Is It Really Genetic? ….Should Your Bloodline End Now?

reply to post by StormyStars

....my altered genes came out in my 2 daughters and all 4 of my Grand-Children as each of my daughters have a girl & boy each....
Butt my daughters are healthier than I was and my Grand-Children healthier than my daughters so, advancement in genetic adaptation through generations of conditioning? ...

Adaptation, yes - genetic, NO. Epigenetic inheritance is a "plastic" process, not a static thing. What your children and grandchildren inherited are most likely EPIgenetic traits involving protein mutations - NOT genetic traits resulting from DNA mutations. BIG difference. Seems MUCH inheritance is NOT genetic, as evidenced by the problem of "missing heritability." Please, read the OP and at least some of the quotes if you don't follow the links - Here are some on the "Missing heritability problem."

[Despite years of research, the genetic factors behind many human diseases and characteristics remain unknown. The inability to find the complete genetic causes of family traits such as height or the risk of type 2 diabetes has been called the "missing heritability" problem.

The problem of missing heritability, however, is a subtle one. Not only are the issues frequently misconstrued even by biologists (a fact often noted in the literature), but certain eminently deniable assumptions underlying the study of heritability — above all, the assumptions that “heritable” is equivalent to “genetic” and that evolutionarily significant inheritance must be the stable inheritance of things rather than integral capacities — are almost never even brought up for discussion within the mainstream literature.

…the fact is that no organisms result from genetic instructions (Talbott 2012*). And, to reinforce the point, there are flying and crawling creatures with the same genomic sequence. A monarch butterfly and its larva, for example. Nor is this an isolated case. A swimming, “water-breathing” tadpole and a leaping, air-breathing frog are creatures with the same DNA.

…the whole idea that DNA consists of an arbitrary digital sequence capable of harboring computer-like instructions is badly misconceived. Current researches overwhelmingly demonstrate that shape and structure, sculptural dynamism, changing arrangements in space and time, the mutual embrace of molecular complexes that mutually adapt to and transform each other — all this and much more is part of what each “letter” in the DNA sequence means for the organism.
This is why one researcher has referred to the chromosome as “a plastic polymorphic dynamic elastic resilient flexible nucleoprotein complex”. There is no single-minded code in the genome. The organism is an embodied creature, and the intricate, ever-changing forms of its interactions define its life.

reply to post by tetra50

I have found this to be a very informativev and great thread, so thanks OP. I'd like to point out that DNA technology, (in the words of a thoracic surgeon I am acquainted with), is "thousands of papers later," still not proven…

You're welcome. .....I discovered epigenetics by following prion research - but only now discovered that genetics dogma has been seriously and legitimately questioned for some time. I avoided such discussions here because I assumed they were science v/s religion rants. GREAT camouflage - guess I missed lot. Guess that was the strategic intent. lol

Anyway, inter- and multi-disciplinary work is taking biology forward by leaps and bounds. Really exciting stuff. Your references seem to focus on specific environmental stressors (legitimately) while I'm getting into the systems biology. btw - RE: pdf links - sometimes you can get an html copy of an abstract or summary - like the 2nd one below, addressing the "missing heritability problem" and the fact that all the research on "genetics" has yet to translate into tangible prevention, diagnosis, or treatment interventions.

How to get a grant; Sit on your butt and spout dogma:

Quantifying Missing Heritability at Known GWAS Loci

Recent work has shown that much of the missing heritability of complex traits can be resolved by estimates of heritability explained by all genotyped SNPs. However, it is currently unknown how much heritability is missing….

THE ‘MISSING HERITABILITY’ OF COMMON DISORDERS: SHOULD HEALTH RESEARCHERS CARE?

This article critiques the “missing heritability” position, which calls for greater efforts and funding to identify the genetic architecture of common disorders, even if this endeavor has yet to translate into tangible prevention, diagnosis, or treatment interventions. Supporters of the position contend that genetic variants “for” common disorders, which they argue must exist based on heritability estimates (hence their “missing heritability” position), have not been found because the current state of science and technology is not adequate to the task, yet they insist that this search warrants significant societal invest- ments. We argue, instead, that these variants have not been found because they do not exist. The thrust of the problem with the “missing heritability” position, we propose, lies in its proponents’ use of faulty concepts and research methods, including reliance on twin studies, plagued with environ- mental confounds; on the concept of heritability, a breeding statistic and not a measure of the importance of genetic influences on phenotypes; and on the belief that genetic variations are relevant to understanding, preventing, or treating common disorders, a belief that we argue is false. We elaborate on these problems, discuss their public health implications, and suggest future directions for a critical analysis of human genetics.

