The Central Dogma

paximperium said:
It's all a bit vague since I read these papers a few years ago. Anyone know the citations to these papers?
Click to expand...

Sadly not, but what you describe is very familiar (from some years ago). It seems that daughters are primed in utero to produce offspring attuned to the circumstances of their mothers. Which makes a lot of sense, IMO, in terms of natural selection. Most environmental pressures persist longer than one generation, and the measure of success is not how many offspring an individual has but how many of its grandchildren survive long enough to breed.
 
Zeuzzz said:
:gnome:
Click to expand...

Zeuzzz said:
:gnome:
Click to expand...

So instead of demonstrating you actually understand epigenetics, you just give a flippant response? Gotcha.

Quick question before I unsubscribe from this thread... if wishful thinking can effect genetics, why, since I'm sure many people affected with genetic Dwarfism wish they could grow to be closer to normal height, don't they? If the mind can effect genes as you're trying to suggest, shouldn't people with genetic Dwarfism be able to affect themselves during their tween and teen years and grow to be 5'5" instead of 4'3"?
 
Zeuzzz said:
I dont really have a clue. Thats why I started this thread, to find out, after reading some material from a somewhat unorthodox (published in The Journal of Alternative and Complementary Medicine) but interesting book, that cites plenty of recent studies in more established journals to back up their conclusions, called The genie in your genes: Epigenetic Medicine and the New Biology of Intention.

Sounds a bit too much like Bruce Liptons dubious material for my liking, but it seems a much higher standard than his material, and backed up by more research.
Click to expand...
I don't know, it is usually a matter of the terminology used. Until that is parsed out it is hard to say what is foolish and what is not. Often much is made of totally insignificant findings.
Fascinating. None at all? This is surely different to every other animal, that rely on instinctual behaviours regularly.
Click to expand...
more likely the use of language, instincts are hard wired behaviors that are preprogrammed into the neural networks. they are marked by stereotypy, in that the critter will perform the same act in response to environmental cues.

Most of what people refer to as 'instinctual' behaviors are not , they are learned and conditioned behaviors to say the least. they are not instinctual at all.

Like response to thirst, hunger and perceived threats, most are learned. Especially in humans: they are all learned.

Well I might have been hasty in saying that many scientists have this opinion, but it certainly seems that some do. And they would be wrong. For example, the University of Southern california newsletter claims "reasearch has shown that 1 in 40 ashkenazi women has defects in two genes that cause familial breast/ovarian cancer...". Unexamined beliefs in this or that gene causing this or that condition are part of the foundation of many scientific disciplines.
Click to expand...
I would have to read the actual abstract or article , a newsletter is not a good way to judge the language used by the researchers.

In cancer you have the biological predisposition but then a lot of other things have to happen as well.
Such assumptions can be found in various publications, like this one aired on NPS; "Scientists today announced that they have found a gene for dislexia. Its a gene on choromozone six called DCDC2", the new york times picked up on this and ran a story entitled "Findings support that dislexia disorder is genetic" Other media picked up the story, and the legend of the primacy of DNA was reinforced.
Click to expand...
You would need to give me more than a vague quote to evaluate there before I could judge the data. I do know that very little of the conditions referred to as dyslexia is learned, often the coping skills and responses are, but there are many ways it can play out.
Maybe it’s more a problem with the impression the media gives than the actual scientists. The only issue I have with this approach (especially in the case of Dawkins selfish gene material, and related theories) is that it locates the ultimate power over our health in the untouchable realm of molecular structure, rather than in our own conscious actions and descisions.
Click to expand...
Popular media and misperceptions of the popular culture?
Dorothy Nelkin in her much cited book entitled "The DNA mistique: The Gene as a Cultural Icon" sums up the point I am trying (obviously unsucessfully) to make, by stating "In a diverse array of popular sources, the gene has become a supergene, an almost supernatural entity that has the power to define identity, determine human affairs, dictate human relationships, and explain social problems. In this construct, human beings in all their complexity are seen as products of a molecular text...the secular equivalent of a soul—the immortal site of the true self and determiner of fate."
Click to expand...

