Can We Overcome Our Genetic Predispositions?

[Guest end3]

It's Tuesday....overcome with midlife crap....so here's one for us to pass the time.

 

Can we overcome our genetic predisposition and more specifically, how?

 

Blessings as always...

 

But if you would rather vent about midlife crap, the floor is open to this as well.

[Guest end3]

Crap, PREDISPOSITIONS !!!!

 

Florduh, would you mind editing my spelling in the title?

[mymistake]

Can't you change the title yourself using the full editor option?  I know regular members can.

 

The only way to change your genes is with advanced technology.  I don't know if science it there yet.  It would be cutting edge stuff.

 

However having a genetic predisposition to something doesn't mean you have to do it.  It simply means you have a tendency.  People are not forced to act upon it.

 

For example being Irish might make you prone to alcoholism.  But if your never drink you will never become an alcoholic. 

[Guest end3]

Can't you change the title yourself using the full editor option?  I know regular members can.

 

The only way to change your genes is with advanced technology.  I don't know if science it there yet.  It would be cutting edge stuff.

 

However having a genetic predisposition to something doesn't mean you have to do it.  It simply means you have a tendency.  People are not forced to act upon it.

 

For example being Irish might make you prone to alcoholism.  But if your never drink you will never become an alcoholic.

Yes it worked...thanks, didn't know I could do that.

[bornagainathiest]

It depends, End.

It depends on there actually being such things as genetic predispositions. (RogueScholar's expertise may be of help here.)  If so, it further depends on what you mean by the word, 'overcome'.  (Again, RS may be able to say if they can be changed in any way.)  Assuming they do exist and assuming they can be overcome in some (to be specified) way, have you considered these questions?

 

1.

Do all genetic predispositions need to be overcome? 

 

2.

Does a genetic predisposition towards happiness really need to be overcome?

 

3.

Who gets to decide what constitutes a good predisposition and what makes a bad one?

 

4.

What system of morality and ethics should be used to decide what is a good predisposition and what is a bad one?

 

5.

Why should any particular system of ethics and morality be favored over any other, when making the above decisions?

 

6.

Can there ever be one universal system of morality and ethics that works for everyone's genetics?

 

7.

Who gets to decide who has their predispositions altered and who doesn't?

 

8.

Are there such things as neutral predispositions - ones that are neither good nor bad?

 

9.

Can the good predispositions be enhanced at the expense of the bad ones?

 

10.

Are there any potential risks to health in making these alterations to ourselves?

.

.

.

If I had to go out on a limb here End, I'd say that you're unhappy with aspects of your behavior and that you've somehow concluded that genetics is part or all of the problem.  If so, perhaps you could tell us why you think this is so?

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[TheRedneckProfessor]

A genetic predisposition is not an automatic sentence.  It simply means that your genes are wrapped in such a way as to code for certain proteins which may differ from the proteins coded by the same loci on other people's genes. 

 

Also, if you are predisposed to having brown hair, you can always dye it.

[Ravenstar]

Predisposition to what?  Height? eye colour? breast cancer? intelligence? Ability to convert vitamin D? Addiction? Neurological atypical-ness? Genes are pretty darn complicated, and I know that many in genetic research are working on gene therapy for congenital issues… but if you mean personality traits, as in making different choices and changing ones ways? Of course we can overcome them - people do it all the time.

 

We are a strange mixture of nature, nurture and willpower. But thinking pattern changes usually comes with a fair bit of discomfort, for a while anyway.

 

No pain, no gain.

[Guest end3]

A genetic predisposition is not an automatic sentence.  It simply means that your genes are wrapped in such a way as to code for certain proteins which may differ from the proteins coded by the same loci on other people's genes. 

 

Also, if you are predisposed to having brown hair, you can always dye it.

In my mind Prof, one would think that a given amount is automatic. Please pardon my ignorance, but if my brain is coded protein(s), then I'm hard wired for some given outcome of that arrangement. No?

