It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Is It Really Genetic? ….Should Your Bloodline End Now?

page: 3
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in


posted on Feb, 23 2014 @ 02:27 PM
reply to post by swanne

Soon it will be a war of the genes... The Elite will create a "super-human" and all of our specie, full of "impurities", will be considered an "enemy to evolution".

That was certainly the hope - but turns out an empty one. Turns out the epigenome is far more important in determining traits than the genetic code. 'Course the Elite will count on biotech and transhumanism for "super-human" capacities. lol. As for us plebes, here's the scoop.

Over the past decade or so, everybody put their cash into genomics towards creating "personalized genomic medicine" - governments, Big Pharma, biotech and you name it. But the epigenome rules, and the fact couldn't be ignored - so now everyone is bailing with their cash and funding epigenomics instead. For example, Bayer bought X-Chems Epigenetic drug discovery license. And governments previously committed to "mapping the human genome" are shifting their attention -and cash- to epigenomics. The focus on the old "nature-nurture debate" evidenced here on ATS is just the echo of the dying gasp of a dead issue - news releases announcing "new gene found" are little more than desperate attempts to cling to disappearing funds.

It really is all about environment - not the genetic code.

X-C hem Licenses Epigenetic Drug Discovery Program to Bayer Pharma AG

...Bayer is licensing an early-stage drug discovery program directed against an epigenetic drug target. Inhibiting epigenetic targets is widely recognized as a promising emerging therapeutic option for cancer and other diseases...

…About Epigenetics

Epigenetics refers to the study of alterations in gene expression in cells that are not caused by changes in DNA. Examples are modifications of DNA by a process called methylation, or of the histones themselves. Such changes can cause chromatin remodeling, resulting in changes in gene expression. Various enzymes, known as “readers”, “writers” and “erasers,” cause these dramatic changes.

What is the epigenome?

A genome is the complete set of deoxyribonucleic acid, or DNA, in a cell. DNA carries the instructions for building all of the proteins that make each living creature unique.

Derived from the Greek, epigenome means "above" the genome. The epigenome consists of chemical compounds that modify, or mark, the genome in a way that tells it what to do, where to do it and when to do it. The marks, which are not part of the DNA itself, can be passed on from cell to cell as cells divide, and from one generation to the next.

What does the epigenome do?

....The epigenome influences which genes are active — and which proteins are produced — in a particular cell.

So, the epigenome is what tells your skin cells to behave like skin cells, heart cells like heart cells and so on.

...Experts once thought that diseases were caused mainly by changes, or mutations, in DNA sequence - changes that either disrupt protein production or lead to abnormal proteins. Recently, researchers have learned that changes in the epigenome may cause or contribute to many diseases, making epigenomics a vital part of efforts to better understand the human body and improve human health.

[....MUCH more of great interest and import.]

Is it in your genes?

By "it" we mean intelligence, sexual orientation, increased risk of cancer, stroke or heart attack, criminal behaviour, political preference and religious beliefs, etcetera. Genes have been implicated in influencing, wholly or partly, all these aspects of our lives by researchers. Genes cannot cause any of these features, although geneticists have found associations between specific genes and all of these features, many of which are entirely spurious and a few are fortuitous.

posted on Feb, 23 2014 @ 02:41 PM
reply to post by soficrow

Nicely said mate.

posted on Feb, 23 2014 @ 03:47 PM
reply to post by swanne

Thanks. ...I've been watching for criticisms of the work cited in the OP but none yet. The news is going viral in the science community though, so we should start hearing feedback soon. In the meantime, I found the full text - it's long and dense. I read the intro and conclusions, just skimmed the rest. But honestly, I think it's a brilliant paper - and just what the doctor ordered.

FULL TEXT: Genes without prominence: a reappraisal of the foundations of biology

posted on Feb, 23 2014 @ 05:32 PM
reply to post by Phage

I thought of you immediately when I read this.

Myths of Human Genetics

Unfortunately, what textbooks, lab manuals and web pages say about these human traits is mostly wrong. Most of the common, visible human traits that are used in classrooms do NOT have a simple one-locus, two-allele, dominant vs. recessive method of inheritance. …In some cases, the trait doesn't even fall into the two distinct categories described by the myth.

