Genetic control of life (E O M - 8)

MYTH PERCEPTION THREE

(Ref. Book – Excerpts from Spontaneous Evolution, Authors: Bruce H. Lipton and Steve Bhaerman)

As repeatedly propagated by Swami Vijnananand, we have been mentioning in these blogs the role of mind, the importance and inevitability of mind's role for inclusion in the scope of science. Such opinions are echoed by a few scientists and thinkers in the 21^st century. Next blog to follow aso cover this topics.

When Darwin put forth his heredity-based theory of evolution, the premise that traits were passed from parent to child made perfect practical sense to anyone who bred animals, like beget like.

Because the Newton view at the time emphasized the primacy of matter, it was seemingly assured that the secret of life would be encoded within the body’s own molecule.

Shortly after the turn of 19^th century, American geneticist and embryologist Thomas Hunt Morgan deduced that genetic factor that control heredity traits are arranged along the chromosome in a precise linear order. Further chemical analysis revealed that chromosomes are compresses of proteins and Deoxyribo Nucleic Acid (DNA). However the question as to whether the genetic key was the protein or the DNA remained until 1944 when Oswald Avery, Colin Mac Leod, and Maclyn McCarty (researchers from Rockefeller) determined empirically that DNA was the molecule that determined heredity traits. While this study was the first to distinguish DNA as the heredity-controlling molecule, it did not offer any insight into how DNA accomplished this feat.

In 1953, Watson and Crick changed the course of human history when their article was published in the British scientific journal ‘Nature’. Based on the nature of DNA coding mechanism, they posited (postulated) the concept known as ‘central dogma of molecular biology’. This is also referred to as ‘the primacy of DNA’. Central dogma mapped the flow of information in most biological systems being one directional: from DNA to RNA to protein.

Even before Watson and Crick were born, science had concluded that an assembly of physical molecules controls life. The only unanswered question was: “which molecule would it be”? When Watson and Crick reported their DNA results, the decision was a slam dunk (a task in which the success is deemed a certainty): DNA molecules control life.

Amazingly, biologists immediately adopted this central dogma hypothesis even though its validity was never assessed. But was this DNA primacy really true?

The key implication in this is: heredity information only flows in one direction, from DNA to RNA to Protein and never goes to the opposite direction. Which means protein cannot influence the structure and activity of the DNA code.

Here is the problem: the body that experiences life is made out of protein; because proteins cannot send information of life’s experience back to DNA, then environmental information cannot change genetic destiny. This means that genetic information is disconnected from the environment.

Genetic determination is the belief that genes control all of our traits-physical, behavioral, and emotional. Simply it is the belief that our fates are locked in our genes and because we cannot change our genes, we are truly, so they say, victims of our heredity.

However as the time went on, new discoveries undermined the surety of that belief. In the late 1960s, University of Wisconsin geneticist Howard Temin put forward his research publication which suggested that RNA information could flow backward and alter the host cell’s DNA code. Though Temin findings were not accepted initially, he ultimately shared the Nobel Prize in Physiology. Temin’s work broke the backbone of Crick’s central dogma by proving that hereditary information flows in both directions. The hereditary changes can be made by design or environmental influence and not only by accidental mutation as had been presumed.

By 1990, as reported by Duke University biologist H. Frederik Nijhout, genes are not ‘self-emergent’ and cannot ‘turn themselves on and off’. Genes are just like books. They don’t read themselves. Then who is responsible for reading genes? In Nijhout’s words: “When a gene product is needed a signal from its environment activates the expression of that gene”. Simply put ‘environmental signal controls gene activity’.

Epigenetics:

Biomedical sciences are being philosophically transformed by the new science of Epigenetic control. It describes how gene activity and cellular expressions are ultimately regulated by information from the external field or influence rather than by the internal matter of DNA.

Though this truth that genes do not control their own activity, was established more than 20 years back, basic science books, media, and especially the pharmaceutical industry continue to resist the movement away from the central dogma. They, thus perpetuate the layperson’s view that genes control their lives.