[mymistake]

Generally speaking humans are hard wired to find the taste of candy to be nice and the smell of methane to be unpleasant.  We can go on down the line for all the stimuli humans generally react in the same way.  We all find sunset beautiful.  We all find baby mammals to be cute.  These preferences are part of our genetic code because many of them help with survival.

[bornagainathiest]

 

A genetic predisposition is not an automatic sentence.  It simply means that your genes are wrapped in such a way as to code for certain proteins which may differ from the proteins coded by the same loci on other people's genes. 

 

Also, if you are predisposed to having brown hair, you can always dye it.

In my mind Prof, one would think that a given amount is automatic. Please pardon my ignorance, but if my brain is coded protein(s), then I'm hard wired for some given outcome of that arrangement. No?

 

 

Can you help me out please, End?

 

I don't understand why you're saying that a predisposition is hard wired/automatic?

 

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/predispose

 

A predisposition is a tendency, a susceptibility or a likelihood, not a certainty and certainly not something automatic.

 

See the difference?  

[RogueScholar]

 

This is a complicated subject. The short answer is yes; we can potentially alter the trajectory of somebodies life based on what we know of their genetics. A provincial but important example regarding pharmacology has to do with the metabolism or biotransformation of drugs. A specific example involves a drug known as codeine. Codeine is an opiate analgesic (painkiller) that is a naturally occurring substance found in certain poppy plants.

 

Codeine is what we call a prodrug in pharmacology. Prodrugs are inactive in their native (original form). That is correct, as is, codeine does not have any significant pharmacological activity. However, following ingestion codeine enters the body. There are several enzyme systems in the body that can metabolise or biotransform (change the chemical structure) of the medication. Enzymes are typically proteins that allow certain chemical reactions to occur more efficiently. As RedneckProf already stated, proteins result when DNA is copied into RNA and said RNA "tells" cellular structures known as ribosomes to create certain proteins (in a nutshell).

 

One metabolic pathway for codeine involves an enzyme known as CYP2D6. CYP2D6 catalyses or makes the process of O-demethylation of codeine occur much more efficiently. O-demethylation is a fancy term that means to remove a methyl (CH3) functional chemical group from an Oxygen atom. I have provided a picture for reference below. My art is far from being Rembrandt, but it should do reasonably well for this thread. You do not need to worry about the complete chemical structure, just focus on the methyl group of the codeine and see what happens following the CYP2D6 catalysed reaction. This is correct, codeine is actually turned into an active molecule (also known as an active metabolite in pharmacology) or it's active form and that active form just happens to be the well-known morphine molecule.

 

 

However, CYP enzymes in general (including CYP2D60 tend to be highly polymorphic. A polymorphism is a type of mutation that results in different phenotypes. A phenotype is the actual expression of a trait as opposed to genotype that is the genetic makeup of an organism. In some cases a gene (genotype) is not expressed as a phenotype. However, when it comes to polymorphisms, these genes are expressed. When it comes to the CYP2D6 enzyme, phenotypes that result in exceptionally efficient or rapid metabolism as well as slow metabolism of codeine exist.

 

This means that reasonably large numbers of people with the polymorphism that codes for very slow metabolism of codeine cannot effectively convert codeine into it's active metabolite morphine. This results in folks who do not achieve good pain control when they take codeine. Perhaps the more sinister polymorphism; however, is the mutation that results in ultra rapid metabolism.  These folks tend to produce much more morphine and are at significant risk for life threatening toxicity or overdose even if they take standard "recommended" doses.

 

Therefore, I would posit that folks with a gene that codes for ultra rapid metabolism of codeine are predisposed to experience toxicity from codeine and identifying these folks could allow us to overcome said predisposition by prescribing a safer medication.

