All language subtitles for Inner Evolution S1 E2

[MUSIC PLAYING]

>> In the early 1800s, French
biologist Jean-Baptiste de

Lamarck said, "It is not the
organs that is the character

and form of the animals' bodily
parts that have given rise

to its habits.

It is the habits
and manner of life

in which its ancestors lived
that fashions its bodily form,

its organs, and its qualities."

What was Lamarck referring to?

And why did Charles Darwin
paint a different picture?

I am your host, Bruce
Lipton, for the series

on Inner Evolution.

[MUSIC PLAYING]

The notion that genes
control our lives

was first predicated on
Newtonian materialism.

Science was seeking
the physical basis

of evolution, the search for the
genesis elements as an insight

into understanding the
mechanisms that control life.

This pursuit led to the
Human Genome Project.

In what amounted
to a cosmic joke,

the project's results completely
undermined the assumption

that genes control evolution
and the character of life.

The door was now open for the
new and personally empowering

science of epigenetics.

Let me show you how
science has evolved

and how this understanding may
have affected your own thought

patterning.

Science is really based
on the physical expression

of the universe as
proposed by Isaac Newton.

And being a physical
mechanism, then

insight into
understanding how it works

would give us insight
into controlling it.

In fact, we really have to
recognize that there was

a mission to modern science.

This mission was proposed
by Francis Bacon in 1650

to obtain knowledge that can
be used to dominate and control

nature.

This has been the
mission of science.

This is where we are
always in an effort

to try to show
nature what we want,

rather than understanding
what nature is offering us

in the first place.

Now, to understand evolution,
we must first go back to 1809.

And that was the printing of
the first scientific paper

on evolution by
Jean-Baptiste de Lamarck.

Lemarck's theory of evolution
in today's light of science

is probably the
most accurate one.

Lamarck recognized
the very simple fact

that animals and environments
were in a perfect lockstep

orientation.

Polar bears are not
in South America.

And orchids are
not in Antarctica.

Was that chance or accident?

Not according to Lamarck.

Lamarck actually
came up with the idea

that there was a
lockstep interaction

between the environment and
the evolution of the organisms.

Well, this theory got lost
for a very important reason.

And that is because
Lamarck was only

able to offer this new science
in the French Revolution

when Napoleon took over.

But when Napoleon lost and
the aristocrats and the church

came back into power, they
eliminated Lamarck immediately

as a heretic.

And that was the end.

However, in 1859, a theory of
evolution by Charles Darwin

was published--

"On the Origin of Species
by Natural Selection."

I want to make a very
important correction

at this moment for this
fact, because we give credit

to Darwin for the theory.

The truth is it was Alfred
Russel Wallace, a commoner

working in the Malay
Archipelago, that actually

wrote the theory of evolution
and sent it to Charles Darwin.

Darwin was taken
back by the fact

that someone had already
written this theory.

And he didn't finish his
effort of writing his theory.

Well, Charles Lyell, head
of the Royal Society,

and Darwin got together.

And under what they referred
to as the delicate arrangement,

they put Darwin's name in front
of Alfred Russel Wallace's name

when presenting the theories
at the Linnean Society meeting

back in 1858.

The significance is profound,
because priority is always

given to the first author.

Darwin took the work
and within the year,

came out with his book,
"On the Origin of Species."

And Wallace-- lost in history.

Now, the significance of
Darwin writing the theory

is quite different than
understanding Alfred Russel

Wallace's perception.

Wallace, a commoner-- when he
saw the understanding of how

animals in the world
work together and compete

with each other, actually
came to the conclusion

that evolution was based on
the elimination of the weakest

organisms in the community.

Darwin, an upper-class
person and in supporting

the upper-class philosophy,
changed that around

and said that
evolution is actually

driven by the survival of the
fittest and the competition.

So Wallace said it was
elimination of the weakest.

Darwin said it was the
preservation of the strongest.

They both have the
same conclusion.

The glass is half empty,
or the glass is half full,

but they have profoundly
different meanings.

Because if I give
you a chance to live

in either of two worlds,
an Alfred Russel Wallace

world where only the
weakest get eliminated

or a Darwinian world where
only the strongest survive,

which one would you pick?

