Genetic coding and the human experience ...

[Dan From Smithville]

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

There is no evidence that a genome can be changed by will or that genes anticipate the environment.

Regardless of the traits being discussed, the acquisition is through random mutation and non-random selection.

 

[Balthazzar]

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.

The first part of your post is agreeable, the last line not so much.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

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

It isn't in a language I can read. I tried to find it in a science database, but couldn't.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

The first part of your post is agreeable, the last line not so much.

Why not?

 

[Dan From Smithville]

It isn't in a language I can read. I tried to find it in a science database, but couldn't.

Never mind. I was able to access a version I can read. On scanning, it appears to be about associating traits to existing genetics and enhancing those existing traits through training. That would not be altering the underlying genes.

 

[Balthazzar]

There is no evidence that a genome can be changed by will or that genes anticipate the environment.

Regardless of the traits being discussed, the acquisition is through random mutation and non-random selection.

Correct genes aren't changed by will of mind. Nor, due to anticipation of environment. Repetition is required in our daily activities to have an effect that is lasting. Motor functions like balance, for example: The article I linked detailed physical athletic ability and repetition as well as duration and the standing effects based on lengths of duration of daily activities over various spans of time. The abilities regressed with shorter durations and increased with the longer duration of daily activities. This seems obvious enough to acknowledge anyway.

The premise of my thoughts are based on survival needs and adaptation, necessitated due to environmental factors. These factors are where and how the coding changes occur in our biological systems. These are passed down to our offspring. I would actually challenge callouses not being one of these types of changes. Balance abilities specifically is what I'm alluding to and in reference to repetition and duration. Longer periods of repetition would produce greater longer standing changes in our abilities. Shorter durations would have less effect. This is quite a lot different than cutting off tails and seeing if the offspring of the tailless mice would be birthed tail less also.

 

[Balthazzar]

Never mind. I was able to access a version I can read. On scanning, it appears to be about associating traits to existing genetics and enhancing those existing traits through training. That would not be altering the underlying genes.

Enhancing is a great term.

 

[Balthazzar]

Why not?

I'm not so sure it's entirely random (although it can be) and I'm fairly sure our genetic makeup can be "enhanced" and I'm fairly sure that these enhancements would be strengthened over longer periods of time, resulting in generational increases of ability per genetic reproduction.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Correct genes aren't changed by will of mind. Nor, due to anticipation of environment. Repetition is required in our daily activities to have an effect that is lasting. Motor functions like balance, for example: The article I linked detailed physical athletic ability and repetition as well as duration and the standing effects based on lengths of duration of daily activities over various spans of time. The abilities regressed with shorter durations and increased with the longer duration of daily activities. This seems obvious enough to acknowledge anyway.

I agree that training can produce results, but with existing physical body and not from altering the genes in anyway.

The premise of my thoughts are based on survival needs and adaptation, necessitated due to environmental factors. These factors are where and how the coding changes occur in our biological systems.

I'm not sure I understand what you mean. Novelty in the genes is either neutral, detrimental or beneficial. Anything beneficial to survival in a particular environment that has a fitness benefit is passed to the offspring. If the environment is maintained where the benefit of the genes persists, they are conserved and continue to be passed on to subsequent generations.

These are passed down to our offspring.

Yes. Genes and traits are passed to the offspring. We are in agreement with this.

I would actually challenge callouses not being one of these types of changes.

I'm not sure how you would, since it is the a response that effects the cells and not the genes. If it was an alteration of genes, then your claim would be for Lamarckian acquired traits that you seem to reject and rightly so based on all the evidence.

Balance abilities specifically is what I'm alluding to and in reference to repetition and duration. Longer periods of repetition would produce greater longer standing changes in our abilities. Shorter durations would have less effect. This is quite a lot different than cutting off tails and seeing if the offspring of the tailless mice would be birthed tail less also.

