Deleted member 6403
Made It Out The Hood
- Joined
- Apr 14, 2020
- Posts
- 56,262
- Reputation
- 96,665
The dichotomy of genes/environment is false. Genes are simply memory of past environments - the so-called "nature" is just a collection of many "nurtures". But what is "nurture"? It is the current "nature" you live in affecting you. The current "nature", and the ones to which the last 3 generations of your ancestors were exposed matters most. More importantly, genetic mutations are NOT random, they are driven by purposeful existence and adaptation to the environment, and capacity to adapt to environment is determined by metabolic rate (thyroid function). If mutations were more or less random you'd expect to see codons in the nucleus to be mostly random but they are not.
http://raypeat.com/articles/articles/the-cancer-matrix.shtml
"...The gene mutation theory of cancer is sustained by a broader mystique of "genetics" in our culture. Over 100 years ago, an ideology of chance and random changes in organisms was superimposed onto the theory of evolution. After 1944, when Avery, MacLeod and McCarty showed that strands of DNA carry hereditary information, the doctrine of random change took on a specific chemical meaning--changes in the sequence of bases in the DNA molecule. This made it easier to disregard the evidence of the inheritance of acquired changes, since chemical, even biochemical, reactions are usually interpreted statistically, with an assumption of randomness. If the changes in the DNA code are random, and not influenced by the organism's physiology and biochemistry, then the four nucleotides that make up DNA (abbreviated G, C, A, and T) should show a random composition, but in fact the ratio of GC pairs to AT pairs varies in different types of organism, and in mitochondrial DNA, the GC (guanine-cytosine) content corresponds closely to the rate of oxidative metabolism and longevity (Lehmann, et al., 2008)."
http://raypeat.com/articles/articles/the-cancer-matrix.shtml
"...The gene mutation theory of cancer is sustained by a broader mystique of "genetics" in our culture. Over 100 years ago, an ideology of chance and random changes in organisms was superimposed onto the theory of evolution. After 1944, when Avery, MacLeod and McCarty showed that strands of DNA carry hereditary information, the doctrine of random change took on a specific chemical meaning--changes in the sequence of bases in the DNA molecule. This made it easier to disregard the evidence of the inheritance of acquired changes, since chemical, even biochemical, reactions are usually interpreted statistically, with an assumption of randomness. If the changes in the DNA code are random, and not influenced by the organism's physiology and biochemistry, then the four nucleotides that make up DNA (abbreviated G, C, A, and T) should show a random composition, but in fact the ratio of GC pairs to AT pairs varies in different types of organism, and in mitochondrial DNA, the GC (guanine-cytosine) content corresponds closely to the rate of oxidative metabolism and longevity (Lehmann, et al., 2008)."
