question about genetics

[greenstang1313]

this is something ive been wondering about lately... basically im curious if your experiences actually change your genetic code? example... lets say both your parents started playing guitar at age 10 and kept playing and then when they were both 30 they gave birth to you. so theres 40 years of guitar playing experience there so naturally you'd pick up guitar pretty damn fast and easy right? so did your parents change their own genetic code by playing guitar? if the answer is yes, does that mean everything you do changes your genetic code constantly? please tell me if im close to being right or if im way off.

 

[Mr.Bolt-on]

No it depends on how early you pick up the sounds, and start playing. Once you acquire 10,000 hours at least you become a master. The earlier you start the better chances of you looking like a genius since you started younger than anyone else.

 

[focussvtracer]

:lol: wut

 

[SNCBOOM]

:dw:

 

[greenstang1313]

:lol: wut

if a skill is passed down genetically (assuming thats possible) does that mean were changing our own genetic code? if michael jordan had a kid wouldnt he/she be generically inclined to be good at basketball? i could definitely be completely wrong, i havent studied genetics since probably middle school.

 

[James Snover]

There's a name for that theory, that what we do changes our genetics which are then passed on to our children. I cannot recall that name right now to save my life. But the short version of it all is: No, genetics does not work that way. We can't change our genetics based on what we learn and do in our lives. We can only maximize those traits our parents passed on to us; and your kids start right back at zero.

 

[greenstang1313]

There's a name for that theory, that what we do changes our genetics which are then passed on to our children. I cannot recall that name right now to save my life. But the short version of it all is: No, genetics does not work that way. We can't change our genetics based on what we learn and do in our lives. We can only maximize those traits our parents passed on to us; and your kids start right back at zero.

thats the answer i was hoping for, ive been wondering about this for a few months. thanks for the info:beer:

 

[Vizior]

There's a name for that theory, that what we do changes our genetics which are then passed on to our children. I cannot recall that name right now to save my life. But the short version of it all is: No, genetics does not work that way. We can't change our genetics based on what we learn and do in our lives. We can only maximize those traits our parents passed on to us; and your kids start right back at zero.

Are you referring to Lamarckism vs Darwinism? The simplest analogy used (at least for me) is with giraffes. Lamarck states that giraffes spend their lives reaching for leaves at the highest trees, and therefore they have passed such a trait on to their progeny. Darwin (and the accepted theory) hypothesizes that the longer necked giraffes are able to reach the leaves and therefore survive to pass such traits along.

Now, the specific argument regarding guitar playing, is more of a nurture condition. Therefore theorizing that the child will pick up guitar playing faster because he will be raised into the environment. This would be tested by having two twins from the same egg (monozygotic) and separating them, one with biological parents and one in an alternate environment, and compare their learned skill.

 

[James Snover]

Lamarckism, I think that was it. Thanks.

Are you referring to Lamarckism vs Darwinism? The simplest analogy used (at least for me) is with giraffes. Lamarck states that giraffes spend their lives reaching for leaves at the highest trees, and therefore they have passed such a trait on to their progeny. Darwin (and the accepted theory) hypothesizes that the longer necked giraffes are able to reach the leaves and therefore survive to pass such traits along.

Now, the specific argument regarding guitar playing, is more of a nurture condition. Therefore theorizing that the child will pick up guitar playing faster because he will be raised into the environment. This would be tested by having two twins from the same egg (monozygotic) and separating them, one with biological parents and one in an alternate environment, and compare their learned skill.

 

[esqeddy]

I proposed this very theory last year:

Not only do we evolve, we are structured to evolve. Evolution is more than the natural selection of random genetic mutations that favor a species. That theory is viable and explains some of evolution, but the empirical evidence overwhelmingly suggests that other mechanism(s) are at play in the genetic mechanics of evolution.

In just these last few months, a profound scientific discovery was announced and largely unappreciated by the world. Its is breath taking and provides precisely the mechanism through which my theory of evolutionary genetics works.

