New Studies Say Genes Cause Rapists, Shortness and Heart Disease

a reply to: BrianFlanders

...Maybe it's genetic and maybe it isn't but whatever the official line is, I always wonder what they're up to.

Erm, no maybe - it's not genetic, it's epigenetic. The fuzziness is about promoting already-debunked DNA Determinism - and we have only to review Eugenics history to know where that path leads.

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: soficrow

So you're leaning toward the camp that will eventually bring us to the day when the lawyer will say, "You're honor my client pleads not guilty by reason of DNA. His genetics led him to the act, so how could he do otherwise?"

This then will lead to the day when people will be genetically screened for these predisposition and either not allowed to have children with certain other people or babies will be aborted wholesale because they might be potential future rapists.

Eugenics!

If you even just scanned my posts you would know my position is the opposite of what you say it is.

originally posted by: MagesticEsoteric
a reply to: soficrow

My mother and biological father both died from heart attacks before the age of 40....I'll be 40 in just shy of a month.

I suppose I should be a tad worried huh?

You should be aware that epigenetic changes are heritable - but impermanent. Hypothetically, such traits can be "tweaked" and modified to return to a healthful state by changing the causal environment. [Good luck with the contaminated air, water, soil and food.]

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: soficrow

So then genes are subject to mutations caused by other than hereditary ones. Is that such a mystery? Or just a new term to distract from what is mutating our genes, namely environmental pollution? You seem to miss that simple point?

No. The genes are NOT mutated. Epigenetic changes, while heritable, do NOT involve genetic mutations (changes to DNA). We are NOT talking about any genetic mutations here. [That's the point you are missing.]

You may be confusing gene products (proteins) with DNA/genes - and the fact is, proteins can be -and often are- "mutated" after they have been produced according to the genetic code, without changing the genetic code. [This epigenetic effect is different from the "on-and-off" histone and chromatin switching that also occurs, and also is heritable.]





ALSO NOTE: By definition, and unlike genetic mutations, while epigenetic changes are heritable, they are impermanent.

I saw a study which found people who're obese do not have higher chances of heart attack or stroke. So perhaps it's not being obese or overweight as was conventionally thought. Makes me wonder if perhaps it's genetic or something else, since they've also eliminated other things which were conventionally thought to lead to heart disease, like Cholesterol in the diet. Another example: It was thought those who stay away from fatty diets and/or animal-based diets would have a resistance to it, but nope. I recall vegetarians are dying of heart attacks at similar ages as their animal-eating counterparts. Cardiovascular disease is indiscriminate.

Some supposed smart people have fallen for the fad diets, like Ray Kurzweil. His 1993 book, The 10% Solution for a Healthy Life, says this on the front cover: How to Reduce Fat in Your Diet and Eliminate Virtually All Risk of Heart Disease and Cancer:
en.wikipedia.org - The 10% Solution for a Healthy Life...

a reply to: jonnywhite

...perhaps it's genetic

My point is no, it's not genetic. The idea that everything is "in the genes" is dead wrong. The idea of DNA Determinism is dead wrong. We've been down the Eugenics road before, and it was not good.





/rant


ED. to add PS. It's pretty well-known that dietary fat is minimally related to cholesterol build-up, and most cholesterol results from over-production in the liver. The overly simplistic and inaccurate explanation -promoted by doctors who are a) ignorant or b) have no respect for patients' intelligence- is that "it's genetic." It's not. But the truth is complicated, and requires more than a 30 second sound bite.

a reply to: soficrow

You're talking double speak. its genetic but not genetic, its heritable but not heritable.

Hiding behind medical terms makes it easier to sway people, you're using these terms in just the right amount to confuse the issue. You reverse your position too , thats really confusing.

Hypothetically, such traits can be "tweaked" and modified to return to a healthful state by changing the causal environment. [Good luck with the contaminated air, water, soil and food.]

ETA: I already said its the environment that causes mutations. And those become hereditary.

Did you even review the Japanese butterfly study? Doesn't support your case.

But swept away, continues to promote some "epic" argument that does't make any sense (unless you are trying to say, cover up environmental pollution, for instance).

These genes dont cause anything by themselves. They provide a disposition. So they work in tandem with the environment of the organism. True that many serial killers may have a certain gene, but that gene will get activated by external stimulas. That may be experiences early in childhood such as abuse or witnessing such.

a reply to: snogblund

True that many serial killers may have a certain gene, but that gene will get activated by external stimulas. That may be experiences early in childhood such as abuse or witnessing such.