I discovered epigenetics by following prion research - but only now discovered that genetics dogma has been seriously and legitimately questioned for some time. I avoided such discussions here because I assumed they were science v/s religion rants. GREAT camouflage - guess I missed lot. Guess that was the strategic intent. lol

reply to post by soficrow


Wise words, here, to see the purposeful subterfuge so that a "theory" is no longer questioned. Along those lines, as well, I found your comments about Ventner very interesting….I used to know about this "dissension" even amongst the genome project developers, cautioning about extrapolating too much from the information, and the subtle and fine distinctions involved that totally change the way information is extrapolated….

Your references seem to focus on specific environmental stressors (legitimately) while I'm getting into the systems biology.

Yes, well, it was the defining of your stipulation of "environment," that got me thinking and certainly worth consideration in filtering this information. When DNA was still being debated, at least more than it is now, as to its validity, I seem to remember several scientists cautioning the theory may raise more questions than provide answers. And, as with any theory, it still should be debated.

As to my references, I wanted to point out how much "environmental" possibilities encompass. While you make a distinction between what I references and systems biology, I just want to encourage folks interested to look up and read some of the info in those books because it's directly related to the physical environment's effect on biological systems. I'll look again a little later, but I believe there is a specific book, in fact, which is published research from quite a while ago about Electromagnetic Fields and the effects on biological systems. That's kind of the whole point. In searching for books and papers such as these, one thing that
I found quite interesting was how old the research was….so the knowledge has been around a long time, but you seldom see it discussed. Probably, I'm thinking, because it might have quite an economic impact if this was more general knowledge.

Again, great thread. I always enjoy reading your threads. Very informative.
Tetra

I've pulled these links from another member's post on another thread, but I think they are pertinent here, as well:


Electromagnetic Medicine, Non-Inductive Non-Thermal Modalities

Physical mechanisms in neuroelectromagnetic therapies.

Advances in Electromagnetic Fields in Living Systems

The effects of weak extremely low frequency magnetic fields on calcium/calmodulin interactions.

Bioelectrodynamics and Biocommunication

Biological Effects of Electromagnetic Fields

EFFECTS OF MODULATED VHF FIELDS ON THE CENTRAL NERVOUS SYSTEM

Biological systems and environmental factors, indeed….

reply to post by tetra50


Arguably, there are infinite factors that could have epigenetic effects - no doubt electricity and magnetism are 2 of that infinite number.



PS. You didn't post links, you posted titles.

reply to post by tetra50

...When DNA was still being debated, ...And, as with any theory, it still should be debated.

lol. Don't know why you think the debate is over - genes and DNA do not explain much - and the whole "missing heritability" thing is a big joke in many circles.

[Despite years of research, the genetic factors behind many human diseases and characteristics remain unknown. The inability to find the complete genetic causes of family traits such as height or the risk of type 2 diabetes has been called the "missing heritability" problem.

…the fact is that no organisms result from genetic instructions (Talbott 2012*). And, to reinforce the point, there are flying and crawling creatures with the same genomic sequence. A monarch butterfly and its larva, for example. Nor is this an isolated case. A swimming, “water-breathing” tadpole and a leaping, air-breathing frog are creatures with the same DNA.

…the whole idea that DNA consists of an arbitrary digital sequence capable of harboring computer-like instructions is badly misconceived. Current researches overwhelmingly demonstrate that shape and structure, sculptural dynamism, changing arrangements in space and time, the mutual embrace of molecular complexes that mutually adapt to and transform each other — all this and much more is part of what each “letter” in the DNA sequence means for the organism.
This is why one researcher has referred to the chromosome as “a plastic polymorphic dynamic elastic resilient flexible nucleoprotein complex”. There is no single-minded code in the genome. The organism is an embodied creature, and the intricate, ever-changing forms of its interactions define its life.

soficrow
reply to post by tetra50

 

Arguably, there are infinite factors that could have epigenetic effects - no doubt electricity and magnetism are 2 of that infinite number.



PS. You didn't post links, you posted titles.

edit on 26/2/14 by soficrow because: (no reason given)

The titles are links, really; why they didn't post as links, I don't know. But if pasted and searched, they should turn up direct links….sorry about that. And sure, there are infinite factors that encompass your "environmental" piece of the puzzle…..