that is again a strawman you are quoting, what does that have to do with the actual research?
 
paximperium said:
I can't remember the name of the studies but in summary from memory:

There were specific population studies which looked at starvation and depression. In the starvation study, they looked at a similar genetic groups in a European country. In one village they had a blight and starved and the other village, the food source was maintained. What they saw was or course the starved babies were smaller and had a shorter maximum height BUT more interesting was that their grandchildren despite a normal diet continued to be shorter than the control village which did not suffer through the blight. The hypothesis was epigenetic encoding from the starvation encoded for smaller children and that this encoding also was passed on to the grandchildren. This has was originally seen in mice studies.

In the stressful/depression studies, I believe they put mice under stress and saw a similar effect from the control, that the progeny inherited specific traits that was not in the control group.

It's all a bit vague since I read these papers a few years ago. Anyone know the citations to these papers?
Click to expand...


I have a couple guesses as to why there was a perceived effect, just out of a hat as it were.

1. Lack of good sampling sampling prior to the event.
2. Development of children, especialy daughters impacted by the event.
3. Lack of good sampling after the event.
4. Uncontrolled enviromental factors.

:)
 
Dancing David said:
Most of what people refer to as 'instinctual' behaviors are not , they are learned and conditioned behaviors to say the least. they are not instinctual at all.

Like response to thirst, hunger and perceived threats, most are learned. Especially in humans: they are all learned.
Click to expand...

Just curious. Do you consider sexual orientation "learned"?
Aversion to pain, the sound of vomiting, smells etc.
 
Dancing David said:
I have a couple guesses as to why there was a perceived effect, just out of a hat as it were.

1. Lack of good sampling sampling prior to the event.
2. Development of children, especialy daughters impacted by the event.
3. Lack of good sampling after the event.
4. Uncontrolled enviromental factors.

:)
Click to expand...

Good points but like I've mentioned, these effects are supposedly seen in more controlled animal models as well.

I've can't for the life of me find these studies...I'll keep trying.
 
AH HAH!!! Found a review of the European study. Looks like I got it wrong, it had to do with survival and not height:

Herein lies the importance for human geneticists of the work of Kaati, Bygren and Edvinsson from Umea University, Sweden. Building on their interest in early nutritional influences on cardiovascular mortality, they have exploited records of annual harvests from an isolated community in northern Sweden that go back as far as 1799 to explore the effects of food availability across three generations.

Earlier work2 by the team on a cohort born in 1905 showed a remarkable effect of food availability during the slow growth period (SGP) just before puberty of the paternal grandfather on the longevity of the probands. Scarcity of food in grandfather's SGP was associated with a significantly extended survival of his grandchildren for many years, whilst food abundance was associated with a greatly shortened life span of the grandchildren. There are only four possible explanations; chromosomal transmission of nutritionally-induced epigenetic modifications, intense genetic selection through differential survival /fertility, a statistical quirk or hidden bias producing a false association, or some mechanism of inheritance yet to be discovered. In the present study1 Kaati and colleagues have enlarged the sample with two new cohorts born in 1890 and 1920 in order to have the power to look specifically at cardiovascular and diabetes related deaths. The latter outcome was chosen because imprinted genes have been implicated in diabetes risk.

The first thing to say is that the shorter survival of probands when the paternal grandfather had been exposed to plenty of food during his SGP was replicated in the newly studied 1890 cohort, although this association could not be demonstrated in the 1920 cohort. Overall they show that cardiovascular mortality was reduced with poor availability of food in the father's SGP, but also with good availability in the mother's SGP. This reciprocal effect of parental nutrition is intriguing in itself, but the most striking result comes with diabetes. If the paternal grandfather was exposed to a surfeit of food during his SGP, then the proband had a fourfold excess mortality related to diabetes (OR 4.1, 95% c.i.1.33-12.93, P=0.01) when age at death and the effects of possible over eating among parents and grandparents during their respective SGP were taken into account. Interestingly a father's exposure to a surfeit of food during his SGP tended to protect the proband from diabetes (OR 0.13, 95% c.i. 0.02-1.07, P=0.06), hinting at some 'see-saw' effect down the generations. The more unexpected the result, the more important it is to replicate the findings on other cohorts. This should be possible in northern Sweden thanks, in part, to the regional harvest records that were demanded by His Majesty the King in times gone by.

