The Central Dogma

The picture of a genetic makeup that fluctuates by the hour and minutes seems at odds with the public perception: That genes determine everything from our physical characteristics all the way to our behaviour. Many scientists seem to think that our geners form an immutable blueprint that our cells must forever follow. British research scientists and Oxford don Susan Greenfield says "the reductionist genetic train of thought fuels the currently highly fashionable concept of a gene for this or that"

Niles edridge in his book Why we do it, says "genes have been the dominant metaphor underlying all manner of human behaviour, from the most basic to animalistic, like sex, up to and including such esoterica as the practise of religion, the enjoyment of music, and the codification of laws and moral strictures... The media are besotted with genes... genes have for over half a century easily eclipsed the outside natural world as the primary driving force of evolution in the minds of evolutionary biologists." (ref)


There seems one problem with this legend: Its not true.


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.

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.



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. Psychologist Ernest Rossi explores in his text The psychobiology of gene expression "how our subjective states of mind, consciously motivated behaviour, and our perception of free will can modulate gene expression to optimize health" Nobel prize winner Eric Kandell MD believes that in future treatments "social influences will be biologically incorporated in the altered expressions of specific genes in specific nerve cells of specific areas of the brain"] Brain researchers Kemperman and Gage envision a future in which the regeneration of damaged neural networks is a cornerstone of medical treatment, and doctors prescriptions include "modulations of environmental or cognitive stimuli", and "alterations of physical activity", in other words, doctors in the future will prescribe, instead of (or in addition to) a drug, a particular therapeutic belief or thought, a positive feeling, an affirmative social activity.


Is my portrayal of the central dogma fair? Is this actually the accepted position by most scientists?

Also, Anyone think that its likely that in the future doctors will be prescribing theraputic beliefs in place of traditional medicine, once we have found out more about how our individual perceptions and intentions of our health effect it directly?

Zeuzzz said:

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]).

Click to expand...

As written, this idea is untrue. Laughably so.

my portrayal of the central dogma fair?

Click to expand...

No, not really. The Central Dogma is that each protein is coded by a single gene, and so far we haven't found any that aren't (although there are some genes that aren't in the "genome," being instead in places like mitochondria.

The idea that there is a single gene for each "trait," where trait includes such vague things as disposition, is complete hogwash.

Also, Anyone think that its likely that in the future doctors will be prescribing theraputic beliefs in place of traditional medicine,

Click to expand...

In place of? Almost certainly not. Quite the other way around; most of the things that we once attributed to "beliefs" are now turning out to have chemical causes and therefore chemical treatments; there's a reason that antidepressants work and "talk therapy" doesn't.

once we have found out more about how our individual perceptions and intentions of our health effect it directly?

Click to expand...

No, because any method that our perceptions and beliefs can interact with our health will involve chemistry, and it will almost always be more effective and controllable to use chemicals to fix chemicals. Even if we found the sort of link that you describe between beliefs and the body -- a finding that would revolutionize medicine and win the Nobel prize in short order --- that would simply tell us which chemicals to play with.

And I don't expect us to find the sort of link you describe, because all the actual evidence-based medicine goes the other way.

drkitten said:

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

Click to expand...

As written, this idea is untrue. Laughably so.

Click to expand...

An accompaning reason would be appreciated.

In the prestigous journal science, Elizabeth Pennisi writes: "Gene expression is not determined solely by the DNA code itself but by an assortment of proteins, and somtimes RNAs that tell us that tell the genes where and when to turn on and off. Such epiginetic phenomena orchestrate the many changes through which a single fertilized egg cell can turn into a complex organism. And throughout life, they enable cells to respond to evironmental signals conveyed by hormones, growth factors, and other regularory molecules without having to alter the DNA itself" Behind the Scenes of Gene Expression - Science, 10 August 2001

So Epigenetics, as defined in Science, is about "examining the sources that control gene expression from outside of the cell." Its a study of the signals that turn genes on and off. Some of those signals are chemical, some are electromagnetic, some come from our inside our bodies and some from our bodies responce to signals from the environment that surrounds us.

drkitten said:

No, because any method that our perceptions and beliefs can interact with our health will involve chemistry, and it will almost always be more effective and controllable to use chemicals to fix chemicals. Even if we found the sort of link that you describe between beliefs and the body -- a finding that would revolutionize medicine and win the Nobel prize in short order --- that would simply tell us which chemicals to play with.

Click to expand...

So we can agree that our perceptions can create substantial changes in our bodies chemistry (I dont think anyone can dispute that), and then that the chemicals invoked by our thoughts can alter genes via epigenetic processes?

