I'm not understanding what hes saying..for example, cancer genes, thats just a mutation thats inherited from your parents, the mutation is already there, and thats why you have a higher chance of cancer...theres no signal needed, the mutation already exists..
@bigu236 but the gene is not activated. So the person does not get cancer for years and decades. But when the appropriate stress signals such as chemicals, toxins are introduced into the body by that person that mutant gene is activated. What he says also explains why not everyone who smokes gets lung cancer.
@bigu236 What he is saying is that the gene is not the key here. It is the genetic EXPRESSION. You can have "cancer" genes but they will not be "unsleeved" and expressed by the cells if you do not have the signal that requires that gene to be expressed. Signal is everything and the cell responds based on environment.
"You have the ability to change anything in your body."
I didn't agree with the way Bruce was conveying his message, but up until this video I enjoyed hearing him talk about the way the environment acts on (not controls) our genes. Its new and exciting epigenetics and gene expression. But saying something like that is just frustrating. He is stretching the truth with that statement and stretching the truth while making it sound like science is called pseudoscience.
Religions manipuatively alter beliefs and beliefs control perception. Our beliefs affect our biology every single minute of each day. If you change your perception you can rewrite genes; however, Dr. Lipton says, "Rewriting genes is almost always a negative process". When u change your genes you are making them less affective to survive if you already got here healthy. Another thing religion makes people think as modern biology; they have no control over their reality. It all takes power away.
Perception, or rather mis-perception is causing your Huntington's, et cetera. Pharmaceutical co.s know this and perpetuate it so that you, we, all of us will have to buy their pills. They don't care about you/our health or well-being. They just want to manipulate you/us into their belief system. That is the false system. Bruce is telling the truth here.
What a person focuses on is what they are going to get by adapting to their environment. A person who focuses on success and how to achieve it are more likely to achieve it . . .
@ExtantFrodo So explain eating healthy and exercising. By your body adapting to its environment, your genes change in order to survive. Example: Practicing kung-fu allow to change how efficient your body can become, essentially changing its genes. I would go into more depth but I don't think I need to further explain what I am saying.
@TheIGPD Please understand. 99% of what Bruce described in terms of the science and mechanics of cellular biology is 100% correct and true. His description of how proteins operate and are used and made are all very well portrayed. How gene expression occurs and is regulated is spot on. Changing your approach, your attitude, your perception DOES affect which genes get expressed.
But even if you had enough perception control to affect the activation of a single gene, if it's broken it's broken.
Ask yourself, what is the use of turning ON a broken gene? You might actually be healthier with it turned off. Bruce knows about this goblin in his shell game and has decided it is better to dupe the public into accepting a lie. And he goes to some lengths to give credibility to the lie. The so called "genetic engineering genes" he goes on about are an aspect of your immune system. It cranks out hundreds of millions of protein "experiments" to try to make complimentary shapes to foreign bodies.
None of which is ever recruited or used or employed to rewrite any of the normal operating genes of your DNA. Such "experiments" would be lethal.
Bruce tries to hijack this business and claim that those can some how magically know the proper sequence a gene should be to produce a particular protein and rewrite an improper sequence into a correct one. He knows that can not happen. He'd rather sell his books than tell the truth. You can't cure Huntington's through perception.
@sayroni what hes saying is that your dna is a blueprint. what ever disease your parents pass to you can be switched off and on by your environment and the way you take it in. EX1: if you work construction and stress your self out,and are always negative about it, theres a higher chance of illness . EX2: if you work at a church and your always positive 9 times out of ten you'll reflect good health (keep in mind nutrition and exercise plays a huge role) but its also how you take it all in.
@sayroni so yes you cant change your dna but your dna doesnt dictate your future. if you dad passes the cancer jean to you, and your healthy and vibrant than gene wont activate. if your a unhealthy than that can be a form of activating it. so in conclusion (exercise,good diet, and positive thinking = good) im no scientist, thats just one of the ways i understood it :) hope it helps
How about the environment in the womb...! How about the junk and toxins that are in our food...that the mother of the child had to eat, or drugs or alcohol...that's an environment to the cells of the child...maybe that was what triggered the DNA of this child to produce cancer...maybe if you listened a little closer...Bruce states that a stimuli from the environment can also be what triggers the mutation of cancer cells!!!...
So long as society is a market place where COMPETITION FOR PRIVATE GAIN OF A FEW is the dogma there is going to be minority control over immense humanity we need to reclaim OURSELVES and OUR WORLD, constitue a society on the sacred principal of COOPERATION FOR OUR COMMON WELL BEING .
@ideasforfeeling Unfortunately you do not understand that our DNA is influenced not only by what we think, but also by the environment, and this has nothing to do with us. This scientist doesn't claim that the DNA is influencing our way of behave, he talks only about our body. The DNA is influenced by food, by energies around us, by polution etc, and this is in no WAY something which depend on what we are thinking.
@ideasforfeeling - your ideas are exageration. First of all, that religion claims that people have freedom of choice and they are responsible for their own actions. The international laws are also saying the same thing. There is an exception in both cases- when a person is insane/possessed by devil and his actions are no longer his actions. What this scientist says, has nothing to do with political or religious repsonsability, he just explains how our DNA work at his best.
@ideasforfeeling - You over extend what this scientist is saying. He talks about biology and how we can influence our DNA, he doesn't talk about political/life options. His point is opposed to the point of Darwinism, which claims that our actions are determined by the DNA and they recommend the sterilization and murder of some people who have "wrong" genes. This guy is just explaining that there are no "wrong genes". Ur point of view is typical New Age's logical errors.
@AndradaDaciana "Darwinism, which claims that our actions are determined by the DNA and they recommend the sterilization and murder of some people who have "wrong" genes."
Did you study under the Hitler school of biology? Your actions are determined by your brain's use of information processing to simulate alternate scenarios and then choose among them ones that suit you the best. There are no wrong genes, only the wrong environment or context for a gene.
@ExtantFrodo - who said there are wrong genes? This is what the Darwinists are saying and the Malthusians. I said that the genes are expressed differently according to the environment. Love makes the genes to be differently expressed than hate for example. Or a little change in the magnetic field of an environment can make the DNA to pick up different colors for the skin or different shape for the body. Russian did such an experiment with fishes and they looked differently than their parents.
@AndradaDaciana I am what you might call a Darwinist and I just said there's no such thing as wrong genes. This is not to say there are processes which become crippled or unenabled by differently sequenced genes. You may by able to activate or deactivate expression of a gene through life style but you can't rewrite the sequence. Activating a broken gene that doesn't mesh with the other genes in your body will not help. I'm sorry, but this is the lie that Lipton is selling.
@ideasforfeeling -I think that you do not understand the point of view of Bruce Lipton. He is saying that our DNA can have a positive or negative expression, based on the way we are thinking, while the materialistic-darwinist approach claims that we are the victims and the slaves of our DNA. This scientist says that actually we can influence the way the DNA will manifest.
@ideasforfeeling - you are going over and over again in some logical errors. The idea of having or not the capacity of choice have been debated since Ancient world. The Greeks were giving 3 solutions- you can not change your faith, you can change but with huge sacrifices, you can change through your own will. If you like the fizica cuantica, you should know that all the possibilities are possible in the same time, or none of them, or only one or some of them.
@ideasforfeeling -In one study, Russian scientists wanted to see if the DNA will manifest differently if the energy field will be a little bit change, a change considered by science as insignificant. They change a little bit the energy field of a basin with water and put fishes to reproduce. All the offsprings had a different shape and color of the body, then their parents/specie, but all the offsprings were looking the same way, which shows that the "evolution theory is wrong".
@ideasforfeeling - You are making logical mistakes and you miss the point. The environment determine our body to select some genes in the DNA. The DNA is like a DATABASE which has already all the information inside of it, there is no "evolution" since we already have all the information and have a program which tells us what to use from that data-base, according to the environment. There are many studies on this subject and they confirm the theory of this biologist.
@ideasforfeeling - I know about fizica cuantinca. But it is not ok to say that genes and the environment are the same thing, even tough at the fundamental level there is just one particle from which was made the entire Universe. The reason is simple- genes are MATTER, matter is ENERGY + INFORMATION. The environment can be also matter, but also only energy, or only information, or energy influenced by different information. Is not the same thing, depend on the information.
@ideasforfeeling - genes do not affect the environment. Think about religion- how do the genes affect religion? Think about the sun- how do the genes affect the sun? Environment means many things- means polution- and this is not affected by genes, this is affected by THE GREED FOR MONEY AND POWER of some people. Environment means also education, means love etc. These are not affected by genes also.
I think what he's ultimately saying is genes are predisposed to an outcome ("genes are equivalent to software programs, working for growth or protection,"), but beliefs, especially those that either increase or reduce stress, override that process and direct the genes and can transform them.
I think what he's ultimately saying is genes are predisposed to an outcome, but beliefs, especially those that either increase or reduce stress, override that process and direct the genes and can transform them.
I think what he's ultimately saying is genes are predisposed to an outcome, but beliefs, especially those that either increase or reduce stress, override that process and direct the genes and can transform them.
I think what he's ultimately saying is genes are predisposed to an outcome, but beliefs, especially those that either increase or reduce stress, override that process and direct the genes and can transform them.