<snip>

Food for thought

It seems that the Swedish studies have uncovered a nutrition-linked sperm-mediated transgenerational effect. Whilst one striking result relates to the grandfather's food availability, epigenetic transmission from just father to child would be sufficient to set up a cascade of metabolic responses down the generations. Independent replication is needed, but these observations should trigger entirely new lines of enquiry and at a time when we are getting an experimental handle on imprint re-programming.
Click to expand...
http://www.nature.com/ejhg/journal/v10/n11/full/5200901a.html
Take a look. Its an interesting article
 
paximperium said:
Just curious. Do you consider sexual orientation "learned"?
Aversion to pain, the sound of vomiting, smells etc.
Click to expand...


The first one is a toughy with no clear answers. My guess is that there are the usual culprits of associative learning and conditioning. Then there are the possible biological processes, like bonding, which could be developmental or all associative. So there could be a 'time window' where sexual bonding occurs and it could be any where in childhood.

Then there is the copnfusing social issue of gender identity.

All I know is brother , who has an amazing memory says he has always been attracted to males.

I am very attracted to certain women, part facial structure, part behavior, part i don't know.
 
paximperium said:
Take a look. Its an interesting article
Click to expand...

Very interesting - thanks. I had no idea that paternal transmission of environmentally-affected traits like that was remotely possible, let alone taken seriously.

There's something about size mentioned here.

Can anyone explain how this "imprinting" mechanism would work at the level of sperm? I thought sperm were basically nothing but DNA with a tail - what's the extra ingredient?
 
Last edited:
sol invictus said:
Very interesting - thanks. I had no idea that paternal transmission of environmentally-affected traits like that was remotely possible, let alone taken seriously.

There's something about size mentioned here.

Can anyone explain how this "imprinting" mechanism would work at the level of sperm? I thought sperm were basically nothing but DNA with a tail - what's the extra ingredient?
Click to expand...

We've known for sometime that there is paternal and maternal imprinting for chromosomes meaning that each chromosomes from a father/mother is not the same, there are imprinting differences that occur at the level of gametes(sperm or ova).

A classic example is Angelman(females) and Prader-Willi(males) Syndrome which has the exact genetic defect but present completely different between males and females. There are also genetic defects that appear differently(can't remember them now) that present differently if the defecting gene comes from either the father or mother.

If you read through some of Zeuzz's meandering posts, he states several mechanisms such as methylation of the DNA etc. that occur during meiosis. This is especially susceptible in sperm since it is constantly produced (as opposed to ova) and can be affected by the environmental stressors. There is a growing evidence that this may play a significant role in evolution since it allows for relatively rapid changes in gene expression depending on the stressor in the environment.
 
Thanks for the info peeps. I want to try to get a hold on how woo my brothers book I am reading is, because it certainly had me for a sucker for a while. Its called the genie in your genes, and published in JACM; http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/1600700225/ref=cm_rdp_product

Now, there are some obvious woo bits in it, for example towards the end he starts talking about the electromagnetic "aura", for lack of a better term, and links electromagnetism to the Chinese idea of qi (or chi, as most know it these days). Which I skipped. And the tone of the book is typical, sweeping comments about a revolution in medicine, the new age of healing and happiness, etc, etc. Which put me off, Until I looked at some of his references.

I expect that he was greately exaggerating the effect intentions can have on epigeneitc processes. So could someone claify what limits there are to this process. ie, what psychological factors can actually effect gene expression, is it limited to specifics like severe conditions like stress, or more general?

I think theres a lot of difference between literally being able to bring desired changes to the gene expression by simply thinking about them, and distinct psychological conditions like stress. But I have to admit that its an intriguing idea.