Zeuzzz said:

So we can agree that our perceptions can create substantial changes in our bodies chemistry (I dont think anyone can dispute that), and then that the chemicals invoked by our thoughts can alter genes via epigenetic processes?

Click to expand...

No. "Altering gene expression" is not the same as "altering genes."

I have a copy of Fannie Farmer on my shelf; it's a very good cookbook with hundreds of recipes. Which recipe I make is under my control depending upon what I want and what I have in the pantry; if berries are out of season, I may go for a chocolate cake instead.

But my ability to choose which recipe to make doesn't affect the contents of the cookbook.

The "Central Dogma" says that every protein in the body has a single recipe in the genetic cookbook. It says nothing about which ones get made and under what conditions.

Zeuzzz said:

An accompaning reason would be appreciated.

Click to expand...

Because human consciousness cannot control the content of genes (except indirectly through genetic engineering, of course).

Zeuzzz said:

In the prestigous journal science, Elizabeth Pennisi writes: "Gene expression is not determined solely by the DNA code itself but by an assortment of proteins, and somtimes RNAs that tell us that tell the genes where and when to turn on and off. Such epiginetic phenomena orchestrate the many changes through which a single fertilized egg cell can turn into a complex organism. And throughout life, they enable cells to respond to evironmental signals conveyed by hormones, growth factors, and other regularory molecules without having to alter the DNA itself" Behind the Scenes of Gene Expression - Science, 10 August 2001

So Epigenetics, as defined in Science, is about "examining the sources that control gene expression from outside of the cell." Its a study of the signals that turn genes on and off. Some of those signals are chemical, some are electromagnetic, some come from our inside our bodies and some from our bodies responce to signals from the environment that surrounds us.

Click to expand...

Notice the complete lack of any sort of support for the idea that human thoughts or consciousness are part of the proteins and RNAs that control gene expression.

While the idea isn't provably impossible, neither is the idea that leaves turn brown every autumn because leprechauns stop painting them. In the absence of evidence for leprechauns or thought-driven epigenetic phenomena, most people would dismiss the idea.

drkitten said:

While the idea isn't provably impossible, neither is the idea that leaves turn brown every autumn because leprechauns stop painting them.

Click to expand...

I wouldn't be so sure of that. Leprechauns are more intelligent than people often give them credit for.

Randy Jirtle has discovered that he could make Agouti mice produce normal healthy young, by changing the expression of thier genes, and without making any chages to the mouses DNA, by feeding them methyl groups. These molecule clusters are able to inhibit the expression of genes, and sure enough, the methyl groups eventually worked their way through the mothers metabolism to attatch to the Agouti genes of the developing embryos.

DNA Is Not Destiny - Discover magazine article

The new science of epigenetics rewrites the rules of disease, heredity, and identity. [.....]

"It was a little eerie and a little scary to see how something as subtle as a nutritional change in the pregnant mother rat could have such a dramatic impact on the gene expression of the baby," Jirtle says. "The results showed how important epigenetic changes could be."

Click to expand...

Jirtle continues "The tip of the iceberg is genomics.... The bottom of the iceberg is epigenetics"

I think its quite reasonable to posit that our physiological state and the associated chemical states these cause can have an effect on our gene expression via epigenetics. In fact I would be amazed if it didn't, I cant see how it would not.

Zeuzzz said:

I think its quite reasonable to posit that our physiological state and the associated chemical states these cause can have an effect on our gene expression via epigenetics.

Click to expand...

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.

Zeuzzz said:

The picture of a genetic makeup that fluctuates by the hour and minutes [snip]

Click to expand...

What does this mean? Are you saying that this "central dogma" predicts that genetic changes must accompany every behavioral change?

Eta: I see from your post 10 that this is what you mean. Amazingly, your arguments from ignorance still fail to impress.

I've been asked not to comment further in this thread until The Central Scrutinizer has a look at it.

Zeuzzz said:

I think its quite reasonable to posit that our physiological state and the associated chemical states these cause can have an effect on our gene expression via epigenetics. In fact I would be amazed if it didn't, I cant see how it would not.

Click to expand...

Because you have a fundamental misunderstanding of what epigenetics is and is not?

Gravy said:

What does this mean? Are you saying that this "central dogma" predicts that genetic changes must accompany every behavioral change?

Eta: I see from your post 10 that this is what you mean. Amazingly, your arguments from ignorance still fail to impress.

I've been asked not to comment further in this thread until The Central Scrutinizer has a look at it.

Click to expand...

I didn't just choose the phrase 'the central dogma' out of the blue. Search for it, its a well known phrase for this.