[Ravenstar]

Brilliant

[Penguin]

If genetic predispositions toward certain behaviors exist, they can always be overcome. That's the beauty of free will. We can always make the choice to do this rather than that. If there's such a thing as a genetic predisposition, that would only mean it's harder to choose this over that. I'm not convinced we're genetically predisposed toward anything, though.

[FreeThinkerNZ]

If genetic predispositions toward certain behaviors exist, they can always be overcome. That's the beauty of free will. We can always make the choice to do this rather than that. If there's such a thing as a genetic predisposition, that would only mean it's harder to choose this over that. I'm not convinced we're genetically predisposed toward anything, though.

 

I agree with regard to behaviour/psychology.  But I think we can be predisposed to certain medical conditions, with a very low chance of avoiding them later in life.  For example, certain breast cancer mutations give affected women an 85% chance of breast cancer, so a lot of them are choosing preventive mastectomies.

[Penguin]

 

If genetic predispositions toward certain behaviors exist, they can always be overcome. That's the beauty of free will. We can always make the choice to do this rather than that. If there's such a thing as a genetic predisposition, that would only mean it's harder to choose this over that. I'm not convinced we're genetically predisposed toward anything, though.

 

I agree with regard to behaviour/psychology.  But I think we can be predisposed to certain medical conditions, with a very low chance of avoiding them later in life.  For example, certain breast cancer mutations give affected women an 85% chance of breast cancer, so a lot of them are choosing preventive mastectomies.

 

 

Yes, I believe in genetic predispositions toward illnesses and attributes, but not necessarily for behaviors.

[Guest end3]

This is a complicated subject. The short answer is yes; we can potentially alter the trajectory of somebodies life based on what we know of their genetics. A provincial but important example regarding pharmacology has to do with the metabolism or biotransformation of drugs. A specific example involves a drug known as codeine. Codeine is an opiate analgesic (painkiller) that is a naturally occurring substance found in certain poppy plants.

 

Codeine is what we call a prodrug in pharmacology. Prodrugs are inactive in their native (original form). That is correct, as is, codeine does not have any significant pharmacological activity. However, following ingestion codeine enters the body. There are several enzyme systems in the body that can metabolise or biotransform (change the chemical structure) of the medication. Enzymes are typically proteins that allow certain chemical reactions to occur more efficiently. As RedneckProf already stated, proteins result when DNA is copied into RNA and said RNA "tells" cellular structures known as ribosomes to create certain proteins (in a nutshell).

 

One metabolic pathway for codeine involves an enzyme known as CYP2D6. CYP2D6 catalyses or makes the process of O-demethylation of codeine occur much more efficiently. O-demethylation is a fancy term that means to remove a methyl (CH3) functional chemical group from an Oxygen atom. I have provided a picture for reference below. My art is far from being Rembrandt, but it should do reasonably well for this thread. You do not need to worry about the complete chemical structure, just focus on the methyl group of the codeine and see what happens following the CYP2D6 catalysed reaction. This is correct, codeine is actually turned into an active molecule (also known as an active metabolite in pharmacology) or it's active form and that active form just happens to be the well-known morphine molecule.

 

 

 

However, CYP enzymes in general (including CYP2D60 tend to be highly polymorphic. A polymorphism is a type of mutation that results in different phenotypes. A phenotype is the actual expression of a trait as opposed to genotype that is the genetic makeup of an organism. In some cases a gene (genotype) is not expressed as a phenotype. However, when it comes to polymorphisms, these genes are expressed. When it comes to the CYP2D6 enzyme, phenotypes that result in exceptionally efficient or rapid metabolism as well as slow metabolism of codeine exist.

 

This means that reasonably large numbers of people with the polymorphism that codes for very slow metabolism of codeine cannot effectively convert codeine into it's active metabolite morphine. This results in folks who do not achieve good pain control when they take codeine. Perhaps the more sinister polymorphism; however, is the mutation that results in ultra rapid metabolism.  These folks tend to produce much more morphine and are at significant risk for life threatening toxicity or overdose even if they take standard "recommended" doses.