Dont buy the book though, its alreasdy popular enough, and there is definate woo involved inbetween all the other valid points he makes.

You can read the first few chapters of the book here: http://www.genieinyourgenes.com/Images/DNA.pdf
 
Zeuzzz said:
The percentage by which genetic predisposition effects (affects?) various conditions varies, but it is rarely 100%. The tools of our consciousness, including our beliefs, thoughts, intentions and faith, often seem to correlate much more strongly with our health, longevity, and happiness than our genes do. Larry dossey, MD, observes in his much cited publication Health perceptions and survival: do global evaluations of health status really predict mortality? "Several studies show that what one thinks about ones health is one of the most accurate predictors of longevity ever discovered". Studies show that a committed spiritual practise and faith can add many years to our lives, regardless of our genetic mix.


This idea that genes are the repositories of our characteristics is also known as the central dogma, which was named as such by one of the discoverers of the helical structure of DNA, Sir Francis Crick. He fist used the term in his 1953 speech, and restated it in a subsequent publication in nature, Central dogma of mollecular biology.
Click to expand...
BWAHAHAHAHA!!!

Your homework for today is to find out what the "central dogma" is.

You could have done that before starting a thread on it, but no ...

The main problem, out of many, with the central dogma is that number of genes in a human chromosome is insufficient to carry all the information required to create and run the human body. It isn't even a big enough number to code for the structure (let alone function) of one complex organ like the brain. Its also to small a number to account for the huge quantity of neutral connections in our bodies.
Click to expand...
Evidence?

The basic idea to explain the aspects of us that genes can not, from what I've seen from reading varioujs materials, is that changes in human consciousness produce changes in human bodies, right down to a genetic level (called Epigenetics [which unfortunately and confusingly is also used for a number of completely unrelated other gene related phenomenon]). As we think our thoughts and feel our feeling our bodies change and respond with a complex array of shifts, each thought releases a particular mixture of biochemicals in our organs and triggers genetic changes in our cells.
Click to expand...
Evidence?
 
paximperium said:
If you read through some of Zeuzz's meandering posts, he states several mechanisms such as methylation of the DNA etc. that occur during meiosis. This is especially susceptible in sperm since it is constantly produced (as opposed to ova) and can be affected by the environmental stressors. There is a growing evidence that this may play a significant role in evolution since it allows for relatively rapid changes in gene expression depending on the stressor in the environment.
Click to expand...

Could the shape of the DNA be a factor (how it curls up)? I've always wondered about that - the biophysics involved is incredibly rich and complex, and one would think if the DNA is curled up tightly enough in some section it might prevent proteins coded there from being transcribed. On the other hand it's not very clear that shape would be preserved during meiosis, or just in regular cell division...
 
Dr Adequate said:
BWAHAHAHAHA!!!

Your homework for today is to find out what the "central dogma" is.
Click to expand...


Yeah, my bad. Not a good choice for the title of the thread. And not a good choice as crick has since stated that when he used the term dogma, he didn't know what it meant. So its a bad phrase alltogether.
 
Is there feedback between environment and genes?
Yes, of course. That's what the word "fit" means in "best fit"
The same gene complex may have radically different effects in different environments as well as in different creatures.

The same gene that is advantageous to a miner may be lethal to a canary, because neither species evolved down coal mines, yet they happen to find themselves there. One uses his pectorals to dig coal and the other uses them to fly.
Flying underground is rarely a survival trait in canaries.

If the miner and his father both bred canaries, it does not indicate a genetic, or epigenetic propensity for doing so. It indicates a social habit. Most animals have social habits.
The tendency to follow social habit- to imitate others- in humans, may well have a genetic unerpinning. The following of a particular habit need not.
Genes are complicated. Behaviour is more complicated. The relation between the two is positively theological in its complication. We will be centuries unravelling it all.
 
Old thread, but saw this new BBC documentary about epigenetics.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Q6cQSR3mPm8


Biology stands on the brink of a shift in the understanding of inheritance. The discovery of epigenetics -- hidden influences upon the genes -- could affect every aspect of our lives.

