Upgrading Your Body and Mind With Training and TechnologyBodybuilding, Brain Training, Martial Arts, Transhumanism, Productivity, Parkour... and More!
Categories
Can We Change Our Genes?
Can we change our genes?
By Adam Sinicki
If we never changed our jeans they would become smelly very fast. There is speculation among jean experts that you can infact wear the same pair for up to three weeks intermitently, but really as with all things, that depends on just what you are doing while wearing the...
Hang on, I think I misread the title of this article... let me start again.
This article explains a theory of mine; that we can change our genes from the way we live. That would mean that a guy whos spent his entire life bodybuilding would have a son who was genetically strong, regardless of his upbringing. I further believe that this is the main driving force behind evolution. This isn't something that's accepted by scientists who instead point to random genetic mutations as being the key to evolution. The current accepted idea is that occasionally there will be born an individual with a random mutation, with say six fingers, and that this might give us an evolutionary advantage and our children and our children's children until all the five fingered losers have died out.
Of course a species can also change over time without genetic mutation as certain succesful traits prove more useful and so are passed down and exgerated until they constitue a new species or subspecies. This however would take millions of years.
I however, believe that our environment and the way we live is responsible for slowly changing our genes during each of our lifetimes. For example if you were a swimmer, you might throughout the course of your life alter your dna such that it becomes marginally more suited to swimming. If your children too became swimmners - having naturally been passed down some of your ability, they might then choose to take up swimming themselves and will thus alter the DNA even further, until eventually over several generations a new species is created: 'The Swimmy People'. They have stupid names but they can swim like anything. I imagine that the traditional view of evoltion still plays a role, but that 'adaptive alterations' are also a prominant driving force.
I think about these things on the toilet. I really should get a life.
I feel that this version of events makes sense logically and intuitively, and is also an appealing idea from a philosophical perspective. First of all, genetic mutations are very rare and usually result in simplification rather than adding complexity to the organism which raises the question of how humans could have developed from single-celled life-forms. Most mutations are detrimental and often result in immediate death. The X-men of the world are few and far between, yet we as a species are remarkably quick to adapt to changes in our environment in order to survive.
Even more interesting is the way we adapt when death isn't really even on the cards - such as the way we began walking upright, the way we lost our tails, or the way we lost our fur. Becoming less hairy for example wouldn't have offered any immediate advantages in terms of survival and infact it could have still been a disadvantage during times of harsh weather and shortages of food. We lost our fur simply because we had taken to wearing clothes (the skin of our prey, for both warmth and as a symbol of power and a way of pulling (like Aamani suites today)) and no longer needed it.
By current thinking we were all furry and wearing coats. Then one guy, we'll call him 'Ugg' (a stereotypical Caveman name but it was all the rage then just as 'Britney' is now), developed a mutation that causes him to be furless. Now somehow, flesh boy must have survived better than his contempories and had more kids, until our furry friends were extinct. I feel this was unlikely. Either that, or there was a guy called 'Jim' (not a popular name at the time) who wasn't very furry and so had to wear the skin of his prey. Ladies dug gym for his cool coats and so he had many children - all just as or more hairless than he. Again it's still more likely that Jim would have just been viewed as 'rubbish'.
It makes far more sense if you look at it from this new 'adaptive alterations' perspective which would explain that as we took to wearing clothes more and more, our fur would have been starved of light and constantly flattened against our skin. Eventually we would lose some of our ability to grow beautiful curls and infact and our DNA would alter slightly as it 'died off'. Our children then would have been slightly less hairy as they inhereted some of our altered DNA, and so would their children, until eventually we looked like we did today. Makes sense huh?
A friend of mine pointed out that another possible explanation was that when 'Ugg' lost his hair he may not have become better at surviving, but could have become more attractive to women (hasn't worked out for my mate Goof). This raises the question as to why a female would find this more attractive if it didn't offer any benefits, but I see his point - this speculation alone isn't enough to seriously challenge decades of scientific thought.
Even generation to generation though we are visibly changing with most children growing taller than our parents. A result of healthier, more sedentry lifestyles and our propensity for keeping things high up out of harms way?