I've watched the first couple minutes of this part like 5 times now and I'm fully convinced the connections he's making to get from mutations to belief are shaky. According to everything he's said up to this point, it's the presence of environmental signals that cause mutations and protein expression. Then all of a sudden it's like he's saying that I can eat radioactive corn flakes every morning and as long as I don't believe in radiation there will be no effect. I'll stick with Kellogg's.
I just can't get on board with this idea that our belief fully defines our environment. Lipton himself gave the example of the 5 identical test tube environments causing the same change in 5 separated bacterial colonies from the same strain. Bacteria, I'm assuming, don't have the capacity to "believe" anything, yet the same mutations occur. Doesn't that just mean the environment its self dictates mutations and protein expression and belief/perception has no role? Or am I missing his point?
The most fundamental question of all: What is the underlying law of nature.
As the way of all things, what effect do you suppose its question, knowledge, understanding and application by billions of persons would have on the state of global economics, science, the humanities, education, government and business?
Yoy are my hero!!! finaly someone is eloquently explaining the truth that was around for as long as we live but the western brain just couldn`t or wouldn`t grasp it!!!! Yhank you soo much!! boka
Yoy are my hero!!! finaly someone is eloquently explaining the truth that was around for as long as we live but the western brain just couldn`t or wouldn`t grasp it!!!! Yhank you soo much!! boka
But you were still being sarcastic, pretty simple dude.
"Because there is no designer "
yeah you keep telling that to yourself and believe in your chance of the gaps, but no wonder you hate people questioning your faith, I would find it hard to believe in the chance of the gaps that you are desperate to be true.
I love how he takes the time to really lead up to his point. My favorite starting point with Dr. Lipton is still Where Mind and Matter Meet. I love the scientific evidence of the metaphysical this man provides. I love how he says usually when you change your genes, you do so negatively, because they were already working perfectly, it's only your perception/beliefs that is scewing things.
He lies you know. You can not rewrite your genes. You may have some small effect on whether some genes get expressed more than others, but people ARE born with bad genes and when they are crucial genes then you are fucked.
BL does not lie. He honestly presents a sincerely held hypothesis after thoroughly explaining and illustrating his rationale.
His point about being born with bad genes is very well presented. If a bad gene for cancer was already turned on at birth, you would develop cancer in infancy. Instead, as BL thoroughly explains, if a cancer gene is present, & turned off, some input from the environment (including one's own beliefs and emotional state) is needed in order to turn on the bad gene(s).
"If a bad gene for cancer was already turned on at birth, you would develop cancer in infancy."
And indeed many children do die of cancer.
And what of sickle cell anemia or a thousand other genetic problems where the genes can't just be turned off without causing death? Sure, you could switch off the gene that produces the hemoglobin and thereby not produce and deformed hemoglobin but then you'd die from asphyxiation. There are better examples but SCA is well known and familiar to many.
Our perceptions of the limited mode of socio-economic reality is filtered through the mass propaganda and schooling of the ideology of the ruling class to cement their material gain and interest . Our beliefs are the deceptions and distortions of the social and natural reality with such terrifying and deadly consequences . The unraveling of the lies and distortions of the dominant intersts are an emerging progressive liberation across many field of inquiry and experience.
Still a big fan of other theories but I had to say something even in this small way because that is a myth of autism. No doubt children starved of love can and will exhibit autistic like qualities but I am convinced that most of us have autistic like qualities on varying levels.
I am thrilled and excited about discovering Dr. Lipton's theories. I unfortunately was shocked at his example of autistic children being who they are because of a lack of love. I work with families with autistic children and this is not the case. I feel it was irresponsible to make that leap. My understanding that many cases of autism are more of the result that there perception of the sensory world is too overwhelming that they shut down and can't respond. Not because of lack of love.
I speak from personal experience re: adaptive behaviors exhibited by unloved children that may be similar to typical autistic behaviors.
As an adopted child I suffered emotional deprivation & abandonment depression. I was locked alone in my room and fed by myself. I was severely punished physically, and was unloved by my adoptive mother. I stopped speaking or responding to her in any way. My stepfather tried to convince her that I was autistic. But honestly, I just gave up and withdrew.
(Cont'd). My adoptive father had wanted children, and his first wife went along with it at his insistence, but she didn't know how to relate to children at all. They had adopted a son 3 years earlier, and kept him locked in his room, too. We both had emotional problems, but I was fortunate enough to be sent to a special, progressive, private school that was run by an extremely compassionate principal and staffed with teachers who were licensed social workers. There, I responded and excelled.
(Cont'd, part 3) My original adoptive parents divorced, and each remarried. My mother's second husband was an extremely cold, arrogant person as well as an alcoholic. Her home was completely devoid of love for her adopted children.
My adoptive father married a warm and loving second wife who had two children of her own, and my adopted brother and I spend our weekends with them. Difference of night and day. I was a different person at my Dad's house, and practically autistic at my mother's.
You remind me of a young lady who told me how she was practically homeless one time. Yeah, her parents kicked her out so she had to go live with her grandmother.
This asshole has the fucking nerve to say that parents of GENUINELY autistic children are the cause of their child's condition AND that in fact it's because they are NOT LOVING ENOUGH. Where's my gun? No one disputes that lack of love is detrimental to children. That's not the point. This BL and his BS is monumental crap!
Bruce did NOT say that genuinely autistic children are the result of an unloving environment. In fact autistic children fail to respond normally to love, even when it is lavished upon them.
What Bruce Lipton DID say is that children raised in an unloving home often employ protective behaviors (such as non-responsiveness to other people, and other social dysfunctions) which are strikingly similar to behaviors typically found in autistic children.
@ExtantFrodo - I have listened again for myself... but I listened from further back instead of cherry-picking the phrase out of context. He says that emotionally deprived children can BECOME autistic when they employ adaptive behaviors resulting from lack of love and nurturing.
BECOMING autistic (behaviorally) due to life circumstances is certainly NOT the same as being BORN autistic due to physiological brain deficiencies.
He does not make the distinction that you are. He says "What is an autistic child?" and he goes on to say basically it's a child that wasn't getting any love.
Now here you come out talking about children born with physiological brain deficiencies. Maybe some love will snap them out of it? It would certainly alter their environment and thus what is there for them to perceive. According to you and BL that should be all you need to do the trick.
@ExtantFrodo _ Oftentimes a nurturing and therapeutic environment DOES produce significant improvement in a child who has been autistic since birth.
And neglected and/or abused children can be stimulated to discontinue protective autistic behaviors after they DO receive love and encouragement from other people.
After I attended a progressive private grammar school where I was encouraged and offered warmth and personal attention, my reading comprehension tested 12th grade level in 7th grade.
FROM: Test Tube Evolution Catches Time in a Bottle
"By chopping up the bacteria's DNA with enzymes and applying probes that home in on known sequences, they found that after thousands of generations, the populations' genomes were riddled with changes. The changes were different in each population and had accumulated at very different rates, the group reported in the March Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, even though the fitness increases were similar."
MORE FROM: Test Tube Evolution Catches Time in a Bottle.
When it comes to organisms' adaptive performance, says Lenski, "evolution is remarkably reproducible. But as you move away from performance, to cell size or genes, things are less and less reproducible." Because all 12 populations started out genetically identical and have experienced the same selective pressures, the differences underscore the role of chance in setting evolution's course.
samples of the 12 E. coli populations had been growing in glucose for 2000 generations and all 12 had improved their ability to grow on glucose by about the same amount. But when they were put in a different sugar, maltose, some populations thrived while others languished. For each population adapting to limited glucose, says Travisano, "it seems likely that glucose uptake was tweaked in subtly different ways. And those subtly different tweaks had big effects in a different environment."
All 12 lines were cultured for another 1000 generations on maltose, and all 12 evolved to grow well on maltose. But the fitness was not consistent as it had been on glucose, where the starting genotype had been identical. Evolution wasn't as reproducible as before, because of chance variations in how the populations had adapted earlier. "Once we had diversity, we could prune it back tremendously with adaptation. But not completely. Once you are different, that difference tends to persist,"
Even if the general outline of such experiments is predictable, in many cases the genetic pathway they take depends on chance. That seems to be the case for Rainey's wrinkly spreader strains, too. When his group took 24 wrinkly spreader strains that had evolved independently and then forced them to evolve back into a smooth form by shaking their vials to keep the culture medium from becoming stratified, "some go back easily; some sort of struggle," implying differences in their genetic makeup.
Variances in relative ability to produce beneficial adaptive mutations (rather than randomly occurring useless and/or harmful ones) may also be due to differences in the quality and quantity of perceptions between those strains which had evolved independently.
How do you think a variance in perception happens when these are all derived from a single bacterium?
Different mutations producing different surface receptors.
But let's go with your notion that all 12 colonies are carrying the same original genetic package. You & BL would say different genes were switched on in different colonies despite immersion in identical environments. Why would the identical twin cells have different surface receptors or activate different genes in the same environment?
No. You are combining two different experiments and drawing conclusions as if they were the very same experiment.
John Cairn's experiment did use 12 colonies of genetically identical bacteria, and they adapted to their environment almost identically.
The other experiment which you quoted from earlier in this comment thread utilized "strains which had evolved independently", so those would NOT be genetically identical, and therefore their variance in mutation is to be expected.
no, you are confusing the "strains which had evolved independently" with a figment of your imagination. Namely that you, having not read the article, think it's about 12 colonies from 12 different origins.