Actually, the phrase isn't very helpful, Crick has since admitted he didn't actually understand what the word dogma meant when he came up with name! So it probably wasn't a good title for this thread, gives the wrong impression, I should have kept it to epigenetics.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_dogma_of_molecular_biology

Central dogma of molecular biology [...]

Horace Freeland Judson records in The Eighth Day of Creation:[6]

"My mind was, that a dogma was an idea for which there was no reasonable evidence. You see?!" And Crick gave a roar of delight. "I just didn't know what dogma meant. And I could just as well have called it the 'Central Hypothesis,' or — you know. Which is what I meant to say. Dogma was just a catch phrase."

Click to expand...

UnrepentantSinner said:

Because you have a fundamental misunderstanding of what epigenetics is and is not?

Click to expand...

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...

Dr Moshe Syf from McGill university in Montreal has studied the relationships between rats and their offspring. Some of the mother rats groomed and nurtured their young, and some hardly did at all. Rats that had been groomed as infants showed marked behavioural changes as adults, they were "Less fearful and better adjusted than the offspring of the neglectful mothers" (Epigenetics, The Economist) They then acted in similar nurturing ways towards their own offspring, producing the same epigenetic behavioural results in the next generation. This shows that epigenetic changes, once started in one generation, can be passed on to the following generations without changes in the gene themselves.


There were numerous chemical changes detected in the rats brains and major differences had developed between the nurtured group and the neglected group, especially in the area of the hippocampus involved in stress. A gene that dampens our response to stress had a greater degree of expression in the well nurtured rats. The brains of the nurtured rats also showed higher levels of a chemical (acetyl groups) that facilitates gene expression by binding the protein sheath around the gene, making it easier for the gene to express. They also had higher levels of an enzyme that adds acetyl groups to the protein sheath.


In the non nurtured rats the changes were quite different, they were anxious and fearful. The same gene repressing substance that Randy Jirtle found in her work (that I cited above), the methyl groups, were much more prevalent in the hippocampi. It bonded to the DNA and inhibited the expression of the gene involved in dampening stress. To test the hypothesis that these two substances were causing epigenetic changes in the Rats they injected the fearful rats with a substance that raised the number of acetyls in the hippocampus. Sure enough, the behaviour of the rats changed and they became less fearful and better adjusted.


A recent article in scientific american addresses this issue head on (sorry, need subscription to view all)

Determining Nature vs. Nurture

Molecular evidence is finally emerging to inform the long-standing debate

Psychologists, psychiatrists and neuroscientists have jousted for years over how much of our behavior is driven by our genes versus the environments in which we grow up and live. Arguments have persisted because there has been little hard evidence to answer basic questions: How exactly do genes and environment interact to determine whether someone will become depressed, say, or schizophrenic? And can environmental interventions such as drugs or psychotherapy really alleviate disorders that are largely determined by genes?

Click to expand...

The article goes on to note that depressed and anti social behaviour in mice is accompanied by methyl groups sticking to genes, and also extends this research to humans, as the brains of schizophrenics also show changes in the methylation of genes, or acetylization of their protein sheaths.


Experiments have shown a striking link between our state of mind, such as childhood stress, and later disease. ACE (adverse child experiences) conducted detailed social, psychological and medial examinations of some 17,000 people over a five year period. The study showed a strong inverse link between emotional wellbeing, health and longevity on the one hand, and early life stress on the other. People in a dysfunctional family were five times more likely to be depressed, three times more likely to smoke, thirty times more likely to commit suicide, and ailments were much more common in the dysfunctional families, increased rates of obesity, heart disease, lung disease, diabetes, bone fractures, hypertension, and hepatitis. The genetic link between nurturing and gene expression in children is also now being traced; "One recent study suggests that children with a certain version of a gene that produces an enzyme known as MAO-A (which metabolizes neurotransmitters such as serotonin and dopamine) are significantly more likely to become violent—but only if they were mistreated as children. In this way, an aspect of human behavior might be a bit like the body of the Bicyclus butterfly, driven to one form or another by genes that switch in response to environmental cues, one genotype yielding two different phenotypes for two different environments." (Why we’ve misunderstood the nature-nuture debate - Professor Gary Marcus)


And there are many more examples of our beliefs causing epigenetic changes, the most researched is how our perceptions effect disease progression. Gail Ironson, MD, has shown that there were two factors that are interesting predictors of how fast HIV progressed in the research subjects. The first was the view of the nature of god. Some believed in a punishing god, while other believed in a benevolent god. She observes that, “People who view god as judgemental god have a CD₄ (T-helper) cell decline more than twice the rate of those who don’t see god as judgemental, and their viral load increases more than three times faster. For example a precise statement affirmed by these patients is ‘god will judge me harshly one day’ This one item is related to an increased likelihood that patient will develop and opportunistic infection or die. These beliefs predict disease progression even more strongly than depression” (From: View of God is associated with disease progression in HIV. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the Society of Behavioral Medicine, March 22–25, 2006, San Francisco, California. Abstract published in Annals of Behavioural Medicine 2006)


