Genetic coding and the human experience ...

[Balthazzar]

Humans being processors of our unique genetic code seems a relevant position. Given our conscious awareness and intellect, is it a stretch to suggest that we are able to produce specific traits through conscious effort to manipulate our genetic code processing? Traits like balance, skill set ability, motor functions - from art to tai chi, etc. could be a result of daily activity and could potentially be self-coded consciously.

What do you think?

 

[Heyo]

Humans being processors of our unique genetic code seems a relevant position. Given our conscious awareness and intellect, is it a stretch to suggest that we are able to produce specific traits through conscious effort to manipulate our genetic code processing? Traits like balance, skill set ability, motor functions - from art to tai chi, etc. could be a result of daily activity and could potentially be self-coded consciously.

What do you think?

There is no evidence for the genetics of an organism being manipulated consciously during the lifetime of any organism.
If any, there is at best a change in the epigenetics (expression of genes).

 

[Balthazzar]

There is no evidence for the genetics of an organism being manipulated consciously during the lifetime of any organism.
If any, there is at best a change in the epigenetics (expression of genes).

That's not entirely true. There are a few articles discussing the issue of our abilities and how they relate to our genetic coding and sequencing. Specifically in relation to motor functions. Science daily, I think posted an article a few years back. It's exactly how we evolve and adapt to our environments. Consciously doing this through repetitive actions is very likely nothing new. It just hasn't been discussed nearly as much as generational adaptations.

 

[Heyo]

That's not entirely true. There are a few articles discussing the issue of our abilities and how they relate to our genetic coding and sequencing. Specifically in relation to motor functions. Science daily, I think posted an article a few years back. It's exactly how we evolve and adapt to our environments. Consciously doing this through repetitive actions is very likely nothing new. It just hasn't been discussed nearly as much as generational adaptations.

Can you post a link to that (those) article(s)?

 

[Balthazzar]

Can you post a link to that (those) article(s)?

I could look one up - whether I'm able to relocate is another matter altogether. If not able, I have no need to attempt justification nor desire to make you a believer.

 

[Nakosis]

Humans being processors of our unique genetic code seems a relevant position. Given our conscious awareness and intellect, is it a stretch to suggest that we are able to produce specific traits through conscious effort to manipulate our genetic code processing? Traits like balance, skill set ability, motor functions - from art to tai chi, etc. could be a result of daily activity and could potentially be self-coded consciously.

What do you think?

I don't think we can change our genetic coding. However it provides a baseline operating system who's code certainly can be added to. The neuroplasticity allows us to add code to the basic OS provided by genetics. While this behavior wouldn't get transferred genetically it would get transferred through culture.

At the same time, favorable genetic traits get reproduced through environmental pressures. So imo, genetics, culture, environmental pressure as well as self initiated re-coding of the brain on a individual level lead to an apparent improvement of humanity.

 

[Balthazzar]

I don't think we can change our genetic coding. However it provides a baseline operating system who's code certainly can be added to. The neuroplasticity allows us to add code to the basic OS provided by genetics. While this behavior wouldn't get transferred genetically it would get transferred through culture.

At the same time, favorable genetic traits get reproduced through environmental pressures. So imo, genetics, culture, environmental pressure as well as self initiated re-coding of the brain on a individual level lead to an apparent improvement of humanity.

The environmental pressure associated with making it a daily habit to walk across a 3" beam for the balance improvement would help improve balance and result in an adaptation of our genetic coding, which would eventually be passed down through generational reproduction of these genetic changes or additions. Correct?

 

[Heyo]

I could look one up - whether I'm able to relocate is another matter altogether. If not able, I have no need to attempt justification nor desire to make you a believer.

It would be nice to have an actual study to discuss instead of just a hypothetical.
(Plus, as I have never heard anything about that, and it would be front page news in the field of genetics, I have a suspicion that you have misread or misremembered.)

 

[Balthazzar]

It would be nice to have an actual study to discuss instead of just a hypothetical.
(Plus, as I have never heard anything about that, and it would be front page news in the field of genetics, I have a suspicion that you have misread or misremembered.)

I couldn't locate the original article, but I managed to find the following: Motor development and heredity of a person

 

[Heyo]

I couldn't locate the original article, but I managed to find the following: Motor development and heredity of a person

Are you joking or are you trolling?

 

[Balthazzar]

Are you joking or are you trolling?

Why do you ask? If you're having difficulty with the language, try google translate. If you're having difficulty viewing the article, try downloading the pdf.

 

[Heyo]

Why do you ask? If you're having difficulty with the language, try google translate. If you're having difficulty viewing the article, try downloading the pdf.

I'm having difficulties with your sincerity and/or your understanding of the article. It is about motor functions in athletes and how much they are influenced by their genes. That's trivial. There's nothing about any influence in the opposite direction, i.e. conscious influences on our genes, as you have proposed.