Another good article outlining the problems with so-called "genetic cause."

Science, Genes, and Ideology: THE ‘MISSING HERITABILITY’ OF COMMON DISORDERS: SHOULD HEALTH RESEARCHERS CARE?

This article critiques the “missing heritability” position, which calls for greater efforts and funding to identify the genetic architecture of common disorders, even if this endeavor has yet to translate into tangible prevention, diagnosis, or treatment interventions. Supporters of the position contend that genetic variants “for” common disorders, which they argue must exist based on heritability estimates (hence their “missing heritability” position), have not been found because the current state of science and technology is not adequate to the task, yet they insist that this search warrants significant societal invest- ments. We argue, instead, that these variants have not been found because they do not exist. The thrust of the problem with the “missing heritability” position, we propose, lies in its proponents’ use of faulty concepts and research methods, including reliance on twin studies, plagued with environ- mental confounds; on the concept of heritability, a breeding statistic and not a measure of the importance of genetic influences on phenotypes; and on the belief that genetic variations are relevant to understanding, preventing, or treating common disorders, ….is false. We elaborate on these problems, discuss their public health implications, and suggest future directions for a critical analysis of human genetics.

Arguably, there are infinite factors that could have epigenetic effects - no doubt electricity and magnetism are 2 of that infinite number.

reply to post by soficrow


Having thought about this a little more, I think it worth noting that, obviously, in seeking to define the "environment," that your OP references as having such effects, while electromagnetic fields may be only one factor of the environment, it is a factor always present and permeating all environmentsin which we live, and other factors (sometimes alluded to as "nature vs. nurture" type of considerations, though I dislike this description for its limitations and ambiguous divisions) which define given environments may vary according to the given environment.

lol. Don't know why you think the debate is over - genes and DNA do not explain much - and the whole "missing heritability" thing is a big joke in many circles.

I don't think the debate is over.

reply to post by tetra50


"Environment" in this context refers to cellular environment - the larger environment absolutely does have an impact and electromagnetic energy maybe more directly so, particularly considering the possible impact of the 2nd law of thermodynamics in using available energy during protein transcription and folding.

reply to post by Phage


The University of Utah has a great online primer about epigenetics. You might find it illuminating.

Epigenetic marks can pass from parent to offspring in a way that completely bypasses egg or sperm, thus avoiding the epigenetic purging that happens during early development. Most of us were taught that our traits are hard-coded in the DNA that passes from parent to offspring. Emerging information about epigenetics may lead us to a new understanding of just what inheritance is.

Some epigenetic tags remain in place as genetic information passes from generation to generation, a process called epigenetic inheritance.

Epigenetic inheritance is an unconventional finding. It goes against the idea that inheritance happens only through the DNA code that passes from parent to offspring. It means that a parent's experiences, in the form of epigenetic tags, can be passed down to future generations.

As unconventional as it may be, there is little doubt that epigenetic inheritance is real. In fact, it explains some strange patterns of inheritance geneticists have been puzzling over for decades.

….epigenetic changes are transient by nature. That is, the epigenome changes more rapidly than the relatively fixed DNA code. An epigenetic change that was triggered by environmental conditions may be reversed when environmental conditions change again.

Implications for Evolution

Epigenetic inheritance adds another dimension to the modern picture of evolution. The genome changes slowly, through the processes of random mutation and natural selection. It takes many generations for a genetic trait to become common in a population. The epigenome, on the other hand, can change rapidly in response to signals from the environment. And epigenetic changes can happen in many individuals at once. Through epigenetic inheritance, some of the experiences of the parents may pass to future generations. At the same time, the epigenome remains flexible as environmental conditions continue to change. Epigenetic inheritance may allow an organism to continually adjust its gene expression to fit its environment - without changing its DNA code.

Dr. Ricki Lewis was in the middle of writing the 11th edition of her human genetics textbook when this "challenge to the genetic interpretation of biology" came out. She pursued a dialogue, documented on PLOS (Public Library of Science). Interesting stuff and well worth reading.

A Challenge to the Supremacy of DNA as the Genetic Material
By Ricki Lewis, PhD
Posted: March 20, 2014

About a month ago, a news release stood out among the many I get every day: “A challenge to the genetic interpretation of biology,” from a physicist and chemist from Finland, Arto Annila and Keith Baverstock. They’d just published “Genes without prominence: a reappraisal of the foundations of biology,” in the Journal of the Royal Society Interface.