…In other cases, the trait really does fall into two categories, but it isn't determined by genetics. …

…Some traits, such as tongue rolling, were originally described as fitting a simple genetic model, but later research revealed them to be more complicated. Other traits were shown from the very beginning to not fit the simple genetic model, but somehow textbook authors decided to ignore this. A quick search in the standard reference on human genetics, Online Mendelian Inheritance in Man (OMIM), makes it clear that most of these traits do not fit the simple genetic model. It is an embarrassment to the field of biology education that textbooks and lab manuals continue to perpetuate these myths.

edit on 23/2/14 by soficrow because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 24 2014 @ 01:31 AM
Thank you. I'd love to read that article, year & month included though,& it is heredity, environmental, & in all probability, human crafted which is putting us back to Creation vs Evolution. I personally believe in neither, I believe it to be Adaptation to our environmental changes throughout Evolution, maybe with occasional, unethical pushes to adapt quicker than normal
reply to post by soficrow

posted on Feb, 24 2014 @ 01:44 AM
reply to post by rickymouse

TextText PurpleSorry, I did not mean to imply those are from Asian blood lines only, just more prevalent than Caucasian/Norse.... I wouldn't think it has anything to do in regards to epilepsy for either though unless certain food, environmental changes, air toxins from duster planes........ Just depends if you've found the trigger to your Epilepsy & what it is.......

posted on Feb, 24 2014 @ 01:54 AM
reply to post by rickymouse

reply to post by rickymouse

Sorry, I did not mean to imply those are from Asian blood lines only, just more prevalent than Caucasian/Norse.... I wouldn't think it has anything to do in regards to epilepsy for either though unless certain food, environmental changes, air toxins from duster planes........ Just depends if you've found the trigger to your Epilepsy & what it is.......

posted on Feb, 24 2014 @ 07:24 AM
reply to post by soficrow

A lot of what we think of as real is just ideas of prestigious people in the past that has no complete evidence to back it. There is some evidence to back it but it may have been misinterpreted. We did not have the technology or resources to test these things. Even now, these things are still rarely tested because they are taught to be real. Now there is no excuse, some of these things that are the base of our knowledge should be reevaluated, this will inevitably prove a long chain of research and policies created from this past assumption to be discarded because it is erred. We have done so much testing already, someone should examine all this research and try to understand what it leads to. The best thing the present administration did was to open up the archive of this evidence to the general public so we can evaluate it. Collective intelligence is a godsend. The trouble is that no one gives any credit to the people researching this unless they have a degree. Oh well, I will keep examining it and try to post things I find out that may help others get interested in their own health. I don't do this research to gain prestige or fame anyway, I just have an interest in it for the sake of my genetic line. Maybe I can help a bunch of Scandinavians to have better health while they are alive and to have something left to leave to their kids.

posted on Feb, 24 2014 @ 07:38 AM

reply to post by rickymouse

reply to post by rickymouse

Sorry, I did not mean to imply those are from Asian blood lines only, just more prevalent than Caucasian/Norse.... I wouldn't think it has anything to do in regards to epilepsy for either though unless certain food, environmental changes, air toxins from duster planes........ Just depends if you've found the trigger to your Epilepsy & what it is.......

Anything that basically brings up the energy of my body increases the risk of a small seizure. The seizures are usually just sort of like a person would think a '___' buzz would be like. Colors get brighter and the hearing and vision get very acute, causing overloads if I can not get to a quiet place without overwhelming colors. I like the woods when this happens, it is peaceful. I cannot stand the vacuum or dishwasher when this happens nor some of the stuff on tv. The distractions of the Ratrace are disturbing.

So I have to avoid eating a lot of sugars and breads. I also try to avoid work that stimulates the pancreas to create insulin. It makes it difficult to work at a job, as soon as I start to do something physical I get overloaded. I'll figure this out, I have learned how to use diet to help control this. I like cinnamon rolls and also working hard though so sometimes slip backwards. Surprisingly coffee has no effect on my form of epilepsy, it actually makes it a little better. I have no clue why this is true though, possibly one of the other hundreds of chemicals in coffee other than the caffeine.

posted on Feb, 24 2014 @ 09:13 AM
reply to post by soficrow

Many thanks for the material, I've just downloaded in my HD so I can read it offline. This seem very interesting indeed.

posted on Feb, 24 2014 @ 10:35 AM

Thank you. I'd love to read that article, year & month included though, ....I believe it to be Adaptation to our environmental changes throughout Evolution, maybe with occasional, unethical pushes to adapt quicker than normal
reply to post by soficrow

You're welcome. ...Blue text means there's an embedded link - just click on the blue and it will open a new window with the article. ... Here's the link to the original paper - Genes without prominence: a reappraisal of the foundations of biology - it talks about how adaptation actually works.

A challenge to the genetic interpretation of biology

A proposal for reformulating the foundations of biology, based on the 2nd law of thermodynamics and which is in sharp contrast to the prevailing genetic view, is published today in the Journal of the Royal Society Interface under the title "Genes without prominence: a reappraisal of the foundations of biology".