Think about it.

The answer is simple.

It's easiest to be in the
Alfred Russel Wallace--

because it's easiest
not to be the weakest.

It's much harder to be the
strongest as in a Darwin world.

But Darwin was the first
one to write his book,

"On the Origin of Species."

And since then, the world has
been taken by the understanding

that it is a competition
for survival on this planet.

And therefore in
trying to understand

the nature of evolution, we must
first go back to Isaac Newton.

And the significance is this.

In Isaac Newton's universe,
the physical, material realm

can only be affected by
other forms of matter.

And therefore in
trying to understand

how a human body works,
and the human body being

a physical machine, it was
understood that somewhere

in that body there were physical
elements that controlled

the character of that machine.

And when Darwin came
up with this idea,

there was no insider
understanding

of the nature of genes.

It was a philosophy that there
were some kinds of structures

like paint droplets
scattered through the body,

and that these droplets
were called gemmules.

And these gemmules carried
the nature or character

of the part of the body
where they were located.

So there would be a
gemmule in your shoulder

that would accommodate
the shoulder,

a gemmule in your neck that
would program and develop

the neck.

So gemmules were scattered
all over the body.

When two people
mated, the gemmules

of the mother and the
gemmules of the father

would come and blend together
to create the characteristic

of their offspring.

In searching for those physical
elements, the gemmules,

we were looking for
the genesis elements.

And genesis elements can
be abbreviated as genes.

And that's where the term
genes comes from, OK?

So the significance is this.

Darwin's theory was
a two-step process.

Step 1-- there's an
alteration in the heredity,

that the so-called
gemmules would

alter their characteristic
which, in turn, would alter

the characteristic of the body
in which these gemmules were

found, followed by step
2, natural selection,

where nature will select the
strongest of those altered

organisms to survive, and
propagate those genes,

and eliminate the weaker
organisms that have been

altered by these genes.

The concept of
gemmules, of course,

was an elusive idea, because it
was just an idea, a philosophy.

There was nothing real to
identify the hereditary units.

But interestingly
enough, at the same time

that Darwin was working on
the theory of evolution,

in Austria there was a monk
by the name of Gregor Mendel.

And Mendel was mating
flowers of different colors.

And what he showed is if
he mated a red flowering

plant with a white
flowering plant,

the offspring would be pink.

Well, this would suggest
that the characteristic

in the red plant-- its gemmules
merged with the gemmules

in the white plant created pink.

So that fit the general story.

But a whole new
insight was offered

when Mendel did back
crossing, where he mated two

of the pink offspring together.

And what happened?

Not only did pink flowers
show up on plants,

but there were plants with
white flowers and plants

with red flowers.

This is profoundly important.

Because it said that whatever
the hereditary elements were,

they were very specific
physical units.

They didn't merge
with each other

as gemmules were supposed to do.

They kept their characteristics.

But when present together,
a red and white one

would create a pink plant.

But when you back
cross, any plant

that received two white
genes would be white.

And any plant that received
two red genes would be red.

And the pink was the
result of a plant having

one of each of the genes.

The point is very critical.

Because it said that whatever
the hereditary units are,

their physical,
discrete units, not

like paint droplets
that merge, but maintain

their characteristic from
generation to generation.

Well, that put the search on.

What in an organism represents
these new structures, which

are now referred to as genes?

What is a gene?

Where is a gene?

Well, in 1892, August
Weismann, a German scientist

in studying cells
and tissue culture,

observed as cells
divided, there were

these little filaments
that were found

in the middle of the cell.

Those filaments were
split half and half,

one half going to one daughter
cell, the other half going

to the other daughter cell.

By following these filaments
over and over again,

he identified them
first as chromosomes

and then recognized that these
chromosomes were actually

the hereditary units.

So now, there was a
physical basis of,

where is the hereditary unit?

Where are the genes?

They're connected
to the chromosomes.

So now, science was going
to try to understand

the nature of genes.

But here's the first problem.

Chromosomes are consisting
of 50% protein and 50% DNA.

Well, science didn't know.

Was it the protein that
was a hereditary unit?