 

Therefore, I would posit that folks with a gene that codes for ultra rapid metabolism of codeine are predisposed to experience toxicity from codeine and identifying these folks could allow us to overcome said predisposition by prescribing a safer medication.

Thanks RS,

 

So if I take a bit of ignorance mixed with liberty here, it appears that we may intentionally modify our behavior based on mechanisms as you have described.

 

I am thinking it is highly probable that our "trajectory" is altered by natural and yet undiscovered mechanisms to our liking or chagrin. Heck I don't know, but it seems reasonable. With that said, I'm lost on how we might have the ability to act against what might be a natural tendency. In other words, why and how would we not just act on "instinct".

[FreeThinkerNZ]

 

This is a complicated subject. The short answer is yes; we can potentially alter the trajectory of somebodies life based on what we know of their genetics. A provincial but important example regarding pharmacology has to do with the metabolism or biotransformation of drugs. A specific example involves a drug known as codeine. Codeine is an opiate analgesic (painkiller) that is a naturally occurring substance found in certain poppy plants.

 

Codeine is what we call a prodrug in pharmacology. Prodrugs are inactive in their native (original form). That is correct, as is, codeine does not have any significant pharmacological activity. However, following ingestion codeine enters the body. There are several enzyme systems in the body that can metabolise or biotransform (change the chemical structure) of the medication. Enzymes are typically proteins that allow certain chemical reactions to occur more efficiently. As RedneckProf already stated, proteins result when DNA is copied into RNA and said RNA "tells" cellular structures known as ribosomes to create certain proteins (in a nutshell).

 

One metabolic pathway for codeine involves an enzyme known as CYP2D6. CYP2D6 catalyses or makes the process of O-demethylation of codeine occur much more efficiently. O-demethylation is a fancy term that means to remove a methyl (CH3) functional chemical group from an Oxygen atom. I have provided a picture for reference below. My art is far from being Rembrandt, but it should do reasonably well for this thread. You do not need to worry about the complete chemical structure, just focus on the methyl group of the codeine and see what happens following the CYP2D6 catalysed reaction. This is correct, codeine is actually turned into an active molecule (also known as an active metabolite in pharmacology) or it's active form and that active form just happens to be the well-known morphine molecule.

 

 

 

However, CYP enzymes in general (including CYP2D60 tend to be highly polymorphic. A polymorphism is a type of mutation that results in different phenotypes. A phenotype is the actual expression of a trait as opposed to genotype that is the genetic makeup of an organism. In some cases a gene (genotype) is not expressed as a phenotype. However, when it comes to polymorphisms, these genes are expressed. When it comes to the CYP2D6 enzyme, phenotypes that result in exceptionally efficient or rapid metabolism as well as slow metabolism of codeine exist.

 

This means that reasonably large numbers of people with the polymorphism that codes for very slow metabolism of codeine cannot effectively convert codeine into it's active metabolite morphine. This results in folks who do not achieve good pain control when they take codeine. Perhaps the more sinister polymorphism; however, is the mutation that results in ultra rapid metabolism.  These folks tend to produce much more morphine and are at significant risk for life threatening toxicity or overdose even if they take standard "recommended" doses.

 

Therefore, I would posit that folks with a gene that codes for ultra rapid metabolism of codeine are predisposed to experience toxicity from codeine and identifying these folks could allow us to overcome said predisposition by prescribing a safer medication.

Thanks RS,

 

So if I take a bit of ignorance mixed with liberty here, it appears that we may intentionally modify our behavior based on mechanisms as you have described.

 

I am thinking it is highly probable that our "trajectory" is altered by natural and yet undiscovered mechanisms to our liking or chagrin. Heck I don't know, but it seems reasonable. With that said, I'm lost on how we might have the ability to act against what might be a natural tendency. In other words, why and how would we not just act on "instinct".

