Do Biological organisms have extra chromosomal source of info?

[Vagabond -SC2-]

Now I am not a developmental biologist nor to do play one on TV but here are some thoughts. I will try to stay on a linear line and I am sure I will miss some things and confuse others. But I can always repost as people point out my jumps and leaps.

 

As ldsoftwaresteve has said development is very complex field. Though science does know the steps and reactions that biologically occur to take a fertilized egg to a child, the mental/social development is still very much a back box. Now some psychologists and psychiatrists may disagree. And there are some genes that are required to biologically develop properly so one can function and if you would, have a chance to achieve greatness.

 

So I suggest that we break down this subject into a couple of categories and define a few things to help prevent confusion of closely related topics.

 

Real quickly, since other posts have already suggested most of these:

“Extra-chromosomal sources of information that determine development”

Development – Biological, mental, social? These are all different.

Extra-chromosomal sources - can these “extra sources” alter gene expression? Most chemicals do alter gene expression leading to changes in function of an organism.

 

Molecular (biological) vs. Social vs. Mental

Many compounds effect the development of a fertilized egg to a fetus to a child and beyond. Some have already been listed.

The obvious one is the chromosomal genes.

Others sources:

Mitochondrial genes

proteins (not made by the cellular genome / maternal proteins)

protein concentrations

small molecular compounds (i.e. chemicals)

magnetic / electrical / sound waves

and radiation to list a few.

 

Now normally the mother’s body is capable of buffering the developing child from any harm. Now we as humans (homo-sapiens) have a cohort of genes that make us all human though there are different flavors (if you will) of many genes. This being said, I would think one needs to first properly develop biologically in order to be able to achieve the status of “greatness”. Now this in it self is not 100% but if you lack or interfer with specific genes then the brain is not going to be able develop properly and thus will not function properly. Also, we humans have a great ability to adapt and change. So one persons “deficiency” may actually allow for success.

 

As a side note children do not “inherit” AIDS from thier mother I believe they are infected with the virus as they pass the birth canal (all the blood and body fluids).

 

Social (Environment)

You stated that your reading suggested that the greats tend to came from “..fairly well off…parents that would engage in intellectual discussions rather arguing/fighting…” (italic my words). This is a well known phenomenon. Just think, if you had to spend 80% of your day finding food, defending yourself, worrying, etc that is time/energy that one can not spend on learning and developing. This leads to suggest that environment can weigh heavily on Mental development (again this is different from biological development and is not a 100% correct statment). For example, it is well know that children can absorb information at an astounding rate. For example children learn multiple languages extremely fast. And that this occurs more frequently in a stable and caring environment.

 

(Reminds me of the movie Trading Places, Here’ s your dollar Mortimer).

 

When you stimulate one’s mind to think and solve puzzles then the mind learns and grows. That mind, if you would becomes stronger.

 

Now to point out that a caring environment is not the end all be all and when environment changes so can one’s abilities. (i.e., George Washington Carver was born a slave, was freed, then earned a college degree and went on to be a great inventor).

 

Ok now that I rambled enough someone jump in and help put me back on track...

[hallenrm]

Wonderful! Vegabond, that's the kind of responses that I seek. Your words were like a feast for an enquiring and thinking mind.:shrug: :(

 

You have raise several points, I shall try to address them piecewise,

 

As ldsoftwaresteve has said development is very complex field. Though science does know the steps and reactions that biologically occur to take a fertilized egg to a child, the mental/social development is still very much a back box.......

 

Molecular (biological) vs. Social vs. Mental

Many compounds effect the development of a fertilized egg to a fetus to a child and beyond. Some have already been listed.

The obvious one is the chromosomal genes.

Others sources:

Mitochondrial genes

proteins (not made by the cellular genome / maternal proteins)

protein concentrations

small molecular compounds (i.e. chemicals)

magnetic / electrical / sound waves

and radiation to list a few.

 

There are almost completely agree with you, but still let me spell out my thoughts in a bit more words, perhaps only to organize my thoughts a bit more.

 

The journey of life perhaps begins with the fertilization of an ovum by a sperm to give rise to a fertilized egg, that develops into a zygote, fetus etc. The fertlized egg, so far as i know lack a propreitary machinery for growth, it uses the machinery available in its immediate environment. The profile ingredients of this machinery the Hormones, lipids, vitamins, carbohydrate minerals etc. etc. can vary from time to time independent of the genetic makeup, it can depend on the mood, weather health of the mother. All these ingredients contribute for making uo the infrastructure that is essential for the future growth. Obviously, it is capable of some independence from the genomic makeup.

 

 

 

Social (Environment)

You stated that your reading suggested that the greats tend to came from “..fairly well off…parents that would engage in intellectual discussions rather arguing/fighting…” (italic my words). This is a well known phenomenon. Just think, if you had to spend 80% of your day finding food, defending yourself, worrying, etc that is time/energy that one can not spend on learning and developing. This leads to suggest that environment can weigh heavily on Mental development (again this is different from biological development and is not a 100% correct statment). For example, it is well know that children can absorb information at an astounding rate. For example children learn multiple languages extremely fast. And that this occurs more frequently in a stable and caring environment.