1 cell propagated for several generations was divided into 12 groups. Those 12 groups were raised in identical environments DURING WHICH TIME they evolved independently. Subsequent transfer to a different environment (maltose) had variable evolutionary success.
Certainly random mutations DO occur. But this known fact in no way eliminates or disproves the apparent existence of Adaptive Mutations.
Michael Behe makes several cogent points in his two books: "Darwin's Black Box" and "The Edge of Evolution" - that any series of beneficial mutations resulting in a beneficial system has to be COHERENT... and has to have occurred IN SPITE OF the natural tendency for most random mutations to actually be harmful.
The ruthless environment makes quick food of bad designs. A misfolded protein here and there may not kill or cripple a cell but if another weird protein comes along that binds them together usefully, then the formerly 'bad product' is now suddenly good. Behe completely missed this point much to his embarrassment.
Other offspring may acquire a mutation that triggers the protein or combines with the protein to do something totally marvelous for the organism.
@ExtantFrodo - So you are scoffing at something which is a hallmark of science itself (in contrast to religious dogma) - the very willingness to alter one's thesis/hypothesis according to ongoing discoveries and additional information.
Scoffing? Who is scoffing at what precisely? Show me anything that actually is different and I assure you it will have my full support. As I said At first glance I was struck by Behe's mousetrap conjecture. Just because it only took a few minutes to see the flaw in his reasoning doesn't change the fact that I was willing to entertain the proposition of an outside influence.
Guess what you twit? Your brain isn't intelligently designed either. Imagine that. Oops I guess you can't. Did you ever wonder how any intelligence ever arises if it takes intelligence to make intelligence? Ooops, I guess you didn't. MAGIC!
What? Nothing to say? Just yammer on like a loon? If you had any clue about science (you've eliminated any doubt about that) then discussion might have been fruitful. Sadly that is not the case and so there's nothing but you making noise and me presenting case after case an evidence after evidence.
Let me say, it does make one wonder how you could know so little. If science is too hard turn to religion.
Nah I leave you to the religion, You are very religious in your devotion to darwin and you are stupid to confuse that with a scientific process and think they are the same thing, that is how stupid you are.
@ExtantFrodo - Behe a "Dumbell"? There goes the mindless Insultinator Toy again.
Michael J. Behe is a Prof. of Biological Science at Lehigh University since 1985. From 1978 to 1982 he did postdoctural work on DNA structure at the National Institutes of Health. From 1982-1985 he was Asst. Prof. of Chemistry at Queens College in NY City. He has authored over 40 technical papers, and is best known for his two books: "Darwin's Black Box" and "The Edge of Evolution"... both of which I have read.
Yes, I could see you lapping up Behe's great and awesome vindications of the wonderful unobservable designer. But like I said you won't get a clue about how evolution works from a wanker like him. And I'm guess you don't.
@ExtantFrodo - Speaking of wanking... why not take both hands OFF the keyboard and put them both to better use?
I can think of no greater destiny for your "seed" than to be spilt somewhere; ANYwhere other than the genitalia of an ovulating female of our species.....
That's right genius. You'd never in a million years figure out that your previous claim that I said we must observe a designer to know things are designer does not follow from Behe's inability to demonstrate design OR a designer. Seriously, you have no idea how much you are embarassing yourself.
So why did you make that lame remark about the wonderful unobservable designer.
Even your kids are laughing at you for your failed sarcasm and you know when your special kids are laughing then you know it really is an embarrasment to you.
Because there is no designer and no designer is observable. Pretty simple dude.
The biggest factor in observing that things are touched by an intelligent agent is things being "out of place".
Observed and documented spontaneous self-replicating RNA quite refutes the notion that Self-replicating RNA is out of place. It evolves so nothing we've yet seen in biology is out of place. The discovery institute was issued a great challenge to show one gene that was without near peer. They declined. Oops!
what a close mind, suggesting that no evidence means it does not exist, pleae grow up and stop pretending to be scientific, because that is just not!!
@ExtantFrodo - It was in a reply to ME that you posted the sentence: "Yes, I could see you lapping up Behe's great and awesome vindications of the wonderful unobservable designer".
Why would you deny having said that when responding to ProudToBeLoud?
In any case, your mis-characterization of me as "lapping up" Behe's work is not accurate at all. On the contrary, I thoroughly read, analysed and digested Behe's two books - as well as the works of any other authors I have recommended.
@HurricaneHeidi - and FYI, I do NOT agree with Behe that evidence of coherent, adaptive mutation = proof of any deity.
Instead, I concur with Bruce Lipton that an organism's perceptions of (and beliefs about) its environment affect its ability to influence beneficial, sequential, coherent mutations which result in complex, interdependent, functioning systems that confer an advantage.
I didn't deny that. Read the entire thread. PTBL pulled that one out of his ass. From that sentence he contsrued "yes because obviously to know that things are designed we must observe the designer.". Which is not what I said. Only PTBL in his addled brain could fabricate such a misconstruction from the sentence "..vindications of the wonderful unobservable designer" as I explained in subsequent posts.
"your mis-characterization of me as "lapping up" Behe's work is not accurate at all."
Really? Have you read any books about evolution by any authors who have the accepted scientific perspective on evolution? Anything by Ken Miller? Anything published by McGraw-Hill? Just curios.
@ExtantFrodo - Not only have I studied evolution as presented in McGraw Hill (high school textbooks) but I have recently read Richard Dawkins' "The Blind Watchmaker" in order to digest Dawkins' perspective opposite Behe's.
Behe raises questions of adaptive coherence of sequential mutations in the face of ongoing random mutations that are not usually beneficial.
If you'd like to see the sort of comments I post when I disagree with someone's theories, see:
@ExtantFrodo - Again you misunderstand, and then misstate a scientist's clearly -stated hypothesis.
Behe did NOT restate the ToE to say that only good genes are passed on. In fact he uses detailed examinations of the mutation "warfare" carried on between the malaria virus and human beings... pointing out that the Sickle Cell Anemia gene protects a person from malaria, but when homozygous (inherited from both parents), it ALSO subjects the person to another seriously debilitating disease - SCA.
Behe may have changed his tune in more recent books, but his original IC proposals he emphatically claimed that because 9/10ths of a mousetrap confers no survival advantage it can not be selected for AND THUS IT DOESN'T PASS ON THOSE GENES.
This is obviously absurd an contrary to what is observed. I'm not surprised he would change his claim.
@ExtantFrodo _ Behe did NOT claim that useless and/or harmful genetic mutations never get passed on.
His irreducible complexity argument rests upon the premise that COHERENT series of genetic changes are necessary to construct beneficial and complex systems because earlier, incomplete (and useless) stages do not confer survivability and can thus disappear or suffer degradation via interjection of harmful mutations before they manage to evolve into useful, complete, beneficial structures.
I see you are still referring to his more recent revisions of his original claim. No matter. His own computer simulations produced IC systems in less that 22,000 generation and did so with all the parameters tweaked to make it as difficult as possible. Real life and real biology has a billion trillion fold organisms and resources running in parallel for 3.5 billion years producing IC systems out the wahzoo. Behe too I call a fool. Don't you?
@ExtantFrodo - I don't need to resort to the use of insulting labels.
I prefer to discuss a topic without becoming dismissive, crude and
simplistic.
Notice that I refrain from applying labels to you. Instead, I describe your approach ... your behavior... but I do not presume to reduce another human being to some simple derogatory category just for the sake of school-yard oneupsmanship.
It would be a nice theory if it wasn't held up by bullshit claims.
1. I fail to find evidence of the existance of these "Genetic engineering genes". We can't change our genotype.
2. Science has known the environment regulates our genes since the sixties (Jacob, Monod, Lac Operon? Biology 1?) Our "perception" mechanism is coded by our genes to make efficient use of themselves.
3. He talks about cells moving. Without a propelling mechanism, cells do not move towards or away from anything. If he is referring to cell growth patterns, replication will favor cells closer to nutrients and naturally cells closer to toxins will die. Nothing new about that.
4. Where's the evidence for lack of love stunting growth more than nutrition? Show me those "Eastern European kids" and explain why starving (but very loved) kids in developing nations DO get stunted growth.
amazing info, regarding what he says on cancer, listen on the experience of Mellen-Thomas Benedict on TertiusOculusOris youtube channel, he very clearly demonstrates how his belief gave him terminal cancer, amazing stuff
There is a bait and switch here. Since we don't know what is outside of the cell we believe the receptor is telling us. But this is a different type of belief he is talking about. He uses them like they are equal. It doesn't matter if the inside gears believe the receptor or not it receives the signal and it works. The receptor is made to physically pick up other physical pieces and to respond. It does not respond on belief.
Perception and belief are not equivalent. If you have a 3 inch opening, a 5 inch ball will not fit into it. It doesn't matter if the receptor is believing that the ball is 3 inches. It will not fit. This is a huge leap when he says belief controls behavior. He had it right with perception. The receptor does not even have the capability of believing.
Can i ask you a question; are you a biologist - have you written any books on biology or carried out any research? Have you given any talks on the subject?
Wow, this is like all the stuff new age people spout, but he is actually breaking it down with science and logic. Nothing short of genius in my opinion.