Or was it the DNA that
was a hereditary unit?

Well, that answer
actually didn't

get worked out until 1944.

That was the first
time science recognized

that DNA was the element
responsible for heredity.

How did that experiment work?

Well, Avery,
MacLeod, and McCarty

did this experiment with two
types of bacteria, a type R

bacteria, which created
little point-like colonies

in a culture dish, just
like little periods

all over the culture dish.

The other species they
looked at was type S,

but these formed big
puddle-like colonies.

And what they wanted to find out
is that the chromosomal protein

or the chromosomal DNA that
is determining the character

of these colonies.

So what they did is they
separated the chromosome

from type S into its
protein component,

into its DNA component.

And then what they
did is they first

added the protein
from the chromosome

to a culture of type R bacteria.

The result?

Nothing.

It was the same
bacterial colonies

type R always had-- the small,
little point-like colonies.

However, the surprise
came when they

put the DNA from the type S
chromosome into the culture

with type R.

Because what happened-- the
type R cultures were transformed

to express the big puddle-like
colonies of type S.

It was this first
experiment to identify

that DNA was carrying
the hereditary character

in an organism.

Well, now we know DNA.

But how does DNA work?

Nobody knew-- had any idea
about DNA and its mechanism.

That took another nine years.

In 1953, the answer
of how DNA works

was provided in the journal,
"Nature," by Watson and Crick.

And Watson and Crick had
been given all the credit

for understanding that
DNA is a double helix

and encodes a gene program to
provide for the characteristics

of an organism.

I just want to make
a point right here--

it's very important--

that Watson and Crick were
actually not the real founders

of the DNA double helix.

It was a woman,
Rosalind Franklin,

who through her research
on DNA molecules,

first showed the picture
of an X-ray, characteristic

of a DNA double helix.

Interestingly, Rosalind
Franklin's major advisor

gave her research results
to Watson and Crick

without even telling Rosalind
Franklin that he did it.

It was that research that
led to Watson and Crick

coming forth with the famous DNA
double helix picture in 1953.

Well, once we started to
understand the nature of DNA,

we started to recognize that
it is what is programming

the character of an individual.

It is responsible for heredity
and now comes a serious issue.

Because the chromosomes
carrying these genes, which

control our character--
well, we get them

from our mother and our father
at the moment of conception.

Well, as far as we know,
we didn't pick the genes

that we were born with.

And as far as we know,
we can't change the genes

if we don't like
the characteristics.

And a piece of research
led us into another belief

that disempowered us further.

And that was, how
is DNA controlled?

Because DNA apparently
is the blueprint

to make the proteins
of the body.

Now, let's go back a step.

Physical anatomy of any
organism or any cell

is based on the proteins.

The proteins are
the building blocks

that provide the structure and
characteristics of the body.

Through the work of
Watson and Crick,

now we understand that DNA
codes for the structure

of those proteins.

So DNA is the carrying
elements of heredity.

Now, the issue was,
what controls the DNA?

Well, this is where it all went
wrong for this simple reason.

DNA is a double helix molecule.

In an early
experiment, scientists

split the double helix
into single helices.

And what they did is
incubate it with the building

blocks of DNA.

And when they pulled
out the single strand,

no longer was it
a single strand.

Now, it was double stranded DNA.

Oh, my God, they said.

DNA programs for its
own reproduction.

And all of a sudden, they said,
yes, genes turn on and off,

and regulate
themselves, and also

are the hereditary blueprints to
make the proteins of the body.

So all of a sudden, they said,
yep, genes turn on and off

and control life.

And we bought that belief.

So now, I go back and
say, A, as far as we know,

we didn't pick the genes.

B, we can't change the
genes if we don't like

the characteristics we have.

And now, C, genes turn
on and off by themselves.

Well, you put that all
together and you realize

your fate is not in your hands.

Your fate is in the
DNA that you receive.

The character of your
life is programmed

at the moment of
conception when you

receive the genes from your
mother and your father.

Well, science got
all excited by this.

Because they started
to recognize,

if we could identify all the
genes that make up a human,

then what we can do is
use them as medicine

and give them to people
that have genetic defects.