Mainstream media continues to focus on the concept that genes are controlling our lives. Every day new articles claim that gene has been found to control this trait or that trait. The concept of genetic determinism is so (deep and full of resonance) with the prevailing basal paradigm (basic pattern) that even irrefutable scientific proof cannot dislodge it.

Mind and Epigenetics:

The science of epigenetics recognizes that the environment, not the DNA in nucleus, determines the action of the cell. Information from the environment is translated into biological responses via the action of cell membrane, which acts as the cell’s skin as well as its brain. The description of the cell membrane is same as computer chip. The cell as well as the computer; both are programmable. And the programmer is always outside the mechanism. Who can be the biological programmer? Who or what is the genius behind the genes? The genius behind the genes is none other than our own minds, our own thoughts and beliefs.

The process of Nature and Nurture is what shapes human mind through thoughts and beliefs. The role of the mind assumes significant importance not only in personal health but more important holistic health. To make this role of mind more suitable, the scientific study of the mind and proper training to the mind should be the priority.

Here again we see that the new research in the initial years of the 21^st century support the views Swami Vijnananand mentioned while he wrote about the evolution and the role of mind in his books published in 1960s.

Vijay R. Joshi.

Darwinism: Importance and Limitations ( E O M - 3)

Charles Darwin established his theory of evolution in 1859. Ever since he established his theory, he impacted the world and our perspective of evolution. Yet, in the 1930′s through the 1950′s the modern evolutionary synthesis developed and redefined Darwin’s theory. But, now scientist are believing that its to abrupt or too “quick,” therefore they began to focus on the paradigm shift.

In “Darwin Still Rules, but Some Biologists Dream of a Paradigm Shift” by Douglas H. Erwin, (http://www.nytimes.com/2007/06/26/science/26essay.html?pagewanted=all&_r=0), he gives us a further explanation of how evolutionary biologist tend to revise the Charles Darwin theory and expand it towards the paradigm shift.

Paradigm shift is when a significant change occurs. For instance, from one fundamental view to another different point of view. Yet, before the paradigm shift, the modern evolutionary synthesis was introduced first.

The modern evolutionary synthesis; defines evolution as the change over time in this genetic variation and takes into account all branches of biology. According to Douglas, he stated that the modern evolutionary synthesis was created because many biologist disagreed with the Darwinism and therefore they made a new concept which was the modern evolutionary synthesis. Up to this date, it has been constantly used.

The synthesis has been useful, it can hold mutations to DNA, within the species it creates new alternatives of existing genes. As a result it will allow only the best adapted individuals to produce many remaining off-springs. That being the case, this is the primary agent in shaping new adaptations, and Charles Darwin acknowledged that this was a powerful tool.

Philosopher Ron Amundson, claims that the modern synthesis deals with the transmission of gene from one generation to the next.

Also the most recent discoveries in the new field of evolutionary developmental biology, is the gene Pax-6, and its able to control the formation of the eyes in mice and humans.

Another new significant discovery is the Nkx2.5 heart formation and the formation of the nervous system. This contributes with examining the genetic and developmental mechanisms influencing how the form of organisms develop.

In conclusion,

Charles Darwin evolution theory has played a big role for our society, humanity, education and world. Yet, many scientist tend to doubt it or revise it. Therefore, modern evolutionary synthesis became established and up to this date it has been quite useful. But scientist tend to move on with the paradigm shift and be part of it as well. In the article, “Darwin Still Rules, but Some Biologist Dream of Paradigm Shift,” it focuses on how scientist are developing the paradigm shift.

Unfortunately, it will take time until we see new tensions accommodated within an expanded modern synthesis according to Douglas H. Erwin.

(REF. Elizabeth Duque. (http://openlab.citytech.cuny.edu/seto-bio1lc/2012/12/17/darwin-a-paradigm-shift)

Vijay R. Joshi.