Every week, it seems, Darwinian evolution takes a new hit. The old idea that genes regulate all inheritance, and only genes are involved, is now history. It’s amusing that people want to change their DNA, a popular notion in the New Age field, because in fact DNA just isn’t that important any more.
Ever since the discovery of the human genome and the realization that we only have around 20,000 genes has made it totally impossible the human form could be inherited by this mechanism. About 15% of our genes, are the same as a flower, and around 90% of our genes the same as those for a dolphin, so that leaves precious few genes to express any kind of human characteristics.
So this absurd mechanistic idea will take a long time to die, like the totally disproven Big Bang theory which still lingers, but eventually it will succumb. In the meantime, I suggest all deep thinking people let go of the DNA model is little more than a chemical curiosity.
Please note, I am not supporting the Intelligent Design theory, meaning ideas of creation, depicted in the Bible. When I put gasoline in my car I’m very clear that it comes from forests that grew 300 million years ago and wasn’t put there 4004 years ago, as The Bible claims.
I’m simply saying that science has a lot of holes in its main theories. Many of you will know that in my book of Virtual Medicine, I pointed out the absolute absurdity of science which contradicts itself regularly, every quarter of a century or so.
The realisation that genes can be switched on and off with ease and are far from inviolate is a case in point.
What actually prompted these ramblings is a curious study I came across this morning, showing that a mother’s learning may be passed on to children. This is not possible if the gene theory is supreme.
The study concerns preadolescent mice which were genetically engineered with a memory deficit.
This memory deficit was reversed when the mice were given two weeks of exposure to an enriched environment that included stimulatory objects, enhanced social interaction and voluntary exercise.
The offspring of these mice of course carried the same genetic mutation but the offspring showed no signs of memory problems, even though they were never placed in an enriched environment. The mothers had passed on what they’d learned in the enriched environment.
What is especially important about the study is that the mice with genetically-flawed memories were provided with the enriched environment during preadolescence, months before the mice became pregnant (the equivalent of years before in humans). Even so the offspring mice showed no memory deficit.
Previous research found that placing young, normal and memory-deficient mice in an enriched environment for a fairly short period of time unlocks an otherwise dormant biochemical and control mechanism that boosts a cellular process in nerve cells called long-term potentiation (LTP), which is believed to be involved in learning and memory.
Okay, this study was only on mice, but the implications for human beings are very far-reaching. It goes some way, in fact, to underpinning the old prejudice that the “best” children come from the “best” people. This idea has been discredited, since the discovery of supposedly fraudulent results by prejudiced British researcher Cyril Burt in the years from 1943 to 1966.
But what Burt believed appears to be true, in part. If the mother is intelligent and stimulated and lives a rich life, she likely to pass on certain feelings, thoughts and behaviours to her children which will get them off to a good start. The only difference between a new series and the old, is that it is not a genetic inheritance and therefore not proof of good breeding stock as Burt and the class-ridden society of the time liked to believe.
The findings were published in the Feb. 4 2009 issue of The Journal of Neuroscience.
FOOTNOTE: the debate about Burt’s supposed fraud in support of his theory that IQ was inherited may itself have been mere prejudice. Unfortunately the accusations of fraud were only voiced after he died and was unable to defend his argument.
Dear Professor Keith,
Your site has been a great inspiration to the development of many of my ideas and I thank you for that. Now, I have been trying to compile these ideas as a book.
I pray God for your speedy recovery from your recent injury so that you may continue to guide the world in the right path.
When science itself has been proved to be a super fraud on nature and man, to find fault with some aspects of its applications may first seem irrelevant. Yet in an attempt to show how it has adversely affected human health over the years I am taking out some of the many such stories that have come to the public notice through the mass media. And this constitutes only just the tips of the bigger iceberg which actually is the terrifying face of monster science. The fact that many of these stories have come from the western media itself despite all those checks and balance where popularisation of science is a matter of life an death struggle for the developed and the industrialized nations , one can only imagine the true state of affairs with regards to science and technology and their growing ill effects on man and nature.
Modern science has ruined the health of almost all species – let alone man – including the nature on account of a number of ways––known and unknown. Here I am able to refer only to some aspects of them like pollution, genetic tampering through what they call biotechnology, climate change through pollution and other life cycle breaking mechanical life styles etc. Many have come out with extensive stories of further sickening of mankind by the very system of medicine which man is taking as a cure for his illness. Some have even established the instances that Modern Medicine is a Serial Killer. In all the world of medicine we can perhaps weigh in all the evidence and establish among all medicines what drug should be listed as the most dangerous and deadly of all. The top candidates would easily include antiviral drugs, chemotherapy routines, glucocorticoids and cytotoxic drugs. But most of these will not kill you in one application, nor in two or three, though they can easily make you very sick.
Shrinking of human health manifest on a number of factors like (‘refer’) Shrinking Resistance (natural problem-solving capacity), Shrinking Food Intake, Shrinking Mental Health, Shrinking Life Span, Shrinking Sex, etc. On the whole, shrinking of man seems to be general phenomena in almost all aspect of human life.
Thanking you again
John Muthukat
Interesting that you should use the “fossil fuel” theory of where oil comes from as an example of science that you’re very clear on. According to this theory the Amazon should be creating oil as we speak, but clearly this doesn’t happen. Dead dinosaurs don’t make oil. If they did, we could just stack up some cows and watch the process. It doesn’t matter how many you stack up or for how long – oil won’t be produced. The “science” of human health isn’t the only one that holds on to its sacred cows regardless of how poorly proven they are.
Dear Jim, I don’t know where you learned that fossil fuels come from dinosaurs! Not true.They come from carboniferous forests.
Prof.
Wow – this is great stuff! Reminds me of some words from Deepak Chopra – ‘Step into the unknown – step into the realm of all possibilities’. This field is certainly that.
This subject has been in the back of my mind for some time now – ever since I listened to your telecast with John Living on Geopathic Stress, particularly the aspect of working with genes. John Living talks about this field in his book ‘Intuition Technology’, in the section ‘Exploring Genes & Other Influences’ – see http://www.in2it.ca
At the time, the thought of simply diving in and altering gene profiles concerned me somewhat. I thought a bit of caution was advisable in this department!
My thoughts on this subject were rekindled recently following a discussion on genetic profiling. What if a dysfunctional gene was first established using a conventional genetic profile test – then use the techniques as described by John Living and then have the retest. Could be interesting?
Paul F