Does our current physical condition ever determine our child's genes?

Let's say someone is predisposed to be skinny. And let's say that person has been lifting weights for as long as he can remember. Will that person's child build be naturally masculine at all assuming that the partner was also skinny or is it all based on one's lineage?

Let's say someone is predisposed to be skinny. And let's say that person has been lifting weights for as long as he can remember. Will that person's child build be naturally masculine at all assuming that the partner was also skinny or is it all based on one's lineage?

I like this question. I am certain from my studies that epigenetic change can cause an inherited change. However i do not think that there would be such a dramatic change like what you have suggested.

I do know that certain chemicals can cause an inherited epigenetic variation. There is not as much research on this as i thought there would be when i started looking. I did find a good Pdf from Nature that reviews inherited epigenetic change. I have included it as an attachment. That review would be a good place to start looking if you are interested.

If you come across any more info let me know.

Edited by DaChemist, 25 June 2012 - 06:55 AM.

Let's say someone is predisposed to be skinny. And let's say that person has been lifting weights for as long as he can remember. Will that person's child build be naturally masculine at all assuming that the partner was also skinny or is it all based on one's lineage?

solely hereditary, no influence whatsoever on genes. Genetic predisposition and choice are completely independent of each other
its like.. If you are not musically inclined, but then you memorize a song, does that make you a musical person? nope

things you do and choices you make never physically rewrite your genes, and those physical genes are the only thing creating the sack of meat which inevitably becomes your child

this was like day one of high school bio

Edited by blackleaf28, 25 June 2012 - 11:32 AM.

The old answer is no but new research into epigenetics suggests we might be able to turn genes on and off based in enviroment.

We can't rewrite our genes though so it would be limited

The old answer is no but new research into epigenetics suggests we might be able to turn genes on and off based in enviroment.

We can't rewrite our genes though so it would be limited

republicans would have a field day with this.. Thatd mean being gay is a choice after all. Which, although i cant say from experience, highly doubt

anyway seems pretty crackpotty of a theory.. Who do you know that inherited their parents deviation from their genes over the genes themselves? Sounds about as common as genetic mutations, which for that matter it could be. Or dormant genes from a grand or great grandparent that skipped a generation.
i.e. if your family is predisposed to be fat, then you go on a diet before having kids, the odds of your kids being predisposed to be skinny are so statistically negligable that you couldnt possibly call it conclusive evidence to support the theory

Edited by blackleaf28, 25 June 2012 - 04:29 PM.

republicans would have a field day with this.. Thatd mean being gay is a choice after all. Which, although i cant say from experience, highly doubt

anyway seems pretty crackpotty of a theory.. Who do you know that inherited their parents deviation from their genes over the genes themselves? Sounds about as common as genetic mutations, which for that matter it could be. Or dormant genes from a grand or great grandparent that skipped a generation.
i.e. if your family is predisposed to be fat, then you go on a diet before having kids, the odds of your kids being predisposed to be skinny are so statistically negligable that you couldnt possibly call it conclusive evidence to support the theory

I am rather amazed, did you read any of the article that i posted? when people are exposed to certain environmental factors that cause an epigenetic change their offspring can have an altered genome from those factors. It is certainly in the realm of being possible but i doubt the changes would be very dramatic.

Dramatic or not they are changes.

Then those with slight changes pass on to their offspring another slight change in the same direction.

After many generations those slight changes add up to a big difference from the original due to the environment they live in

Imo no. My dad had me right after he left the marines, and he was 140 pounds going in, 200 when he got out. I've been skinny my whole life, I'm now 140 and the same age as when he joined.

Lysenkoism. Soviet era minister that pushed bogus biological programs. Inheritance of acquired characteristics has been disproven repeatedly.

Think of it, if you keep chopping off the tails of the puppies, you *never* get a puppy born of those parents with no tails. There is not a difference between working out for a six pack and performing surgery to remove a body part or inject silicon - it simply will not transmit genetically to the next generation. Only a genetic based mutation will transmit to the next generation.