At the heart of this new field is a simple but contentious idea -- that genes have a 'memory'. That the lives of your grandparents -- the air they breathed, the food they ate, even the things they saw -- can directly affect you, decades later, despite your never experiencing these things yourself. And that what you do in your lifetime could in turn affect your grandchildren.

The conventional view is that DNA carries all our heritable information and that nothing an individual does in their lifetime will be biologically passed to their children. To many scientists, epigenetics amounts to a heresy, calling into question the accepted view of the DNA sequence -- a cornerstone on which modern biology sits.

Epigenetics adds a whole new layer to genes beyond the DNA. It proposes a control system of 'switches' that turn genes on or off -- and suggests that things people experience, like nutrition and stress, can control these switches and cause heritable effects in humans.

In a remote town in northern Sweden there is evidence for this radical idea. Lying in Överkalix's parish registries of births and deaths and its detailed harvest records is a secret that confounds traditional scientific thinking. Marcus Pembrey, a Professor of Clinical Genetics at the Institute of Child Health in London, in collaboration with Swedish researcher Lars Olov Bygren, has found evidence in these records of an environmental effect being passed down the generations. They have shown that a famine at critical times in the lives of the grandparents can affect the life expectancy of the grandchildren. This is the first evidence that an environmental effect can be inherited in humans.

In other independent groups around the world, the first hints that there is more to inheritance than just the genes are coming to light. The mechanism by which this extraordinary discovery can be explained is starting to be revealed.

Professor Wolf Reik, at the Babraham Institute in Cambridge, has spent years studying this hidden ghost world. He has found that merely manipulating mice embryos is enough to set off 'switches' that turn genes on or off.

For mothers like Stephanie Mullins, who had her first child by in vitro fertilisation, this has profound implications. It means it is possible that the IVF procedure caused her son Ciaran to be born with Beckwith-Wiedemann Syndrome -- a rare disorder linked to abnormal gene expression. It has been shown that babies conceived by IVF have a three- to four-fold increased chance of developing this condition.

And Reik's work has gone further, showing that these switches themselves can be inherited. This means that a 'memory' of an event could be passed through generations. A simple environmental effect could switch genes on or off -- and this change could be inherited.

His research has demonstrated that genes and the environment are not mutually exclusive but are inextricably intertwined, one affecting the other.

The idea that inheritance is not just about which genes you inherit but whether these are switched on or off is a whole new frontier in biology. It raises questions with huge implications, and means the search will be on to find what sort of environmental effects can affect these switches.

After the tragic events of September 11th 2001, Rachel Yehuda, a psychologist at the Mount Sinai School of Medicine in New York, studied the effects of stress on a group of women who were inside or near the World Trade Center and were pregnant at the time. Produced in conjunction with Jonathan Seckl, an Edinburgh doctor, her results suggest that stress effects can pass down generations. Meanwhile research at Washington State University points to toxic effects -- like exposure to fungicides or pesticides -- causing biological changes in rats that persist for at least four generations.

This work is at the forefront of a paradigm shift in scientific thinking. It will change the way the causes of disease are viewed, as well as the importance of lifestyles and family relationships. What people do no longer just affects themselves, but can determine the health of their children and grandchildren in decades to come. "We are," as Marcus Pembrey says, "all guardians of our genome."
 
So how does all this translate for GMO pseudoscience which ignores epigenetics completely?
 
!Kaggen said:
So how does all this translate for GMO pseudoscience which ignores epigenetics completely?
Click to expand...


That, is a very good question, that I don't have a clue how to answer :)

I *guess* the main implication being that epigenetics should over time give rise to problems in GNO that were not foreseen.

I guess the question depends on if GM corn have similar sort of epigenetic traits as animals/humans seem to.
 
Zeuzzz said:
That, is a very good question, that I don't have a clue how to answer :)

I *guess* the main implication being that epigenetics should over time give rise to problems in GNO that were not foreseen.

I guess the question depends on if GM corn have similar sort of epigenetic traits as animals/humans seem to.
Click to expand...