(Do Positive Psychosocial Factors Predict Disease Progression in HIV-1? A Review of the Evidence) “Spirituality may be viewed as another type of coping. Men and women with HIV studied during the HAART era who endorsed more spirituality after their HIV diagnosis had a slower decline in CD4+ cell counts and better control of VL over 4 years (18). Fitzpatrick et al. (19) followed 901 HIV infected persons for 1 year and found that participation in spiritual activities (e.g., prayer, meditation, affirmations, visualizations) predicted reduced risk of dying, but only in those not on HAART. Another HAART era study found significantly lower mortality over 3 to 5 years for those with HIV who had a spiritual transformation (20). Furthermore, the spiritual belief that "God is merciful" was protective of health over time, whereas the belief that "God is judgmental and punishing and is going to judge me harshly some day" was associated with a faster deterioration of CD4+ cells and poorer control of the HIV virus (21). Thus, view of God may be either helpful or harmful, depending on the nature of that belief.”



Mapping the protein pathways by which thoughts and behaviours, such as nurturing, facilitate or suppress gene expression helps us understand the implications of our behaviour and beliefs, and their role on our health and longevity. Our thoughts, perceptions and beliefs obviously play a large role on an epigenetic basis.

Zeuzzz said:

Mapping the protein pathways by which thoughts and behaviours, such as nurturing, facilitate or suppress gene expression helps us understand the implications of our behaviour and beliefs, and their role on our health and longevity. Our thoughts, perceptions and beliefs obviously play a large role on an epigenetic basis.

Click to expand...

You obviously didn't understand a word of the articles you just spammed.

drkitten said:

You obviously didn't understand a word of the articles you just spammed.

Click to expand...

Can we agree that this statement from Mr Niles edridge to demonstrate the current situation is roughly accurate; "genes have been the dominant metaphor underlying all manner of human behaviour, from the most basic to animalistic, like sex, up to and including such esoterica as the practise of religion, the enjoyment of music, and the codification of laws and moral strictures... The media are besotted with genes... genes have for over half a century easily eclipsed the outside natural world as the primary driving force of evolution in the minds of evolutionary biologists."

The old view that our genes contain indelliable instructions governing the functioning of our bodies is a school of thought with little evidence today. We now understand that a whole host of other factors determine which genes are expressed. Some are physical, like excercise, diet and lifestyle. Others are metaphysical, like beliefs, attitude, spirituality and thoughts.

A 2007 harvard study exmained the difference between physical exertion, and physical exertion plus belief. They studied 84 maids who cleaned rooms in hotels, and they split them into two groups. One group heard a brief presentation about how their work qualified as good beneficial excersise. The other group did not.

After just a month, the changes in the bodies of the women was very dramatic, given the only difference between the groups was what they were thinking about their work while doing it. "The exercise-informed women perceived themselves to be getting markedly more exercise than they had indicated before the presentation. Members of the group lost an average of 2 pounds, lowered their blood pressure by 10% and displayed drops in bodyfat percentage, body mass index, and waist to hip ratio."

Mind over muscle: placebo boosts health benefits of exercise

This finding suggests that exercise enhances physical health, at least in part, via the placebo effect--that is, as a consequence of an individual's beliefs and expectations. "If our mind-sets control our psychological and physical reactions and we can control our mind-sets, then we can have direct control over our health," Langer says.

The new study appears in the February Psychological Science.

Click to expand...

Wow, more straw men to attack! Way to go Zeuzzz, where can you demnstrate the researchers say genes play such a high role in all behaviors?

Dancing David said:

Wow, more straw men to attack! Way to go Zeuzzz, where can you demnstrate the researchers say genes play such a high role in all behaviors?

Click to expand...

