Ok some here say it is not possible but I just don’t see how something like say genetic tendencies for alcoholism (not a great example sense that is controversial) arrise without the very influence of alchol in the environment.
In other words what we do is what influences the environment we are introduced to and how it effects us…
And it has been shown in studies that chickens if introduced to sporadic light and irritating situations that reduce certain behaviors… in later generations after multiple generations of introduction to such light in association to irritating things the later generations will become irritated and behave as if the irritating thing was there if just the lighting occurs, which thus shows genetic passing of associations to things…
Anyways i had a realization… women have all their eggs when they are born…this suggests that only men have the capacity to contribute to alteration in the genes that are resultant of later life behaviors, because they are the only ones producing new sperm/genes constantly… unless women still effect their eggs on some level…
such would suggest that having a mother that drinks all the time will not contribute to an increased likely hood of alcoholism…
This is fascinating, you are correct that some mechanism must exist that allows for environmental influences NOW to have a genetic impact upon ongoing gamete formation. I have always thought that strict reproductive selection from one generation to another is insufficient to account for the full spectrum of genetic evolution. I am not a geneticist, but I wonder if this mechanism has even been identified yet by science? Your example with chickens is interesting, do you have more examples like this, or where did you find information about that experiment?
The idea that only men can participate in this “extra-reproductive” mechanism of genetic evolution is interesting, and makes a lot of sense based on the idea that men continually produce new gametes all the time, whereas woman do not. So perhaps we can see that the seat of this unknown mechanism lies somewhere within the male gamete production process; somehow the means of formation of new sperm is sensitive to overall environmental (internal as well as external) concerns NOW, right at the time of sperm production or perhaps just prior to it.
The thing i find interesting is that for a “mutation” to occur doesn’t that “mutation” have to be caused by something external?
Otherwise we have that all our mutations are results of algrorithmic variation of our DNA that were …well actually environmentally programed… a bazillion years ago… which is like saying, “well the environment did effect our genetics…once”
Well the kool thing about it i would see is that would mean that woman can party all they want and not worry about the behavioral effect it might have on their children…men on the other hand should tone it down… shouldn’t smoke cigarettes ever probably…stuff like that…
Yet perhaps the mother influences the child’s genetics in those ways when they are pregnant… genetically effecting the development of the human structure and what not…
What worries me is that this suggests that certain over the counter or prescribed drugs might have effects on our evolution.
For example (his may be a bad example but) maybe over use or inappropriate use of aspirin can lead to many generations away having increased occurrence of headaches due to atrophie of the bodies capacity to fight headaches…
There was an interesting article in National Geographic a while back about how we can alter behavioral (as well as physical) traits in animals through breeding, and how a similar process also may have played in our own change over time through socialization.
Interestingly, the same issue also has an article about Mongolian populations that, after many years of being modernized by the Soviets, still choose to retain their nomadic mindset.
Yes, this occurs to me as well, and the general trend toward increasing over-medication in our society along with seeming decreasing ability/desire to “tough it out” (hate that phrase) when it comes to physical-emotional discomfort, points to the effect you describe (of course many other factors contribute here as well).
I am surprised that either there has been minimal research done on this issue of contribution to genetic alteration by behavior or that such research hasn’t made more of am impact in society/thinking. I certainly went through school, biology, physiology, psychology, sociology, and this factor was NEVER mentioned that I can remember, not even once. Yet it is an entirely logical implication we cannot avoid deriving.
I suppose an understanding of this contributing mechanism leads to all sort of new, potentially destabilizing revelations for science/genetics. One, that the old model is insufficient alone (enough reason for science to resist changing until it has to), two, that humans have far, far more direct impact on their progenetor’s (and on themselves!) health, life and welbeing than they thought, and three, how this leads to the necessity for more self-responsibility (as well as more social control over irresponsible individuals). Many grand implications. Perhaps the knowledge is out there, but is being suppressed.
Another interesting possible implication is genetic memory, that collective human experiences/knowledge are stored somehow in the genes, through language/symbols, archetypes, basic modes of experiencing/tendencies to think-feel in a certain way, remembered significant culturally defining events (wars, etc). There is a lot of extra-science information on this phenomenon, but who knows how legitimate any of it might be. But the factor of contribution to genetic alteration by behavior certainly opens the door to the very real possibility of collective genetic memories.
There are likely at least two contributors to the lack of following into the consideration.
One it can lead to “fascist” ideals… and may be seen as such on the offset (I have already been called fascist for suggesting this)
Second it is not lucrative rather the sell of drugs is…
I wonder if the drugs were to influence our genes, would the drugs re-program/re-design the body to act as if it were on the drug, or result in the opposite effect? For example, caffeine has an effect in increasing blood circulation and raising blood pressure. So, over many, many generations of constant caffeine intake, would the resulting organism be born by default with a higher blood pressure; or an even lower one?
And if aspirin thins blood, and the body gradually adjusts itself to the chemical, would people eventually end up with thinner blood?
I would think that the bodies capacity to thin blood itself might reduce and result in having thicker blood… the effects may very… but it is worth considering as in the case of caffeine is it plausible that extensive use would result in lower blood pressure when not taking the drug…