In that instance OP, no. In some instances epigenetics will play a role however, but mostly from the conditions of the woman while she is pregnant. For example, a child who's mother is starved nearly to death during the second trimester or so will store carbs and fats at a much higher rate than those who have had a normal pregnancy. Because of this, the children will be at increased risk of obesity, diabetes, and related disorders when they grow older. In instances like these epigenetics will play a role in the child's development before birth. Otherwise, any epigenetic effects on the child will occur based on the environment they are raised in once they are born.

i watched a video about some experiments showing that the answer is yes. in ancient times a pregnant woman would only be allowed to see certain types of people, people who wanted to see a pregnant lady had to first been seen by someone whose developed a certain level of intuitiveness . so surely the outer environment affects how the child will be. that doesn't really change after he's born does it?

Lysenkoism. Soviet era minister that pushed bogus biological programs. Inheritance of acquired characteristics has been disproven repeatedly.

Think of it, if you keep chopping off the tails of the puppies, you *never* get a puppy born of those parents with no tails. There is not a difference between working out for a six pack and performing surgery to remove a body part or inject silicon - it simply will not transmit genetically to the next generation. Only a genetic based mutation will transmit to the next generation.

well said

In certain cases, the parents' environment affects their gene expression and these changes are passed down to their offspring. There's a lot of research supporting this, mostly from the last few years (so anyone citing their high school bio textbook will be out of date).

Epigenetics: DNA Isn’t Everything

It's not as straightforward as "you cut off a dog's tail, and its puppies are born with no tails." It's more like "the parent was born with a dormant, unexpressed gene which was later expressed when environmental factors altered the histone configuration of their DNA, and their offspring inherited the altered DNA which codes for the previously dormant gene to be expressed."

In certain cases, the parents' environment affects their gene expression and these changes are passed down to their offspring. There's a lot of research supporting this, mostly from the last few years (so anyone citing their high school bio textbook will be out of date).

Epigenetics: DNA Isn’t Everything

It's not as straightforward as "you cut off a dog's tail, and its puppies are born with no tails." It's more like "the parent was born with a dormant, unexpressed gene which was later expressed when environmental factors altered the histone configuration of their DNA, and their offspring inherited the altered DNA which codes for the previously dormant gene to be expressed."

youre right but i dont think you understood the op.. Dormant genes can express themselves sporadically through generations, but its not possible to have a lifestyle choice written nowhere in your genes inherent in your childs gene code

back to the point of the thread.. If your familys gene code leads you to be generally skinny and wiry, buffing up before you have a kid wont make the kids body predisposed toward being muscular at all

if he is predisposed to being muscular, its a coincidence of an inherited dormant gene, not a cause of the current condition of the parent before conception

Edited by blackleaf28, 26 June 2012 - 04:06 PM.

In certain cases, the parents' environment affects their gene expression and these changes are passed down to their offspring. There's a lot of research supporting this, mostly from the last few years (so anyone citing their high school bio textbook will be out of date).

Epigenetics: DNA Isn’t Everything

It's not as straightforward as "you cut off a dog's tail, and its puppies are born with no tails." It's more like "the parent was born with a dormant, unexpressed gene which was later expressed when environmental factors altered the histone configuration of their DNA, and their offspring inherited the altered DNA which codes for the previously dormant gene to be expressed."

I very much agree with this post.
And like dachemist said in his first post

"However i do not think that there would be such a dramatic change like what you have suggested."

A missing tail is a rather dramatic change, however a change in eye pigmentation could be, as chief joseph suggested, a dormant gene that became expressed due to the changing environment, an environment which an ancestor had evolved around.

The article you just posted Epigenetics: DNA Isn’t Everything was a very interesting read, a strain of fruit flies that normally has white eyes, but when the temperature surrounding the embryos (normally is 25 C) is raised to 37 C they develop red eyes. It has been proven that lighter colored eyes are more sensitive to light than darker eyes, due to less pigment to protect them from the sun. This would be a perfect explanation of why the dormant gene is now visible, perhaps the flies ancestors lived in a much warmer climate, which can come hand in hand with increased sunlight. Then when you consider that the eyes of a fly are some of the most complex among insects, which I think allows the assumption that they heavily rely on their eyes for survival, it only makes sense that they are most prone to epigenetic change.

However I have to agree with Blackleaf in terms of the OP's question, although I believe epigenetic change is present I don't believe it is involved in matters such as buffing up before you have a child to increase his/her likelihood of being physically fit.

Edited by megamax42, 26 June 2012 - 04:33 PM.

well said

Ta;)

In certain cases, the parents' environment affects their gene expression and these changes are passed down to their offspring. There's a lot of research supporting this, mostly from the last few years (so anyone citing their high school bio textbook will be out of date).