…the prominent emphasis currently given to the gene in biology is based on a flawed interpretation of experimental genetics and should be replaced by more fundamental considerations of how the cell utilises energy. There are far-reaching implications, both in research and for the current strategy in many countries to develop personalised medicine based on genome-wide sequencing.

to assume that genes are unavoidable influences on our health and behaviour will distract attention from the real causes of disease, many of which arise from our environment;

the current strategy towards basing healthcare on genome-wide sequencing, so called "personalised healthcare", will prove costly and ineffective.

posted on Feb, 24 2014 @ 10:51 AM
reply to post by rickymouse

I don't do this research to gain prestige or fame anyway, I just have an interest in it for the sake of my genetic line.

The evidence shows that our genes cannot predict or explain disease, despite a few exceptions. The promise of Personal Genome Sequencing is a bust, along with "personalized genetic medicine." The paper referenced here - Genes without prominence: a reappraisal of the foundations of biology
- explains adaptation and inheritance far more logically and completely than the genetic theory ever did or can.

Genetic Influences on Disease Remain Hidden

The quest to find genes that strongly influence whether people will develop common diseases is turning out to be even more difficult than some researchers had expected. At the annual meeting of the American Society of Human Genetics, several huge DNA sequencing studies aimed at ferreting out genetic variants behind diseases such as diabetes and heart disease reported initial findings. This work shows that a popular hypothesis in the field—that the general population carries somewhat rare variants that greatly increase or decrease a person's disease risk—is not yet panning out.

edit on 24/2/14 by soficrow because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 24 2014 @ 11:46 AM
reply to post by swanne

You're welcome. Please - let me know what you think.

posted on Feb, 24 2014 @ 12:27 PM
reply to post by soficrow

My genitics includes the junk DNA. The reaction to food recognition and creation of enzymes and proper metabolism and side effects is controlled by this junk DNA or epigenetic gene expression. The cravings or scavenging of proper chemicals contained in the body to create chemistry or neutralize undesired reactions that occur requires a good electrolyte balance for communication of the cells. All of these things require eating food that is recognized by the body. A child has to learn to eat a broad variety of food when they are young so they can properly crave the chemicals they need to stay working right. If they do not develop this knowledge, their cravings do no good, they will eat and eat things to gain the needed chemistry and eventually just get fat.

The human body is complex beyond the comprehension of anyone studying it. If our genes get what they need, our cells get what they need, and the communication between cells is good, we could live a long time. Everyones Junk DNA is different, What they call our DNA is only a small part of it. That may identify us but it does not identify much more than that. They only considered DNA as the part that coded for proteins before, saying that the Junk DNA does not code for proteins. A researcher has shown that there is protein coding in the Junk DNA recently, he found over a hundred different places it was occurring in the Junk and he had only scratched the surface of the genome, he figures that there may be a thousand or more cases minimum. This was on Science daily recently.

That alone proves that they have been wrong all along only testing the food additives and chemistry to the DNA that they consider pertinent. I can't see this being corrected in the near future either, We have messed up royally. I have just identified the problems in my research and have tried to investigate how to neutralize a few hundred problems out of the many thousand changes that have been made over the years. Our bodies can make up for a little of this but not nearly enough. It lowers our resistance to diseases.

I have this feeling that this has happened many times before in history. I guess we are looking at a huge reduction in the population again because we have compromised our immune system. You have to remember, we are the survivors of plagues, our ancestors had good immune systems. We are not defective. Maybe some cultures who were seperated from people with diseases had immune systems that were inadequate. Not my ancestors though.

posted on Feb, 24 2014 @ 03:31 PM
reply to post by rickymouse

Genetic theory, modified or not, does not alter the facts: epigenetic influences are environmental and do NOT affect DNA - junk or otherwise; and beyond food, drink and medications that might affect our epigenetic response, we are ALL exposed to a huge array of new environmental contaminants regardless of "personal choice." Yes, epigenetic traits can be inherited but they do NOT affect DNA - and they are reversible.

Genes code for proteins -the building blocks of life- but once a gene starts the protein-coding process, the process is out of that gene's control. That's where epigenetics comes in. You may be getting confused by the word "epigenome" - the 'genome' part seems to imply that epigenetic processes are coded like the genetic code, and the epigenome is a static "code" that's part of the genetic code. It's not. Epigenetics is a process, and an immediate, constantly changing environmental response.