I think that many people have this view. At its most extreme you have Dawkins views and similar theories about the role of genes in evolution. At the risk of repeating myself, Niles eldridges makes a fine point:

"genes have been the dominant metaphor underlying all manner of human behaviour, from the most basic to animalistic, like sex, up to and including such esoterica as the practise of religion, the enjoyment of music, and the codification of laws and moral strictures... The media are besotted with genes... genes have for over half a century easily eclipsed the outside natural world as the primary driving force of evolution in the minds of evolutionary biologists."

http://search.barnesandnoble.com/Why-We-Do-It/Niles-Eldredge/e/9780641759444

To fully accept the arguments of Richard Dawkins (author of The Selfish Gene) and his acolytes, one would be forced to conclude that "we do it" solely because our genes are telling us to reproduce more genes; but genes don't drive evolution, argues Eldredge (curator, American Museum of Natural History), especially in social creatures such as humans. In this popular science work, he discusses a "human triangle" of sexual, reproductive, and economic behavior that has increasingly been guided by culture over the past two-and-a-half million years. Furthermore, Eldredge says, Dawkins' gene-centric view "has profoundly bad implications for social theory and its political implementation."

Click to expand...

People seem to want to separate subjective states and our beliefs from the genetic explanation for our various behaviours. But this is simply not true. Much evidence now shows that our thoughts and beliefs can effect our gene expression. Which I have shown above.

Zeuzzz said:

A 2007 harvard study exmained the difference between physical exertion, and physical exertion plus belief. They studied 84 maids who cleaned rooms in hotels, and they split them into two groups. One group heard a brief presentation about how their work qualified as good beneficial excersise. The other group did not.

After just a month, the changes in the bodies of the women was very dramatic, given the only difference between the groups was what they were thinking about their work while doing it. "The exercise-informed women perceived themselves to be getting markedly more exercise than they had indicated before the presentation. Members of the group lost an average of 2 pounds, lowered their blood pressure by 10% and displayed drops in bodyfat percentage, body mass index, and waist to hip ratio."

Mind over muscle: placebo boosts health benefits of exercise

Click to expand...

So? What does this have anything to do with what you're claiming?

Zeuzzz said:

Mapping the protein pathways by which thoughts and behaviours, such as nurturing, facilitate or suppress gene expression helps us understand the implications of our behaviour and beliefs, and their role on our health and longevity. Our thoughts, perceptions and beliefs obviously play a large role on an epigenetic basis.

Click to expand...

NO. Nothing you have posted even comes close to supporting this claim at all. All you have posted is the ENVIRONMENT has a role to play with epigenetics AND chemical processes such as stress/depression etc. may affect epigenetics.

This does not automatically lead to you having genetic altering mind powers.

Zeuzzz said:

I think that many people have this view. At its most extreme you have Dawkins views and similar theories about the role of genes in evolution. At the risk of repeating myself, Niles eldridges makes a fine point:

"genes have been the dominant metaphor underlying all manner of human behaviour, from the most basic to animalistic, like sex, up to and including such esoterica as the practise of religion, the enjoyment of music, and the codification of laws and moral strictures... The media are besotted with genes... genes have for over half a century easily eclipsed the outside natural world as the primary driving force of evolution in the minds of evolutionary biologists."

http://search.barnesandnoble.com/Why-We-Do-It/Niles-Eldredge/e/9780641759444

Click to expand...

He does make a fine point, he is pointing out that not all behavior are due to genetic reasons...so? What's the relevance to what you're claiming?

Synopsis

To fully accept the arguments of Richard Dawkins (author of The Selfish Gene) and his acolytes, one would be forced to conclude that "we do it" solely because our genes are telling us to reproduce more genes; but genes don't drive evolution, argues Eldredge (curator, American Museum of Natural History), especially in social creatures such as humans. In this popular science work, he discusses a "human triangle" of sexual, reproductive, and economic behavior that has increasingly been guided by culture over the past two-and-a-half million years. Furthermore, Eldredge says, Dawkins' gene-centric view "has profoundly bad implications for social theory and its political implementation." [

Click to expand...

Do you you even know what Eldridge is arguing?

Eldrige is arguing that not all behavior like certain "Selfish Gene" proponents are due to genetic reasons period.

People seem to want to separate subjective states and our beliefs from the genetic explanation for our various behaviours. But this is simply not true. Much evidence now shows that our thoughts and beliefs can effect our gene expression. Which I have shown above.

Click to expand...

I have never read anyone with the remarkable ability to fundamentally misquote anyone so blatantly ever. NOTHING you have posted have shown that thoughts and beliefs can effect gene expression except in your mind..

Zeuzzz said:

I think that many people have this view. At its most extreme you have Dawkins views and similar theories about the role of genes in evolution. At the risk of repeating myself, Niles eldridges makes a fine point:

"genes have been the dominant metaphor underlying all manner of human behaviour, from the most basic to animalistic, like sex, up to and including such esoterica as the practise of religion, the enjoyment of music, and the codification of laws and moral strictures... The media are besotted with genes... genes have for over half a century easily eclipsed the outside natural world as the primary driving force of evolution in the minds of evolutionary biologists."

http://search.barnesandnoble.com/Why-We-Do-It/Niles-Eldredge/e/9780641759444





People seem to want to separate subjective states and our beliefs from the genetic explanation for our various behaviours. But this is simply not true. Much evidence now shows that our thoughts and beliefs can effect our gene expression. Which I have shown above.