Traditional breeders have known for centuries that cultural interventions( fertilizing, planting time, soil cultivation techniques, watering techniques, even weeding) and ecological factors (soil types, soil health, insect life cycles, weed life cycles, microclimates, animal grazing pressure) effect breeding outcomes.
When the central dogma came around it was conveniently adopted as gospel by agri-business since it meant one could sell monocultural techniques on top of them already ignoring ecological factors by selling petroleum based fertilizers, herbicides and pesticides and excessive mechanical intervention which, to a point, mask ecological factors.

Now as the real science slowly plays catch-up we are going to learn that it is not only economics professors who are bought by their masters to spin pseudoscience.
 
!Kaggen said:
Traditional breeders have known for centuries that cultural interventions( fertilizing, planting time, soil cultivation techniques, watering techniques, even weeding) and ecological factors (soil types, soil health, insect life cycles, weed life cycles, microclimates, animal grazing pressure) effect breeding outcomes.
Click to expand...
No.
When the central dogma came around it was conveniently adopted as gospel by agri-business since it meant one could sell monocultural techniques on top of them already ignoring ecological factors by selling petroleum based fertilizers, herbicides and pesticides and excessive mechanical intervention which, to a point, mask ecological factors.
Click to expand...
No.
Now as the real science slowly plays catch-up we are going to learn that it is not only economics professors who are bought by their masters to spin pseudoscience.
Click to expand...
No.

Happy?
 
!Kaggen, try to word your posts less provocatively. Saying spinning pseudoscience may be true, but its not some sort of intentional deceit. Just maybe misplaced faith in a current paradigms veracity thus open mindedness and scepticism is replaced myopic eduction.

Science evolves.

Weirdly, just like us.

Epigenetically or otherwise.

If science thought it knew everything, it would stop.

I agree some people can give the impression of science being some sort of ultimate truth, which is mildy annoying (as its not, its the quest for it), but its just human nature for some scientists who use science as a belief system, contrary to the entire point of the progressive scientific method.
 
Wow... thread from the dead.

And I see that some people are still trying to pedal their same agendas? Interesting how things don't change much as time goes on isn't it.

:cool:
 
Well if I was a victim of this lie yes I would be unhappy.
However I am actively involved everyday with promoting real science based agriculture.
I may not be a wealthy agri-business executive who sells deceptions but I sleep well at night.
 
not_so_new said:
Wow... thread from the dead.

And I see that some people are still trying to pedal their same agendas? Interesting how things don't change much as time goes on isn't it.

:cool:
Click to expand...


http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=238525
Revived a thread recently, then cringed at the title of it (I got it totally wrong) and also some content in the OP. http://www.internationalskeptics.com/forums/showthread.php?t=123612

Title needs to be epigenetics.

Can admins change thread titles or edit posts on request?
Click to expand...


Evidence to the contrary, sherlock.
 
Zeuzzz said:
!Kaggen, try to word your posts less provocatively. Saying spinning pseudoscience may be true, but its not some sort of intentional deceit. Just maybe misplaced faith in a current paradigms veracity thus open mindedness and scepticism is replaced myopic eduction.

Science evolves.

Weirdly, just like us.

Epigenetically or otherwise.

If science thought it knew everything, it would stop.

I agree some people can give the impression of science being some sort of ultimate truth, which is mildy annoying (as its not, its the quest for it), but its just human nature for some scientists who use science as a belief system, contrary to the entire point of the progressive scientific method.
Click to expand...

I get were you are coming from.
Thanks for the heads up.
However in this case it is not about lack of scientific knowledge, but about ignorance.
It's easy in agriculture since most westerners are removed from agricultural to such a degree that they have no knowledge with which to question .
 
!Kaggen said:
So how does all this translate for GMO pseudoscience which ignores epigenetics completely?
Click to expand...


First, it doesn't translate to GMOs (at the moment) because no one is making genes they they would like to be able to regulate in this fashion. Second, GMO science does not ignore epigenetics (although I doubt YOU understand much on the subject). If you think this is important for GMOs, explain how. Doubt you can.
 