 

There I would differ, although I totally agree with you that infants most often absorb the information available in their environment much more efficiently than adults.

 

It is not just the economic state that can affect the child of an infant, other totally unrelated factors can be much more effective. For example, consider a very well off couple, just after the birth of their child, the father or the mother can be a contented lot; spending more time pondering about non-economical issues, or alternatively be a greedy lot, always discussing new schemes to make more money. I believe that the child would be better endoweded for scientific enquiry in the former case.

 

Now to point out that a caring environment is not the end all be all and when environment changes so can one’s abilities. (i.e., George Washington Carver was born a slave, was freed, then earned a college degree and went on to be a great inventor).

 

Here again I have a slightlly different point of view. The mind of a human being is like a ferromagnetic metal under the influence of varying magnetic fields. It may exhibit phenomenon of Hysteresis too. George Washington might be born a slave, just like Albert Einstein was a slow learning student earlier, but it is the inherent potential, just like magnetic domains, that determine its ultimate growth.

 

The inheret potential, as I would like to believe, is determined both by genetic as well as extra genetic factors.

[hallenrm]

Just an after thought!!

 

There's been a lot of hullaboo in India, regarding reservation for jobs and in premium educatiobal institutions for cetrain castes of people, who have been underprevolaged for ages. It is like the affirmative action initiated in other multiethenic societies, say USA.

 

I think, the thoughts in this thread have some bearing on this issue. While, it may be true that the progeny of the underprivelaged sections of society are often discreminated against, but if the hypothesis in situ, proposed in this thread has any value, then such affirmative action can not be imagined to lead to any development of the society, unless the children who are chosen to be favored are those whose parents are also intellectually inclined. They can not be randomly chosen from a certain ceconomic or social class only. Only if the parents have proved their worth in the society by contributing significantly, should the progeny be considered for any kind of affirmative action:eek_big:

[Vagabond -SC2-]

... available in its immediate environment. The profile ingredients of this machinery the Hormones, lipids, vitamins, carbohydrate minerals etc. etc. can vary from time to time independent of the genetic makeup, it can depend on the mood, weather health of the mother. All these ingredients contribute for making uo the infrastructure that is essential for the future growth...

 

This is absolutely true if there are deficiencies in nutrition then problems can arise (i.e. low amounts of folic acid can lead to neural tube defects). I also believe that the mood of the mother can effect fetal development. The question here may be is that biological (mechanical) development or social (mental) development. As before if you do not develop biologically (physically) properly first then it could be impossible for you to develop socially (mentally). If the some physical parts are not made or function properly then major problems can arise (blindness, deafness, etc.). But if all the components are there to allow the genetic information to be translated into all the proper proteins and nothing interferes then the chances are pretty high that you will have a properly formed baby (eventually, though lots can and do go wrong).

 

..father or the mother can be a contented lot; spending more time pondering about non-economical issues, or alternatively be a greedy lot, always discussing new schemes to make more money...

 

I don't believe we really disagree on this the potential in your examples could be quite valid but I would not bet the house on either one. People can rise above and the path is not always set straight for them. We as people do tend to acquire/learn from our parents and their attitudes do affect the way we perceive the world. But this does not mean that I will end up thinking and acting as my parents.

 

..inheret potential, as I would like to believe, is determined both by genetic as well as extra genetic factors.

 

I am sort of confused above you typed "..believe that the child would be better endoweded for scientific enquiry in the former case." Then you go and typed "... inheret potential, as I would like to believe, is determined both by genetic as well as extra genetic factors." I like both statements but they sort of contradict each other. Unless I am miss reading (forums can lose something in communication compared to an actually discussion). In George's case he was born a slave. Thus his parents and friend had no education, most likely did not discus and ponder "intellectual" pursuits. They were basically trying to survive. Then once freed George over came major obstacles to become a great intellectual and inventor.

 

Your last post also contradicts George's story

... then such affirmative action can not be imagined to lead to any development of the society, unless the children who are chosen to be favored are those whose parents are also intellectually inclined.

 

George over came a lot to get to where he ended up.

 

Some more thoughts a little later I have to go get the baby (she woke up)..

[HydrogenBond]

Back only a few centuries ago it was assumed that the blue bloods (social elite) were far superior to the red bloods (common working man). That was the genetic argument of its day. If one was from a good lineage (good DNA from one's blue blood breeding) one was considered superior. The Constitution changed the playing field allowing more opportunity for the red bloods. It turned out the blue bloods had stacked the deck to create a self forfilling prophesy. This social example shows how nurturing can be as important as genetic nature. One side alone is not sufficient to explain the exceptions.

[HydrogenBond]

As sort of a follow up. If we look at the leaders of today in all areas of American culture, the vast majority do not have the orginal blue blood lineage from before the constituiton. The red blood may have actually had the better genes. The change in social environment allowed for its expression. This is logical if one considers that a more difficult life requires more adaptation. This may have strengthen their genes more than those who lived in a more controlled environment. When the social environment changed the extra genetic potential kicked culture into overdrive.

