The Central Dogma

[Dancing David]

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?

 

[Zeuzzz]

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?

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."

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.

 

[paximperium]

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

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

 

[paximperium]

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.

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.

 

[paximperium]

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

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." [

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.

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..

 

[Dancing David]

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.

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.

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.

 

[Zeuzzz]

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

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.

 

[paximperium]

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?

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.

 

[paximperium]

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.

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

 

[Dancing David]

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

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.

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.

 

[Zeuzzz]

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

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.

 

[drkitten]

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.

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."

 

[Zeuzzz]

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

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.

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.

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."

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.

 

[paximperium]

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.

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.

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.

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.

 

[Zeuzzz]

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.

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 [....]

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?

I was responding to your comments.

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

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.

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

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.

You've just made my point.

 

[Paul C. Anagnostopoulos]

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.

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

~~ Paul

 

[sol invictus]

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

Really? That's very interesting - how?

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

 

[paximperium]

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):

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?

 

[paximperium]

Really? That's very interesting - how?

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

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?

 

[Acleron]

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.

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.

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.