Guest guest Posted January 4, 2007 Report Share Posted January 4, 2007 We are operating on the basis of the assumption that all we are as individuals is exclusively a product of our DNA. This belief is based on a popular trend in US media culture that reduces complex human behaviors and abilities to individual genes. The simplicity of this assumption is certainly comforting--for example, it relieves individuals of a lot of responsibilities ( " a gene made me do it " ); additionally, the popular belief that " our genes hold the key to our true selves " fosters the hope that, deep down, we are so much more special than we seem to be otherwise. Not to mention that, by reducing " human nature " to a bunch of genes, the need to put in any serious effort to understand the complex world we live in becomes absolutely redundant--a lazy student's dream! Unfortunately, pace much popular journalism, this theory does not hold water (and even most serious geneticists would shudder at the thought of such a simplification). If human beings both as a species and as individuals are exclusively the product of their genes, this does not explain why we are so different from other primates--chimps, for example, with whom we share 98% of our DNA. Conversely, if the key to understanding the uniqueness of the human experience is not in our genes, what's all the hype about " activating our DNA " ? The argument that the key to the difference between humans and chimps is in our dormant DNA does not work, either, since genes that are not activated are just that: not activated, and hence do not account for any intrinsic or extrinsic qualities. Sorry for the wordy message. This is a topic I often discuss with my students, and have a hard time just keeping quiet. From now on I will keep my mouth shut, though--I promise! :-) Sel Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 4, 2007 Report Share Posted January 4, 2007 No! Keep talking Selena! It acivates our genes! Without getting too complicated sounding- I feel in my gut.... We are a product of many 'things' (such as enviroment, learned behavior--physical & non-physical influences). We are a product of many discovered and undiscovered influences. We don't understand it all...so we bump around in a daze trying to do what is " right " (well...most of us). The joy is in our journey! :) Stephen - selena230 Thursday, January 04, 2007 1:27 PM Cautioning against the DNA hype We are operating on the basis of the assumption that all we are as individuals is exclusively a product of our DNA. This belief is based on a popular trend in US media culture that reduces complex human behaviors and abilities to individual genes. The simplicity of this assumption is certainly comforting--for example, it relieves individuals of a lot of responsibilities ( " a gene made me do it " ); additionally, the popular belief that " our genes hold the key to our true selves " fosters the hope that, deep down, we are so much more special than we seem to be otherwise. Not to mention that, by reducing " human nature " to a bunch of genes, the need to put in any serious effort to understand the complex world we live in becomes absolutely redundant--a lazy student's dream! Unfortunately, pace much popular journalism, this theory does not hold water (and even most serious geneticists would shudder at the thought of such a simplification). If human beings both as a species and as individuals are exclusively the product of their genes, this does not explain why we are so different from other primates--chimps, for example, with whom we share 98% of our DNA. Conversely, if the key to understanding the uniqueness of the human experience is not in our genes, what's all the hype about " activating our DNA " ? The argument that the key to the difference between humans and chimps is in our dormant DNA does not work, either, since genes that are not activated are just that: not activated, and hence do not account for any intrinsic or extrinsic qualities. Sorry for the wordy message. This is a topic I often discuss with my students, and have a hard time just keeping quiet. From now on I will keep my mouth shut, though--I promise! :-) Sel Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 4, 2007 Report Share Posted January 4, 2007 absolutely correct Selena (i.e. I agree with you)! genetic determinism is becoming very popular - " determinism " of any sort tends to crop up when the gap grows significantly between the scientist/specialist and the layman, and society lags too far behind its technological capabilities. in fact most of the truly interesting behavior (notwithstanding the intrigue of modeling unconscious behavior patterns arguably 'programmed' into the DNA) is self-initiated and directed from the " mind " in a way that can't reasonably be mapped to lower-level events (i.e. individual neurons firing in such-and-such a pattern) occuring in the brain. it's easy to be taken in by the glamor/simplicity as you mention, and IMHO dangerous and misleading to use pseudo-scientific terms where they don't belong, unless you're trying to sell books or products to rubes. cheers -brian > Sorry for the wordy message. This is a topic I often discuss with my > students, and have a hard time just keeping quiet. From now on I will > keep my mouth shut, though--I promise! :-) > > Sel > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 4, 2007 Report Share Posted January 4, 2007 Go to Dr Bruce Lipton .com he is a scientist and challenges the Genetics concepts. I heard him lecture and he says his own work disproving many idea's about Genetics were not recieved well by his colleagues. He sent these to fellow PH'D S in his field he said 