And so interestingly enough,
the Human Genome Project

got off the ground.

A very important fact is this--

the Human Genome
Project was created

by the pharmaceutical industry
for a very simple reason.

Because it was
anticipated that there

were going to be over
100,000 human genes.

And there are over
100,000 proteins.

And each protein is
created by a gene.

So basic conclusion is there's
got to be 100,000 genes just

to make the proteins.

So the project gets
off the ground.

Who is interested in it?

Pharmaceutical industry.

Why?

100,000 proteins
means 100,000 genes,

which means 100,000 new drugs.

Only one slight problem.

And that was this--

they encouraged the public
to pay for this research.

Our tax dollars went
in billions of dollars

to identify the 100,000
genes in the human genome.

And guess what?

Every gene that
had been identified

has now been patented
by drug companies.

Your genes are actually
owned by other people,

and you paid for it.

But I love it, because
nature didn't really

like that idea of the
Human Genome Project

and all of a sudden, us being
controlled by these genes.

While the Genome Project
was getting off the ground,

they anticipated, again,
over 100,000 human genes.

But guess what?

As they started to do
the genome of organisms,

they recognized
one important fact.

In evolution, there's
an ancient picture

of what is called the tree of
evolution, the tree of life.

And on that tree is the
organisms on this planet,

displayed in a hierarchy of
more advanced and more advanced

organisms.

So starting at the
bottom of the tree,

the most primitive organisms
on the planet-- bacteria.

And as you go up the
tree, the organisms

become more and more
and more complex,

until you get to
the top of the tree

where, presumably,
we are located.

Well, you don't start by
working with the human genome

with over 100,000 genes.

You start while working with
more primitive organisms

with fewer genes,
just to test out

the mechanism of
counting how many genes

are present in an organism.

Well, the first organism
they worked with

was a miniature worm called
Caenorhabditis elegans.

The name is this big,
but the worm is this big.

The worm is less than a
1/2 a millimeter in length.

The worm has 1,271 cells.

That is a very
primitive organism.

And that was really
the first organism

that they decided to
see how many genes were

in the genome of that organism.

It turns out,
about 20,000 genes.

Well, hey, that fit
science's vision--

small, primitive organism,
fewer number of genes.

But as we go up the
tree, as more complexity

is encountered, greater
number of genes.

The next organism they
checked the genome on

was the fruit fly.

You're all aware of that.

That's the fly that
geneticists have

been using for a hundred years
to study the role of breeding

and genetics and controlling
the character of an organism.

Well, the fruit fly is
profoundly more complex

than Caenorhabditis
elegans worm.

And when they did the genome,
they were in for a shock.

Because this very complex
organism had apparently

only 15,000 genes, 5,000 genes
less than the primitive worm

they studied first.

That didn't cause them to stop.

They were full speed ahead to
do the Human Genome Project.

And around 2001, the
results come out.

And it blows everybody's
mind, because they

started with the
premise there are

going to be over 100,000 genes.

And what did they find?

20,000 genes, the same
number of genes in a 1,271

celled miniature worm as
there are in a 50 trillion

celled human body.

Point is very clear.

Reading the genes
does not determine

the character of evolution.

Genes are not the
measurement of evolution.

And all of a sudden, we have
to take another look and say,

but, what is evolution based on
if it's not based on the genes?

Well, Watson and Crick were
the ones that came up, finally,

with this double helix
and understanding

the nature of the genetic
code that codes for proteins.

And what Crick
started to recognize

is information flows
in a one-way direction.

It starts with DNA.

The blueprints turned
into RNA, which is

like a Xerox copy of the gene.

And the RNA copy
is actually used

to program the creation
of the proteins.

That information only flows
in one direction from DNA

to RNA to protein.

Now, there's a very important
conclusion for this reason.

I say, what does it mean?

The information only
flows in one way.

And I go, yes.

I say, who are we?

We are the protein organisms.

I go, then the
significance is what?

Well, DNA, RNA protein
flow of information.

Protein cannot go back
and influence the DNA.

Information only goes one way.

So as protein organisms,
we have no influence

in our genetic activity.