 

[Balthazzar]

I'm having difficulties with your sincerity and/or your understanding of the article. It is about motor functions in athletes and how much they are influenced by their genes. That's trivial. There's nothing about any influence in the opposite direction, i.e. conscious influences on our genes, as you have proposed.

The premise is that the genetics are passed down. The abilities are acquired over time through environmental stressors or influences in daily activities. Trivial it may be, but no less founded in the sciences that study human biology. The conscious effort would be in the application of daily activities that increase desired skill set ability.

Edit: The difference is that we are typically forced into environments that require a certain skillset to survive, which in turn changes our genetic coding to accommodate the environmental need and challenges. It's called adaptation. These genetic changes are then passed down to our offspring to help increase survival rates.

 

[Heyo]

The premise is that the genetics are passed down. The abilities are acquired over time through environmental stressors or influences in daily activities. Trivial it may be, but no less founded in the sciences that study human biology. The conscious effort would be in the application of daily activities that increase desired skill set ability.

Edit: The difference is that we are typically forced into environments that require a certain skillset to survive, which in turn changes our genetic coding to accommodate the environmental need and challenges. It's called adaptation. These genetic changes are then passed down to our offspring to help increase survival rates.

There is no indication that training changes genetics.
What you are describing is Lamarckian evolution - which has been ruled out 150 years ago. Changes in the genome are random, not directed. (Natural) selection provides the direction by favouring the fitter individuals.

There are, however, hints that there are environmental influences on the epigenetics, i.e. the non-coding part of your DNA. Maybe you have confused that with genetic changes?

 

[Balthazzar]

There is no indication that training changes genetics.
What you are describing is Lamarckian evolution - which has been ruled out 150 years ago. Changes in the genome are random, not directed. (Natural) selection provides the direction by favouring the fitter individuals.

There are, however, hints that there are environmental influences on the epigenetics, i.e. the non-coding part of your DNA. Maybe you have confused that with genetic changes?

No ... Specifically according to environmental factors or stressors. Foraging for food, for example: They adapted greater efficiency when this was necessitated. Some would have picked a berry bush clean before moving on to another bush. The adaptative more useful method was to gather until the berries became more difficult to locate, then to move on to the next. This likewise saved a few berries for other species and increased the productivity which equates to greater efficiency. This happened as a mental construct, therefore helping ensure the survival of those needing to forage. Motor skills are produced by repetition of motor movements. All of this gets encoded into our genetic makeup and then passes down generationally.

 

[Heyo]

All of this gets encoded into our genetic makeup and then passes down generationally.

It doesn't. And the fact that you can't find a study to show this should be a hint to you, because there is none. And, as I said before, it would be big news in genetics as it would support Lamarckian evolution and contradict Darwinian evolution.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

The environmental pressure associated with making it a daily habit to walk across a 3" beam for the balance improvement would help improve balance and result in an adaptation of our genetic coding, which would eventually be passed down through generational reproduction of these genetic changes or additions. Correct?

No. What you are talking about is the inheritance of acquired traits. Like cutting off the tails of mice and the subsequent generation being tailless. If I recall from my history, this experiment was done and the next generation had the tails their genes coded for.

The closest that it comes is epigenetic changes that can be heritable. But these changes are associated with the packaging of the DNA and not changes to an individuals genetic coding.

 

[Balthazzar]

It doesn't. And the fact that you can't find a study to show this should be a hint to you, because there is none. And, as I said before, it would be big news in genetics as it would support Lamarckian evolution and contradict Darwinian evolution.

Are you suggesting that we don't pass down our genes to our offspring?

 

[Balthazzar]

No. What you are talking about is the inheritance of acquired traits. Like cutting off the tails of mice and the subsequent generation being tailless. If I recall from my history, this experiment was done and the next generation had the tails their genes coded for.

The closest that it comes is epigenetic changes that can be heritable. But these changes are associated with the packaging of the DNA and not changes to an individuals genetic coding.

No, this isn't even close to ... Wow!

 

[Dan From Smithville]

The premise is that the genetics are passed down. The abilities are acquired over time through environmental stressors or influences in daily activities. Trivial it may be, but no less founded in the sciences that study human biology. The conscious effort would be in the application of daily activities that increase desired skill set ability.

Edit: The difference is that we are typically forced into environments that require a certain skillset to survive, which in turn changes our genetic coding to accommodate the environmental need and challenges. It's called adaptation. These genetic changes are then passed down to our offspring to help increase survival rates.

Your understanding is in error. There are several conditions colloquially referred to as adaptation. Some of them do not have associated changes to the genetics. Like developing calluses on the hands or flat fish changing color to match the background of the substrate.

Changes that impact the genetic makeup of a population must exist first and then selected by the environment in order to become fixed in a population.

Exposure to a mutagen-->mutation-->environmental selection-->fixation if selected.