More to the point, in the event of a severe climate change, most species would die out waiting for an adaptive mutation to occur by chance, whereas if they could adapt in a more controlled manner they could survive. History suggests that we are certainly capable of adapting to massive changes.
More evidence however is provided by the animal kingdom where there seems to be some evidence that not only can our own dna alter - but that it can . The biggest challenge to most species on the planet right now comes from humans. The urbanisation of much of the Earth has made the need to adapt greater than ever and most animals are handling it with applomb. Well done animals!
One example are the Carrion Crows in Japan, who saw our cars' potential as nut crackers. When the lights go red and the traffic stops, the birds hop into the road and place their nuts infront of the tyres before retreating to watch the wheels break them open. Once the coast is clear they then return and collect their opened nuts.
What does this have to do with evolution you might ask? Well my question is how the birds learned these skills - unless they have somehow been told by their parents (which would be amazing in itself), the most likely solution is that the information has somehow been passed down through the birds' very genes.
Of course as my friend again pointed out (God he's annoying!) they could have merely witnessed other birds doing this. Though possible this is unlikely as the nests are unlikely to have been close to the road.
Another example though is domestic cats and their behavioural trait of hissing. Many experts (cat... hissing... experts...) believe that this hissing is actually the cat mimicking the snake - one of nature's most feared creatures. This makes sense, but my question is how a cat would learn this behaviour if it was raised by humans. It's unlikely that this is a behaviour that could have arisen from natural selection or mutation - it's just not something you start doing randomly really. It seems possible then that this is a behavioural trait that's been passed down on a genetic level. Human's have an innate understanding of language, could this be the result of a similar mechanism? Perhaps as our brains change shape as a result of plasticity so our DNA changes to reflect this?
The idea that our DNA could change in our lifetime isn't entirely far-fetched when you think of cancer - which is essentially just an undesirable mutation of the cells. If it can change for the worse why not the better? A study by Institute of Heart Math titled Local and Non local Effects of Coherent Heart Frequencies on Conformational Changes of DNA has demonstrated that our DNA may even 'relax' and 'tighten' according to our mood. While this wouldn't have an effect on the code itself it certainly suggests that the link between our bodies, minds and DNA sequence is far more complex that we give it credit for.
Of course it's very hard to scientifically prove this theory either way - researchers have enough difficulty separating the effects of nature and nurture as it is without throwing in 'nature as an effect of nurture'. If you were to look at the footballing abilities of a Man U player's offspring it would be difficult to tell if they were genetic or whether they came from living with a footballing hero. If you were to take a football player's son who was raised by different parents it would be impossible to tell whether any ability was in his Father's genes all along or whether it was a result of a life of footballing.
There are two possible ways to do this and neither are particularly practical or cheap. One would involve sending people to the moon to live for several generations. Over time they should adapt as their muscles whither and their skin should turn pale in response to the low gravity and lack of sunlight respectively. Then we would bring some back here and instruct them to have a child on Earth. If it looked like them, it would support the theory of adaptive alterations.
The other way is to map an individual's entire genetic code twice with a good thirty years in between. That might be a bit easier and more possible than the last idea, but it would still be a massive undertaking.
I haven't completely convinced myself of this view, but I certainly believe it's an idea worth entertaining. Apart from offering an explanation for some unusual phenomena it's also an appealing idea in that it could mean our lives aren't completely pointless. Bodybuilders, ahtletes, philosophers... people who spend countless hours trying to improve themselves wouldn't be doing it in vain, but would be benefiting the human race. If it proves to be the case we could also look into ways to more quickly and efficiently trigger changes.
It would mean that the entire aim of life was just to mate, but to do a bit of something and then mate. That, I think, is a bit of an improvement.
Nobel prize here I come. Creating a new religion and discovering the meaning of life? All in a day's work for Adman!