[hallenrm]

What I have expressed in this thread ia at most a scientific theory, and to be really scientific it must pass through the rigrous tests science philosophers like Kuhn and Popper have envisioned.

 

Let me then list a set of tests that would verify or falsify my theory.

 

1. We do have a number of distinguished men/women of science alive, if we were to investigate into their parenthood and childhood we may have some useful data.
   
2. We do have recorded history and biographies of many distinguished scientists, can we find statistically significant number of examples that are contrary to this hypothesis.
   
3. Many persons are aspiring to become Nobel Lareates, and are yet to become a parent, what if some of them volunteer for experimenation.
   

 

I am sure my distinguished friends at Hypography can add many more such tests and perhaps lobby to find sponsors for such a research!! :cup:

[ldsoftwaresteve]

If you want to see the definitive proof that genetics doesn't play as much a role in intelligence as environment, see all of the work by Maria Montessori. http://www.montessoristores.com/?OVRAW=maria%20montessori&OVKEY=maria%20montessori&OVMTC=standard Sorry about the advertisments. Click on maria to see her biography.

See her book, "The Discovery of the Child".

She was a scientist in every good sense of the term.

[HydrogenBond]

I would say environment is the most important. The reason I say this is that if one assumes genetics one may rest on their laurels. If one assumes environment one will have to bust their hump to make it work. Usually harder work allows one to rise above adversity more than rite of way. It is analogous to comparing the person who works out and person who does the latest drug to achieve their health. The drug will usually lose its effectiveness over time. The person who works out, even if they begin to lose their motivation at the same time, will have built a type of biological capacitance that will carrry their good health further into the future.

[hallenrm]

I have two parallel thoughts:

1. If this is so, our society our country should spend more on science popularization, if we wish to promote creativity in science.
   
2. Each one of us needs to spend a bit more time with infants we love, and discuss intricate issues in their presence, it may make a mark in the future.
   

 

:xx: :doh: ;) ;) :) :)

[Vagabond -SC2-]

I agree we as a society break that down to a small common denominator - the family unit. This unit needs to take responsibility for the raising of their children. Stop expecting the school system to do it all. Parents need to care for their children by taking an active role in their lives, teaching them (provide ample mental stimulation) and allowing them time and room to grow. This would include providing support (both physical and mental), rewarding success, discipline, and playing the good role model.

[Eclogite]

An interesting article in this week's New Scientist explores the possible loss of empathy and the rise of selfishness as a consequence of the demise of the extended family. You can see an overview of the article here, but the full item is only available on line if you are a subscriber.

http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg19025461.600.html

 

This expands and emphasises the point Vagabond is making about the family unit.

[tarak]

The genetic blueprint largely encoded in the form of nucleotide sequences in different cellular environments,(mostly in nucleus) stably holds the information for the life processes to function.But ultimately it is the interaction of the of this information manifested as gene products and their interactive metabolic processes with the immediate intermediate and the final environment (The G X E effect) determines the expression of the phenotype of our perception.Ofcourse the realm of epigenetics and positional information/effects are part of the responses within the complex genetic regulations.

[questor]

i have a little problem in what i call ''evolution upon demand''. statements like: the birds developed wings so they could elude predators, the nordics developed light skin because they had no need for excess melanin ( why didn't

they also develop full body hair for warmth? ). what was the mechanism that demanded the bat develop sonar? or man the opposable thumb? was it protection or efficiency? why do heritable traits hang about without altering the genes? does a bird fly because it watches a parent or because of genes?

we don't know the answer, but i think the answer to the Nobel prize question

is individual ''wiring''. a fortuitous arrangement of neurons, ganglia and synapses, giving one person clearer thought in a particular subject than other

people.

[tarak]

Its all about formation of patterns and their sustainability,consolidation and manifestation in a particular system.An infant addresses its mother not by rigorous training but a preformed genetic pattern of cognition (there must be research articles on this although I donot have info presently).

[InfiniteNow]

Questor,

 

You raise an interesting point, however, I would attribute it more to a lack of proper expression on the part of the person trying to communicate it than I would to the concept of evolution (or, more appropriately, natural selection) itself.

 

 

Cheers. :)

[hallenrm]

I am a happy person today:) the question I raised is indeed leading to an intelligent and healthy discussion!!

 

I was thinking about my possible response to such a question (in case I was confronted by this question by someone else). I would have said, "Well, it's all good talk but can you cite a single concrete personal experience in the support to your theory".

 

I think, that is valid point, so to begin with, I shall list my personal experiences that are likely to support my hypothesis. But, the problem is the text may be too long, I do not know if it is a normal practice in Hypography to allow long posts (What do you say Tormod!), so instead I provide a link to my personal blogspot, where I kinow I will face no limitations!

 

So, to all my friends, who visit this thread, my humble suggestion, do visit this blogspot, and if you like this idea, please post your personal experiences (you may consult your parents) in case you don't know much about the influences on your infant mind.:hihi: :) :)