If you are claiming that training results in increased ability and that this represents some change in the genome, then you are arguing exactly the same thing as cutting off the tails of mice and expecting the next generation to be tailless.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

I'm not so sure it's entirely random (although it can be) and I'm fairly sure our genetic makeup can be "enhanced" and I'm fairly sure that these enhancements would be strengthened over longer periods of time, resulting in generational increases of ability per genetic reproduction.

Mutations are random in the sense that they are not predictable regarding function or when they will occur.

The only way that we can enhance the genetic makeup of an individual is through breeding apriori. And would be to the next generation and not to existing individuals.

Gene editing has become a thing, but it is in the early stages for application to humans. It may improve in the future or they may be limitations that no one expects. I understand that it has been used to enhance the sight of a person, but only in a very limited way.

But there is no natural, internal mechanism known in people that would alter their genes through athletic training.

 

[Balthazzar]

I agree that training can produce results, but with existing physical body and not from altering the genes in anyway.

I'm not sure I understand what you mean. Novelty in the genes is either neutral, detrimental or beneficial. Anything beneficial to survival in a particular environment that has a fitness benefit is passed to the offspring. If the environment is maintained where the benefit of the genes persists, they are conserved and continue to be passed on to subsequent generations.

Yes. Genes and traits are passed to the offspring. We are in agreement with this.

I'm not sure how you would, since it is the a response that effects the cells and not the genes. If it was an alteration of genes, then your claim would be for Lamarckian acquired traits that you seem to reject and rightly so based on all the evidence.

If you are claiming that training results in increased ability and that this represents some change in the genome, then you are arguing exactly the same thing as cutting off the tails of mice and expecting the next generation to be tailless.

Everything you stated is exactly what I'm suggesting. Your insistence of placing me in the no tail mice category in my suggestions is a failure to acknowledge my stance. Duration Definition? Increased ability happens over one lifetime, the enhanced ability very likely passes to the next who would then continue this path, therefore further increasing ability and enhancements, etc. This can certainly be done as a conscious willful effort to produce the trait genetically over several generations.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Everything you stated is exactly what I'm suggesting. Your insistence of placing me in the no tail mice category in my suggestions is a failure to acknowledge my stance.

To be honest with you, I don't think so. You are suggesting that genetic changes can be acquired. The only difference I see is that you are suggesting these changes are engaged by the individual in which change is claimed to occur. With the mice, it is a change they did not initiate or carry out. But that makes no difference. The two are the same. Acquired characteristics that are claimed to exist as heritable genetic changes.

Duration Definition? Increased ability happens over one lifetime, the enhanced ability very likely passes to the next who would then continue this path, therefore further increasing ability and enhancements, etc. This can certainly be done as a conscious willful effort to produce the trait genetically over several generations.

In theory, any person working with the genes and physiology they have can improve and enhance their physical state and performance. No genetic change resulting that would be passed on. Those that can do it to the point of becoming world class athletes already have a genetic makeup to achieve that. That makeup is what is passed along and would be regardless of whether they ever bothered to enhance it or test it.

 

[Balthazzar]

The prospect of a conscious effort to produce a desired genetic trait in our offspring seems a very amicable thing to pursue as a parent. Teaching our kids in a manner that could benefit them and their offspring is a worthy goal. Generational conscious effort applied for this purpose is what I'm suggesting would produce the desired traits. It's a choice and not many likely choose it. It is certainly possible.

 

[Balthazzar]

To be honest with you, I don't think so. You are suggesting that genetic changes can be acquired. The only difference I see is that you are suggesting these changes are engaged by the individual in which change is claimed to occur. With the mice, it is a change they did not initiate or carry out. But that makes no difference. The two are the same. Acquired characteristics that are claimed to exist has heritable genetic changes.

In theory, any person working with the genes and physiology they have can improve and enhance their physical state and performance. No genetic change resulting that would be passed on. Those that can do it to the point of becoming world class athletes already have a genetic makeup to achieve that. That makeup is what is passed along and would be regardless of whether they ever bothered to enhance it or test it.