Copyright 2012 The Biomatrix.Net
ALL Bodybuilding Questions ANSWERED FREE in the Biomatrix Forum
Project Superman
Cost: $9/£5
Format: Print
Categoy: Training
Germination
Cost: $0.99/£0.60
Format: Android
Categoy: Brain
Training
Think Like Sherlock Holmes
Cost: $9.50/£5.14
Format: Kindle
Categoy: Brain
Training
Categories |
Can we change our genes?By Adam SinickiIf we never changed our jeans they would become smelly very fast. There is speculation among jean experts that you can infact wear the same pair for up to three weeks intermitently, but really as with all things, that depends on just what you are doing while wearing the... Hang on, I think I misread the title of this article... let me start again. This article explains a theory of mine; that we can change our genes from the way we live. That would mean that a guy whos spent his entire life bodybuilding would have a son who was genetically strong, regardless of his upbringing. I further believe that this is the main driving force behind evolution. This isn't something that's accepted by scientists who instead point to random genetic mutations as being the key to evolution. The current accepted idea is that occasionally there will be born an individual with a random mutation, with say six fingers, and that this might give us an evolutionary advantage and our children and our children's children until all the five fingered losers have died out.
Of course a species can also change over time without genetic mutation as certain succesful traits prove more useful and so are passed down and exgerated until they constitue a new species or subspecies. This however would take millions of years. I however, believe that our environment and the way we live is responsible for slowly changing our genes during each of our lifetimes. For example if you were a swimmer, you might throughout the course of your life alter your dna such that it becomes marginally more suited to swimming. If your children too became swimmners - having naturally been passed down some of your ability, they might then choose to take up swimming themselves and will thus alter the DNA even further, until eventually over several generations a new species is created: 'The Swimmy People'. They have stupid names but they can swim like anything. I imagine that the traditional view of evoltion still plays a role, but that 'adaptive alterations' are also a prominant driving force. I think about these things on the toilet. I really should get a life. I feel that this version of events makes sense logically and intuitively, and is also an appealing idea from a philosophical perspective. First of all, genetic mutations are very rare and usually result in simplification rather than adding complexity to the organism which raises the question of how humans could have developed from single-celled life-forms. Most mutations are detrimental and often result in immediate death. The X-men of the world are few and far between, yet we as a species are remarkably quick to adapt to changes in our environment in order to survive.
Even more interesting is the way we adapt when death isn't really even on the cards - such as the way we began walking upright, the way we lost our tails, or the way we lost our fur. Becoming less hairy for example wouldn't have offered any immediate advantages in terms of survival and infact it could have still been a disadvantage during times of harsh weather and shortages of food. We lost our fur simply because we had taken to wearing clothes (the skin of our prey, for both warmth and as a symbol of power and a way of pulling (like Aamani suites today)) and no longer needed it.By current thinking we were all furry and wearing coats. Then one guy, we'll call him 'Ugg' (a stereotypical Caveman name but it was all the rage then just as 'Britney' is now), developed a mutation that causes him to be furless. Now somehow, flesh boy must have survived better than his contempories and had more kids, until our furry friends were extinct. I feel this was unlikely. Either that, or there was a guy called 'Jim' (not a popular name at the time) who wasn't very furry and so had to wear the skin of his prey. Ladies dug gym for his cool coats and so he had many children - all just as or more hairless than he. Again it's still more likely that Jim would have just been viewed as 'rubbish'. It makes far more sense if you look at it from this new 'adaptive alterations' perspective which would explain that as we took to wearing clothes more and more, our fur would have been starved of light and constantly flattened against our skin. Eventually we would lose some of our ability to grow beautiful curls and infact and our DNA would alter slightly as it 'died off'. Our children then would have been slightly less hairy as they inhereted some of our altered DNA, and so would their children, until eventually we looked like we did today. Makes sense huh? A friend of mine pointed out that another possible explanation was that when 'Ugg' lost his hair he may not have become better at surviving, but could have become more attractive to women (hasn't worked out for my mate Goof). This raises the question as to why a female would find this more attractive if it didn't offer any benefits, but I see his point - this speculation alone isn't enough to seriously challenge decades of scientific thought. Even generation to generation though we are visibly changing with most children growing taller than our parents. A result of healthier, more sedentry lifestyles and our propensity for keeping things high up out of harms way? More to the point, in the event of a severe climate change, most species would die out waiting for an adaptive mutation to occur by chance, whereas if they could adapt in a more controlled manner they could survive. History suggests that we are certainly capable of adapting to massive changes.