Charley Mansons don't pop out the womb as cold blooded killers, they are acclimatized to it.

originally posted by: intrptr
a reply to: soficrow

You're talking double speak. its genetic but not genetic, its heritable but not heritable.

No. I'm not. Epigenetic is NOT genetic.

Epigenetic effects are NOT mutations - they are an immediate response to the immediate environment, like a Distant Early Warning line.

Epigenetic effects are heritable but NOT genetic, and are NOT genetic mutations.

Humans have only about 19,000 protein-coding genes -less than worms- and there simply are not enough genes to account for individual human variation.

Genetic diseases are very, very rare - most heritable diseases are epigenetic, NOT genetic.

Environmental contaminants sometimes cause genetic mutations - but the worst and most damage is NOT genetic, it's epigenetic. And focusing on "genetic mutations" hides the most horrific epigenetic effects.

I already said its the environment that causes mutations. And those become hereditary.

The most damaging effects of environmental contamination are indeed hereditary, but they are NOT genetic mutations.

The good news is, if we clean up the environment, our species is not stuck with permanent genetic mutations in the human gene pool. Which is why I said, "...(epigenetic effects) can be "tweaked" and modified to return to a healthful state by changing the causal environment."

The bad news is, if people keep buying into the mistaken "it's genetic" paradigm, and can't accept that all heritable disease is NOT genetic and therefor impermanent, then there's: a) no reason to clean up the environment; and b) every reason to go back to Eugenics policies to "restore" the human gene pool.




Hope that clears things up.

originally posted by: snogblund
These genes dont cause anything by themselves. They provide a disposition. So they work in tandem with the environment of the organism. True that many serial killers may have a certain gene, but that gene will get activated by external stimulas. That may be experiences early in childhood such as abuse or witnessing such.

The whole "gene for this and that" thing has been totally misrepresented by the media. Such genes do not really exist - it's just simpler to keep it simple. In fact, there are very, very few disease-causing genetic mutations. Most diseases result from heritable but impermanent epigenetic responses to the environment. Which revert to 'normal' if the environment goes back to 'normal.'

so that means chinese people are at the greatest risk of heart disease huh?

that is just one question that turns this study on its head.

a reply to: cenpuppie

lol. ...That and the fact that "genetic tests" don't just look at DNA, but include gene products (proteins). And proteins can be modified after they're produced to code, and all kinds of environmental cues turn genes off and on, and determine which proteins are produced when, and, and, and....

But please, read the text.




Thanks for contributing. ; )

a reply to: soficrow

Strange how there appears to be claims for a gene for just about everything regardless of whether or not that 'anything' is a culturally inspired 'anything', a socially inspired 'anything' or indeed a learned 'anything'...but yet, they haven't announced the gene responsible for crooked on the make politicians and lying on the make scientists yet.

Give it time.

a reply to: soficrow

Genes are turned on and off by social conditioning and environment there is a lot of evidence to support that idea.. No there is not a rapist gene...

a reply to: soficrow

The most damaging effects of environmental contamination are indeed hereditary, but they are NOT genetic mutations.

Oh, okay. Now I see what you meant. You mean adaptation in that regard.

The good news is, if we clean up the environment, our species is not stuck with permanent genetic mutations in the human gene pool. Which is why I said, "…(epigenetic effects) can be "tweaked" and modified to return to a healthful state by changing the causal environment."

The butterfly study showed that each succeeding generation of mutations in butterflies was magnified (due to exposure to Fuku Radioactivity). The first generation slightly, the second more and by the third the butterflies were mutant creatures, barely recognizable.

Only the first generation was directly exposed, the succeeding generations weren't. So cleaning up the environment doesn't "help".

a reply to: soficrow

Yes, I have read your posts. Genetic or epigenetic, the end is the same - it argues for the individual not having freewill and control over his or her actions. It leads down the rabbit hole of no one ever being truly responsible for what they do because one way or another they are "sick" and they were compelled through reason of their genetics to act.

I'm sorry, but we have the ultimate control over our actions. You are trying to reduce us to so many bits of DNA that can be tweaked and retweaked with the perfect formula.

All this reminds me of the Aryan hunt by the Nazis.

Here we are, yet again, attempting to classify groups of people by their genetic "make up".

a reply to: intrptr
I believe thats exactly what I said.

a reply to: purplemer
exactly, more startingliy new research is now showing that genes turned on can be passed on to new born babies as also turned on. This flies in the face of some previously held theories. But really shows the importance of external stimulas.