Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

Are our Genes our actual Soul? The never seen, but actual part of all of us.

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Religion/Theology Donate to DU
 
heidler1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-08-07 05:49 PM
Original message
Are our Genes our actual Soul? The never seen, but actual part of all of us.
Genes Take Charge, and Diets Fall by the Wayside




The implications were clear. There is a reason that fat people cannot stay thin after they diet and that thin people cannot stay fat when they force themselves to gain weight. The body’s metabolism speeds up or slows down to keep weight within a narrow range. Gain weight and the metabolism can as much as double; lose weight and it can slow to half its original speed.

Skip to next paragraph
Readers’ Opinions
Research has shown that obesity is largely determined by genetics. What does that say about our obsession with dieting?

That, of course, was contrary to what every scientist had thought, and Dr. Sims knew it, as did Dr. Hirsch.

The message never really got out to the nation’s dieters, but a few research scientists were intrigued and asked the next question about body weight: Is body weight inherited, or is obesity more of an inadvertent, almost unconscious response to a society where food is cheap, abundant and tempting? An extra 100 calories a day will pile on 10 pounds in a year, public health messages often say. In five years, that is 50 pounds.

The assumption was that environment determined weight, but Dr. Albert Stunkard of the University of Pennsylvania wondered if that was true and, if so, to what extent. It was the early 1980s, long before obesity became what one social scientist called a moral panic, but a time when those questions of nature versus nurture were very much on Dr. Stunkard’s mind.

He found the perfect tool for investigating the nature-nurture question — a Danish registry of adoptees developed to understand whether schizophrenia was inherited. It included meticulous medical records of every Danish adoption between 1927 and 1947, including the names of the adoptees’ biological parents, and the heights and weights of the adoptees, their biological parents and their adoptive parents.

Dr. Stunkard ended up with 540 adults whose average age was 40. They had been adopted when they were very young — 55 percent had been adopted in the first month of life and 90 percent were adopted in the first year of life. His conclusions, published in The New England Journal of Medicine in 1986, were unequivocal. The adoptees were as fat as their biological parents, and how fat they were had no relation to how fat their adoptive parents were.

The scientists summarized it in their paper: “The two major findings of this study were that there was a clear relation between the body-mass index of biologic parents and the weight class of adoptees, suggesting that genetic influences are important determinants of body fatness; and that there was no relation between the body-mass index of adoptive parents and the weight class of adoptees, suggesting that childhood family environment alone has little or no effect.”

In other words, being fat was an inherited condition.

Dr. Stunkard also pointed out the implications: “Current efforts to prevent obesity are directed toward all children (and their parents) almost indiscriminately. Yet if family environment alone has no role in obesity, efforts now directed toward persons with little genetic risk of the disorder could be refocused on the smaller number who are more vulnerable. Such persons can already be identified with some assurance: 80 percent of the offspring of two obese parents become obese, as compared with no more than 14 percent of the offspring of two parents of normal weight.”

A few years later, in 1990, Dr. Stunkard published another study in The New England Journal of Medicine, using another classic method of geneticists: investigating twins. This time, he used the Swedish Twin Registry, studying its 93 pairs of identical twins who were reared apart, 154 pairs of identical twins who were reared together, 218 pairs of fraternal twins who were reared apart, and 208 pairs of fraternal twins who were reared together.

The identical twins had nearly identical body mass indexes, whether they had been reared apart or together. There was more variation in the body mass indexes of the fraternal twins, who, like any siblings, share some, but not all, genes.

The researchers concluded that 70 percent of the variation in peoples’ weights may be accounted for by inheritance, a figure that means that weight is more strongly inherited than nearly any other condition, including mental illness, breast cancer or heart disease.

The results did not mean that people are completely helpless to control their weight, Dr. Stunkard said. But, he said, it did mean that those who tend to be fat will have to constantly battle their genetic inheritance if they want to reach and maintain a significantly lower weight.

The findings also provided evidence for a phenomenon that scientists like Dr. Hirsch and Dr. Leibel were certain was true — each person has a comfortable weight range to which the body gravitates. The range might span 10 or 20 pounds: someone might be able to weigh 120 to 140 pounds without too much effort. Going much above or much below the natural weight range is difficult, however; the body resists by increasing or decreasing the appetite and changing the metabolism to push the weight back to the range it seeks.