 

 

Scientist writes lengthy, detailed and well supported post about a demonstrated physiological phenomenon.

 

Xian ignores post and repeats his unfounded assertion that confuses behaviour with physiological functions.

[Ravenstar]

Example: It's a natural tendency to be attracted to some, maybe many of, members of the opposite sex (or same sex, whatever) but if we acted on instinct alone then we would be shagging constantly - with lots of people.  This is not the case in humans.. and most primates.

 

Very few higher animals work on just instinct… that's what the brain is for. I think maybe you should study some biology. Even rats have shown signs of making compassionate choices… rats. We have much more cognitive freedom than rats. We haven't lived on instinct alone probably since we evolved from reptiles.

 

I'm not sure if you know what instinct really is.

 

I also get the feeling that you may think we are very different from other creatures.. but such is not the case, it's a continuum, a spectrum. 

 

"Any behavior is instinctive if it is performed without being based upon prior experience (that is, in the absence of learning), and is therefore an expression of innate biological factors. Sea turtles, newly hatched on a beach, will automatically move toward the ocean. A joey climbs into its mother's pouch upon being born. Honeybees communicate by dancing in the direction of a food source without formal instruction. Other examples include animal fighting, animal courtship behavior, internal escape functions, and the building of nests."  

 

"The role of instincts in determining the behavior of animals varies from species to species. The more complex the neural system of an animal, the greater is the role of the cerebral cortex and social learning, and instincts play a lesser role. A comparison between a crocodile and an elephant illustrates how mammals for example are heavily dependent on social learning. Lionesses and chimpanzees raised in zoos away from their birth mothers most often reject their own offspring because they have not been taught the skills of mothering.^{[citation needed]} Such is not the case with simpler species such as reptiles."

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instinct   

 

Now.. there are many other things that influence our behaviour… our upbringing has a HUGE impact on how we do things, think about things and the choices we make, our culture, our social circles… our own beliefs - our worldview. Our health, are we hungry, tired, lonely? Do we ingest mind-altering substances… are we in debt? or have plenty… psychologically we are very complex, and we respond, sometimes without thinking about it (subconsciously, but NOT on instinct) to our environment.. external and internal.  When we don't explore these things and challenge them or don't take care of ourselves then we most definitely can fall into habits and patterns that are not always healthy or the best thing to do, or choose.

 

I suggest you read some Abraham Maslow. Maybe Freud… and Jung. And BIOLOGY. To start.

[duderonomy]

 

This is a complicated subject. The short answer is yes; we can potentially alter the trajectory of somebodies life based on what we know of their genetics. A provincial but important example regarding pharmacology has to do with the metabolism or biotransformation of drugs. A specific example involves a drug known as codeine. Codeine is an opiate analgesic (painkiller) that is a naturally occurring substance found in certain poppy plants.

 

Codeine is what we call a prodrug in pharmacology. Prodrugs are inactive in their native (original form). That is correct, as is, codeine does not have any significant pharmacological activity. However, following ingestion codeine enters the body. There are several enzyme systems in the body that can metabolise or biotransform (change the chemical structure) of the medication. Enzymes are typically proteins that allow certain chemical reactions to occur more efficiently. As RedneckProf already stated, proteins result when DNA is copied into RNA and said RNA "tells" cellular structures known as ribosomes to create certain proteins (in a nutshell).

 

One metabolic pathway for codeine involves an enzyme known as CYP2D6. CYP2D6 catalyses or makes the process of O-demethylation of codeine occur much more efficiently. O-demethylation is a fancy term that means to remove a methyl (CH3) functional chemical group from an Oxygen atom. I have provided a picture for reference below. My art is far from being Rembrandt, but it should do reasonably well for this thread. You do not need to worry about the complete chemical structure, just focus on the methyl group of the codeine and see what happens following the CYP2D6 catalysed reaction. This is correct, codeine is actually turned into an active molecule (also known as an active metabolite in pharmacology) or it's active form and that active form just happens to be the well-known morphine molecule.