Future offspring already having the genetic makeup would be the result of what I'm suggesting, specifically.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Future offspring already having the genetic makeup would be the result of what I'm suggesting, specifically.

There is no evidence to support your hypothesis. World class athletes do not acquire the traits they have. They refine the expression of the existing traits through training.

You are talking about the expression of the traits and altering that. This does not alter the underlying genes.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

The prospect of a conscious effort to produce a desired genetic trait in our offspring seems a very amicable thing to pursue as a parent.

It would be wonderful. It just doesn't work that way.

Teaching our kids in a manner that could benefit them and their offspring is a worthy goal.

While I think that is good parenting and hopefully the children do benefit, it has nothing to do with a change in their genes. You get to leave the world with the same genes you entered it with.

Generational conscious effort applied for this purpose is what I'm suggesting would produce the desired traits. It's a choice and not many likely choose it. It is certainly possible.

I understand what you are suggesting. It is not supported by the evidence.

If it did work that way, I would think most people would choose it.

 

[Heyo]

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

We do pass down our genes to our offspring, and they are exactly the same genes we got from our parents, unless there has been a random mutation or viral alteration, natural or artificial.
You have to live with the genes you got, and you can't change them by will or training. Ergo, you can't pass down "enhanced" genes - except by gene editing.
"Random mutation and natural selection" is basically the definition of evolution. If there were studies contradicting this, we would know.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

We do pass down our genes to our offspring, and they are exactly the same genes we got from our parents, unless there has been a random mutation or viral alteration, natural or artificial.
You have to live with the genes you got, and you can't change them by will or training. Ergo, you can't pass down "enhanced" genes - except by gene editing.
"Random mutation and natural selection" is basically the definition of evolution. If there were studies contradicting this, we would know.

I can imagine the traits most men would be trying to will change in. It wouldn't have anything to do with greater intelligence or athletic ability either.

 

[Balthazzar]

It would be wonderful. It just doesn't work that way.

While I think that is good parenting and hopefully the children do benefit, it has nothing to do with a change in their genes. You get to leave the world with the same genes you entered it with.

I understand what you are suggesting. It is not supported by the evidence.

If it did work that way, I would think most people would choose it.

The general premise is that these traits are necessitated due to environmental stressors. An athlete's ancestry would very likely show some need and environmental stressors which necessitated the traits and abilities. That's the general premise. The hope and what i find most intriguing is our ability to project future environments and to be able to consciously prepare for them in order to help ensure our survival rates. This could ease the burden and better prepare our descendants for future stressors that would necessitate the changes, ensuring greater survival.

 

[Dan From Smithville]

Future offspring already having the genetic makeup would be the result of what I'm suggesting, specifically.

This may help to better understand if I can explain it well enough.

The genes that a person has is their genotype and inherited from their parents with about 50-100 mutations that didn't come from the folks and are novel to the individual. Some of these mutations may have a benefit or may even be detrimental, but most will be neutral. These did not arise from any will, training or anticipation of future environments.

We have a genotype that is our individual gene sequence. These genes are expressed in what is us as the phenotype. The expression of genes or the phenotype has some plasticity to it. We change as we age for instance. Though some of that change is regulated and dependent on the timing of expression, but that is more detailed and time consuming to go through in a simple explanation. And honestly, beyond the scope of a mere entomologist to explain well. However, what you have been discussing is alterations to the phenotype which has some plasticity and can respond to the environment (training for instance is an environmental change) without a corresponding change to the genotype.

Great athletes have the same genes they started life with. Their training has been on the phenotype and the results are the enhancement of that. Just as changes that occur with aging are examples of the same sort of plasticity different only in the basis for the change. Working out, eating right and maintaining optimum activity levels can alter or slow the inevitable results of that natural plasticity to a degree. A lot I hope as I get older. But my genes are not going to change.

Edit: My apologies, I made some glaring errors in this as I typed it out. I hope I have corrected them all.