Epigenetics: DNA Isn’t Everything

It's not as straightforward as "you cut off a dog's tail, and its puppies are born with no tails." It's more like "the parent was born with a dormant, unexpressed gene which was later expressed when environmental factors altered the histone configuration of their DNA, and their offspring inherited the altered DNA which codes for the previously dormant gene to be expressed."

Excuse me, but read what we both said. Now, let us go to cats/feliines.

For sake of argument, let us look at my cat [cute isn't she?]

She isn't a turkish van, though she has similar markings. Black cap and tail. These type of markings come from how she was placed in the womb - has something to do with fetal bloodflow or so it was explained to me. She popped out as a kitten with the patches in place.

Now, take a siamese.

Also cute, and *loud* - they like to talk all day!

Note the patches on this critter are blended/graduated not solid edged like Jezabel. That is because body temperature effects melanin. It is a very specific mutation. The kittens are born mainly off white or cream and the patterns 'develop' as the kittens age.

This is practical genetics. No matter how cold you make the other breeds of cat, they will not start to look like siamese. You either have to breed them with a siamese, or get out the RIT dye.

So, if you want to have a kid with negroid features, someone involved needs to have the genetics for it on one side or the other. 2 statuesque nordic blonds with ice blue eyes and flaxen hair all the way back 500 years is not going to have a kid that looks like Mohammed Ali, unless someone slips in screwing a really dark guy with tight nappy hair ... no matter how much you suntan and dye your hair black and get a jericurl, it is not happening.

I very much agree with this post.
And like dachemist said in his first post

A missing tail is a rather dramatic change, however a change in eye pigmentation could be, as chief joseph suggested, a dormant gene that became expressed due to the changing environment, an environment which an ancestor had evolved around.

<snip>

However I have to agree with Blackleaf in terms of the OP's question, although I believe epigenetic change is present I don't believe it is involved in matters such as buffing up before you have a child to increase his/her likelihood of being physically fit.

Spontaneous genetic damage can also explain random changes [though I would like to point out that casual bastardy is generally fairly common, more common than many people like to admit.] and eye color is way different than buffing up to make your kid come out buff. Getting your kid buff would be more a case of bringing it up from birth to watch their diet and exercise every day.

If i feed 2 horses with steroids and they mate, will the genes passed down to their offspring be the same as if i had not?

Ta;)

Excuse me, but read what we both said. Now, let us go to cats/feliines.

For sake of argument, let us look at my cat [cute isn't she?]

She isn't a turkish van, though she has similar markings. Black cap and tail. These type of markings come from how she was placed in the womb - has something to do with fetal bloodflow or so it was explained to me. She popped out as a kitten with the patches in place.

Now, take a siamese.

Also cute, and *loud* - they like to talk all day!

Note the patches on this critter are blended/graduated not solid edged like Jezabel. That is because body temperature effects melanin. It is a very specific mutation. The kittens are born mainly off white or cream and the patterns 'develop' as the kittens age.

This is practical genetics. No matter how cold you make the other breeds of cat, they will not start to look like siamese. You either have to breed them with a siamese, or get out the RIT dye.

So, if you want to have a kid with negroid features, someone involved needs to have the genetics for it on one side or the other. 2 statuesque nordic blonds with ice blue eyes and flaxen hair all the way back 500 years is not going to have a kid that looks like Mohammed Ali, unless someone slips in screwing a really dark guy with tight nappy hair ... no matter how much you suntan and dye your hair black and get a jericurl, it is not happening.

Spontaneous genetic damage can also explain random changes [though I would like to point out that casual bastardy is generally fairly common, more common than many people like to admit.] and eye color is way different than buffing up to make your kid come out buff. Getting your kid buff would be more a case of bringing it up from birth to watch their diet and exercise every day.

first person ive gained intellectual respect from on this forum. Cheers dude. Hope i see more posts from you

first person ive gained intellectual respect from on this forum. Cheers dude. Hope i see more posts from you

Dudette =) Thanks. I have 2 university degrees:D

I don't believe so, the only things that can affect the genes you pass on are age, radiation, and certain diseases. Actually, before Charles Darwin came up with his Theory of Evolution, is was a common belief that your life affects your children, i.e. giraffes have long necks because their ancestors stretched out their necks trying to reach food. It was proven wrong later on though.