 

 

 

However, CYP enzymes in general (including CYP2D60 tend to be highly polymorphic. A polymorphism is a type of mutation that results in different phenotypes. A phenotype is the actual expression of a trait as opposed to genotype that is the genetic makeup of an organism. In some cases a gene (genotype) is not expressed as a phenotype. However, when it comes to polymorphisms, these genes are expressed. When it comes to the CYP2D6 enzyme, phenotypes that result in exceptionally efficient or rapid metabolism as well as slow metabolism of codeine exist.

 

This means that reasonably large numbers of people with the polymorphism that codes for very slow metabolism of codeine cannot effectively convert codeine into it's active metabolite morphine. This results in folks who do not achieve good pain control when they take codeine. Perhaps the more sinister polymorphism; however, is the mutation that results in ultra rapid metabolism.  These folks tend to produce much more morphine and are at significant risk for life threatening toxicity or overdose even if they take standard "recommended" doses.

 

Therefore, I would posit that folks with a gene that codes for ultra rapid metabolism of codeine are predisposed to experience toxicity from codeine and identifying these folks could allow us to overcome said predisposition by prescribing a safer medication.

Thanks RS,

 

So if I take a bit of ignorance mixed with liberty here, it appears that we may intentionally modify our behavior based on mechanisms as you have described.

 

I am thinking it is highly probable that our "trajectory" is altered by natural and yet undiscovered mechanisms to our liking or chagrin. Heck I don't know, but it seems reasonable. With that said, I'm lost on how we might have the ability to act against what might be a natural tendency. In other words, why and how would we not just act on "instinct".

 

 

End3, you are over thinking everything. A problem recognized, is half corrected, right?  You poop, therefore you am.

 

Get over yourself already. That's not subjective poop coming out of you, that is real poop, here in real life. You poop. I poop. Jesus, if he existed at all, pooped. I know from the Holy Scriptures that he ate fish after his resurrection. Where did that fish waste go, or is there no waste in a resurrected body? Is Jesus so magical that he can appear to his disciples for forty days after his resurrection and never poop, even though he eats?  

 

Natural and yet undiscovered. Instinct. Indeed.  

[RogueScholar]

I'm not sure that I'd call my self a scientist. I'm more of an educator. My contribution to the literature has been minimal and the research that I'm doing is rather simple and not likely to add much. I just wanted to point that out as there are likely folks here who have contributed much to the literature and have spent a significant amount of time in research. I'm mainly a clinician that branched into education who is now involved in simple research as an adjunct to his full time obligations as an educator.

[Guest end3]

Example: It's a natural tendency to be attracted to some, maybe many of, members of the opposite sex (or same sex, whatever) but if we acted on instinct alone then we would be shagging constantly - with lots of people.  This is not the case in humans.. and most primates.

 

Very few higher animals work on just instinct… that's what the brain is for. I think maybe you should study some biology. Even rats have shown signs of making compassionate choices… rats. We have much more cognitive freedom than rats. We haven't lived on instinct alone probably since we evolved from reptiles.

 

I'm not sure if you know what instinct really is.

 

I also get the feeling that you may think we are very different from other creatures.. but such is not the case, it's a continuum, a spectrum. 

 

"Any behavior is instinctive if it is performed without being based upon prior experience (that is, in the absence of learning), and is therefore an expression of innate biological factors. Sea turtles, newly hatched on a beach, will automatically move toward the ocean. A joey climbs into its mother's pouch upon being born. Honeybees communicate by dancing in the direction of a food source without formal instruction. Other examples include animal fighting, animal courtship behavior, internal escape functions, and the building of nests."  

 

"The role of instincts in determining the behavior of animals varies from species to species. The more complex the neural system of an animal, the greater is the role of the cerebral cortex and social learning, and instincts play a lesser role. A comparison between a crocodile and an elephant illustrates how mammals for example are heavily dependent on social learning. Lionesses and chimpanzees raised in zoos away from their birth mothers most often reject their own offspring because they have not been taught the skills of mothering.^{[citation needed]} Such is not the case with simpler species such as reptiles."