PS, I don't like being called an "it". I am a person and yes I do respond to my environment. You can follow my favorites to see more autistic people who respond to their environment.
Thanks, It was illuminating to see that, I'm starting to see autism as a charactistic, and that it's only a problem if the autistic individual is unhappy with it.
Bruce Lipton's comment about autism is almost certainly wrong; but it was an incorrect example in an otherwise enligtening lecture.
It sounded interesting until 8:30 then I lost respect for Bruce Lipton... Autism is NOT the cause of bad parenting... My parents may not have been perfect. Even so, they were good parents. They were not resonsible for me being autistic.
I find it sad to see the "refrigerator mother" concept is making a comeback...
I think he mispoke, or left something out. Probably he meant to say that if the children PERCEIVED a lack of love, they would not prosper. If a child is exposed to toxins, that might fog up their emotions in a way that they stop perceiving love. In that case, the problem is not the 'refrigerator mother' but rather the emotional blindness created by the environment in/around the child.
I've heard about the toxins/mercury/vaccine hypothesis and autism. I'm not sure I fully believe in it being "the cause" to autism, but I figure no one can go wrong working to clean the environment.
That being said, regardless of cause, people with autism can and do perceive love. Since I know only my peception, I can't say whether or not the act of perceiving love is the same exact way for every human. I just know it is there and a misconception to believe autistic people don't perceive love.
To add to that, I think a lot of perception with autistic individuals is cognitive more than emotional. I know I may not "feel" something like empathy like non autistic people may, but I have the thoughts behind the feeling and you can be assured I do feel it, just in a logical way and not always "by the heart". Or I may feel the emotion strongly but not always express it. I think the lack of expressing emotion is what leads people to believe autistic people don't have feelings or feel nothing.
Where do you get your information that there is not a lot of love in single-mother households? That's pretty ridiculous. Also, my household was less stressful than many dual-parent households, for various reasons.
Enviromentally Adaptive Gene Therapy. Now you have your answer as to what some of these dark projects are all about ie: chemtrails...providing the enviromental stimuli to induce chronic illness
Everything is right on except when he talks about believe, believe doen't have any positive outcome, it is a form of limitation and conflict!! destroys the brain!
I had a hard time with that too. It took me a while before I realized the connection: the brain controls the hormones, and the hormones control the chemical environment inside the body. Therefore (in this model) it seems that a belief (or a mood, or a perception of a physical event) can alter hormones which are released, which in turn alters the chemical makeup of the internal environment (the body), which then affects the cells as Lipton describes.
Anita Moorjani discovered that fear was cause of her cancer during her NDE.after that she healed in 4days
13teres 1 month ago
I'm not understanding what hes saying..for example, cancer genes, thats just a mutation thats inherited from your parents, the mutation is already there, and thats why you have a higher chance of cancer...theres no signal needed, the mutation already exists..
bigu236 3 months ago
@bigu236 but the gene is not activated. So the person does not get cancer for years and decades. But when the appropriate stress signals such as chemicals, toxins are introduced into the body by that person that mutant gene is activated. What he says also explains why not everyone who smokes gets lung cancer.
YtubeUserr 3 months ago
@bigu236 What he is saying is that the gene is not the key here. It is the genetic EXPRESSION. You can have "cancer" genes but they will not be "unsleeved" and expressed by the cells if you do not have the signal that requires that gene to be expressed. Signal is everything and the cell responds based on environment.
PancakePlease 1 day ago in playlist Biology of Perception
As a man thinketh, so is he ..from the Bible.
qbulb 5 months ago
Brilliant,..... pure genius.
waterandphotons 6 months ago
"You have the ability to change anything in your body."
I didn't agree with the way Bruce was conveying his message, but up until this video I enjoyed hearing him talk about the way the environment acts on (not controls) our genes. Its new and exciting epigenetics and gene expression. But saying something like that is just frustrating. He is stretching the truth with that statement and stretching the truth while making it sound like science is called pseudoscience.
dudepal187 6 months ago
Religions manipuatively alter beliefs and beliefs control perception. Our beliefs affect our biology every single minute of each day. If you change your perception you can rewrite genes; however, Dr. Lipton says, "Rewriting genes is almost always a negative process". When u change your genes you are making them less affective to survive if you already got here healthy. Another thing religion makes people think as modern biology; they have no control over their reality. It all takes power away.
Dasar7557 7 months ago
Perception, or rather mis-perception is causing your Huntington's, et cetera. Pharmaceutical co.s know this and perpetuate it so that you, we, all of us will have to buy their pills. They don't care about you/our health or well-being. They just want to manipulate you/us into their belief system. That is the false system. Bruce is telling the truth here.
vekunde 9 months ago
What a person focuses on is what they are going to get by adapting to their environment. A person who focuses on success and how to achieve it are more likely to achieve it . . .
drmlnichols 9 months ago
What Bruce Lipton says from 2:35 - 2:46 . Is a god damned lie. This man is a charlatan of the worst and most vile sort.
ExtantFrodo 9 months ago
@ExtantFrodo Please elaborate.
TheIGPD 9 months ago
@TheIGPD He lies. You can NOT rewrite your genes. He claims you can. His whole hype is based on it and it is a lie.
ExtantFrodo 9 months ago
@ExtantFrodo So explain eating healthy and exercising. By your body adapting to its environment, your genes change in order to survive. Example: Practicing kung-fu allow to change how efficient your body can become, essentially changing its genes. I would go into more depth but I don't think I need to further explain what I am saying.
TheIGPD 9 months ago
@TheIGPD Please understand. 99% of what Bruce described in terms of the science and mechanics of cellular biology is 100% correct and true. His description of how proteins operate and are used and made are all very well portrayed. How gene expression occurs and is regulated is spot on. Changing your approach, your attitude, your perception DOES affect which genes get expressed.
But even if you had enough perception control to affect the activation of a single gene, if it's broken it's broken.
ExtantFrodo 9 months ago
Ask yourself, what is the use of turning ON a broken gene? You might actually be healthier with it turned off. Bruce knows about this goblin in his shell game and has decided it is better to dupe the public into accepting a lie. And he goes to some lengths to give credibility to the lie. The so called "genetic engineering genes" he goes on about are an aspect of your immune system. It cranks out hundreds of millions of protein "experiments" to try to make complimentary shapes to foreign bodies.
ExtantFrodo 9 months ago
None of which is ever recruited or used or employed to rewrite any of the normal operating genes of your DNA. Such "experiments" would be lethal.
Bruce tries to hijack this business and claim that those can some how magically know the proper sequence a gene should be to produce a particular protein and rewrite an improper sequence into a correct one. He knows that can not happen. He'd rather sell his books than tell the truth. You can't cure Huntington's through perception.
ExtantFrodo 9 months ago
@ExtantFrodo
so in short you'r saying i can't change my DNA no matter what?
and if i change my "perception" can i actually avoid Diseases that inherit by my parents to me?
it seems to me like you know what you'r talking about,i look forward for you'r answer
sayroni 5 months ago
@sayroni what hes saying is that your dna is a blueprint. what ever disease your parents pass to you can be switched off and on by your environment and the way you take it in. EX1: if you work construction and stress your self out,and are always negative about it, theres a higher chance of illness . EX2: if you work at a church and your always positive 9 times out of ten you'll reflect good health (keep in mind nutrition and exercise plays a huge role) but its also how you take it all in.
cs4202 5 months ago
@sayroni so yes you cant change your dna but your dna doesnt dictate your future. if you dad passes the cancer jean to you, and your healthy and vibrant than gene wont activate. if your a unhealthy than that can be a form of activating it. so in conclusion (exercise,good diet, and positive thinking = good) im no scientist, thats just one of the ways i understood it :) hope it helps
cs4202 5 months ago
ouh... science prove that we all need love :)
vaqron 9 months ago
Comment removed
vaqron 9 months ago
WOW! OUR BELIEFS CHANGE OUR GENES AS WE RESPOND TO THE ENVIRONMENT!
revdrjude 11 months ago
How about the environment in the womb...! How about the junk and toxins that are in our food...that the mother of the child had to eat, or drugs or alcohol...that's an environment to the cells of the child...maybe that was what triggered the DNA of this child to produce cancer...maybe if you listened a little closer...Bruce states that a stimuli from the environment can also be what triggers the mutation of cancer cells!!!...
fernnandj8 11 months ago
Maybe 6 year olds that get cancer is due to the other 5%
Bwoy99 11 months ago
Ok - - what about 6 year olds with cancer. Did their perception have anything to do with them getting cancer or am I not understanding this fully.
Bwoy99 11 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
So long as society is a market place where COMPETITION FOR PRIVATE GAIN OF A FEW is the dogma there is going to be minority control over immense humanity we need to reclaim OURSELVES and OUR WORLD, constitue a society on the sacred principal of COOPERATION FOR OUR COMMON WELL BEING .
arzoyan 1 year ago
@ideasforfeeling Unfortunately you do not understand that our DNA is influenced not only by what we think, but also by the environment, and this has nothing to do with us. This scientist doesn't claim that the DNA is influencing our way of behave, he talks only about our body. The DNA is influenced by food, by energies around us, by polution etc, and this is in no WAY something which depend on what we are thinking.
