Skip to comments.How your behaviour can change your children’s DNA
Posted on 07/19/2008 6:15:55 PM PDT by fontoon
For Beatrix Zwart being young means having fun. She works hard, and out of hours she plays hard — including plenty of nights on the town with her friends.
“I lead a similar lifestyle to a lot of young professionals in Britain and I don’t intend to have any children until I’m well into my thirties,” said Zwart, a 25-year-old Belgian who lives in London.
“I’ve never really thought my lifestyle now could have any effect on my future children or grandchildren.”
Until recently that would also have been the opinion of most scientists. Genes, it was thought, were highly resilient. Even if people did wreck their own DNA through bad diet, smoking and getting fat, that damage was unlikely to be passed to future generations.
Now, however, those assumptions are being re-examined. At the heart of this revolution is a simple but controversial idea: that DNA can be modified or imprinted with the experiences of your parents and grandparents. ation -->
(Excerpt) Read more at timesonline.co.uk ...
Can you say, “inherit the sins of your father?”
A gets mad at D when D d’s too much. D calls it A’s fault. N is ambidextrous.
that’s exactly what i was thinking of when i posted this, but then I looked up Ezekiel 18 and change my mind in saying anything.
It makes sense that learned behavior might be passed to your offspring. All animals (and people) have instinctive behavior patterns that help them survive. If learned behavior could be passed to the offspring, this would be a huge advantage over waiting for blind chance to do the job.
Lamarck and Lysenko rise from their unquiet graves.
I believe that the environment of the womb during embryonic development of a child is a crucial time and a lot depends on whether or not you are happy or stressed and angry.
Does this bring us back to the discussions of the early 20th century that birth defects are caused by traumatic encounters the mothers experience while pregnant? “She was scared by a lion at the zoo...”
Children should be raised in accordance with the research of B.F. Skinner. *SMIRK*
(Do your own homework.)
Lamarck appears to have been on the right track, and even the Medieal alchemists were exceptionally astute to have anticipated “Super Atoms” (readily found on the internet) by over a thousand years!
Hmm, “bitter water” ~ a bad shipment of Evian perhaps?
I thought that was a default if one believes in inherited sin.
Or only when one is conceived via the parents’ sinning?
I wrote a story of this same title, with the main character helping rebuild a post-apocalypse world as a terraformer (for Earth). The father who was thought dead, having been one of the architects of the disaster, supposedly defects to the daughter’s region. Nicer place to be, as it’s starting to live again. Makes main character’s life a very big problem, given her position and his, before his untimely death. Yet she has to live with the sins of her father, both in stigma and real world resonance.
Our family doctor told me to do my best to keep my wife away from stress and unnecessary anger while she was pregnant. Later, over lunch, we had a discussion about it and he gave me some of his experiences on the subject.
This is lifestyle police propaganda masquerading as bad science. What a crock.
My wife was pregnant with her daughter while her first marriage was falling apart.
The child (teen now) has been an emotional volcano her entire life, a deeply narcissistic personality.
My wife put had already put on a good deal of weight prior to becoming pregnant and put on more during the pregnancy.
The child was chunky as a youngster and is now obese.
I have no doubts about a mothers mental condition during pregnancy affecting a childs mental health. Certainly this is anecdotal but I see the evidence all around me that it is true.
Some would say that the divorce caused these personality traits but I was there and saw these traits in the child long before she was old enough to understand that her parents were separated.
It’s sad to hear about your child and your divorce when I am going towards the 35 year anniversary with my wife.
Darwin too, of course, since he did more than anyone else to popularize the notion of the inheritance of acquired characteristics.
Perhaps it is more accurate to say that Darwin 'appears to have been on the right track', because his theory of heredity, pangenesis, is a theory of inheritance of acquired characters, among other things.
Both are poster boys for Marxism—once you buy into believing acquired traits can be inherited you also buy into Marxist Utopianism.
I will however take all of the sympathy I can get for dealing with this very difficult child.
I have read of a theory that elevated maternal hormone levels during pregnancy may be linked to homosexuality.