Click to expand...

So your strawman is based upon popular beliefs or a strawman someone else set up. You have yet to show where genetic researchers say that genes have such a high impact on human behavior. try again Zeuzzz, you are badly misinformed, you haven't done more than read a bad version of someone's interpretation of Dawkins.

And if you think social darwinism has any scientific credence you are even more poorly informed.

it seems you are making straw men out of other people straw men.

Selfish genes will lead to altruism, which they don't anyway. you do know a little about evolutionary biology don'y you?

What benefit is there to a sibling rearing siblings?

What benefit would there have been to homo spaiens sapiens killing anti-social PDs?

You have yet to show any of the nonsense you are promoting here in the least. You quote somebody who doesn't know what they are talking about, why don't you try reading what dawkins wrote and then get back to us , hmmmm?

i see that you don't understand what Elderidge is talking about here is a wiki snippet:

Eldredge is a critic of the gene-centric view of evolution and the notion that evolutionary theory can be held accountable to patterns of historical data. His most recent venture is the development of an alternative account to the gene-based notions of evolutionary psychology to explain why human beings behave as they do.

Click to expand...

Well duh, um lets us say that in psychology there are very few if any people who are so ignorant as to say genes directly im-act behavior. there may be a few but you would be hard pressed to find them in a mainstream school.

Unknow to most people, humans do not have instincts. there are three of them in humasn and they are all gone by week six after birth.

Even if we look at schizophrenia which has a very high biological quotient (about 68% from twin studies) , it does not effect the ultimate behavior of the person. It impact the way that their brain functions but it does not say what kind of symptoms they will have or what kind of behaviors they will have. Not even people with a high family history of alcoholism with entrenched probanding will develop alcoholism, nor will the behaviors they engage in be impacted by it. You can not say 'so and so with family history will only drink in bars'.

So while I am sure the elderidge knows exactly what he is talking about, you haven't shown that there are scientists who say that gene [i[x[/i] causes behavior y.

Now if you want to specifically address the issues that those peopel state, then I can agree with you but you are misreading what Elderidge is writing about.

paximperium said:

So? What does this have anything to do with what you're claiming?

Click to expand...

It shows the effect a simple thought can have on physical processes in the body, which in turn can change gene expression.

How else do you explain the physical differences recorded in the study on the two groups of maids? The only difference between the groups was what they thought their work was achieving.

Dancing David said:

You have yet to show any of the nonsense you are promoting here in the least. You quote somebody who doesn't know what they are talking about, why don't you try reading what dawkins wrote and then get back to us , hmmmm?

Click to expand...

He's MIS-quoting Miles Eldridge, who along with Stephen Jay Gould helped develop Punctuated Equilibrium.

Eldridge and many modern Evolutionary Biologists such as Massimo Pigliucci have many issues with Dawkin's "Selfish Gene" hypothesis which is way too simplistic and easily MISUNDERSTOOD to apply to the complexity of evolutionary biology. Dawkin's selfish gene great at explaining certain things but is misused to apply to explain all behavior as genetic expression which even Dawkin's has stated is wrong.

Zeuzz is doing his thing. Directly and dishonesty misquoting people.

Zeuzzz said:

It shows the effect a simple thought can have on physical processes in the body, which in turn can change gene expression.

How else do you explain the physical differences recorded in the study on the two groups of maids? The only difference between the groups was what they thought their work was achieving.

Click to expand...

BZZZZZT...wrong. All the study shows is the placebo effect can affect physiology. It states nothing about genetic changes. Try again.

Zeuzzz said:

A 2007 harvard study exmained the difference between physical exertion, and physical exertion plus belief. They studied 84 maids who cleaned rooms in hotels, and they split them into two groups. One group heard a brief presentation about how their work qualified as good beneficial excersise. The other group did not.

After just a month, the changes in the bodies of the women was very dramatic, given the only difference between the groups was what they were thinking about their work while doing it. "The exercise-informed women perceived themselves to be getting markedly more exercise than they had indicated before the presentation. Members of the group lost an average of 2 pounds, lowered their blood pressure by 10% and displayed drops in bodyfat percentage, body mass index, and waist to hip ratio."