Scientists discover double meaning in genetic code | UW Today

You have a good mind!

 

[97desertCobra]

There's a name for that theory, that what we do changes our genetics which are then passed on to our children. I cannot recall that name right now to save my life. But the short version of it all is: No, genetics does not work that way. We can't change our genetics based on what we learn and do in our lives. We can only maximize those traits our parents passed on to us; and your kids start right back at zero.

Aw man, so me busting my ass everyday to maximize my athletic ability won't get passed onto my children by way of more natural athleticism? They will only inherit the same amount of natural athleticism that I did and it would be up to them to maximize it the same or better than I have? All so their children can start back at ground zero? Then how are records broken over and over again each Olympics? I know a lot of that can be attributed to better ways of training, nutrition, technology etc but at what point do genetics evolve to make someone's genes have more potential for running faster?

 

[Weather Man]

If you have a tin ear...life's a bitch.

 

[05slvrgt]

OP, what I think you are referring to is epigenetics. Essentially they are changes in gene activity that are not due to changes in DNA sequence.

I have an exam to study for, but I'll try to expand on this tomorrow. Until then, here is the wiki rabbit hole. Epigenetics - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Edit: I should add that this won't work for your guitar example. The best way to think about this is if two identical twins were raised separately. Sure, they have identical DNA, but as years change they will be dissimilar in a number of ways, even though they possess the same genome.

 

[EatonEggbeater]

From my days in school one statement comes to mind: "acquired characteristics are not passed on."

The example was that if you cut off a mouses tail for any number of generations, the mice will continue to be born with tails.

If there's an environmental advantage to not having a tail, the tail will probably go away on its own over multiple generations as more offspring having a shorter tail will survive.

If there was an environmental advantage to being a good guitar player, then this trait (or combination of them) would emerge over time, and code itself genetically for future generations.

Typically only mutations act within a generation, and if they don't kill the organism, they don't generally select to the benefit of it.

 

[ZYBORG]

I would think yes. Say your parents had made the conscious choice to eat like complete shit for the last 20 yrs. (fast food every day) and then decided to have a kid, that kid in my opinion would have a higher predisposition to be prone to diabetes, hypertension, heart disease etc. Sa your parents instead, decided to eat healthy and be fitness nuts since childhood and after 20 years of that decided to have a kid, it is my opinion that much better "genes" would be passed on. Thats my opinion on the matter anyway.

 

[James Snover]

When people who run fast have children with other people who run fast, their kids stand a good chance of being able to run faster than their parents and predecessors. That's evolution in action, and since our society places a lot of emphasis on athletic capability, it is a huge social pressure driving that aspect of evolution. Add in the other factors you mentioned, nutrition, training, sports medicine, and illegal performance enhancers like steroids, and it is no wonder records are being broken all over the place.

Aw man, so me busting my ass everyday to maximize my athletic ability won't get passed onto my children by way of more natural athleticism? They will only inherit the same amount of natural athleticism that I did and it would be up to them to maximize it the same or better than I have? All so their children can start back at ground zero? Then how are records broken over and over again each Olympics? I know a lot of that can be attributed to better ways of training, nutrition, technology etc but at what point do genetics evolve to make someone's genes have more potential for running faster?

 

[ElscottHavoc]

I think its social exposure that forms interests, hobbies and activities, not genetics - that and perhaps a bit of expectation on parents and peers.

Parents, naturally, have a tendency to expose their children - often at a very young age - to their hobbies and interests. Anyone with children knows tiny brains learn very well, and so if you imply drumming to a baby and reinforce drumming as they grow, they'll start to pick up those musical talents just like they learn to do many things by watching you.

A child born of two Chinese speaking parents, but adopted by English speaking Americans will learn English because that's what the child is exposed to and language isn't genetic, else such babies would have a natural bilingual ability. Now, as the child grows and realizes he's genetically different from the vast majority of Caucasian Americans, it might cause him to develop an interest in his heritage and Chinese culture, but that interest stems from genetics - not specifically of genetics.

