Does being LDS change our DNA

[Metis_LDS]

I watched a program about DNA that says how we live affects changes in our DNA.

Joseph taught some things about getting a change new blood etc..

Any thoughts?

[The Nehor]

You have to be careful here. Whether life changes our DNA depends on what you define as DNA. There are two levels here. The DNA sequence/code does not change outside of rare mutations. Then there is epigenetics which influences genetic expression which does change with age and environment and is believed to be the reason that the elderly are more susceptible disease for example.

Edited December 11, 2018 by The Nehor

[Metis_LDS]

 

3 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

You have to be careful here. Whether life changes our DNA depends on what you define as DNA. There are two levels here. The DNA sequence/code does not change outside of rare mutation. Then there is epigenetics which influences genetic expression which does change with age and environment and is believed to be the reason that the elderly are more susceptible disease for example.

 Sorry I am not a DNA expert you sound like you know a lot more.  I know science talks about

mutations. Is this a code word for God making changes,

[The Nehor]

49 minutes ago, Metis_LDS said:

 

 Sorry I am not a DNA expert you sound like you know a lot more.  I know science talks about

mutations. Is this a code word for God making changes,

I doubt it. Most mutations only influence inactive junk DNA. It is useful for tracking heredity but usually does nothing. God could influence that kind of thing I suppose but why?

[Metis_LDS]

22 minutes ago, The Nehor said:

I doubt it. Most mutations only influence inactive junk DNA. It is useful for tracking heredity but usually does nothing. God could influence that kind of thing I suppose but why?

You have to love TV. Another program I saw about Darwin's Finches explained that the finches with long beaks is controlled

by DNA telling the beak to grow for a longer time (they found the specific part of the DNA).  Of course they said that this started as a mutation that helped the bird eat some types of seed.  They said that good mutations prosper and bad ones die out.

All very good for those that do not want God in the picture.

[clarkgoble]

12 hours ago, The Nehor said:

You have to be careful here. Whether life changes our DNA depends on what you define as DNA. There are two levels here. The DNA sequence/code does not change outside of rare mutations. Then there is epigenetics which influences genetic expression which does change with age and environment and is believed to be the reason that the elderly are more susceptible disease for example.

Well it's a bit more tricky than that since by design our DNA actually does change a fair bit. And mutations aren't rare. Over time you'll come to have quite a bit of variation in your own DNA.  Non-cancerous mutations can actually overtake "normal" tissues. It's thought this might be a major component of age related deterioration. By the time you are middle aged it's possible that 40 - 80% of esophagus cells are mutated. Further neurons often change their DNA although the reasons for this aren't fully understood yet. It appears that the DNA in each neuron is subtly different. Some speculate that memories might even be partially encoded in DNA.

You also have a lot of variation in your blood, especially for women who have had children or people who have had fecal transplants. Both pregnancy and fecal transplants lead to a lot of foreign DNA that survives and replicates. (10% of your blood stem cells are in your gut - fecal transplants give you foreign stem cells which then end up in the blood replicating and replacing tissue as well as blood) So chimerism ends up being much more common than many realize.

Epigenetics is vastly overhyped although there may be some elements that are significant. Although as you note that's primarily chemicals on the surface that changes gene expression.

It's also worth noting that moving away from DNA it's really RNA with the bigger effect. There's lots of strange replicating RNA from viruses, foreign materials including food and so forth. All of those can not only produce novel proteins but also change gene expression.

I take the original post to be more about what being Mormon entails with all this. I don't think anything. There's a very old tradition that our very blood changes during confirmation. While that's a common 19th century way of expressing that, it's worth noting that those espousing it typically had no understanding of even the science of their times. So I suspect the blood changing is metaphoric and it's not clear what actually happens. I doubt it is a change of DNA though.