The message is so at odds with the popular conception of weight loss — the mantra that all a person has to do is eat less and exercise more — that Dr. Jeffrey Friedman, an obesity researcher at the Rockefeller University, tried to come up with an analogy that would convey what science has found about the powerful biological controls over body weight.

He published it in the journal Science in 2000 and still cites it:

“Those who doubt the power of basic drives, however, might note that although one can hold one’s breath, this conscious act is soon overcome by the compulsion to breathe,” Dr. Friedman wrote. “The feeling of hunger is intense and, if not as potent as the drive to breathe, is probably no less powerful than the drive to drink when one is thirsty. This is the feeling the obese must resist after they have lost a significant amount of weight.”
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
valerief Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-08-07 05:50 PM
Response to Original message
1. My sole is right above my heel. nt
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
TechBear_Seattle Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-08-07 05:53 PM
Response to Original message
2. "Begging the question" is a logical fallacy
Before you can even begin to speculate whether this or that is the soul, you must extablish the existence of a soul. Until you do that, your question is meaningless.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
heidler1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-08-07 06:02 PM
Response to Reply #2
4. To clearify: I do not believe in the ever lasting soul either, but if there is
a power within each of us humans (and include other animals) that drives us to do whatever, I submit Genes fit the bill.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Duer 157099 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-08-07 05:59 PM
Response to Original message
3. It's an interesting question
I've been playing with the idea that the DNA molecule functions as some sort of "receiver" and that the DNA sequence unique to each individual is the fine tuning mechanism that receives the unique "soul".

Course, I can't prove it. Yet.

But... it lends weight to the Darwinian notion of why we are driven to reproduce and pass on our genes. Perhaps some part of us actually *does* live in our progeny.

It's a fascinating concept, to me.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
heidler1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-08-07 06:08 PM
Response to Reply #3
6. I have posted before that I believe that having children is the path to eternal life.
I had never connected Genes and Soul before I'd read this particular article.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cyborg_jim Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-09-07 12:17 PM
Response to Reply #3
10. If your genes didn't encode the desire to procreate...
Then they wouldn't be passed on.

Not to mention of course that not all individuals have unique DNA sequences...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ayeshahaqqiqa Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-08-07 06:05 PM
Response to Original message
5. I do know that you can inherit certain tendancies
and stuff. In my family, I can go back three generations with thyroid problems, and thyroid affects weight. My MD has told me that my body metabolism is "carbohydrate sensitive", based in part on the fact that blood sugar problems are also found in both my parents.

As to genes being the soul--interesting idea. I think that all things have some form of consciousness, but haven't thought of looking at things this way.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Peace Patriot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-08-07 07:43 PM
Response to Original message
7. I think I would approach the "soul" issue much like I approach the "God" issue.
It is fascinating to me how and why people create such ideas, and how these ideas gather force over large populations. So, to me, the question is not, does the soul exist?, or does God exist?, but rather, WHAT are these ideas doing for us? Why do people believe this, and, in believing things like this, do people, in fact--in some kind of collective sense--CREATE that which they believe in?

Or, another thought that I have had: Did the perception of certain things, by ancient people--for instance, their perception of the strength of their tribe or community, when they unified their thought around a God--cause them to identify a quality of the human brain--its ability to think collectively and communality--with a word: God, Diana, Ares, Innana, Allah, Ix Chel. Did this inherent quality of the human brain (obviously embedded in human DNA) get projected out as a God? An inner quality became an imagined outside agent?

I've always been startled by Jesus' words, "The kingdom is within you." I tend to think that that is the key, right there, to what and who God is, and what the soul is. It is something within us, or among us, that NEEDS a God (an idea that pulls us out of our little egotistical world), and the soul is something within us, individually, and also among us--in various tribes and communities--that NEEDS a concept of human beings that transcends physical reality and temporal reality (the day to day clock ticking).

Demagogues and charlatans USE these needs to control and exploit people, and to develop ridiculous notions of monolithic power to dictate who or what God is, and what the soul is. You only have to read about some of the proceedings of Church Councils in the 3rd through 6th centuries AD (during the period when the Christian movement was cemented with state power and male ambition, and "faith" began to be enforced by the sword) to know what utter absurdity and bullshit men get involved in, trying to formulate and then DICTATE what everyone must believe. But that doe NOT mean that those charlatans are NOT using concepts that have real meaning and importance to the human race. Indeed, I think their power comes from the fact that they ARE. They take some creative, inspiring notion, like "the kingdom is within you," and turn into armies and crusades and pogroms and thought control. What an insult to Jesus! He was no dogmatist!

