How your behaviour can change your children’s DNA

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 -->

once you buy into believing acquired traits can be inherited you also buy into Marxist Utopianism.

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?

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

New research into inheritance shows we can alter family traits for better or for worse. Jonathan Leake reports