[Bluerose]

I have been checking some stuff out on the net and there are some important changes coming that I feel people should be made aware of. May I suggest that you check out some of the links below.

I look forward to your comments.

Mind Over Genes: The New Biology

Earlier in my career as a research scientist and medical school professor, I actively supported the perspective that the human body was a "biochemical machine ‘programmed’ by its genes. We scientists believed that our strengths, such as artistic or intellectual abilities, and our weaknesses, such as cardiovascular disease, cancer or depression, represented traits that were preprogrammed into our genes. Hence I perceived life’s attributes and deficits, as well as our health and our frailties as merely a reflection of our heredity expression.

YouTube - Bruce H Lipton, PhD "Beyond Darwin" (Part 1)

Bruce Lipton Ph.D.: Mind Over Genes: The New Biology

new biology - Google Video

[tickle]

Diabetes runs in my family, so yes I believe we are genetically programmed. I have read that alcoholism is an inherited disease as well.

[Bluerose]

I don't believe we are genetically programmed only. I do believe environment influences us a great deal as does nature and nurture. I also believe we have some control over the extent to how much these things affect our lives.

[artlady]

There is a science that is fascinating to me and it deals with the concept of changing our brain function by various remapping tools.
It is called neuroplasticity and it is debunks some of our earlier theories about the brain.
I would recommend reading up on this there is a vast amount of research being done and its all very cutting edge.
Below is a link to get you started.
Introduction to Neuroplasticity

[Capuchin]

No biologist worth his salt will tell you that environment doesn't matter - I was taught this when I was 12 - both nature (referring to genetic profile) and nurture (referring to the way you were brought up i.e. the environment) are important in making us who we are.

Your genes simply tell you what you're predisposed to. If you took two genetically identical people, say both of them are shy due to their genes, then you give one professional speech coaching and not the other, they will come across as being different in the shyness respect. In the same way if you take 2 people who look identical, and you cut one's cheek, then they will look different.

Dr. Lipton seems to be debunking a view which only a minority hold, that our genes define us completely. Any decent scientist finds it obvious that this isn't true. The amount that our genes do define us is however a very interesting research area.

The guy seems to be a bit of a crackpot nowadays, a shame because it seems like he was a decent scientist at one point.

[Bluerose]

I'm not an educated person, left school at 13 but I do a lot of reading and I find this stuff very interesting. If you think Lipton is just a crackpot, can you recommend some 'plain speaking' articles on the subject?

[tickle]

I do know that genes don't define us completely because we can always break out of the norm for inherited traits, but I know for sure that my mom looked like my grandmothers twin sister and I look like my mom's twin sister. The genes are that strong in our maternal line, it is uncanny. But I rather like it. Both were very strong women, so I know I have inherited at least a few of the maternal traits, but my personality is different because I was raised in a different time frame which probably made an impact on that. However, my mom and her mom (both deceased) came from the late l9th century,(late Victorian era in Toronto Canada, very British) early 20th so personalities were completely different.

So yes, environment does impact.

[asking]

I'm not an educated person, left school at 13 but I do a lot of reading and I find this stuff very interesting. If you think Lipton is just a crackpot, can you recommend some 'plain speaking' articles on the subject?

I agree that Lipton is mixing fact and fiction.

Here is an article that discusses how environment and genes interact to create who we are.
The interpretation of genes: the "expression" of a genome is best understood as a dialogue with an organism's environment. That dialogue, not the genes alone, determines which ant becomes a queen, which fish becomes a male | Natural History | Find Ar

Genes can indeed be turned on and off by the environment. It can happen during the development of an embryo in the womb. It can happen after birth when we are growing up.

It can even happen in adults. When a guy wins a checkers game, he gets a burst of testosterone in his blood that literally turns genes on and off that control tissues and responses all over the body. If you get a steady supply of such bursts--as a successful surgeon or lawyer does--it changes who you are and what you are.

Our genes decide a lot of things about us, but not everything. If you take identical seeds that are genetically identical and raise some in wet soil and some in dry soil, the adult plants will look very different from each other.

People are no different. That's why identical twins often look different from each other. If one twin gets a better blood supply in the womb, that twin can be up to 7 inches taller when they are adults. All kinds of things like that can happen with differences in nutrition, exposure to hormones, or a stressful environment such as happens in war or with abuse.

The genes are not a literal blueprint. They are more like a list of ingredients for a recipe that can be made in many different ways.

[asking]

I have to retract my unkind remark that he never got tenure. If his cv is accurate, the University of Wisconsin gave him tenure, but he left after three years. It is unusual to voluntarily give up tenure. His early career appears to have consisted mainly of teaching medical students and nurses basic cell biology.

He knows enough biology to be dangerous. :) And he has some odd ideas that are definitely not mainstream science or consistent with mainstream science.

[Capuchin]

I have to retract my unkind remark that he never got tenure. If his cv is accurate, the University of Wisconsin gave him tenure, but he left after three years. It is unusual to voluntarily give up tenure. His early career appears to have consisted mainly of teaching medical students and nurses basic cell biology.

He knows enough biology to be dangerous. :) And he has some odd ideas that are definitely not mainstream science or consistent with mainstream science.

He appears to have written some fairly solid and high impact papers before the 90's, it's such a shame to lose a good scientist to this wishful thinking.

Apologies for not providing a link for further reading bluerose - I don't tend to have much time to read outside of my own area, and I limit it to reading enough to understand what I need to and then moving on, remembering the science but forgetting where I read it :)

I'm glad you saw this thread and responded asking. It's easy for people who aren't sure what to look out for to get sucked into "pseudoscience parading as science".

[Bluerose]

To be honest I have some strange and wonderful ideas of my own and have always had this curiosity about life. Coming from a very abusive home, I worked to change my life and I think I have succeeded. And this makes me even more curious about the things we can change about ourselves. It seems nothing is cast in stone, and we don't have to play the cards we were dealt. Thank you for your input.