More evidence however is provided by the animal kingdom where there seems to be some evidence that not only can our own dna alter - but that it can . The biggest challenge to most species on the planet right now comes from humans. The urbanisation of much of the Earth has made the need to adapt greater than ever and most animals are handling it with applomb. Well done animals! One example are the Carrion Crows in Japan, who saw our cars' potential as nut crackers. When the lights go red and the traffic stops, the birds hop into the road and place their nuts infront of the tyres before retreating to watch the wheels break them open. Once the coast is clear they then return and collect their opened nuts. What does this have to do with evolution you might ask? Well my question is how the birds learned these skills - unless they have somehow been told by their parents (which would be amazing in itself), the most likely solution is that the information has somehow been passed down through the birds' very genes. Of course as my friend again pointed out (God he's annoying!) they could have merely witnessed other birds doing this. Though possible this is unlikely as the nests are unlikely to have been close to the road. Another example though is domestic cats and their behavioural trait of hissing. Many experts (cat... hissing... experts...) believe that this hissing is actually the cat mimicking the snake - one of nature's most feared creatures. This makes sense, but my question is how a cat would learn this behaviour if it was raised by humans. It's unlikely that this is a behaviour that could have arisen from natural selection or mutation - it's just not something you start doing randomly really. It seems possible then that this is a behavioural trait that's been passed down on a genetic level. Human's have an innate understanding of language, could this be the result of a similar mechanism? Perhaps as our brains change shape as a result of plasticity so our DNA changes to reflect this? The idea that our DNA could change in our lifetime isn't entirely far-fetched when you think of cancer - which is essentially just an undesirable mutation of the cells. If it can change for the worse why not the better? A study by Institute of Heart Math titled Local and Non local Effects of Coherent Heart Frequencies on Conformational Changes of DNA has demonstrated that our DNA may even 'relax' and 'tighten' according to our mood. While this wouldn't have an effect on the code itself it certainly suggests that the link between our bodies, minds and DNA sequence is far more complex that we give it credit for. Of course it's very hard to scientifically prove this theory either way - researchers have enough difficulty separating the effects of nature and nurture as it is without throwing in 'nature as an effect of nurture'. If you were to look at the footballing abilities of a Man U player's offspring it would be difficult to tell if they were genetic or whether they came from living with a footballing hero. If you were to take a football player's son who was raised by different parents it would be impossible to tell whether any ability was in his Father's genes all along or whether it was a result of a life of footballing. There are two possible ways to do this and neither are particularly practical or cheap. One would involve sending people to the moon to live for several generations. Over time they should adapt as their muscles whither and their skin should turn pale in response to the low gravity and lack of sunlight respectively. Then we would bring some back here and instruct them to have a child on Earth. If it looked like them, it would support the theory of adaptive alterations. The other way is to map an individual's entire genetic code twice with a good thirty years in between. That might be a bit easier and more possible than the last idea, but it would still be a massive undertaking.
I haven't completely convinced myself of this view, but I certainly believe it's an idea worth entertaining. Apart from offering an explanation for some unusual phenomena it's also an appealing idea in that it could mean our lives aren't completely pointless. Bodybuilders, ahtletes, philosophers... people who spend countless hours trying to improve themselves wouldn't be doing it in vain, but would be benefiting the human race. If it proves to be the case we could also look into ways to more quickly and efficiently trigger changes. It would mean that the entire aim of life was just to mate, but to do a bit of something and then mate. That, I think, is a bit of an improvement. Nobel prize here I come. Creating a new religion and discovering the meaning of life? All in a day's work for Adman! Copyright 2012 The Biomatrix.Net
|
Cost: $9/£5 Format: Print Categoy: Training Cost: $0.99/£0.60 Format: Android Categoy: Brain Training Cost: $9.50/£5.14 Format: Kindle Categoy: Brain Training |