That's interesting because Darwin believed in the inheritance of acquired traits:
"Lamarck's name is always associated with the application of the theory of the inheritance of acquired characters. Darwin fully endorsed this view and made use of it as an explanation in all of his writings about animals."
- Thomas Hunt Morgan, Critique of the Theory of Evolution, 1919, pg.32.
Despite the contempt with which Darwin referred to Lamarck's theory, he himself, as we have seen, often made use of the principle of the inheritance of acquired characters, and even employed the same illustrations cited by Lamarck. Darwin seems to have misunderstood Lamarck's view, and to have accepted the current opinion that Lamarck supposed an animal acquired a new organ by desiring or needing it. Darwin says, " Heaven forefend me from Lamarck's nonsense of a tendency to progressive adaptation from the slow willing of the animals." Darwin speaks of Lamarck as stating that animals will that the egg shall be a particular form so as to become attached to particular objects. Lamarck's latest biographer, Packard, says he is unable to find any statements of this sort in Lamarck's writings.
In fact, the curious hypothesis of pangenesis that Darwin advanced was invented partly to account for the inheritance of acquired characters. Despite the hesitancy that Darwin himself felt in advancing this view, and contrary to Huxley's advice, he at last published his provisional hypothesis of pangenesis in the twenty-seventh chapter of his " Animals and Plants under Domestication."... It is important to observe that Darwin proposes to explain on the hypothesis of pangenesis, not only the inheritance of characters acquired through use, but also the decrease of structures through disuse; and this applies, not only to the structure, but to function as well, as when the intelligence of the dog is explained through his association with man, and the tameness of the domestic rabbits through their long confinement.
- T.H. Morgan, Evolution and Adaptation
Let us imagine that when God created Adam that Adam was without flaw, meaning without sin. Now imagine God had intimate contact with Adam frequently. And within that intimate contact was the ability of God to keep his creation, meaning Adam, in pristine condition. Then imagine his creation severed that contact leaving Adam to his own devices. Now fast forward some six thousand years. [Remember this is purely speculative, bordering fantasy.]
With the discovery of DNA and the, genome which we are still in the infancy of, imagine that with every sin a human being commits a minuscule (microscopic, exceedingly small, minute, tiny, teensy weensy, nano sized) portion of his DNA is ever so slightly altered. Much like the hour hand on a clock can not be observed moving, except on a more diminutive level, DNA looses it’s original integrity. And after generations of this DNA being weakened and battered-and all at once with all generations combined to produce a climactic shift in just one micro level coding-a defect is introduced into the code language of a strand of DNA. This process will take hundreds, maybe thousands of years.
Now imagine that you are holding a round glass globe in the palm of your hand. Then imagine that globe gradually got hotter to the point that you either drop it to avoid the searing pain and shattering it in the process, or you dunk it in a cold vat of water to avoid destroying it. (This can be an analogous to the Great Flood in the days of Noah.)
Now imagine God holds our DNA together so not to let it deteriorate in an instant. (Think of a computer programmer scouring through lines and lines of computer code making sure every single digit is in its proper place. If left to it’s own devises the computer program would foul up the whole system.) Now imagine that because of sin [heat] God has no choice but to turn from [drop] guarding our DNA [computer code]. Without Gods diligent attention to his computer codes known as DNA the systems he created would deteriorate in an instant.
Now try and imagine that sin is to God what the heat in the glass globe his to you. The more sin is equivalent to more heat. Eventually reaching a point where God can no longer hold on to his creation [”the glass globe”] any longer. So he has no choice but to let it go to it’s own destructive travails. And voila! DNA no longer holds it’s original integrity and is allowed to metamorph into something other than it’s pristine condition. This brings about genetic defects that was not in Gods original plans.
Obviously I have no scientific evidence of this being the case. But I enjoy deducting the human condition back to it’s original intent with some imaginary flare. Does this make any sense?
There is a difference between acquisition (Larmarckian) and traits across a population...
Sorry, obvious shortage of caffeine.
(...or is it Guinness Stout?)
LOL, that’s what I was thinking.