Furthermore, as a child ages, they often have a desireto be "just like mommy" or "just like daddy". They want to be loved and they want to love, and so if daddy enjoys cars, then the kid will probably want to enjoy cars too except perhaps in instances where opposing gender stereotypes might lead a boy to not enjoy his moms hobbies and a young girl is likely to be interested in dolls over cars. That said, because the girl has been exposed to cars she'll obviously have a better, even if only basic, understanding above her friends.

The other you notice is that society often implies a level of expertise that sometimes doesn't exist simply because a parent excelled. I see this a lot in sports. You'll have kids with tons of talent sitting on the sideline because another kids dad was All State Running back. Often, since his dad was All-State, the kid is generally physical and talented too, but sometimes that talent gets exaggerated by means of association.

Posted via Topify on Android

 

[97snaketrplB]

I would think yes. Say your parents had made the conscious choice to eat like complete shit for the last 20 yrs. (fast food every day) and then decided to have a kid, that kid in my opinion would have a higher predisposition to be prone to diabetes, hypertension, heart disease etc. Sa your parents instead, decided to eat healthy and be fitness nuts since childhood and after 20 years of that decided to have a kid, it is my opinion that much better "genes" would be passed on. Thats my opinion on the matter anyway.

I honestly had no idea people believed this. Confounding factors aside, it wouldn't make a bit of difference. Classic example of noticing a correlation and mistakenly seeing causation. And that's not just my opinion on the matter, it's scientific fact.

Things like gene expression/activation occurs all the time, due to various processes/disease states. It's why things like anabolic steroids work, steroid docks with the androgen receptor and genes are expressed in the skeletal muscle that increase nitrogen retention and insulin sensitivity and such. Sometimes gene expression occurs in disease states like chronic heart failure, where the myocardium reverts to a fetal physiology with regard to energy utilization in an effort to preserve function.

But damage from age/radiation/pathogens aside, nothing changes the underlying code. You are what you are, and your kid will be whatever gamete it happens to inherit from you.

 

[ZYBORG]

I honestly had no idea people believed this. Confounding factors aside, it wouldn't make a bit of difference. Classic example of noticing a correlation and mistakenly seeing causation. And that's not just my opinion on the matter, it's scientific fact.

Things like gene expression/activation occurs all the time, due to various processes/disease states. It's why things like anabolic steroids work, steroid docks with the androgen receptor and genes are expressed in the skeletal muscle that increase nitrogen retention and insulin sensitivity and such. Sometimes gene expression occurs in disease states like chronic heart failure, where the myocardium reverts to a fetal physiology with regard to energy utilization in an effort to preserve function.

But damage from age/radiation/pathogens aside, nothing changes the underlying code. You are what you are, and your kid will be whatever gamete it happens to inherit from you.

Im not sure how you can say, you had "no idea people believed this". People believe many different things.

The notion that lifestyle choices and the environment will not change a person's "genetic make up" is silly to me, specially when you think about evolution itself and how organisms have changed over thousands of years.

 

[97snaketrplB]

Im not sure how you can say, you had "no idea people believed this". People believe many different things.

The notion that lifestyle choices and the environment will not change a person's "genetic make up" is silly to me, specially when you think about evolution itself and how organisms have changed over thousands of years.

So this is a faith based belief? I honestly don't understand. There is no debate about this in the scientific community. Historically, organisms change over time because they produce gametes that are quite variable and not exact genetic copies of the parent organism, and offspring produced which have traits favorable to survival are more likely to live to reach sexual maturity and procreate. Not because the parent organism lives a healthy lifestyle and thus alters its genetic code.

I realize people believe lots of things. Someone might believe the earth is flat because it makes sense to them, but it doesn't make it correct.