AndradaDaciana 1 year ago
@ideasforfeeling - your ideas are exageration. First of all, that religion claims that people have freedom of choice and they are responsible for their own actions. The international laws are also saying the same thing. There is an exception in both cases- when a person is insane/possessed by devil and his actions are no longer his actions. What this scientist says, has nothing to do with political or religious repsonsability, he just explains how our DNA work at his best.
AndradaDaciana 1 year ago
@ideasforfeeling - You over extend what this scientist is saying. He talks about biology and how we can influence our DNA, he doesn't talk about political/life options. His point is opposed to the point of Darwinism, which claims that our actions are determined by the DNA and they recommend the sterilization and murder of some people who have "wrong" genes. This guy is just explaining that there are no "wrong genes". Ur point of view is typical New Age's logical errors.
AndradaDaciana 1 year ago
@AndradaDaciana "Darwinism, which claims that our actions are determined by the DNA and they recommend the sterilization and murder of some people who have "wrong" genes."
Did you study under the Hitler school of biology? Your actions are determined by your brain's use of information processing to simulate alternate scenarios and then choose among them ones that suit you the best. There are no wrong genes, only the wrong environment or context for a gene.
ExtantFrodo 10 months ago
@ExtantFrodo - who said there are wrong genes? This is what the Darwinists are saying and the Malthusians. I said that the genes are expressed differently according to the environment. Love makes the genes to be differently expressed than hate for example. Or a little change in the magnetic field of an environment can make the DNA to pick up different colors for the skin or different shape for the body. Russian did such an experiment with fishes and they looked differently than their parents.
AndradaDaciana 10 months ago
@AndradaDaciana I am what you might call a Darwinist and I just said there's no such thing as wrong genes. This is not to say there are processes which become crippled or unenabled by differently sequenced genes. You may by able to activate or deactivate expression of a gene through life style but you can't rewrite the sequence. Activating a broken gene that doesn't mesh with the other genes in your body will not help. I'm sorry, but this is the lie that Lipton is selling.
ExtantFrodo 10 months ago
@ideasforfeeling -I think that you do not understand the point of view of Bruce Lipton. He is saying that our DNA can have a positive or negative expression, based on the way we are thinking, while the materialistic-darwinist approach claims that we are the victims and the slaves of our DNA. This scientist says that actually we can influence the way the DNA will manifest.
AndradaDaciana 1 year ago
@ideasforfeeling - you are going over and over again in some logical errors. The idea of having or not the capacity of choice have been debated since Ancient world. The Greeks were giving 3 solutions- you can not change your faith, you can change but with huge sacrifices, you can change through your own will. If you like the fizica cuantica, you should know that all the possibilities are possible in the same time, or none of them, or only one or some of them.
AndradaDaciana 1 year ago
@ideasforfeeling -In one study, Russian scientists wanted to see if the DNA will manifest differently if the energy field will be a little bit change, a change considered by science as insignificant. They change a little bit the energy field of a basin with water and put fishes to reproduce. All the offsprings had a different shape and color of the body, then their parents/specie, but all the offsprings were looking the same way, which shows that the "evolution theory is wrong".
AndradaDaciana 1 year ago
@ideasforfeeling - You are making logical mistakes and you miss the point. The environment determine our body to select some genes in the DNA. The DNA is like a DATABASE which has already all the information inside of it, there is no "evolution" since we already have all the information and have a program which tells us what to use from that data-base, according to the environment. There are many studies on this subject and they confirm the theory of this biologist.
AndradaDaciana 1 year ago
@ideasforfeeling - I know about fizica cuantinca. But it is not ok to say that genes and the environment are the same thing, even tough at the fundamental level there is just one particle from which was made the entire Universe. The reason is simple- genes are MATTER, matter is ENERGY + INFORMATION. The environment can be also matter, but also only energy, or only information, or energy influenced by different information. Is not the same thing, depend on the information.
AndradaDaciana 1 year ago
@ideasforfeeling - genes do not affect the environment. Think about religion- how do the genes affect religion? Think about the sun- how do the genes affect the sun? Environment means many things- means polution- and this is not affected by genes, this is affected by THE GREED FOR MONEY AND POWER of some people. Environment means also education, means love etc. These are not affected by genes also.
AndradaDaciana 1 year ago
I LOVE how passionate and enthusiastic he is!! :)
zuzunowak 1 year ago
Well Mr. Lipton how do cells retreat in flight? And if they move away, as you say, do they leave a void?
We should see toxins in a cell evacuated zone...run little cell, run. <:-o)
MrHerbicat 1 year ago
He _teaches_ at | dontbelievebrucelipton
the New Zealand College | yes he's crazy
of !! CHIROPRACTIC !!.
plmqas 1 year ago
Hm, loving the talk but he should be very careful to say autistic children aren't getting enough love!
maymayamay 1 year ago
I think what he's ultimately saying is genes are predisposed to an outcome ("genes are equivalent to software programs, working for growth or protection,"), but beliefs, especially those that either increase or reduce stress, override that process and direct the genes and can transform them.
AmusesHerself 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
I think what he's ultimately saying is genes are predisposed to an outcome, but beliefs, especially those that either increase or reduce stress, override that process and direct the genes and can transform them.
AmusesHerself 1 year ago
I think what he's ultimately saying is genes are predisposed to an outcome, but beliefs, especially those that either increase or reduce stress, override that process and direct the genes and can transform them.
AmusesHerself 1 year ago
I think what he's ultimately saying is genes are predisposed to an outcome, but beliefs, especially those that either increase or reduce stress, override that process and direct the genes and can transform them.
AmusesHerself 1 year ago
I've watched the first couple minutes of this part like 5 times now and I'm fully convinced the connections he's making to get from mutations to belief are shaky. According to everything he's said up to this point, it's the presence of environmental signals that cause mutations and protein expression. Then all of a sudden it's like he's saying that I can eat radioactive corn flakes every morning and as long as I don't believe in radiation there will be no effect. I'll stick with Kellogg's.
Stickstacks12 1 year ago
I just can't get on board with this idea that our belief fully defines our environment. Lipton himself gave the example of the 5 identical test tube environments causing the same change in 5 separated bacterial colonies from the same strain. Bacteria, I'm assuming, don't have the capacity to "believe" anything, yet the same mutations occur. Doesn't that just mean the environment its self dictates mutations and protein expression and belief/perception has no role? Or am I missing his point?
Stickstacks12 1 year ago
what perceptions or believes makes green eyes into brown eyes?
wavepsychic 1 year ago
When Bruce Lipton speaks about "receiving genes"
by stimuli of the environment, it would result
in that DNA can't be used to proof someone guiltily.
Wouldn't his observations also say that
many people are imprisoned innocently,
based on false DNA samples accusations,
used against them in trials at courts in
various countries and that our law systems
fail badly based on outdated knowledge?
Polygonum 1 year ago
hah.. im goin to the beach for a few years.. im gonna be a dolphin...:P
AbattoirDream 1 year ago
check out the 82 year old "breatharian" on msn.com.
2 weeks without food or water under 24 hr observation showing no signs of physical deterioration. with the proper mindset food is not necessary.
buffasquiji 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
The most fundamental question of all: What is the underlying law of nature.
As the way of all things, what effect do you suppose its question, knowledge, understanding and application by billions of persons would have on the state of global economics, science, the humanities, education, government and business?
TedDGPoulos 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Yoy are my hero!!! finaly someone is eloquently explaining the truth that was around for as long as we live but the western brain just couldn`t or wouldn`t grasp it!!!! Yhank you soo much!! boka
sneza33 1 year ago
Yoy are my hero!!! finaly someone is eloquently explaining the truth that was around for as long as we live but the western brain just couldn`t or wouldn`t grasp it!!!! Yhank you soo much!! boka
sneza33 1 year ago
I love this revelation = LOVE IS THE ANSWER OF EVERYTHING
wsalha 1 year ago
OH MY! WOW EYEZ JUST OPENED
Eastleigh6 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
well duh
But you were still being sarcastic, pretty simple dude.
"Because there is no designer "
yeah you keep telling that to yourself and believe in your chance of the gaps, but no wonder you hate people questioning your faith, I would find it hard to believe in the chance of the gaps that you are desperate to be true.
hahahhahahahahha
ProudToBLoud 1 year ago
I love how he takes the time to really lead up to his point. My favorite starting point with Dr. Lipton is still Where Mind and Matter Meet. I love the scientific evidence of the metaphysical this man provides. I love how he says usually when you change your genes, you do so negatively, because they were already working perfectly, it's only your perception/beliefs that is scewing things.
secretelf 2 years ago
He lies you know. You can not rewrite your genes. You may have some small effect on whether some genes get expressed more than others, but people ARE born with bad genes and when they are crucial genes then you are fucked.
ExtantFrodo 1 year ago
BL does not lie. He honestly presents a sincerely held hypothesis after thoroughly explaining and illustrating his rationale.
His point about being born with bad genes is very well presented. If a bad gene for cancer was already turned on at birth, you would develop cancer in infancy. Instead, as BL thoroughly explains, if a cancer gene is present, & turned off, some input from the environment (including one's own beliefs and emotional state) is needed in order to turn on the bad gene(s).
HurricaneHeidi 1 year ago
"If a bad gene for cancer was already turned on at birth, you would develop cancer in infancy."
And indeed many children do die of cancer.