Edited December 11, 2018 by clarkgoble

[Metis_LDS]

6 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

Well it's a bit more tricky than that since by design our DNA actually does change a fair bit. And mutations aren't rare. Over time you'll come to have quite a bit of variation in your own DNA.  Further neurons often change their DNA although the reasons for this aren't fully understood yet. It appears that the DNA in each neuron is subtly different. You also have a lot of variation in your blood, especially for women who have had children or people who have had fecal transplants. Both pregnancy and fecal transplants lead to a lot of foreign DNA that survives and replicates. (10% of your blood stem cells are in your gut - fecal transplants give you foreign stem cells which then end up in the blood replicating and replacing tissue as well as blood)

Epigenetics is vastly overhyped although there may be some elements that are significant. Although as you not that's primarily chemicals on the surface that changes gene expression.

It's also worth noting that moving away from DNA it's really RNA with the bigger effect. There's lots of strange replicating RNA from viruses, foreign materials including food and so forth. All of those can not only produce novel proteins but also change gene expression.

I take the original post to be more about what being Mormon entails with all this. I don't think anything. There's a very old tradition that our very blood changes during confirmation. While that's a common 19th century way of expressing that, it's worth noting that those espousing it typically had no understanding of even the science of their times. So I suspect the blood changing is metaphoric and it's not clear what actually happens. I doubt it is a change of DNA though.

Thank You for your excellent post.  What is your thoughts on those in the Book of Mormon who became fairer is this not a function of DNA.  How about the promise to faith full Priesthood holders about their bodies being renewed.  Would a way to do this be that when their DNA replicates there are less mistakes in the process.

Edited December 11, 2018 by Metis_LDS
formatting

[clarkgoble]

5 minutes ago, Metis_LDS said:

What is your thoughts on those in the Book of Mormon who became fairer is this not a function of DNA.

I don't think it's DNA. I think darkness in the Book of Mormon is either a metaphoric comment related to righteousness or issues related to tattoos or painted skin (which was very common in mesoamerica). 

5 minutes ago, Metis_LDS said:

How about the promise to faith full Priesthood holders about their bodies being renewed.

I take that to be primarily about gifts of the spirit where through the power of the spirit God can empower us. The final renewal of our bodies is in the resurrection. I don't think we know enough about the resurrection to say much about how it works physically. A common 19th century view was that there wasn't blood in such bodies.

[snowflake]

14 hours ago, Metis_LDS said:

I watched a program about DNA that says how we live affects changes in our DNA.

Joseph taught some things about getting a change new blood etc..

Any thoughts?

Maybe that's the "white and delightesome" part in the BOM? 

• 2 Nephi 30:6 (1830 edition, italics added): "...they shall be a white and a delightsome people."

[Metis_LDS]

8 minutes ago, snowflake said:

Maybe that's the "white and delightesome" part in the BOM? 

• 2 Nephi 30:6 (1830 edition, italics added): "...they shall be a white and a delightsome people."

When DNA and all else RNA etc... was found I felt we as a society put too much meaning into it.

I feel DNA etc.. is a mechanism made by God and something that God can manipulate if needs be.

Edited December 11, 2018 by Metis_LDS
spelling

[Robert F. Smith]

15 minutes ago, Metis_LDS said:

When DNA and all else RNA etc... was found I felt we as a society put too much meaning into it.

I feel DNA etc.. is a mechanism made by God and something that God can manipulate if needs be.

Quote

Studies in the field of epigenetics and somatic hypermutation have highlighted the possible inheritance of behavioral traits acquired by the previous generation.  These remain controversial, not least because historians of science have asserted that it is inaccurate to describe transgenerational epigenetic inheritance as a form of Lamarckism.  The inheritance of the hologenome, consisting of the genomes of all an organism's symbiotic microbes as well as its own genome, is also somewhat Lamarckian in effect, though entirely Darwinian in its mechanisms.   https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lamarckism .

 

[RevTestament]

16 hours ago, Metis_LDS said:

 Sorry I am not a DNA expert you sound like you know a lot more.  I know science talks about mutations. Is this a code word for God making changes,

 

4 hours ago, clarkgoble said:

I take the original post to be more about what being Mormon entails with all this. I don't think anything. There's a very old tradition that our very blood changes during confirmation. While that's a common 19th century way of expressing that, it's worth noting that those espousing it typically had no understanding of even the science of their times. So I suspect the blood changing is metaphoric and it's not clear what actually happens. I doubt it is a change of DNA though.

