Original subtitles

[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]