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.
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 various 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 behavior, 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.
I've somewhat lost enthusiasm for this thread lately, hopefully I'll come back to it, though