And what of sickle cell anemia or a thousand other genetic problems where the genes can't just be turned off without causing death? Sure, you could switch off the gene that produces the hemoglobin and thereby not produce and deformed hemoglobin but then you'd die from asphyxiation. There are better examples but SCA is well known and familiar to many.
ExtantFrodo 1 year ago
@ExtantFrodo - Yes... we know that many children do die of cancer.
But Bruce's POINT was that most cancer genes are not turned on at birth. Children are usually NOT born with cancer.
The environment and our perceptions and beliefs about the environment (i.e. stress; anger; negativity) can turn on such genes at some later point.
HurricaneHeidi 1 year ago
Our perceptions of the limited mode of socio-economic reality is filtered through the mass propaganda and schooling of the ideology of the ruling class to cement their material gain and interest . Our beliefs are the deceptions and distortions of the social and natural reality with such terrifying and deadly consequences . The unraveling of the lies and distortions of the dominant intersts are an emerging progressive liberation across many field of inquiry and experience.
arzoyan 2 years ago
mutation of bacteries has no relation with human (or big animals)
same thing for viruses
bacteries are reproducing by replication
the mutation occurs juste because among the huge number of replicants some of them were not very well replicated by accident
and for smoe reason were more adapted to a stressing environment
then this new mutant became the new bacteria
(for example resisting to antibiotics)
animals (we are) do not mutate
they reproduce sexualy
jam63112 2 years ago
absolutly fascianting...
Mike3gdc 2 years ago
Still a big fan of other theories but I had to say something even in this small way because that is a myth of autism. No doubt children starved of love can and will exhibit autistic like qualities but I am convinced that most of us have autistic like qualities on varying levels.
musicflowsthru 2 years ago
I am thrilled and excited about discovering Dr. Lipton's theories. I unfortunately was shocked at his example of autistic children being who they are because of a lack of love. I work with families with autistic children and this is not the case. I feel it was irresponsible to make that leap. My understanding that many cases of autism are more of the result that there perception of the sensory world is too overwhelming that they shut down and can't respond. Not because of lack of love.
musicflowsthru 2 years ago 2
I speak from personal experience re: adaptive behaviors exhibited by unloved children that may be similar to typical autistic behaviors.
As an adopted child I suffered emotional deprivation & abandonment depression. I was locked alone in my room and fed by myself. I was severely punished physically, and was unloved by my adoptive mother. I stopped speaking or responding to her in any way. My stepfather tried to convince her that I was autistic. But honestly, I just gave up and withdrew.
HurricaneHeidi 1 year ago
(Cont'd). My adoptive father had wanted children, and his first wife went along with it at his insistence, but she didn't know how to relate to children at all. They had adopted a son 3 years earlier, and kept him locked in his room, too. We both had emotional problems, but I was fortunate enough to be sent to a special, progressive, private school that was run by an extremely compassionate principal and staffed with teachers who were licensed social workers. There, I responded and excelled.
HurricaneHeidi 1 year ago
(Cont'd, part 3) My original adoptive parents divorced, and each remarried. My mother's second husband was an extremely cold, arrogant person as well as an alcoholic. Her home was completely devoid of love for her adopted children.
My adoptive father married a warm and loving second wife who had two children of her own, and my adopted brother and I spend our weekends with them. Difference of night and day. I was a different person at my Dad's house, and practically autistic at my mother's.
HurricaneHeidi 1 year ago
You remind me of a young lady who told me how she was practically homeless one time. Yeah, her parents kicked her out so she had to go live with her grandmother.
This asshole has the fucking nerve to say that parents of GENUINELY autistic children are the cause of their child's condition AND that in fact it's because they are NOT LOVING ENOUGH. Where's my gun? No one disputes that lack of love is detrimental to children. That's not the point. This BL and his BS is monumental crap!
ExtantFrodo 1 year ago
@ExtantFrodo -
Bruce did NOT say that genuinely autistic children are the result of an unloving environment. In fact autistic children fail to respond normally to love, even when it is lavished upon them.
What Bruce Lipton DID say is that children raised in an unloving home often employ protective behaviors (such as non-responsiveness to other people, and other social dysfunctions) which are strikingly similar to behaviors typically found in autistic children.
HurricaneHeidi 1 year ago
"Bruce did NOT say that genuinely autistic children are the result of an unloving environment"
He most certainly does say that. Listen for yourself.
watch from 8:30 to 8:55
ExtantFrodo 1 year ago
@ExtantFrodo - I have listened again for myself... but I listened from further back instead of cherry-picking the phrase out of context. He says that emotionally deprived children can BECOME autistic when they employ adaptive behaviors resulting from lack of love and nurturing.
BECOMING autistic (behaviorally) due to life circumstances is certainly NOT the same as being BORN autistic due to physiological brain deficiencies.
HurricaneHeidi 1 year ago
He does not make the distinction that you are. He says "What is an autistic child?" and he goes on to say basically it's a child that wasn't getting any love.
Now here you come out talking about children born with physiological brain deficiencies. Maybe some love will snap them out of it? It would certainly alter their environment and thus what is there for them to perceive. According to you and BL that should be all you need to do the trick.
Amazing snake oil you've got there.
ExtantFrodo 1 year ago
@ExtantFrodo _ Oftentimes a nurturing and therapeutic environment DOES produce significant improvement in a child who has been autistic since birth.
And neglected and/or abused children can be stimulated to discontinue protective autistic behaviors after they DO receive love and encouragement from other people.
After I attended a progressive private grammar school where I was encouraged and offered warmth and personal attention, my reading comprehension tested 12th grade level in 7th grade.
HurricaneHeidi 1 year ago
FROM: Test Tube Evolution Catches Time in a Bottle
"By chopping up the bacteria's DNA with enzymes and applying probes that home in on known sequences, they found that after thousands of generations, the populations' genomes were riddled with changes. The changes were different in each population and had accumulated at very different rates, the group reported in the March Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, even though the fitness increases were similar."
A moron AND a LIAR!
ExtantFrodo 2 years ago
MORE FROM: Test Tube Evolution Catches Time in a Bottle.
When it comes to organisms' adaptive performance, says Lenski, "evolution is remarkably reproducible. But as you move away from performance, to cell size or genes, things are less and less reproducible." Because all 12 populations started out genetically identical and have experienced the same selective pressures, the differences underscore the role of chance in setting evolution's course.
ExtantFrodo 2 years ago
samples of the 12 E. coli populations had been growing in glucose for 2000 generations and all 12 had improved their ability to grow on glucose by about the same amount. But when they were put in a different sugar, maltose, some populations thrived while others languished. For each population adapting to limited glucose, says Travisano, "it seems likely that glucose uptake was tweaked in subtly different ways. And those subtly different tweaks had big effects in a different environment."
ExtantFrodo 2 years ago
All 12 lines were cultured for another 1000 generations on maltose, and all 12 evolved to grow well on maltose. But the fitness was not consistent as it had been on glucose, where the starting genotype had been identical. Evolution wasn't as reproducible as before, because of chance variations in how the populations had adapted earlier. "Once we had diversity, we could prune it back tremendously with adaptation. But not completely. Once you are different, that difference tends to persist,"
ExtantFrodo 2 years ago
Even if the general outline of such experiments is predictable, in many cases the genetic pathway they take depends on chance. That seems to be the case for Rainey's wrinkly spreader strains, too. When his group took 24 wrinkly spreader strains that had evolved independently and then forced them to evolve back into a smooth form by shaking their vials to keep the culture medium from becoming stratified, "some go back easily; some sort of struggle," implying differences in their genetic makeup.
ExtantFrodo 2 years ago
Variances in relative ability to produce beneficial adaptive mutations (rather than randomly occurring useless and/or harmful ones) may also be due to differences in the quality and quantity of perceptions between those strains which had evolved independently.
HurricaneHeidi 1 year ago
How do you think a variance in perception happens when these are all derived from a single bacterium?
Different mutations producing different surface receptors.
But let's go with your notion that all 12 colonies are carrying the same original genetic package. You & BL would say different genes were switched on in different colonies despite immersion in identical environments. Why would the identical twin cells have different surface receptors or activate different genes in the same environment?
ExtantFrodo 1 year ago
@ExtantFrodo -
No. You are combining two different experiments and drawing conclusions as if they were the very same experiment.
John Cairn's experiment did use 12 colonies of genetically identical bacteria, and they adapted to their environment almost identically.
The other experiment which you quoted from earlier in this comment thread utilized "strains which had evolved independently", so those would NOT be genetically identical, and therefore their variance in mutation is to be expected.
HurricaneHeidi 1 year ago
no, you are confusing the "strains which had evolved independently" with a figment of your imagination. Namely that you, having not read the article, think it's about 12 colonies from 12 different origins.
1 cell propagated for several generations was divided into 12 groups. Those 12 groups were raised in identical environments DURING WHICH TIME they evolved independently. Subsequent transfer to a different environment (maltose) had variable evolutionary success.
ExtantFrodo 1 year ago
Certainly random mutations DO occur. But this known fact in no way eliminates or disproves the apparent existence of Adaptive Mutations.
Michael Behe makes several cogent points in his two books: "Darwin's Black Box" and "The Edge of Evolution" - that any series of beneficial mutations resulting in a beneficial system has to be COHERENT... and has to have occurred IN SPITE OF the natural tendency for most random mutations to actually be harmful.