The article under discussion here - Genes without prominence: a reappraisal of the foundations of biology - seems to say the epigenetic response is governed by the 2nd law of thermodynamics. Makes total sense to me. This new idea has a lot of merit - and explains much that genetic theory and evolutionary biology do not.

PS. Do you think you might try addressing this thread's scientific topic instead of just pushing your pseudo-science "nutrigenomics" agenda? FYI-

Another treatment approach that is being prematurely promoted by some is nutrigenomics. The claim is that by analyzing one’s genes a personalized regimen of specific nutrients can be developed to help their genes function at optimal efficiency. One website that promises, “Genetics Based Integrative Medicine” contains this statement:

"Nutrigenomics seeks to unravel these medical mysteries by providing personalized genetics-based treatment. Even so, it will take decades to confirm what we already understand; that replacing specific nutrients and/or chemicals in existing pathways allows more efficient gene expression, particularly with genetic vulnerabilities and mutations."

The money-quote is the phrase, “it will take decades to confirm what we already understand.” This is the essence of pseudoscience – using science to confirm what one already “knows.” This has it backwards, of course. Science is not used to “confirm” but to determine if a hypothesis is true or not.

edit on 24/2/14 by soficrow because: wds

edit on 24/2/14 by soficrow because: (no reason given)

edit on 24/2/14 by soficrow because: add quote, wds

posted on Feb, 24 2014 @ 04:47 PM
reply to post by soficrow

Thank you very kindly.
I know how difficult it is to get a point across can be even with proof.
Example: I'm petite & very feminine, my late Mom had me modeling from a baby on for which she did not allow pants, just dresses, gowns, skirts, etc. But my best friends were & still are 3 males & 2 females.
I was/am a Tom Boy & love hunting, fishing, etc...but I still wear make-up, do my hair & wear coveralls over dress cloths, pants included lol!
So most men of the outdoors think I'm just a novice.
My ex brother-in-law was trying to say the Pickerel limit was still 8 one year. I said I'd just picked up our licenses & the limit was 6. He literally sneered at me & asked how I'd know...he was almost purple in the face.
I just dug into my backpack, dug out the new Hunting/Fishing Regional Rules & Guidelines booklet I received getting our licences & opened the booklet to the right page & to my amazement he said," It's either a typo or just 1 person's opinion who wrote it and you shouldn't believe everything you read."
I just looked at him in amazement, turned around and called the Environmental Canada Main office, put it on speaker & let the area C.O tell him.
He said to the C.O," You two worked together, you're just covering for her."
The C.O revoked his licence & made him take a course before getting it back lol!
Yet his wife purposely lied to him all the time & he'd believe her, yet the rare times she gave him the total truth, he wouldn't believe her.
We did a cross sectional study for a Psychology/Sociology Project on a large scale & to our surprise, we found for that entire year, 1996, that 68% of the large region of people were most likely to believe a half truth or full on lie over 100% truth. Not sure on the STATS today, though I expect not much different.

So once again, thank you very much for the links. Going to read happily now...

posted on Feb, 24 2014 @ 07:05 PM
reply to post by rickymouse

Whoa! The pancreas is nothing to fool with!
I died for 5+ minutes from a pancreatic Cancer tumor in 2008 February late, I have been living day to day ever since but I know...... I follow the Tim McGraw song," Live like you were dying."
With Epileptic Medications, they mess with your pancreas & pancreatic medications mess with Epilepsy.
That is quite the conundrum.
You may actually be one of none or few who may, hopefully benefit from any or all information on this thread.
One of my friends is basically a top secret Governmental Scientist who got his start working on genetics for his own issues, & succeeded though still works on genetics during spare time, ( Usually his Holiday times ), so if you don't mind me showing this, your information only, I will in the hopes he already has something in the works.
It is too late for me though, I began getting sick July 2007, so it is though I had this 2 years before dying & actual diagnosis as tend not to feel pain like others.
Pancreatic Cancer usually kills in 2-3 year max, 5 years possible, cure, rare.... I've gone for exactly 8 years now. I'm an orphan without any family anyway, most ppl I know won't notice & at worst, friends may cry briefly.
My genetics are altered.
Here's how:
My late Mom at age 12 went paralyzed from her torso down. The ole Doc diagnosed her with MS, also my Diagnosis. He kept her on Speed in the morning & Morphine at bedtime as it gave her mobility which today would be a clue it WAS'T MS.
The first 6 months she was pregnant for me, she had her normal cycle, & was still on Speed, Epinephrine, & mega amounts of Morphine but at just over the 6 month period of time she remained 80 lbs.
Then she got sick so bad she was put in a maternity hospital where urine tests & blood tests showed negative for pregnancy but the X-Rays showed me...breech. Her blood was ABO non RH non-reactive
They cut her off cold turkey & kept her till I was born.
My identical twin didn't make it & they wouldn't do a C-Section as it was ran by Nuns & Priests, and nothing for her pain to prevent addiction.
3 days and an afternoon in labour, they used forceps on my twin but she wouldn't let them for me even though I cracked her pelvis.
The ole Doc put her back on, she only breast fed for 2 weeks but both my Grand-Mothers gave me Laudanum whenever I was sick till I was 9.
Had Hong Kong Flu at 8.
3 constants of life: We are born, live, then die for a new generation if we've been blessed at all......
Now my body converts all meds into partial morphine, alcohol included & even antibiotics, which prevent about 80 + % of any pain I have as my brain automatically starts pumping out it's own morphine as well as a few other genetic curses/blessings?
So I was drawn to this thread too..

