that two different brain circuits are involved in anticipation and experience, respectively: one linking to cognitive and motor systems, and hence prediction; the other to the limbic system, and hence the emotional part of the brain.
Enough for today, Mr.Samsa: I'm sure you'll have some more questions tomorrow.

Agrippina wrote:
The question I posed was: if a hild was adopted by some other culture (which I stated as Muslim, but could be aborigine, as long as it was a different culture), and didn't know they were of Jewish extraction, would they still have the ability to play the violin, even if they had never heard violin music, or even heard of the instrument? I'm trying to figure out whether Federico, not you, Federico, believes that this imaginary adoptee would be a musical genius simply based on his Jewish genetic history. Do you understand the question, or shall I spell in out in single syllable words for a mere male to understand (*sarcasm alert* no personal attack intended)/

Agrippina,
Since I presume you were addressing the question to me, I’ll try to give you an answer.
It is my belief, as well as my understanding of what I have read, musical talent can be inherited although it can skip a generation or two. In other words, what you can inherit is the cognitive capacity to enjoy music, to be emotionally moved by it, and eventually, under the right environmental conditions (i.e.) living with a musically oriented family where the father plays the violin , the mother the piano, and a son the sax), and you are given the opportunity to practice long hours with a violin, you may become an outstanding concertist. This because musical aptitude is innate, but violin playing is acquired.
What is very unlikely is that, in the absence of inherited well orchestrated (by the Epigenome) musical genes -- IOW, if you are a tone-deaf musical klutz -- you may practice the violin until Kingdom come you'll never get anything better then meowing out of it.