The genes are in control, and
information flows downward.

Well, this leads us
to an understanding

that science offered,
called genetic determinism,

the belief that genes determine
the character of your life.

When you go back to
the central dogma,

then you recognize
genes determine

the character of your life, and
you have no influence over it.

That's why we become
victims of our heredity.

There's an important
thing to understand here.

And that is this--

we kept saying that
genes turn on and off.

But the fact is this--

a gene is a blueprint
to make a protein.

And that's exactly what it is.

And I say, why is it relevant?

Go into an architect's office.

She's working on a blueprint.

Lean over her shoulder and say,
is your blueprint on or off?

She would look at
you like, what?

Are you crazy?

It's a blueprint.

There is no "on and off."

Precisely.

Genes are blueprints.

They do not turn
themselves on and off.

The whole experiment where they
put a single DNA molecule in

and pulled out a double helix--

well, that experiment is
misleading for a very important

reason.

Because they use pure DNA.

And remember, a chromosome
is 50% protein and 50% DNA.

Well, if you're
working with pure DNA,

then you really don't see
how a chromosome works.

It turns out, it is the
proteins in the chromosome

that are the absolute control.

Why?

Science has confused two terms,
which has been propagated

by the media all the time.

The two terms are
causation and correlation.

They talk about
genes causing things.

And genes are
correlated with things.

But here's the difference.

Causation means the act or
agency that controls something.

Correlation means
something that's

associated with
a characteristic.

So the point is this.

Do genes cause things?

Well, the answer to that
is, can they turn on and off

and then initiate a response?

The answer is absolutely not.

Genes cannot turn on and off.

They are simply
blueprints and yet, they

are correlated with things.

We talk about a cancer gene.

Is there a gene
that causes cancer?

No, not one gene causes cancer.

Are genes correlated
with cancer?

Well, yes.

They are correlated, but
they do not cause the cancer.

And why this
becomes important is

we've attributed almost all
our diseases to our genes.

And it turns out, this
is totally incorrect.

Less than 10% of the disease,
and probably closer to 1%

of disease, is even
connected to genes.

So we've gone on the wrong
track for a long time,

looking for the genes
as causing things.

Well, I must admit.

There are six
major diseases that

are caused by a single gene.

And let's just list
them right now--

hemophilia, cystic fibrosis,
Huntington's disease,

Tay-Sachs disease,
Marfan syndrome,

and hereditary hemochromatosis,
a blood disease.

Each of those six diseases
is caused by a single gene.

If you have that gene, then you
have a high, high probability

of experiencing that disease.

But the simple reality is this.

Almost all other diseases
such as cancer, for example,

are caused by multiple genes.

And since genes don't turn
themselves on and off,

they're actually caused by
multiple characteristics

of the environment
in which we live.

And all of a sudden,
now we have to recognize

genes are not causing most of
the diseases on this planet.

In fact, less than 10%.

And now, the
significance is this.

The idea that DNA
controls our life

is incorrect, that
DNA is actually

manipulated by the chromosomes'
other component, the protein.

And it's interesting.

Because ever since
Watson and Crick,

50 years of research, scientists
isolate the chromosome,

keep the DNA for the
experiment, and have thrown away

the protein.

But now that we're understanding
the nature of the protein,

there is a new insight.

And the insight is simply this.

The flow of information
is not as it

says in the central dogma--

one-way DNA, RNA protein.

We now know that the flow
goes in both directions.

Protein can influence RNA.

And RNA can go back
and change DNA.

That means our life
characteristics

as protein bodies--

we can use our life and go
back and change the genes

that we came with.

And all of a sudden, then, we're
not the read-out of our genes.

Because we can change our genes.

Every gene blueprint
can give rise

to over 3,000 different
versions of proteins

from the very same
gene blueprint,

because of epigenetics.

Our next episode reveals
how we're not victims,

but we are masters in
controlling our gene

characteristics.

Thank you for joining me.

I'm your host, Bruce Lipton, for
this series on Inner Evolution

through biological change.

Join me for the next
exciting episode

where we'll talk
about how you actually

control your gene activity.

[MUSIC PLAYING]