HurricaneHeidi 1 year ago
Behe almost convinced me with his irreducible complexity argument.
Until I realized that it was rewording the ToE to saying that "ONLY the good genes get passed down"
that ONLY complete and functional tools get passed down.
Yet evidence of "incomplete broken pieces parts of complicated systems" being passed down abounds.
ExtantFrodo 1 year ago
Molecules aren't smart.
They don't "figure out a good tool to evolve towards."
They can't say 'this tool is good' or 'that tool is bad'.
A protein 'encoded for' is produced willy nilly (even if it means killing the biological producer of that protein).
If it only kills the organism after it reproduces then that insidious protein code gets passed on.
Some offspring may acquire a mutation that triggers the protein before reproductive age. They get deleted from gene pool.
ExtantFrodo 1 year ago
The ruthless environment makes quick food of bad designs. A misfolded protein here and there may not kill or cripple a cell but if another weird protein comes along that binds them together usefully, then the formerly 'bad product' is now suddenly good. Behe completely missed this point much to his embarrassment.
Other offspring may acquire a mutation that triggers the protein or combines with the protein to do something totally marvelous for the organism.
ExtantFrodo 1 year ago
Where some people see a sniper aiming for a protein product / tool (flagellum)
The reality is more like shrapnel.
We're drawing circles around the blind strikes and calling them bulleyes.
ExtantFrodo 1 year ago
@ExtantFrodo _ Behe certainly did NOT miss the point that subsequent mutations might combine to make earlier mutations useful rather than harmful.
He discusses this very topic at length and in great detail in his book: "The Edge of Evolution" - especially Ch 3: pp 44-63.
HurricaneHeidi 1 year ago
Well bully for him. He's finally learning something.
ExtantFrodo 1 year ago
it only took him ...what? 40 years to figure out what others have known and reported all along?
ExtantFrodo 1 year ago
@ExtantFrodo - So you are scoffing at something which is a hallmark of science itself (in contrast to religious dogma) - the very willingness to alter one's thesis/hypothesis according to ongoing discoveries and additional information.
HurricaneHeidi 1 year ago
Scoffing? Who is scoffing at what precisely? Show me anything that actually is different and I assure you it will have my full support. As I said At first glance I was struck by Behe's mousetrap conjecture. Just because it only took a few minutes to see the flaw in his reasoning doesn't change the fact that I was willing to entertain the proposition of an outside influence.
ExtantFrodo 1 year ago
@ExtantFrodo
hahahhahahahha
You educating michael behe, you are so far up your own ass moron.
hahhahahahahha
ProudToBLoud 1 year ago
With a dumbbell like Behe it isn't hard to do.
ExtantFrodo 1 year ago
@ExtantFrodo
hahahhahahah
You do not even believe your brain is intelligently designed, what do you say it is sufficently designed, hahahahahhaha
You have no grounding to even say that you twit.
hahahhahahahha
ProudToBLoud 1 year ago
Guess what you twit? Your brain isn't intelligently designed either. Imagine that. Oops I guess you can't. Did you ever wonder how any intelligence ever arises if it takes intelligence to make intelligence? Ooops, I guess you didn't. MAGIC!
HAhahahaha
ExtantFrodo 1 year ago
"Guess what you twit? Your brain isn't intelligently designed either"
To argue that from the position of believing that your brain is not intelligent is self defeating.
hahahhahahahahha "Did you ever wonder how any intelligence ever arises if it takes intelligence to make intelligence"
Yup we have a law of biogenesis life from life, not your imaginary magical abiogenesis bullshit.
hahahhahahahahhaha
ProudToBLoud 1 year ago
What? Nothing to say? Just yammer on like a loon? If you had any clue about science (you've eliminated any doubt about that) then discussion might have been fruitful. Sadly that is not the case and so there's nothing but you making noise and me presenting case after case an evidence after evidence.
Let me say, it does make one wonder how you could know so little. If science is too hard turn to religion.
ExtantFrodo 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
"If you had any clue about science"
Yap Yap Yap
typical evobot incapable of a decent comeback.
hahahhahahahahhahahahha
"If science is too hard turn to religion"
Nah I leave you to the religion, You are very religious in your devotion to darwin and you are stupid to confuse that with a scientific process and think they are the same thing, that is how stupid you are.
hahahahahhahahahahha
ProudToBLoud 1 year ago
@ExtantFrodo - Behe a "Dumbell"? There goes the mindless Insultinator Toy again.
Michael J. Behe is a Prof. of Biological Science at Lehigh University since 1985. From 1978 to 1982 he did postdoctural work on DNA structure at the National Institutes of Health. From 1982-1985 he was Asst. Prof. of Chemistry at Queens College in NY City. He has authored over 40 technical papers, and is best known for his two books: "Darwin's Black Box" and "The Edge of Evolution"... both of which I have read.
HurricaneHeidi 1 year ago
Yes, I could see you lapping up Behe's great and awesome vindications of the wonderful unobservable designer. But like I said you won't get a clue about how evolution works from a wanker like him. And I'm guess you don't.
ExtantFrodo 1 year ago
@ExtantFrodo - Speaking of wanking... why not take both hands OFF the keyboard and put them both to better use?
I can think of no greater destiny for your "seed" than to be spilt somewhere; ANYwhere other than the genitalia of an ovulating female of our species.....
HurricaneHeidi 1 year ago
Well Extant said to me before that he has children so if he is telling the truth then unfortunately that nightmare scenario has happened.
ProudToBLoud 1 year ago
yes because obviously to know that things are designed we must observe the designer.
hahhahahahahahhah
What a sophomoric argument that is extant, even your children are laughing at you.
hahahhahahahahha
ProudToBLoud 1 year ago
Interestingly, I did not make that statement. Have you been hitting the LSD jar too hard?
ExtantFrodo 1 year ago
"Behe's great and awesome vindications of the wonderful unobservable designer"
Obviously you have been hitting the LSD Jar.
hahahhahahahahha
ProudToBLoud 1 year ago
That's right genius. You'd never in a million years figure out that your previous claim that I said we must observe a designer to know things are designer does not follow from Behe's inability to demonstrate design OR a designer. Seriously, you have no idea how much you are embarassing yourself.
ExtantFrodo 1 year ago
Don't lie
Youmade the point about the wonderful unobservable designer and were being sarcastic.
The only person that is embarrasing themselves is you with your sophomoric lame remarks.
hahhahahahahahahha
ProudToBLoud 1 year ago
So why did you make that lame remark about the wonderful unobservable designer.
Even your kids are laughing at you for your failed sarcasm and you know when your special kids are laughing then you know it really is an embarrasment to you.
hahhahahahahha
ProudToBLoud 1 year ago
Because there is no designer and no designer is observable. Pretty simple dude.
The biggest factor in observing that things are touched by an intelligent agent is things being "out of place".
Observed and documented spontaneous self-replicating RNA quite refutes the notion that Self-replicating RNA is out of place. It evolves so nothing we've yet seen in biology is out of place. The discovery institute was issued a great challenge to show one gene that was without near peer. They declined. Oops!
ExtantFrodo 1 year ago
Comment removed
ProudToBLoud 1 year ago
what a close mind, suggesting that no evidence means it does not exist, pleae grow up and stop pretending to be scientific, because that is just not!!
zenithar6666 1 year ago
What other sophomoric remarks have you made, oh yeah the bad design argument.
hahahhahahahahhahahhaha
No wonder you go after michael behe and you are stuck on youtube with your sophomoric rants.
hahahhahahahahha
ProudToBLoud 1 year ago
@ExtantFrodo - It was in a reply to ME that you posted the sentence: "Yes, I could see you lapping up Behe's great and awesome vindications of the wonderful unobservable designer".
Why would you deny having said that when responding to ProudToBeLoud?
In any case, your mis-characterization of me as "lapping up" Behe's work is not accurate at all. On the contrary, I thoroughly read, analysed and digested Behe's two books - as well as the works of any other authors I have recommended.
HurricaneHeidi 1 year ago
@HurricaneHeidi - and FYI, I do NOT agree with Behe that evidence of coherent, adaptive mutation = proof of any deity.
Instead, I concur with Bruce Lipton that an organism's perceptions of (and beliefs about) its environment affect its ability to influence beneficial, sequential, coherent mutations which result in complex, interdependent, functioning systems that confer an advantage.
HurricaneHeidi 1 year ago
I didn't deny that. Read the entire thread. PTBL pulled that one out of his ass. From that sentence he contsrued "yes because obviously to know that things are designed we must observe the designer.". Which is not what I said. Only PTBL in his addled brain could fabricate such a misconstruction from the sentence "..vindications of the wonderful unobservable designer" as I explained in subsequent posts.
ExtantFrodo 1 year ago
"your mis-characterization of me as "lapping up" Behe's work is not accurate at all."
Really? Have you read any books about evolution by any authors who have the accepted scientific perspective on evolution? Anything by Ken Miller? Anything published by McGraw-Hill? Just curios.
ExtantFrodo 1 year ago
@ExtantFrodo - Not only have I studied evolution as presented in McGraw Hill (high school textbooks) but I have recently read Richard Dawkins' "The Blind Watchmaker" in order to digest Dawkins' perspective opposite Behe's.
Behe raises questions of adaptive coherence of sequential mutations in the face of ongoing random mutations that are not usually beneficial.
If you'd like to see the sort of comments I post when I disagree with someone's theories, see:
watch?v=iqJOIQWkfWA
See you there!
HurricaneHeidi 1 year ago
@ExtantFrodo - Again you misunderstand, and then misstate a scientist's clearly -stated hypothesis.
Behe did NOT restate the ToE to say that only good genes are passed on. In fact he uses detailed examinations of the mutation "warfare" carried on between the malaria virus and human beings... pointing out that the Sickle Cell Anemia gene protects a person from malaria, but when homozygous (inherited from both parents), it ALSO subjects the person to another seriously debilitating disease - SCA.
HurricaneHeidi 1 year ago
Behe may have changed his tune in more recent books, but his original IC proposals he emphatically claimed that because 9/10ths of a mousetrap confers no survival advantage it can not be selected for AND THUS IT DOESN'T PASS ON THOSE GENES.
This is obviously absurd an contrary to what is observed. I'm not surprised he would change his claim.
ExtantFrodo 1 year ago
@ExtantFrodo _ Behe did NOT claim that useless and/or harmful genetic mutations never get passed on.
His irreducible complexity argument rests upon the premise that COHERENT series of genetic changes are necessary to construct beneficial and complex systems because earlier, incomplete (and useless) stages do not confer survivability and can thus disappear or suffer degradation via interjection of harmful mutations before they manage to evolve into useful, complete, beneficial structures.
HurricaneHeidi 1 year ago
I see you are still referring to his more recent revisions of his original claim. No matter. His own computer simulations produced IC systems in less that 22,000 generation and did so with all the parameters tweaked to make it as difficult as possible. Real life and real biology has a billion trillion fold organisms and resources running in parallel for 3.5 billion years producing IC systems out the wahzoo. Behe too I call a fool. Don't you?
ExtantFrodo 1 year ago
@ExtantFrodo - I don't need to resort to the use of insulting labels.
I prefer to discuss a topic without becoming dismissive, crude and
simplistic.
Notice that I refrain from applying labels to you. Instead, I describe your approach ... your behavior... but I do not presume to reduce another human being to some simple derogatory category just for the sake of school-yard oneupsmanship.
HurricaneHeidi 1 year ago
Have I applied a label to you?
ExtantFrodo 1 year ago
@ExtantFrodo - So far you have not applied a label to me, no.
HurricaneHeidi 1 year ago
It would be a nice theory if it wasn't held up by bullshit claims.
1. I fail to find evidence of the existance of these "Genetic engineering genes". We can't change our genotype.
2. Science has known the environment regulates our genes since the sixties (Jacob, Monod, Lac Operon? Biology 1?) Our "perception" mechanism is coded by our genes to make efficient use of themselves.
mora024 2 years ago 2
3. He talks about cells moving. Without a propelling mechanism, cells do not move towards or away from anything. If he is referring to cell growth patterns, replication will favor cells closer to nutrients and naturally cells closer to toxins will die. Nothing new about that.
4. Where's the evidence for lack of love stunting growth more than nutrition? Show me those "Eastern European kids" and explain why starving (but very loved) kids in developing nations DO get stunted growth.
mora024 2 years ago 5
@mora024
buffasquiji 1 year ago
@mora024
check out the 82 year old "breatharian" on msn.com.
2 weeks without food or water under 24 hr observation showing no signs of physical deterioration. with the proper mindset food is not necessary.
buffasquiji 1 year ago
How do we change our preceptions? More importantly - How do we create a less hostile environment?
b29349 2 years ago
NInja
FiendKILL 2 years ago
plant base foods are what our cells need to function. "whole plant foods"
spottyman 2 years ago
I KNEW IT mind over matter is real!!!
nambypamby34 2 years ago
won*der *ful teachings, thank you zeronian for sharing!
arwena55 2 years ago
cancer is america's way of suiciding...
and for all u nay sayers, hes just saying that stress= bad
which every doctor knows but unfortunately it isn't emphasized nearly enough
deathxblade 2 years ago
Best quote from this clip at 7:59: The most important growth promoting signal in the world today for a human is Love
maha77 2 years ago
amazing info, regarding what he says on cancer, listen on the experience of Mellen-Thomas Benedict on TertiusOculusOris youtube channel, he very clearly demonstrates how his belief gave him terminal cancer, amazing stuff
maha77 2 years ago
Well Done makes sense, Stand back and look at people, who have similar beliefs, they get same illness
Rogerlowrey2222 2 years ago 2
I meant I agree with Bruce!
kcharles66 2 years ago
I agree!
kcharles66 2 years ago
3:45 min. holy wow!
stephsh69 2 years ago
Excellent ! ! ! !
Wayshower1982 2 years ago 2
There is a bait and switch here. Since we don't know what is outside of the cell we believe the receptor is telling us. But this is a different type of belief he is talking about. He uses them like they are equal. It doesn't matter if the inside gears believe the receptor or not it receives the signal and it works. The receptor is made to physically pick up other physical pieces and to respond. It does not respond on belief.
theoriginalanomaly 2 years ago
Perception and belief are not equivalent. If you have a 3 inch opening, a 5 inch ball will not fit into it. It doesn't matter if the receptor is believing that the ball is 3 inches. It will not fit. This is a huge leap when he says belief controls behavior. He had it right with perception. The receptor does not even have the capability of believing.
theoriginalanomaly 2 years ago
Can i ask you a question; are you a biologist - have you written any books on biology or carried out any research? Have you given any talks on the subject?
cacaolover 2 years ago
...so if our body is technically a computer this explains the push in 2009 towards humans being chipped...grettings fellow truth seekers...
lizajean3 2 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
this is old stuff.
Ko252 2 years ago
Wow, this is like all the stuff new age people spout, but he is actually breaking it down with science and logic. Nothing short of genius in my opinion.
shipiboconibo 3 years ago 5
This is liberating stuff. We have believed lies for so long.
WingedSentry 3 years ago 5
Wow, D! Thanks - good share my little buttercup...
mikwid 3 years ago
We're no longer having polarized nueral synapses they are sending nuetral signals
IndigoRevolution999 3 years ago
PS, I don't like being called an "it". I am a person and yes I do respond to my environment. You can follow my favorites to see more autistic people who respond to their environment.
BugFolk 3 years ago
Thanks, It was illuminating to see that, I'm starting to see autism as a charactistic, and that it's only a problem if the autistic individual is unhappy with it.
Bruce Lipton's comment about autism is almost certainly wrong; but it was an incorrect example in an otherwise enligtening lecture.
newbetterandhappy 3 years ago
It sounded interesting until 8:30 then I lost respect for Bruce Lipton... Autism is NOT the cause of bad parenting... My parents may not have been perfect. Even so, they were good parents. They were not resonsible for me being autistic.
I find it sad to see the "refrigerator mother" concept is making a comeback...
BugFolk 3 years ago 2
I think he mispoke, or left something out. Probably he meant to say that if the children PERCEIVED a lack of love, they would not prosper. If a child is exposed to toxins, that might fog up their emotions in a way that they stop perceiving love. In that case, the problem is not the 'refrigerator mother' but rather the emotional blindness created by the environment in/around the child.
syrakurt 3 years ago
I've heard about the toxins/mercury/vaccine hypothesis and autism. I'm not sure I fully believe in it being "the cause" to autism, but I figure no one can go wrong working to clean the environment.
That being said, regardless of cause, people with autism can and do perceive love. Since I know only my peception, I can't say whether or not the act of perceiving love is the same exact way for every human. I just know it is there and a misconception to believe autistic people don't perceive love.
BugFolk 3 years ago
To add to that, I think a lot of perception with autistic individuals is cognitive more than emotional. I know I may not "feel" something like empathy like non autistic people may, but I have the thoughts behind the feeling and you can be assured I do feel it, just in a logical way and not always "by the heart". Or I may feel the emotion strongly but not always express it. I think the lack of expressing emotion is what leads people to believe autistic people don't have feelings or feel nothing.
BugFolk 3 years ago
Comment removed
shipiboconibo 3 years ago
Where do you get your information that there is not a lot of love in single-mother households? That's pretty ridiculous. Also, my household was less stressful than many dual-parent households, for various reasons.
Kackthy 2 years ago 6
Very interesting...
mlystew 3 years ago
Enviromentally Adaptive Gene Therapy. Now you have your answer as to what some of these dark projects are all about ie: chemtrails...providing the enviromental stimuli to induce chronic illness
Planetgonenuts 3 years ago
Everything is right on except when he talks about believe, believe doen't have any positive outcome, it is a form of limitation and conflict!! destroys the brain!
tantalico 3 years ago
I had a hard time with that too. It took me a while before I realized the connection: the brain controls the hormones, and the hormones control the chemical environment inside the body. Therefore (in this model) it seems that a belief (or a mood, or a perception of a physical event) can alter hormones which are released, which in turn alters the chemical makeup of the internal environment (the body), which then affects the cells as Lipton describes.
3stringovation 3 years ago
Thank you for sharing this wonderful information with us all :)
Lollie601 3 years ago
Absolutely amazing!!!!!
We all have the capacity to change,everything we want in our bodies, change DNA , IF we change our Perceptions...
Marvelous
mluisapp 3 years ago