I wish you love, better health and all the blessings you've been short changed on.

posted on Feb, 24 2014 @ 08:44 PM
reply to post by StormyStars

I'm sorry to find that you have had so many problems. My problems are minor compared to yours. I'm not going to get cancer of the pancreas if I can help it. I actually have been instinctively been eating a lot of food over the last five years that protects that organ. Cravings
edit on 24-2-2014 by rickymouse because: (no reason given)

posted on Feb, 24 2014 @ 10:21 PM
reply to post by rickymouse

Well, that is life for some of altered genes came out in my 2 daughters and all 4 of my Grand-Children as each of my daughters have a girl & boy each....
Butt my daughters are healthier than I was and my Grand-Children healthier than my daughters so, advancement in genetic adaptation through generations of conditioning? We're not sure yet but we sure hope genetic adaptation is occurring that quickly though I can't help having doubts & worrying.....

posted on Feb, 25 2014 @ 12:08 AM
I have found this to be a very informativev and great thread, so thanks OP. I'd like to point out that DNA technology, (in the words of a thoracic surgeon I am acquainted with), is "thousands of papers later," still not proven…

That's just that. If you accep;t this, then you will see, we still have a very long way to go, from any kind of theorum to fact….

My point is: We've taken a "theory" and extrapolated all kinds of "#" from that and beyond…. This seems to happen regularly in modern thought processes.

Having said that, I have some PDF links I can't quote cause they're in PDF format…that discuss environment in a way we aren't yet discussing in this thread in application to our supposed "evolution." The thread talks about genetics and environment, but environment opens up and provides lot so of other possibilities. Such as: what can be manipulated and what defines the "environment." Perhaps that is a subject for a whole other thread. Both environment and the science (supposed) of genetics (internal) can be extremely manipulated to give a causal conclusion (external) so we make certain judgements….Ie, as the OP has stated in the title of the thread, should a bloodline end here.

To illustrate part of what I refer to, here is a bibliography of scientific works to both demonstrate the possible environmental factors and provide further analysis for those interested in the OP's question:

Jenrow, K.A. and Liboff, A.,R. Electromagnetic techniques in Neural therapy, in Bioelectromagnetic Medicine, Rosch, P.J. and Markov, M.S., Eds., Marcel Dekker, New York, 2004, Chapter 14.

Wertheimer, N. and Leeper, E, electrical wiring configurations and childhood cancer. Am. J. Epidemiol., 109, 273-284, 1979.

Liboff, A.R., The charge-to-mass ICR signature in weak E:F bioelectromagnetic effects, in Advances Electromagnetic Fields in Living Systems, Vol. 4, Lin, J., Ed. Kluwer/Plenum, New York (in press).

Liboff, A.R,, Geomagnetc cyclotron resonance in living cells, J. Biol, Phys. 13, 99-102, 1985.

Tipler, P., Physics, 2nd ed., Vol 2, Worth Publishers, New York, 1982, 729.

Zhadin, M.N. and Fesendo, E.E., Ionic cyclotron resonance in biomolecules, Biomed Sci., 1,245-250, 1990

Del Guidice. E.,Fleischmann, M. , Preperata, G. and Talpo, G., On the "unreasonable" effects of E:F magnetic field upon a system of ions Bioelectromagnetics, 23, 522-530, 2002

Bawin, S.M., Kazmarek, K.L. and Adey, W.R., Effects of modulated VHF fields on the central nervous system, Ann. NY acad. Sci., 247, 74-81, 1975

There are many more scientific works related to this issue which I would provide if they were not in PDF format…this is just a sampling to introduce the idea/concept of what I'm suggesting "environment" may encompass in this discussion…..

new topics

top topics

<< 1  2    4 >>

log in