gene expression is based on context
The news continues to report that genes are the causes of this or that. Our first instinct is to label the particular gene as “good” or “bad” depending on what it is said to manifest. This gene causes alcoholism. That gene causes obesity. And that other gene causes depression. They’re just bad. Psychologists call this the “diathesis-stress model.” If you have a “bad” gene and encounter problems in life, you’re predisposed to end up with a disorder like depression, so pray you don’t have that terrible gene that can turn you into an anxiety ridden recluse. The problem is, this line of thought is wrong.
Recent discoveries in genetics have turned the bad vs. good genetics model upside-down and everything is now pointing to environmental context. Psychologists call it “differential susceptibility hypothesis.” Those same genes that led to bad manifestations can be blunted or reversed by changing inputs stemming from your lifestyle. For example, the same knife that can be used to maliciously stab someone can also prepare food for you. Whether the knife is good or bad relies on the input.
More specifically, most people have a normal DRD4 gene, but some have a variant called DRD4-7R. That extra 7R has been associated with ADHD, alcoholism, and violence. It’s thought of as a “bad” gene. Yet, in a study done by Ariel Knafo that looked into which kids would share candy without be being asked, it was found that 3 year olds who had the 7R variant were more likely to share, than those without the “bad” variant. Why were the kids with the “bad” gene so inclined to help, even when they weren’t being asked? Because 7R isn’t inherently “bad”. Like the knife, it’s reliant on context. 7R kids who were raised in rough environments, who were abused or neglected, were more likely to become alcoholics and bullies. But 7R kids who received good parenting were seen kinder than kids who had the standard DRD4 gene. Context and environmental input can make all the difference.
The news continues to report that genes are the causes of this or that. Our first instinct is to label the particular gene as “good” or “bad” depending on what it is said to manifest. This gene causes alcoholism. That gene causes obesity. And that other gene causes depression. They’re just bad. Psychologists call this the “diathesis-stress model.” If you have a “bad” gene and encounter problems in life, you’re predisposed to end up with a disorder like depression, so pray you don’t have that terrible gene that can turn you into an anxiety ridden recluse. The problem is, this line of thought is wrong.
Recent discoveries in genetics have turned the bad vs. good genetics model upside-down and everything is now pointing to environmental context. Psychologists call it “differential susceptibility hypothesis.” Those same genes that led to bad manifestations can be blunted or reversed by changing inputs stemming from your lifestyle. For example, the same knife that can be used to maliciously stab someone can also prepare food for you. Whether the knife is good or bad relies on the input.
More specifically, most people have a normal DRD4 gene, but some have a variant called DRD4-7R. That extra 7R has been associated with ADHD, alcoholism, and violence. It’s thought of as a “bad” gene. Yet, in a study done by Ariel Knafo that looked into which kids would share candy without be being asked, it was found that 3 year olds who had the 7R variant were more likely to share, than those without the “bad” variant. Why were the kids with the “bad” gene so inclined to help, even when they weren’t being asked? Because 7R isn’t inherently “bad”. Like the knife, it’s reliant on context. 7R kids who were raised in rough environments, who were abused or neglected, were more likely to become alcoholics and bullies. But 7R kids who received good parenting were seen kinder than kids who had the standard DRD4 gene. Context and environmental input can make all the difference.
viruses are just information
Imagine a situation where the human community is confronted with a new toxin. The new toxin can be neutralized only by an enzyme that is not usually made by human beings. But one member of the community has a randomly generated mutation that allows her—and only her— to make the toxin-neutralizing enzyme. She does well, whereas others sicken and some die because this randomly generated mutation gives her an adaptive advantage. According to the theory of genetic mutation and natural selection, her genes will slowly spread throughout the population. But what if she is a sixty-year-old postmenopausal woman, or a man who does not have children? Then the helpful gene would die out. If we’re lucky, the carrier of the gene will be a thirty-year-old man about to get married. He and his wife have six children with three carrying the autosomal dominant mutation. One of those three dies in a car crash, the other becomes sterile following a Gardasil vaccine, and the third passes the adaptive gene on to her two children. In ten thousand years, that adaptive gene will have spread throughout the population through natural selection. Unfortunately, the toxin either has killed everyone off by then or is long gone, so the mutation is useless. It’s clear that the theory of natural selection following random mutations cannot explain how humans and animals adapt to new situations in time for these mutations to be useful.
So how do we adapt? Our threatened cells produce exosomes containing DNA and RNA, which have a unique resonance. The pattern of this genetic material will quickly pass to others through resonance (especially if they are in close contact). This is the role of “viruses” in nature; they are physical-resonance forms of genetic material that code for changes happening in the environment. They provide real-time genetic adaption. It’s a totally ingenious system that we have missed by assuming that viruses are hostile and dangerous. A war on viruses is nothing more than a war on the forward evolution of humanity.
In other words… unlike bacteria (which you can grow in a petridish), viruses aren’t alive, they’re just pieces of information, instructing our genome to flip on or off certain switches (polymorphisms). In theory, if you get overtly sick, it’s because your body couldn’t handle the “download” of information OR the new instructions it was informed to carry out due to poor health and/or a mismatch with the way you live your life and the external environment you find yourself in. The role of “viruses” in nature is to recode genetic material for changes happening in the environment. They provide real time genetic adaptation.