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instinct   

 

Now.. there are many other things that influence our behaviour… our upbringing has a HUGE impact on how we do things, think about things and the choices we make, our culture, our social circles… our own beliefs - our worldview. Our health, are we hungry, tired, lonely? Do we ingest mind-altering substances… are we in debt? or have plenty… psychologically we are very complex, and we respond, sometimes without thinking about it (subconsciously, but NOT on instinct) to our environment.. external and internal.  When we don't explore these things and challenge them or don't take care of ourselves then we most definitely can fall into habits and patterns that are not always healthy or the best thing to do, or choose.

 

I suggest you read some Abraham Maslow. Maybe Freud… and Jung. And BIOLOGY. To start.

What I gathered from RS was that it literally boils down to programmed chemistry/physics. If this is the case, and we may never know, what chemistry allows us to contradict the programmed chemistry? Obviously it can go either way. But this leaves me at a loss for how this is possible. I can envision environment, especially diet could literally change our body out of necessity, but it only seems reasonable that behaviors would fall under the same set of rules.

 

I realize my thoughts are repetitious, and I should move forward with my own search, but sometimes I just like to ponder. Thanks for the response R. In other words, some things drive me to go look and some things not so much. Thanks again.

[Ravenstar]

I always learn a lot from you     No matter what the label.

[Guest end3]

End3, you are over thinking everything. A problem recognized, is half corrected, right?  You poop, therefore you am.

 

Get over yourself already. That's not subjective poop coming out of you, that is real poop, here in real life. You poop. I poop. Jesus, if he existed at all, pooped. I know from the Holy Scriptures that he ate fish after his resurrection. Where did that fish waste go, or is there no waste in a resurrected body? Is Jesus so magical that he can appear to his disciples for forty days after his resurrection and never poop, even though he eats?  

 

Natural and yet undiscovered. Instinct. Indeed.

Jesus dude, it boils down to chemistry. If this is the case....and chemistry follows natural law, then there has to be chemistry that allows us to change our programming. Not sure why you can't recognize this. Or, it could be God. Don't sign yourself up for behavioral genetics class....you'll fail.

[mymistake]

 

End3, you are over thinking everything. A problem recognized, is half corrected, right?  You poop, therefore you am.

 

Get over yourself already. That's not subjective poop coming out of you, that is real poop, here in real life. You poop. I poop. Jesus, if he existed at all, pooped. I know from the Holy Scriptures that he ate fish after his resurrection. Where did that fish waste go, or is there no waste in a resurrected body? Is Jesus so magical that he can appear to his disciples for forty days after his resurrection and never poop, even though he eats?  

 

Natural and yet undiscovered. Instinct. Indeed.

Jesus dude, it boils down to chemistry. If this is the case....and chemistry follows natural law, then there has to be chemistry that allows us to change our programming. Not sure why you can't recognize this. Or, it could be God. Don't sign yourself up for behavioral genetics class....you'll fail.

 

 

 

Holy Word Salad, Batman!

 

End start with the fact that we can change our programing.  Then you won't need to invent a God to explain it.

[FreeThinkerNZ]

I'm not sure that I'd call my self a scientist. I'm more of an educator. My contribution to the literature has been minimal and the research that I'm doing is rather simple and not likely to add much. I just wanted to point that out as there are likely folks here who have contributed much to the literature and have spent a significant amount of time in research. I'm mainly a clinician that branched into education who is now involved in simple research as an adjunct to his full time obligations as an educator.

 

Well, I always enjoy reading your posts about scientific subjects because you are good at communicating them to a diverse audience, and I know you care enough about science to only claim things for which there is good evidence.  Will try to remember to refer to you as a science educator.