EPIGENETICS ? we are no longer controlled by our jeans

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

I hope that got your attention. Obviously, it's not jeans but genes.

I saw this today and wondered what y'all have to say about it.

The full statement reads:

'We are NOT controlled by genes like computer programs are controlled by code.
This is a fallacy propagated by Darwinian-based 'Scientism' for almost two centuries.

Genes are a biological tendency for expression. Changing our state of Consciousness can influence or even change completely the tendency for expression. When we do this, our "code" can actually be re-written, and a different manifestation can be expressed.

We are NOT the Code. We are the WRITERS of the Code.'

 

[Papias]

'We are NOT controlled by genes like computer programs are controlled by code.
This is a fallacy propagated by Darwinian-based 'Scientism' for almost two centuries.

*Sigh*

Overhyped PRATT propaganda. It would be funny if it weren't so common.

First, Darwin knew nothing of genes.

Second, this has all been explained very well by the generous and helpful sfs and loudmouth in this thread:

http://www.christianforums.com/threads/epigenetics.7898627/

/thread.

Papias

 

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

*Sigh*

Overhyped PRATT propaganda. It would be funny if it weren't so common.

First, Darwin knew nothing of genes.

Second, this has all been explained very well by the generous and helpful sfs and loudmouth in this thread:

http://www.christianforums.com/threads/epigenetics.7898627/

/thread.

Papias

Duly noted.
I've been away too long.
Of course, sfs and loudmouth would have kicked this one for six!

Peace,
lewiscalledhimmaster

 

[lewiscalledhimmaster]

*Sigh*

Overhyped PRATT propaganda. It would be funny if it weren't so common.

First, Darwin knew nothing of genes.

Second, this has all been explained very well by the generous and helpful sfs and loudmouth in this thread:

http://www.christianforums.com/threads/epigenetics.7898627/

/thread.

Papias

Is the what you were referring too?

Interesting piece on some of the confusion surrounding the term "epigenetics": http://www.pnas.org/content/110/18/7101.long

 

[SkyWriting]

I hope that got your attention. Obviously, it's not jeans but genes.

I saw this today and wondered what y'all have to say about it.

The full statement reads:

'We are NOT controlled by genes like computer programs are controlled by code.
This is a fallacy propagated by Darwinian-based 'Scientism' for almost two centuries.

Genes are a biological tendency for expression. Changing our state of Consciousness can influence or even change completely the tendency for expression. When we do this, our "code" can actually be re-written, and a different manifestation can be expressed.

We are NOT the Code. We are the WRITERS of the Code.'

That's not a very good source, becasue the original printing does not show up in search
and no one seems to have re-posted it in part or entirety other than you. Did your
brother write it in his diary? Usually somebody will quote at least some parts of
a valid source of information or opinion.

 

[Papias]

Duly noted.
I've been away too long.
Of course, sfs and loudmouth would have kicked this one for six!

Peace,
lewiscalledhimmaster

All good. : )

 

[Hieronymus]

I hope that got your attention. Obviously, it's not jeans but genes.

I saw this today and wondered what y'all have to say about it.

The full statement reads:

'We are NOT controlled by genes like computer programs are controlled by code.
This is a fallacy propagated by Darwinian-based 'Scientism' for almost two centuries.

Genes are a biological tendency for expression. Changing our state of Consciousness can influence or even change completely the tendency for expression. When we do this, our "code" can actually be re-written, and a different manifestation can be expressed.

We are NOT the Code. We are the WRITERS of the Code.'

I'd say we're the implied code, which implications are influenced by environment.

 

[Loudmouth]

I hope that got your attention. Obviously, it's not jeans but genes.

I saw this today and wondered what y'all have to say about it.

The full statement reads:

'We are NOT controlled by genes like computer programs are controlled by code.
This is a fallacy propagated by Darwinian-based 'Scientism' for almost two centuries.

Genes are a biological tendency for expression. Changing our state of Consciousness can influence or even change completely the tendency for expression. When we do this, our "code" can actually be re-written, and a different manifestation can be expressed.

We are NOT the Code. We are the WRITERS of the Code.'

Whenever you see the phrase "Darwinian-based 'Scientism'" you can pretty much conclude that they don't know what they are talking about. Nowhere in the theory of evolution does it say that we are "controlled" by our genes. The theory incorporates adaptive responses to environmental cues.

Darwinian evolution deals with heritable traits. Epigenetic changes are not heritable, so they really are not a valid mechanism for long term change in species. A good analogy is the difference between your innate skin color and tanning. Your basal level of melanin production is inherited. Your ability to increase melanin production in response to sun exposure is also inherited. However, if you are very tan and have a child, this will not cause the child to be more tan at birth. That is not heritable.

So it is with epigenetics. The ability to change gene expression through mechanisms like DNA methylation is inherited. Which genes you methylate in response to specific environmental cues can also be inherited. However, your current DNA methylation patterns, i.e. epigenetics, is NOT inherited.

 

[AV1611VET]

Nowhere in the theory of evolution does it say that we are "controlled" by our genes.

So we still have our freewill?

 

[PsychoSarah]

So we still have our freewill?

If we don't, it's not because of our DNA. The more intelligent a species, the less inherited instinct will rule over its actions.

 

[SkyWriting]

So we still have our freewill?

Not any longer. We are subject to climate conditions and our children benefit or suffer.

 

[SkyWriting]

Epigenetic changes are not heritable, so they really are not a valid mechanism for long term change in species.

That's not for you to say without extensive validation of your theory
over long periods of time. And then, it's still a theory.

 

[AV1611VET]

Not any longer. We are subject to climate conditions and our children benefit or suffer.

Can we get it back if we learn to control the weather?

 

[Hieronymus]

So we still have our freewill?

I don't believe our personal will is free.
It is bound to our person.
Who decides what he / she likes, wants, pursues or believes?
It's what you find out in life, what your will is.

 

[Hieronymus]

Can we get it back if we learn to control the weather?

According to chaos theory it is likely living nature and its premises to survive are under control / influence of some 'attractor' i.i.r.c.
According to Scripture God decides how these things go, sustaining enough stability.

 

[AV1611VET]

I don't believe our personal will is free.
It is bound to our person.
Who decides what he / she likes, wants, pursues or believes?
It's what you find out in life, what your will is.

As they say: You are your choices.

 

[Hieronymus]

Apparently it is God that draws us to turn from our own personal will (in our sinful nature) to his Will.
Submit.

 

[In situ]

That's not for you to say without extensive validation of your theory over long periods of time. And then, it's still a theory.

The claim 'epigenetic changes are not heritable' is true by definition, and if it challenges an established scientific theory of heredity then the conclusion made is valid. (And obviously you confuse a scientific theory with a the everyday use of the word - it helps if you have some basic knowledge of subject before you try to discuss it).

So yes, Loudmouth can say that.

 

[In situ]

Apparently it is God that draws us to turn from our own personal will (in our sinful nature) to his Will.
Submit.

Apparently? Why do you use word so lightly as they had no meaning at all?

 

[In situ]

Can we get it back if we learn to control the weather?

How about first explaning what you mean with "free will" before you asking anybody if it can "get it back" in any sense.