Mind over muscle: placebo boosts health benefits of exercise

Click to expand...

oh yeah two pounds, is that statisticaly significant? Are any amounts meaningful. You could at least cite the actual article, rather than some pop science snippet.

here is the abstract in PubMed:

In a study testing whether the relationship between exercise and health is moderated by one's mind-set, 84 female room attendants working in seven different hotels were measured on physiological health variables affected by exercise. Those in the informed condition were told that the work they do (cleaning hotel rooms) is good exercise and satisfies the Surgeon General's recommendations for an active lifestyle. Examples of how their work was exercise were provided. Subjects in the control group were not given this information. Although actual behavior did not change, 4 weeks after the intervention, the informed group perceived themselves to be getting significantly more exercise than before. As a result, compared with the control group, they showed a decrease in weight, blood pressure, body fat, waist-to-hip ratio, and body mass index. These results support the hypothesis that exercise affects health in part or in whole via the placebo effect.

Click to expand...

No mention at all of the significance in change in comparison to regular sample groups at all.
So I am calling irrelevant until I can find a copr of the article. we do not know if any of these changes were just from random chance or not. Especialy since weight can fluctuate 2-10 lbs./day.

paximperium said:

BZZZZZT...wrong. All the study shows is the placebo effect can affect physiology. It states nothing about genetic changes. Try again.

Click to expand...

I didn't say it did have to support anything about genetic changes. I was merely demonstrating the physical effect a simple belief can have on our bodies.

A gene that dampens our response to stress had a greater degree of expression in the well nurtured rats. The brains of the nurtured rats also showed higher levels of a chemical (acetyl groups) that facilitates gene expression by binding the protein sheath around the gene, making it easier for the gene to express. They also had higher levels of an enzyme that adds acetyl groups to the protein sheath.

The article goes on to note that depressed and anti social behaviour in mice is accompanied by methyl groups sticking to genes, and also extends this research to humans, as the brains of schizophrenics also show changes in the methylation of genes, or acetylization of their protein sheaths.


Stress is a state of mind. Its brought on usually by environmental stimuli (but not always, like with some psychiatric disorders), which in turn changes our physical state. This includes methylation of genes, or acetylization of their protein sheaths, which are epigenetic processes.

Zeuzzz said:

The old view that our genes contain indelliable instructions governing the functioning of our bodies is a school of thought with little evidence today. We now understand that a whole host of other factors determine which genes are expressed. Some are physical, like excercise, diet and lifestyle. Others are metaphysical, like beliefs, attitude, spirituality and thoughts.

Click to expand...

There is no evidence whatsoever for the last sentence.

"We now understand that a whole host of other animals live in the United States. Some are mammals, like wolves, bears, and coyotes. Some are strange hybrids like chimerae, mermaids, griffins, and hippogriffs."

To which the only correct response is .... "Er, no, they aren't."

Dancing David said:

Selfish genes will lead to altruism, which they don't anyway. you do know a little about evolutionary biology don'y you?

Click to expand...

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.

Unknow to most people, humans do not have instincts. there are three of them in humasn and they are all gone by week six after birth.

Click to expand...

Fascinating. None at all? This is surely different to every other animal, that rely on instinctual behaviours regularly.

So while I am sure the elderidge knows exactly what he is talking about, you haven't shown that there are scientists who say that gene x causes behavior y.

Click to expand...

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. 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.

Maybe its 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.

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."

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.

Click to expand...

Zeuzzz said:

I didn't say it did have to support anything about genetic changes. I was merely demonstrating the physical effect a simple belief can have on our bodies.

Click to expand...

No. You are dishonestly attempting some wishy-washy logic to use physiologic response to support your unjustified "mind-power" claim but instead play this coy game of insinuating irrelevant points to make your pseudo-claim even relevant.

A gene that dampens our response to stress had a greater degree of expression in the well nurtured rats. The brains of the nurtured rats also showed higher levels of a chemical (acetyl groups) that facilitates gene expression by binding the protein sheath around the gene, making it easier for the gene to express. They also had higher levels of an enzyme that adds acetyl groups to the protein sheath.

The article goes on to note that depressed and anti social behaviour in mice is accompanied by methyl groups sticking to genes, and also extends this research to humans, as the brains of schizophrenics also show changes in the methylation of genes, or acetylization of their protein sheaths.

Click to expand...

I know. A little simplified but what is your point again? Stress affects epigenetic encoding? Yeah...and? I actually read the original paper...what was your point again?

Stress is a state of mind. Its brought on usually by environmental stimuli (but not always, like with some psychiatric disorders), which in turn changes our physical state. This includes methylation of genes, or acetylization of their protein sheaths, which are epigenetic processes.

Click to expand...