......I was mesmerized, mostly because I am immersed in writing the 11th edition of my human genetics textbook and a non-DNA-centric view got me thinking. So I read the paper and asked the authors to guest post. Their idea brought me back to pre-1953 thinking that proteins are the genetic material, mostly because we knew more about them than the mysterious goop on soiled bandages that was DNA.

....Dr. Baverstock kindly agreed to ....share his thoughts, slightly edited, subheads added:

A VIEW FROM PHYSICS

Arto Annila and I are making the seemingly outrageous claim that mainstream biology, since around the 1920s, has pursued a course that is deeply flawed. Critical to that course is the notion that genes are Mendel’s units of inheritance and that their material realization is a DNA base sequence. We propose instead that Mendel’s unit of inheritance is a process involving the interaction of mainly activated proteins contributing to an attractor state that represents the phenotype. Many will find this language of physics unfamiliar. However, cells are complex dissipative systems (CDS) in that they consume energy and thus operate according to the 2nd law of thermodynamics as it applies to open systems.

.........MORE, with comments........

Eeuuwww! Just realized that the title sucks the big one. But the ideas are good. Revisted here:

Step aside Darwinism, say hello to "Dissipation-driven adaptive organization"

originally posted by: Phage
reply to post by soficrow

 

we all share the same genes yet are unique and often hugely different.

We share the same genes but those genes are not all the same. Variations within a gene result in differences between people. A variation within the HERC2 gene causes people to have blue eyes. We all have the gene but we don't all have blue eyes.
genetics.thetech.org...

"the study of changes in gene function that are mitotically and/or meiotically heritable and that do not entail a change in DNA sequence."

Yes. Gene function. Genetic function.

have we come to a conclusion? Is the source bu||$π¡+? Or not? I can only put up with so much phage for one night....

a reply to: soficrow

All this talk of epigenetics brings a few things to mind. The diabetes industry makes a lot of epigenentic "bio-identical" hormones called insulin. The precursors of the insulin include many ingredients, but it involves the recombination of yeast dna and inserting it into a "genetically hollowed out" e-coli shell. They recombine the yeast to mimic the human insulin gene. It does lower blood sugar (like real insulin), but it is inferior in so many ways to the naturally produced pro-insulin hormone. It lacks the C-Peptide chain of the molecule. While it does lower blood sugar, there is a lot of newer research that indicates that the lack of C-Peptide is the MAIN cause of diabetic complications. That's right, it's not anything to do with "how tight" you control it. That lack of C-Peptide is the real killer.

There is a company that is trying to create a C-Peptide rDNA origin (genetically modified organisms) that is a "bio-identical C-Peptide" hormone. While I am grateful that they are trying, I am a skeptic. Bio-identical hormones are a good thing in some ways, but why is it that these disorders cannot be cured easily? Mice are easy to cure of diabetes. Only 5% of the diabetic population has type 1 diabetes.

I guess the whole point that I have is that these corporations could do better. They keep saying the cure is "5 years away..." and 5 years later everyone keeps waiting. It's great that it can be managed with the fake stuff, but how difficult can it really be to get rid of? I don't have the documentation at hand, but I know that things that could prevent or reverse type 1 diabetes are suppressed.

We need a paradigm shift in the medical industry. Instead of companies making "bio-identical" hormones and serums, we need companies that want to cure illness. Imagine if the whole world cooperated....We would be farther than the edge of the universe. Instead, man wants to make fake money off of people that are suffering.

I agree with all the overpopulation people about the fact that it COULD become a problem for earth in the future. What we need to see humanity get advanced enough to take us to the other planets like Earth. Today, humans are like cattle or crops. When the harvest comes, the giants get bigger, and bigger...

Someday it will be a privilege to be alive, especially if you have a condition that limits you in any way. Greed knows no bounds. I know there is a lot of research trying to cure diabetes, but I have seen more than one diabetic trial suppressed. I guess there are things that just would work "too well" for the industry. The industry depends on dependance....

a reply to: MikhailBakunin

An MIT physicist named Jeremy England appropriated this idea, rebranded it as "Dissipation-driven adaptive organization" - and has taken it on the road. It's not going away (although it will be modified to mollify extant political agendas).

....cells are complex dissipative systems (CDS) in that they consume energy and thus operate according to the 2nd law of thermodynamics as it applies to open systems.