Anyway, try to think of the matter totally apart from the misuse and abuse of human beings, and the human brain, for powermongering purposes.

There have been many, many Gods. What to think of a poor simple housewife, for instance, a couple of thousand years ago, touching her little Kitchen Deity every time she steps indoors? What is she doing? She is calling up the spirit within to create the frame of mind she needs to cook well, and to serve good food to her family. This enhanced mental state might make her more sensitive to heat levels (prevent her burning the bread), or to what spices are needed, or to rancid or poisoned food, and may move her to the height of artistry in the cooking and presentation of food. Why does she bless the Idol? How does it help her? And does she, in honoring it, create an actual presence of some kind in her kitchen--or is it just her own heightened awareness and dedication?

Then there is "soul music"--with "soul" in that sense being a gift from African-American community. What does it mean when we say that something or someone "has soul"? It is hard to define, but we know what it is. Love. Passion. Truth. And perhaps above all, Suffering. You have suffered. You have seen the downside. It has taught you something--feeling, compassion. A singer who has "soul" MOVES people--sings from a place deep inside him or her. And you often feel that "soul" singers are expressing decades, centuries of experience--love, passion, truth, suffering that go back to slavery, of course, but even further, back to the beginning of human feeling and thought. Is this what "soul" is--our ability to connect with all sufferers, alive and dead, and in the future? Does some wretched black mother from long ago, her children torn from her, her husband torn from her, placed to a lifetime of servitude, abuse, rape and dehumanization, live again--does her soul come back to life--through someone singing "soul" NOW? You sometimes get the feeling that she does; that the singer is a "channeler," and has the ability, the talent, the...DNA...the "soul"...to call upon depths of feeling and suffering that the singer did not personally experience. Personal experience enters into it, but it is by no means the whole story.

Bessie Smith had this quality. So did Janis Joplin. Two that spring to mind. Soul.

How can you not believe in it?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
heidler1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Tue May-08-07 10:45 PM
Response to Reply #7
8. IMO every day some one discovers another way that we are tied to our genes.
Dieting is one of these. Sexual preference is another way. Your appetite for sex is another. The list goes on and on. The thing is that it's like Flip Wilson saying "The Devil made me do it", but all of time it was your Genes in charge.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
moggie Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-09-07 02:24 AM
Response to Original message
9. So identical twins have identical souls? n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Duer 157099 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-09-07 12:40 PM
Response to Reply #9
11. Consider how often identical twins have almost psychic connections
We've all heard the stories about the odd connections between id twins -- how they marry similar people, how they have seemingly parallel events in their lives, even when raised completely separately.

Makes one wonder whether there *is* a genetic component to aspects other than the physical.

And, of course, environment can alter genetics, so that while at conception they may share the identical genome, suppose that one of the twins undergoes a very minor point mutation, one single nucleotide, in utero. While they are for all intents and purposes still "identical" twins, in fact they are not.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
OlderButWiser Donating Member (389 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-09-07 02:30 PM
Response to Reply #11
12. Why would it surprise you...
...that identical twins, even if separated, would tend to have similar tastes?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Duer 157099 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-09-07 02:41 PM
Response to Reply #12
13. It's not just taste. It's certain life events that coincide. n/t
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cyborg_jim Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-09-07 02:59 PM
Response to Reply #13
14. And for those twins whose life events do not correlate?
I bet a lot of people have co-incidental life events when they are born at the same time and grow up in similar cultures.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Duer 157099 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-09-07 03:04 PM
Response to Reply #14
15. Well, clearly the answer is
that one or both of the twins had their "life coincidence" gene mutated.

:D

Hey! It could happen!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cyborg_jim Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-09-07 03:06 PM
Response to Reply #15
16. 'Hey it could happen' is not a compelling argument
What is the mechanism? Genes encode proteins. Why insert magic?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
heidler1 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-09-07 04:25 PM
Response to Reply #16
17. I'm more inclined to believe that genes fail to replicate every time.
However as things go in nature they are pretty consistent.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cyborg_jim Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Wed May-09-07 05:22 PM
Response to Reply #17
18. Eh?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Sat May 04th 2024, 12:56 AM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Topic Forums » Religion/Theology Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC