Genes and Formation of Character

Genes and Formation of Character

I have recently read a layman text on genes. So far, the main idea presented is the concept of DNA and Chromosomes. DNA is like an identity card unique to each individual and Chromosomes are categories within the DNA that define some attribute about the said DNA.

Question that the book and this science is trying to answer is how do Humans evolve? More importantly, what effects what in human evolution! Meaning, for a human born out of a human copulation, in that produce, what does the female copulate contribute and what does male copulate contribute to the born human?
Although other discoveries said to have been made, especially in the agriculture field. The seed of Crops and Vegetation being modified in a way to produce a better yield, making it more repulsive for produce fields to attract pest or other forms of insects that would otherwise destroy the produce.

The question of human evolution is what remains in debate. In the case of human beings, having the formula for creating a perfect or a better society still remains to be seen. The book mentions the case of isolating certain population, migrating them to live in remote areas, as that was seen as a way to preserve and progress beings thought of as superior than the average; only to see a result of a generation of degenerate human beings.

It seems that the contemporary Science still lacks a firm understanding of how nature works in developing a human form; physically and mentally.


The Question of Creation vs Evolution:

Answering this question requires understanding what the term “evolves” mean. Those who claim humans have evolved from Apes, claim that such an evolution came about on its own by a selection of survival of the fittest. The other side of the debate is that such an evolution did not come about, and humans were created; evolutionist vs creationist.

Using an analogy, to understand evolution and thus creation, is to understand in computers how did a tablet come about from a laptop. Or how did a laptop evolve from a desktop? Was the formation of a laptop from a desktop, a matter of “evolution”, where the feature that fit most survived and the rest were left behind. Or was laptop a matter of “creation”?

The point to reflect is that yes a human being has many similarities with other beings on Earth, especially apes perhaps. Just as a laptop shares many components with a desktop. Though each was created on its own but the creation of one from the other was evolved by observing each feature for its designated purpose.

To answer the question, an entity known as God, who has All Knowledge and All Wisdom and such, would have the capacity to build a creation from other creations. This much can be perceived by our own method of creating new devices from the evolution of the old. But to phantom that a new creation comes about by the natural selection of evolution is unlikely. An external source would have act as a bridge to make a laptop out of a desktop and similarly an external source would have to act as a bridge to make a human out of an ape.


Formation of Human Psychology and Physical Attribute

The understanding of Seed, emitted from a male, and placed inside a female.
How does it work? Does the seed of a man change as he himself changes? For example a male name Adam who is a blacksmith has a child, and then Adam has to train for a second career, lets say in Information Technology, and then he has another child. Would the first child have a natural tendency towards being a blacksmith versus the second child who would be a natural in both being a blacksmith and in Information Technology?

Does the DNA differ as a man grows and learns or adapts. The evolution theory conjures that most beings on animal evolve by adapting, how does that evolution take place? The same question can be asked about the female, if she is trained in new skills would her DNA change and would that effect the resultant child?

With diversity we can see what the physical outcome is for having a child from a copulation of diverse ethnicities. Mainly, it shows that in terms of physical look/attribute, it is mainly the mother side of the physical look that takes precedence. For instance, a European Woman copulating with an African Man would result in a child with mainly European physical traits, on the other hand, an African Woman copulating with a European man would result in a child with mainly African physical traits.

This goes to show that although man provides the seed, that living cell, it is the shell of an egg in which that seed is nurtured that is physically seen in the resultant child.

The question remains about the Psychological Traits of a child. How is that effected?

#intuition is that nurture plays the key role in building psychological traits. A child born in the royals would have to be nurtured as a royal to act like a royal, if that child for any reason is casted out or raised in a society distinct from #royals than the child would reflect the traits of that society. The notion of a son born of a king is a king by nature is impervious to reality. Their is a notion of a #soul making its reflection. With the thinking, that a child born off a noble soul would reflect nobility even if raised away from it’s originating society. Although such a notion is hardly tested in the scientific arena. Since the existence of soul is a matter of debate.


More on Nurture forming Psychological Traits

A similitude of the relation of nature and nurture, where nature is inherited in the seed; semen and mainly egg, and nurture is how the resultant birth is raised. Consider the Japanese Dwarf Plants, where the seed originally came from a normal tree but the nurture is controlled in a strict manner to produce a result different from the tree-of-seed. Taking that example, we can get an idea of how nature and nurture works. Nature is pre-defined norm, that produces what we have come to known as the natural environment, whereas nurture is the re-defined control over nature which produces a desired result.

Nurture on the other hands is the guidance on man. If you are raised on the streets you are most likely to end up in a lower to middle class job and life style (depending on the government you live under), on the other hand if you are from among the closed gate communities, than you are expected to be in a middle to upper class of the society. These predefined destinies have some to do with the seed but also the nurturing you were given. The better and more informed nurturing, the better class of society you would make it to.
Think of life as a closed circuit track full of obstacle, and each generation gets to go around it once. The more generations you are connected to, the more informed you are about the obstacles that would be laid in your path as you trend through that track of obstacles. On the other hand, if you are not part of any family than you experience in life would be similar to someone who is going through this track for the first time and would most probably suffer through all the obstacles.

Let me restate, take a family of three generations, the first generation had to go through all the obstacles and thus had the hardest life, the second generation, was able to be saved from some of the obstacle if they learned from the experience of the last generation and thus made it to a level of living standards built on the level established by the first generation. Furthermore, the third generation, if also learned from previous two, would benefit the most and suffer the least, because they get to build on what the previous two generations have established.

The key part is, maintaining that bridge among generations, in other words, maintaining that family bond so each subsequent generation can be #nurtured in a way to avoid the pit fall the previous generation had to suffer. Though their are limitations, namely to what extent can each generation be educated to keep progressing. What is normally seen from conventional history is that as each generation branches out, few of the branches fall off from their contemporary standard of living and are disconnected, while other branch would continue on building or at least sustaining their standard of living.


#intuition of the role of Soul

What is that role of the soul. The concept of soul only exist in theology, science does not, rather can not, accept it, because Science lacks any method of proving its existence. Theology, that is religion, seems to be for man only, where the goal is heaven, and heaven is laid with rivers of honey and wine with ‘fair woman with large eyes, the likeness of pearls well-protected’. If the final goal is enticing to man only, the concept of religion should entail man only, and thus the concept of soul should apply to man only. Which explains how a #true couple is considered to be one soul with two bodies.

A point to clarify, being male does not entail being a man. #Similar to what Plato says, their exists three sexes (forms of humans), Man, Female Woman, and a Male Woman. Where Plato refers to male woman as androgynies or hermaphrodites, and a male women copulating with a female woman could only produce a woman (male or female). Thus a man can only produce a man with a woman, this would imply, a soul-gene can only be created by another soul-gene, rather a soul-gene being expected from a gene-gene copulation.

When we speak of original sin, it is the soul that is altered by it, and thus when man commits certain acts against his soul, those acts are imprinted on his soul and are passed along to his progeny. Similar to the story of the two sons of Adam, where one kills the other.

hough an odd comparison, the notion of the Original Sin does seem to fit in with DNA and its ability to alter. Adam committed the Original Sin and through him his progeny shares in the burden. Is it because the effect of that sin had modified his DNA, and that DNA was transmitted through reproduction. Hence, as long as reproduction is from the same original DNA, the effect of the sin vis-a-vis the change in code will remain in every reproduction.
Now, this understanding is in-line with what the text mentions as how some diseases are transmitted via genetics and can be tracked before the birth of the child. Considering the effect of Sin to be a disease, it is thus transmitted from Adam to all of mankind. Since, their isn’t any other DNA pure of sin, the code cannot be altered to rid itself from the effects of the Original Sin.

Which brings us to the the birth of Christ Isa (Jesus), who is said to have replenish the Original Sin. By virtue of the belief that he was born to a virgin woman, Virgin Mary, and breathed with a Pure Soul. Hence, that seed though produced a human was pure in a manner how Adam was made before his committal of the Original Sin. Just as Adam was made pure of any sin and then he committed a sin, similarly the seed that evolved to be Christ Jesus, was pure of any sin, and thus clear of the Original Sin presented in the DNA descending from Adam.
Depending on what the belief is after, the seed of Jesus would be the purifier of the seed of Adam.
This association does #assume that the change in the DNA code is from the male counterpart, and that the DNA code of a man does change in accordance to his actions. Furthermore, in the copulation of two genes, it is the better gene that takes over. So if such a case existed, where a copulation is between a descendant of Jesus and descendant of Adam, the effect of the Original Sin would be wiped clear. #Intuition