We are at an infant stage in understanding the vast field of genetics. I don't believe being LDS will change our basic genetic code - at least when it comes to our DNA - but I do believe that adopting a lifestyle consistent with the gospel, can indirectly affect our genetics through epigenetics, which has been brought up. Changing the way we eat and abstaining from alcohol are definite environmental factors which may make changes in our epigenetics. Animals retain certain behaviors I believe through epigenetics. Some behaviors can get turned on and some off. A species of fish trapped in a fresh water elbow lake may experience epigenetic changes turning on certain physical characteristics advantageous for that environment - such as changes which help it avoid parasitism of dragonfly larvae. 

How does God curse down to the third or fourth generation? This could be one way for people who reject the word, and become addicts or the like. 

I wouldn't call epigenetic changes mutations. Mutations generally refer to changes in the DNA chain itself. These generally occur during reproduction. Epigenetic changes are changes to the molecules which attach to the DNA and change how the DNA expresses itself. These changes are considered "natural" and are common place. An example would be identical twins where one is gay and one is not - it is probable their environments cause their genetics to express themselves differently.(I probably should not bring this up, as I am sure there will be a challenge). Anyway it is widely accepted that environment (ie lifestyle choices) can vastly affect our epigenetics. Thus, it is logical that living a LDS Christian lifestyle will affect our epigenetics, which may be used indirectly (or possibly directly) by God to bless our families. To this extent I see validity in your OP since the expression of our DNA is really what has the major impact on our lives - the DNA itself doesn't need to mutate for instructions to get turned  on or off.

[Metis_LDS]

22 minutes ago, RevTestament said:

To this extent I see validity in your OP since the expression of our DNA is really what has the major impact on our lives - the DNA itself doesn't need to mutate for instructions to get turned  on or off.

Thank You for that.  My gut feeling to all this science is that some day they will find some feedback to DNA directly from our actions not just environments.  SO many finches when times are bad try to eat seeds that really need a longer beak,  at some point there is a direct influence on the DNA and a bird is born with a longer beak.  Bad or useless changes to DNA are due to entropy (this is hotly debated if entropy affects DNA).   Anyway just a gut feeling.

 

Edited December 11, 2018 by Metis_LDS
formatting

[clarkgoble]

2 hours ago, RevTestament said:

I wouldn't call epigenetic changes mutations.

Neither would I. Although it does get at some of the blurry boundaries over what is genetics and what is environment.

1 hour ago, Metis_LDS said:

Bad or useless changes to DNA are due to entropy (this is hotly debated if entropy affects DNA).   Anyway just a gut feeling.

Bad or useless changes can become useful when the environment changes or when other mutations allow them to do something different. Although we should also be careful here since "useful" can bring in ideas that possibly are misleading. In terms of evolution useful just means increases fitness in a particular environment.

[katherine the great]

On 12/10/2018 at 10:53 PM, Metis_LDS said:

  They said that good mutations prosper and bad ones die out.

All very good for those that do not want God in the picture.

Well now that's just plain silly. The change in beak size/shape was probably mostly due to the natural variation in the existing population of finches. Mutations were occurring, of course but Darwin's finches is used as an example of natural selection more than speciation. Evolution is a fact and it doesn't support or contradict the existence of God. I oversaw my children's growth and change but there were many outside factors that influenced who they became as adults. That doesn't mean I wasn't "in the picture". Maybe God doesn't feel the need to micromanage everything that happens on this planet.

[Metis_LDS]

2 hours ago, katherine the great said:

Maybe God doesn't feel the need to micromanage everything that happens on this planet.

I agree with what you said about micromanage, but what about credit for God for the system of

evolution itself?

[clarkgoble]

31 minutes ago, Metis_LDS said:

I agree with what you said about micromanage, but what about credit for God for the system of evolution itself?

Self-organization is an inherent property of many systems. If God created the universe then I guess he can be credited for evolution, but it would seem a necessary part of any system that involves chemistry. So I'm not sure what it would mean to credit God for it. 