Yeah, stress is a physiologic and chemical response to environmental or perceived stimuli. It is very well known that stress and other physiologic responses can affect expression of genes in differing situations. It has also been found that stress can affect epigenetic encoding and that changes can actually be inherited.

I'm still waiting for some sort of point.

paximperium said:

No. You are dishonestly attempting some wishy-washy logic to use physiologic response to support your unjustified "mind-power" claim but instead play this coy game of insinuating irrelevant points to make your pseudo-claim even relevant.

Click to expand...

The only person in this thread that has used the term 'mind power' is you. I dont know what point you think I'm trying to make.

I'm trying to get an overview of whether the arguments above are an accurate reflection of the bias towards assigning a genetic explanation to everything, when infact epigenetic environmental influences brought on by states of mind such as stress and emotions are also a major contributing factor to gene expression.

For example, would you agree with the following review of a book about this issue (unfortunately, its cut slightly short):

http://www.springerlink.com/content/n24148258476565r/

Genetic understandings from basic DNA structure to the latest developments in genetic engineering have been endowed by lay persons with powers far beyond those imagined by most in the scientific community.

The conclusion that the authors reach, that genetics theory and data have been distorted to justify beliefs and behaviors, is not news to the practicing genetic counselor. Most of us spend considerable time on a daily basis teaching basic genetics, including limits of genetic influence on physiologic, anatomic, behavioral, and therapeutic outcomes. Perhaps we, as pro-fessionals [....]

Click to expand...

I know. A little simplified but what is your point again? Stress affects epigenetic encoding? Yeah...and? I actually read the original paper...what was your point again?

Click to expand...

I was responding to your comments.

paximperium said:

NOTHING you have posted have shown that thoughts and beliefs can effect gene expression except in your mind..

Click to expand...

Zeuzzz said:

It shows the effect a simple thought can have on physical processes in the body, which in turn can change gene expression.

How else do you explain the physical differences recorded in the study on the two groups of maids? The only difference between the groups was what they thought their work was achieving.

Click to expand...

paximperium said:

BZZZZZT...wrong. All the study shows is the placebo effect can affect physiology. It states nothing about genetic changes. Try again.

Click to expand...

Zeuzzz said:

Stress is a state of mind. Its brought on usually by environmental stimuli (but not always, like with some psychiatric disorders), which in turn changes our physical state. This includes methylation of genes, or acetylization of their protein sheaths, which are epigenetic processes.

Click to expand...

paximperium said:

Yeah, stress is a physiologic and chemical response to environmental or perceived stimuli. It is very well known that stress and other physiologic responses can affect expression of genes in differing situations. It has also been found that stress can affect epigenetic encoding and that changes can actually be inherited.

I'm still waiting for some sort of point.

Click to expand...

You've just made my point.

drkitten said:

No, not really. The Central Dogma is that each protein is coded by a single gene, and so far we haven't found any that aren't (although there are some genes that aren't in the "genome," being instead in places like mitochondria.

Click to expand...

I thought the Central Dogma is that there is no information flow from proteins back to nucleic acids. Is that what you mean?

~~ Paul

paximperium said:

It has also been found that stress can affect epigenetic encoding and that changes can actually be inherited.

Click to expand...

Really? That's very interesting - how?

Is it possible in animals, and if so, can the changes only be inherited from the mother?

Zeuzzz said:

The only person in this thread that has used the term 'mind power' is you. I dont know what point you think I'm trying to make.

I'm trying to get an overview of whether the arguments above are an accurate reflection of the bias towards assigning a genetic explanation to everything, when infact epigenetic environmental influences brought on by states of mind such as stress and emotions are also a major contributing factor to gene expression.

For example, would you agree with the following review of a book about this issue (unfortunately, its cut slightly short):

Click to expand...

Yeah...and?

Explanations that genetics is the "cause for everything" was left behind in the 1980s...so I'm still trying to figure out what exactly your are trying to say or ask?

sol invictus said:

Really? That's very interesting - how?

Is it possible in animals, and if so, can the changes only be inherited from the mother?

Click to expand...

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?

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...

This seems to be where you are going wrong. First JACM is not the best peer reviewed journal to get any reliable information. Church's book appears to be full of the worst woo. This from a 5-star reviewer.

The author explains epigentic (DNA based) healing, then gives the everyday applications. It is mind-blowing to learn that a group of people could "unwind" (activate) a sample of DNA using only their thinking. More amazing is the fact that they could do this at a distance - half a mile away. The implications are thought-provoking to say the least.

Click to expand...

This is just fiction.

Try reading the mainstream books first to understand genetics and then use that knowledge to review books similar to the above.