Crick's Central Dogma says that there can be no reverse translation from protein to RNA or DNA. Apparently he quite regretted using the term dogma.

Meanwhile, let's say we discover that he was wrong. So what? Reverse translatase would just become another fascinating part of cell biology. Or perhaps there is an anti-ribosome hiding from us?

~~ Paul
 
Last edited:
drkitten said:
I'm sure you do. I've seen no evidence that your opinions on scientific matters are in any way constrained -- or even influenced -- by observational evidence. But if you want to play with the grownups, you'll need something better than "I would be amazed if this weren't true" to support any ideas you want taken seriously.
Click to expand...

Argument from credulity.
 
!Kaggen said:
Traditional breeders have known for centuries that cultural interventions( fertilizing, planting time, soil cultivation techniques, watering techniques, even weeding) and ecological factors (soil types, soil health, insect life cycles, weed life cycles, microclimates, animal grazing pressure) effect breeding outcomes.
Click to expand...
You mean like Michurin & Lysenko?
 
cosmicaug said:
You mean like Michurin & Lysenko?
Click to expand...

No I was not thinking of these chaps.
They certainly had a point, but I would not go as far as they did I would only rehabilitate genetic engineers not geneticists.:D
 
!Kaggen said:
No I was not thinking of these chaps.
They certainly had a point, but I would not go as far as they did I would only rehabilitate genetic engineers not geneticists.:D
Click to expand...
What is your point exactly? You seemed to be making a claim that how you grow plants, in and of itself, changes genetics or epigenetics in a usable way (which is exactly what Michurin & Lysenko were pursuing --though they knew nothing about epigenetic mechanisms).

If that is your claim, can you support it with evidence? If that is not your claim, what is your claim, exactly?

!Kaggen said:
When the central dogma came around it was conveniently adopted as gospel by agri-business since it meant one could sell monocultural techniques on top of them already ignoring ecological factors by selling petroleum based fertilizers, herbicides and pesticides and excessive mechanical intervention which, to a point, mask ecological factors.
Click to expand...

I am not even sure what you mean by this. What do you mean by "When the central dogma came around it was conveniently adopted as gospel by agri-business...". What does the "central dogma" have to do with anything else you mention?
 
cosmicaug said:
What is your point exactly? You seemed to be making a claim that how you grow plants, in and of itself, changes genetics or epigenetics in a usable way (which is exactly what Michurin & Lysenko were pursuing --though they knew nothing about epigenetic mechanisms).

If that is your claim, can you support it with evidence? If that is not your claim, what is your claim, exactly?
Click to expand...
My point is that politicizing a scientific theory as Michurin& Lysenko did is not a good idea.

My evidence is
http://nissa.ger-nis.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/variedades_nativas_500.jpg


cosmicaug said:
I am not even sure what you mean by this. What do you mean by "When the central dogma came around it was conveniently adopted as gospel by agri-business...". What does the "central dogma" have to do with anything else you mention?
Click to expand...
The assumption is that variation in phenotype has no history other than genetic.
 
!Kaggen said:
My point is that politicizing a scientific theory as Michurin& Lysenko did is not a good idea.
Click to expand...
That addresses the "taking it too far" (though I'd keep Michurin out of it as I always thought the politicization was Lysenko's doing --but history is not my strong point so I might be mistaken) but it still doesn't tell me what your original point was.
!Kaggen said:
My evidence is
http://nissa.ger-nis.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/variedades_nativas_500.jpg
Click to expand...
I see a bunch of potatoes. What is that evidence of?
!Kaggen said:
The assumption is that variation in phenotype has no history other than genetic.
Click to expand...
The variation in phenotype is mostly due to genetics. Teleologically speaking, that we see the genetics that we see nowadays is due to selection over many generations. What this has to do with the, so called, central dogma or some supposed adoption of it as gospel by agribusiness or with monocultures or with anything else having to do with epigenetics or of Lamarkism totally escapes me. Could you clarify?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top Bottom