70% of them never openend his e-mail as they knew their research would go down the drain. He is an interesting read. Alphu-s > " selena230 " <selena230 > > > Cautioning against the DNA hype >Thu, 04 Jan 2007 18:27:17 -0000 > >We are operating on the basis of the assumption that all we are as >individuals is exclusively a product of our DNA. This belief is based >on a popular trend in US media culture that reduces complex human >behaviors and abilities to individual genes. The simplicity of this >assumption is certainly comforting--for example, it relieves >individuals of a lot of responsibilities ( " a gene made me do it " ); >additionally, the popular belief that " our genes hold the key to our >true selves " fosters the hope that, deep down, we are so much more >special than we seem to be otherwise. Not to mention that, by reducing > " human nature " to a bunch of genes, the need to put in any serious >effort to understand the complex world we live in becomes absolutely >redundant--a lazy student's dream! > >Unfortunately, pace much popular journalism, this theory does not hold >water (and even most serious geneticists would shudder at the thought >of such a simplification). If human beings both as a species and as >individuals are exclusively the product of their genes, this does not >explain why we are so different from other primates--chimps, for >example, with whom we share 98% of our DNA. Conversely, if the key to >understanding the uniqueness of the human experience is not in our >genes, what's all the hype about " activating our DNA " ? The argument >that the key to the difference between humans and chimps is in our >dormant DNA does not work, either, since genes that are not activated >are just that: not activated, and hence do not account for any >intrinsic or extrinsic qualities. > >Sorry for the wordy message. This is a topic I often discuss with my >students, and have a hard time just keeping quiet. From now on I will >keep my mouth shut, though--I promise! :-) > >Sel > _______________ Enter the " Telus Mobility Xbox a Day " contest for your chance to WIN! Telus Mobility is giving away an Microsoft Xbox® 360 every day from November 20 to December 31, 2006! Just download Windows Live (MSN) Messenger to your IM-capable TELUS mobile phone, and you could be a winner! http://www.telusmobility.com/msnxbox/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 5, 2007 Report Share Posted January 5, 2007 Thanks Igor. This is not a surprise--a lot of federal funding comes from opinion climates rather than educated scientific understanding. Unfortunately, there are academic categories that are not privy to sensationalizing their research to get a few (or most likely a lot of) extra bucks. Sel , " Igor Alphus " <Alphu-s wrote: > > Go to Dr Bruce Lipton .com he is a scientist and challenges the Genetics > concepts. > I heard him lecture and he says his own work disproving many idea's about > Genetics were not recieved well by his colleagues. > He sent these to fellow PH'D S in his field he said 70% of them never > openend his e-mail as they knew their research would go down the drain. > He is an interesting read. > Alphu-s > > > > " selena230 " <selena230 > > > > > > Cautioning against the DNA hype > >Thu, 04 Jan 2007 18:27:17 -0000 > > > >We are operating on the basis of the assumption that all we are as > >individuals is exclusively a product of our DNA. This belief is based > >on a popular trend in US media culture that reduces complex human > >behaviors and abilities to individual genes. The simplicity of this > >assumption is certainly comforting--for example, it relieves > >individuals of a lot of responsibilities ( " a gene made me do it " ); > >additionally, the popular belief that " our genes hold the key to our > >true selves " fosters the hope that, deep down, we are so much more > >special than we seem to be otherwise. Not to mention that, by reducing > > " human nature " to a bunch of genes, the need to put in any serious > >effort to understand the complex world we live in becomes absolutely > >redundant--a lazy student's dream! > > > >Unfortunately, pace much popular journalism, this theory does not hold > >water (and even most serious geneticists would shudder at the thought > >of such a simplification). If human beings both as a species and as > >individuals are exclusively the product of their genes, this does not > >explain why we are so different from other primates--chimps, for > >example, with whom we share 98% of our DNA. Conversely, if the key to > >understanding the uniqueness of the human experience is not in our > >genes, what's all the hype about " activating our DNA " ? The argument > >that the key to the difference between humans and chimps is in our > >dormant DNA does not work, either, since genes that are not activated > >are just that: not activated, and hence do not account for any > >intrinsic or extrinsic qualities. > > > >Sorry for the wordy message. This is a topic I often discuss with my > >students, and have a hard time just keeping quiet. From now on I will > >keep my mouth shut, though--I promise! :-) > > > >Sel > > > > _______________ > Enter the " Telus Mobility Xbox a Day " contest for your chance to WIN! Telus > Mobility is giving away an Microsoft Xbox® 360 every day from November 20 to > December 31, 2006! Just download Windows Live (MSN) Messenger to your > IM-capable TELUS mobile phone, and you could be a winner! > http://www.telusmobility.com/msnxbox/ > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 5, 2007 Report Share Posted January 5, 2007 Exactly..............vested interests. Alphu-s > " selena230 " <selena230 > > > Re: Cautioning against the DNA >hype >Fri, 05 Jan 2007 17:32:41 -0000 > >Thanks Igor. This is not a surprise--a lot of federal funding comes >from opinion climates rather than educated scientific understanding. >Unfortunately, there are academic categories that are not privy to >sensationalizing their research to get a few (or most likely a lot of) >extra bucks. > >Sel > > , " Igor Alphus " ><Alphu-s wrote: > > > > Go to Dr Bruce Lipton .com he is a scientist and challenges the >Genetics > > concepts. > > I heard him lecture and he says his own work disproving many idea's >about > > Genetics were not recieved well by his colleagues. > > He sent these to fellow PH'D S in his field he said 70% of them never > > openend his e-mail as they knew their research would go down the drain. > > He is an interesting read. > > Alphu-s > > > > > > > " selena230 " <selena230 > > > > > > > > > Cautioning against the DNA >hype > > >Thu, 04 Jan 2007 18:27:17 -0000 > > > > > >We are operating on the basis of the assumption that all we are as > > >individuals is exclusively a product of our DNA. This belief is based > > >on a popular trend in US media culture that reduces complex human > > >behaviors and abilities to individual genes. The simplicity of this > > >assumption is certainly comforting--for example, it relieves > > >individuals of a lot of responsibilities ( " a gene made me do it " ); > > >additionally, the popular belief that " our genes hold the key to our > > >true selves " fosters the hope that, deep down, we are so much more > > >special than we seem to be otherwise. Not to mention that, by reducing > > > " human nature " to a bunch of genes, the need to put in any serious > > >effort to understand the complex world we live in becomes absolutely > > >redundant--a lazy student's dream! > > > > > >Unfortunately, pace much popular journalism, this theory does not hold > > >water (and even most serious geneticists would shudder at the thought > > >of such a simplification). If human beings both as a species and as > > >individuals are exclusively the product of their genes, this does not > > >explain why we are so different from other primates--chimps, for > > >example, with whom we share 98% of our DNA. Conversely, if the key to > > >understanding the uniqueness of the human experience is not in our > > >genes, what's all the hype about " activating our DNA " ? The argument > > >that the key to the difference between humans and chimps is in our > > >dormant DNA does not work, either, since genes that are not activated > > >are just that: not activated, and hence do not account for any > > >intrinsic or extrinsic qualities. > > > > > >Sorry for the wordy message. This is a topic I often discuss with my > > >students, and have a hard time just keeping quiet. From now on I will > > >keep my mouth shut, though--I promise! :-) > > > > > >Sel > > > > > > > _______________ > > Enter the " Telus Mobility Xbox a Day " contest for your chance to >WIN! Telus > > Mobility is giving away an Microsoft Xbox® 360 every day from >November 20 to > > December 31, 2006! Just download Windows Live (MSN) Messenger to your > > IM-capable TELUS mobile phone, and you could be a winner! > > http://www.telusmobility.com/msnxbox/ > > > > _______________ Discover Live.ca, the search engine by the creators of Windows Live Messenger http://www.live.com/?mkt=en-ca Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 6, 2007 Report Share Posted January 6, 2007 Hello Sel What you say makes a lot of sence to me. What our DNA might be a map of what we are physicaly, but doesn't have alot to do with our spirit. In our next life we will have different DNA but our soul, or spirit will be the same. I don't think DNA has anything to do with spiritual gifts that we might be able to use. Stephen O. Ontario, Canada. , " selena230 " <selena230 wrote: > > We are operating on the basis of the assumption that all we are as > individuals is exclusively a product of our DNA. This belief is based > on a popular trend in US media culture that reduces complex human > behaviors and abilities to individual genes. The simplicity of this > assumption is certainly comforting--for example, it relieves > individuals of a lot of responsibilities ( " a gene made me do it " ); > additionally, the popular belief that " our genes hold the key to our > true selves " fosters the hope that, deep down, we are so much more > special than we seem to be otherwise. Not to mention that, by reducing > " human nature " to a bunch of genes, the need to put in any serious > effort to understand the complex world we live in becomes absolutely > redundant--a lazy student's dream! > > Unfortunately, pace much popular journalism, this theory does not hold > water (and even most serious geneticists would shudder at the thought > of such a simplification). If human beings both as a species and as > individuals are exclusively the product of their genes, this does not > explain why we are so different from other primates--chimps, for > example, with whom we share 98% of our DNA. Conversely, if the key to > understanding the uniqueness of the human experience is not in our > genes, what's all the hype about " activating our DNA " ? The argument > that the key to the difference between humans and chimps is in our > dormant DNA does not work, either, since genes that are not activated > are just that: not activated, and hence do not account for any > intrinsic or extrinsic qualities. > > Sorry for the wordy message. This is a topic I often discuss with my > students, and have a hard time just keeping quiet. From now on I will > keep my mouth shut, though--I promise! :-) > > Sel > Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.