|
[ Human Genome Project Archive ] [ Main Archives Page ] [ Glossary/Index ] [ FAQ ] [ Recommended Books ] [ Bulletin Board ] |
Search this site! | |
i posted this elsewhere, but I wanted to open a wider discussion of this topic with the hope that more people would read it, including Dr Stoll.
we have undergone presumably over five million years of natural selection in human development, but the most fundamental waeknesses remain universally with us ?
this cannot be.
the progress of life -- natural selection-- makes for the passing on of stronger and ever stronger genes...over millions of years, we would see fewer and fewer diaseases if they were in our genes. yet new diseases are noted all the time...our genes cannot be getting weaker overall (notwithstanding the last 80 years of limited personal chemcial pollution).
if genetics caused our weaknesses, would it be so easy to defeat them entirely with a diet or with just new habbits or exercise ? or even with a few cuts and shots of radiation or chemicals ?
if its genetics, how could the force of nature be overturned so simply ?
thousands of people cured of cancer in days on the macrobiotic diet...constant testimonials here of conditions and diseases overcome with s/r some diet work and exercise... arthritis overcome by a diet alone...
tumors gone after eating certain vegetables...
even the short sightedness of conventional appraoches provide a perspective to refute genetics as the weak link. if cancer were in your genes, why would just cutting it out halt it ? wouldnt it come back ? cutting it out didnt change the genes, only the purported result of those genes...
just as when you fail to address underlying health problems
and treat only symptoms, they come back. all of us here know about this. why if you treat only the outward symptoms of bad genes would those symptoms not come back? ok, sometimes they do after conventional appraoches, but not so always or with the others.
if high blood presure were derived from the inevitable force of your genes, how could a simple chemcial brign it down and hold it there ?
if we try get in the way of genetic forces, those forces dont just give up. they persist. when you break a bone, the natural force of genetics will try to heal it by growing a new connection. if we get in the way for the worse by set it imporperly, it still heals and grows together. we may have to rebreak, but it the force of genetics was not overcome by our input for the worse. why would it be overcome by our input for the better ?
dumb doctors make viruses into a guise for their ignorance... are we explaining factors we dont yet understand by citing genetics?
can you change your eye color ?
can you grow a new finger?
can you reshape your nose if you dontlike it ?
no, you cant, because genetics are not easy to overcome.
In Reply to: to open debate about genetics... i say disease is not universally based in our genes posted by leon cavallo on May 05, 2001 at 19:57:05:
And you are damn right!
The industry of morons wants us to believe it is genetic.
One need to study Mendeleyev (Russian) theory of genetics to first understand mutations.
This is why fore example the US education of doctors in medical schools is so lousy! They are tought psychology instead neurology! and accounting and tax laws so they can keep their books in order ....
The Russian science of medicine is more advanced, as Russians conducted study on live humans using political prisoners and trouble makers, as their test rabits.
The Russians study post 1945 on RICIN for example consisted of injecting prisoners with specific doses of RICIN and watching them slowly dying in convulsions, whole SOB were taking notes and recording it.
Prisoners were told that they got "vitamins" ....
In Reply to: to open debate about genetics... i say disease is not universally based in our genes posted by leon cavallo on May 05, 2001 at 19:57:05:
"tumors gone after eating certain vegetables..."
Please tell me you're joking.
In Reply to: Re: to open debate about genetics... i say disease is not universally based in our genes posted by Siouxsie Sioux on May 05, 2001 at 20:33:10:
this is the essence of macrobiotics.
go into our articles and glossary and archives and look up macrobiotics. follow the links. learn a little.
obviously we are not talking about a two day consumption here.
In Reply to: Re: to open debate about genetics... i say disease is not universally based in our genes posted by Siouxsie Sioux on May 05, 2001 at 20:33:10:
I suggest you do some eighth-grade research and find out what the hell you're talking about. All these chronic problems you speak of: cancer, arthritis, et cetera all almost exclusively affect older people. In other words, these things hit people after they've already had children. I don't think you understand how evolution works.
In Reply to: Also posted by Siouxsie Sioux on May 05, 2001 at 22:55:34:
what do you mean to say ?>
how does the timing of having offsring relate to your thesis ? WHAT is your thesis ?
(and do you work at Monsanto by any chance ? :-)~
In Reply to: Re: Also posted by leon cavallo on May 06, 2001 at 00:57:23:
You claim that all these disesases are not genetic because human beings should have evolved past them by now. I'm telling you that evolution only "works" when the creature dies before it has a chance to reproduce. Obviously these cancer-prone(or whatever other chronic diseases you are talking about) genes are continually being passed on to offspring before the parent actually gets cancer.
In Reply to: Re: Also posted by Siouxsie Sioux on May 06, 2001 at 02:46:27:
Unfortunately, now you're over-generalising in the same way you accused Leon of doing it.
Is there only one way of getting cancer? I don't think so.
Which genes are cancer-prone? I am a lay-person, but I understand that cancer is about cell-multiplying. What do you imply? That we can inherit the disposition to pathogenous multiplying for certain type of cells? Maybe so.
But focusing on one aspect of what I believe was intended to be a much wider discussion, you miss the point. Cancer - or any degenerative disease, is never the result of a single cause.
It is an all-agreed thing that 'lifestyle' is a contributing factor. The really interesting question is how contributing? To what degree? Can it override the genetics? I believe that was the question.
It feels stupid to rephrase the points already made. The point is, it is easier to criticise certain points in a hypothesis, than to present an alternative hypothesis. So when criticising, please make your points clear in an alternative context.