[Metis_LDS]

1 minute ago, clarkgoble said:

Self-organization is an inherent property of many systems. If God created the universe then I guess he can be credited for evolution, but it would seem a necessary part of any system that involves chemistry. So I'm not sure what it would mean to credit God for it. 

Do people believe we have a cut and paste God.  That life exists unto itself and God found some somewhere and just

transplanted to the earth.  Perhaps I am behind the times.

[clarkgoble]

5 minutes ago, Metis_LDS said:

Do people believe we have a cut and paste God.  That life exists unto itself and God found some somewhere and just transplanted to the earth.  Perhaps I am behind the times.

Well I take the King Follet Discourse as implying life exists on its own principles. What all the implications of that are isn't clear though.

A common view explaining the different ways to reconcile evolution with the Mormon demand that humans and God resemble each other in key ways is that evolution is proceeding on numerous worlds. God may intervene, not in the Intelligent Design sense, but in a practical sense of modifying the environment, such that desired outcomes happen. We don't know the probabilities for life or even how many worlds could host earth like life in the universe. Throw in a multiverse and all bets are off. I'd assume though that evolutionarily many forms are incentivized. So binary symmetry has obvious incentives. Ditto for lots of other processes including basic processes of life like the ATP cycle. We know that many morphologies evolve over and over again. (Indeed BYU was notable for a paper showing that wings evolved in one lineage, were lost, and then reevolved again)

[Metis_LDS]

3 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

Well I take the King Follet Discourse as implying life exists on its own principles. What all the implications of that are isn't clear though.

A common view explaining the different ways to reconcile evolution with the Mormon demand that humans and God resemble each other in key ways is that evolution is proceeding on numerous worlds. God may intervene, not in the Intelligent Design sense, but in a practical sense of modifying the environment, such that desired outcomes happen. We don't know the probabilities for life or even how many worlds could host earth like life in the universe. Throw in a multiverse and all bets are off. I'd assume though that evolutionarily many forms are incentivized. So binary symmetry has obvious incentives. Ditto for lots of other processes including basic processes of life like the ATP cycle. We know that many morphologies evolve over and over again. (Indeed BYU was notable for a paper showing that wings evolved in one lineage, were lost, and then reevolved again)

 My recurring dream is that when I die I ask who was the first God the answer comes back of course that there has

always been Gods. Strangely enough I am okay with that answer.  It bothers me when we start to infer that there would

be life on any planet without Gods.

[Guest]

On December 10, 2018 at 11:19 PM, Metis_LDS said:

I watched a program about DNA that says how we live affects changes in our DNA.

Joseph taught some things about getting a change new blood etc..

Any thoughts?

When we come unto Jesus Christ, we become the "seed of Abraham", beyond that, I hope not. Otherwise I wasted a lot of money on DNA tests for my entire family and in-laws for Christmas this year. So, if someone knows otherwise, let me know before December 25th. 

[clarkgoble]

8 minutes ago, Metis_LDS said:

 My recurring dream is that when I die I ask who was the first God the answer comes back of course that there has

always been Gods. Strangely enough I am okay with that answer.  It bothers me when we start to infer that there would

be life on any planet without Gods.

Isn't God life? So if there has to be Gods there has to be life, doesn't there?

[Metis_LDS]

Just now, Bill "Papa" Lee said:

When we come unto Jesus Christ, we become the "seed of Abraham", beyond that, I hope not. Otherwise I wasted a lot of money on DNA tests for my entire family and in-laws for Christmas this year. So, if someone knows otherwise, let me know before December 25th. 

Yes I had my DNA tested to be more sure of my First Nations heritage.  I wish we had a sample of Abraham DNA.

[Metis_LDS]

2 minutes ago, clarkgoble said:

Isn't God life? So if there has to be Gods there has to be life, doesn't there?

Yes we agree except that I do not see mortal life as a force unto itself such like

Gods are.

[clarkgoble]

27 minutes ago, Metis_LDS said:

Yes we agree except that I do not see mortal life as a force unto itself such like

Gods are.

Not quite sure what you mean.