Only a constructive criticism is really worth the debate space, in my opinion.
You sound like a knowledgeable person, so now I'm interested in how did you actually interpret Leon's contribution and what do you suggest...?
Regards,
Sonja
In Reply to: Re: The 'cancer-prone genes'? Explain, please posted by Sonja on May 06, 2001 at 04:29:33:
My parents were the Only ones in Both their families to get
cancer though they both got it around age 80 and I wonder
how prone i am and Think the environment may have played a
big role since where we spent summers neighbor kids all got cancer
starting with the youngest and working up with the 2
youngest dying, last I heard. Their water came from a
private well and there was a refinery a few blocks away and
the EPA stoped the sale of it a few yrs ago stating they
had to clean up polluted soil and underground water. Our
water was municipal so probably a Little better but i didn't
drink very much then or now so maybe I did the right thing.
VF
In Reply to: environmental factors posted by Vince F on May 06, 2001 at 07:37:36:
nmi
In Reply to: Re: For sure! (NMI) posted by Sonja on May 06, 2001 at 10:43:58:
Okay, I didni't mean cancer as much as I meant disease in general. I really don't know that diease is genetic, my only point was to show that Leon's argument has flaws in it. Almost no chronic diseases prevent people from reproducing(they either affect someone in their later years, or the effects of the disease are minimalized with today's medical technology). In this respect, the fact that human beings have been evolving for a very long time shouldn't prove the genetic-basedness of disease one way or another.
Personally I think it's a bit ridiculous to claim that, given identical lifestyles and behaviors, everyone will contract identical diseases.
I may have come on a bit strongly because I feel Leon came on way too strongly with an argument such as his.
In Reply to: Re: For sure! posted by Siouxsie Sioux on May 06, 2001 at 12:21:15:
look up natural selection. you are misconstruing our argument because you are attributing mechanisms to it that are not a part of how it works. we wont do your homework for you.
In Reply to: Re: For sure! posted by leon cavallo on May 06, 2001 at 19:15:15:
Who said anything about doing my homework for me? Do you even know who I am? What makes you think you know more about evolution and natural selection than do I? I don't need to "look up" natural selection. I know exactly how it works, and it has everything to do with an organism's ability to reproduce.
Honestly, I don't know why you wrote such a vague response. First you bring forth this argument that disease is not genetic, then, when questioned, you say that you will not do my homework for me. My only guess is that you know you are wrong and are hoping that you can conclude this argument with some kind of stalemate. In any case, I'd be delighted if you could enlighten me about what it is that you are trying to say. If that equates to doing my "homework" for me, then so be it.
In Reply to: to open debate about genetics... i say disease is not universally based in our genes posted by leon cavallo on May 05, 2001 at 19:57:05:
Thanks, Leon.
The debate of "nature VS nurture" is now close to being settled. Already we know that only about 20% of our genomic/phenome is due to our genes and the other 80% is what our lifestyle DOES to our phenome (what we experience).
Therefore, nurture is at least 4 times as important as nature.
Hope this helps.
Much of this is already archived under human genome.
Namaste`
Walt
P.S. So far as what is possible: I have posted many times about the amazing feats of the "multiple personality" conditions. Try the search engine.
In Reply to: Re: to open debate about genetics... i say disease is not universally based in our genes posted by Siouxsie Sioux on May 05, 2001 at 20:33:10:
Dr. Stoll makes a critical point in this debate, a "nature vs. nurture" equation. It should not be difficult to see the implications of this for our individual health. Gene expression (or as Siouxsie prefers, "evolution") assures genetic diversity that protects the species from ubiquitous mutation and thus self-extinction. Gene expression also provides for unique physiology that subjects some individuals to disease processes, whether in the presence of certain co-factors or in their absence. As Sonja wisely notes, the measurement of the nurturing effect is profoundly important in the discussion. But no reasonable person should be prepared to subject himself to becoming an experiment in hopes his genetic expression is impervious to environmental assault.
In Reply to: to open debate about genetics... i say disease is not universally based in our genes posted by leon cavallo on May 05, 2001 at 19:57:05:
Would this info help? l988 Newsweek "The Search for Adam and Eve: Comparing human genetic patterns around the earth, they found clear evidence that all humans have a common ancestor, a source of the DNA of all people who have every lived, including each of us. Those studies were based on a type of mitochondrial DNA, genetic material passed on only by the female." Reports in l995 about research on male DNA point to the same conclusion (that there was an ancestral 'Adam', whose genetic material on the [Y] chromosome is common to every man now on earth. I think this give Genesis quite a bit of plausability.
In Reply to: Re: to open debate about genetics... i say disease is not universally based in our genes (Archive in Human Genome.) posted by Walt Stoll on May 07, 2001 at 08:31:58:
Good points, as usual.
But your 'PS' got me really interested...I tried the search engine (typed multiple+personality) but did not find any posts that relate to that. I've checked the archive (for instance Philosophy), but couldn't find anything.
I happen to know a bit about the MP, and I would really like to hear what you thought of it.
Maybe you can remember what it was related to? A word, or a cue that relates to your postings on MP, that will make it easier to search the site?
Regards,
Sonja
In Reply to: Re: about the Post Scriptum posted by Sonja on May 07, 2001 at 13:19:18:
NMI
|
[ Human Genome Project Archive ] [ Main Archives Page ] [ Glossary/Index ] [ FAQ ] [ Recommended Books ] [ Bulletin Board ] |
Search this site! | |