Here's a quote from a book about genes sorry I didn't grab the reference but
A small but significant number of genes synthesize the proteins that make life possible in the first place. That is, they make it possible for humans to live and then reproduce.
and another A gene is a molecular unit of heredity of a living organism. It is a name given to some stretches of DNA and RNA that code for a polypeptide or for an RNA chain that has a function in the organism. Living beings depend on genes, as they specify all proteins and functional RNA chains. Genes hold the information to build and maintain an organism's cells and pass genetic traits to offspring, although some organelles (e.g. mitochondria) are self-replicating and are not coded for by the organism's DNA. All organisms have many genes corresponding to various biological traits, some of which are immediately visible, such as eye color or number of limbs, and some of which are not, such as blood type or increased risk for specific diseases, or the thousands of basic biochemical processes that comprise life
And the important part what I tried to say before lies in the last sentence " or the thousands of basic biochemical processes that compromise life"
If these genes control the synthsis of proteins that are the building blocks of life itself it's hard to beleive the information that they contain does not enter into this.
I know you keep disputing this hypothesis but what is your actual opinion on why/how these people are prodigies or how only a very few people reach the pinnacle of their fields.
"It's all about stickin it to the man!"
It's a long way to the top if you want to rock n roll!
That's all I got and yes I agree Mitt is a Unicorn
"It's all about stickin it to the man!"
It's a long way to the top if you want to rock n roll!
If these genes control the synthsis of proteins that are the building blocks of life itself it's hard to beleive the information that they contain does not enter into this.
Nobody is saying they DON'T "enter into this." Genes simply aren't the final word in most of what makes us human individuals. (I feel like I'm repeating myself....)
I know you keep disputing this hypothesis but what is your actual opinion on why/how these people are prodigies or how only a very few people reach the pinnacle of their fields.
Sheesh. What makes a person an individual? :::deep breath::: It's a combination of genes and environment, plus a LOT of intangibles. Why does one person accept rejection & another take it as a challenge? Is that genes or environment? (Near as I can tell, it's one or the other.) Why does one person live with depression & anxiety & another doesn't? (Brain chemistry plays a big role, but is that inherited or brought about by environment? We don't know.) My "actual opinion" is that we don't know and will not know what makes any given person an individual, or a unicorn for that matter. The answer is a stew of genes, experience and :::mysterious other things:::.
"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whipped cream." - Frank Zappa
Now this quote from you gets us closer to my point or maybe not:
If genes give you an edge, you still have to do something with that edge -- and with that we're talking about environment
If edge is what you want to call it OK. But I'm looking at this as the genes have laid down the framework of the limits of how good you can be not how good you will be that's where the environment comes in to play and maybe where we start to stray with our views.
I may have the genetic makeup to be the best guitarist in the world but that doesn't mean I will.
For 99% of us we have a regular genetic makeup and sure we can become good even very good guitarists but no matter what environment we are put into our skills will never develop past a certain level. Don't equate getting better to just mean putting in the time. Sure the time is needed but the predisposition to actually be able to do that and excel beyond all others comes from something else and it's not the environment or I haven't seen any evidence that would prove that. Can't honestly say I've seen anything to back my premise but it sure seems more logical than magic dust or divine intervention.
Do you at least agree that genes/chromosome/DNA are what made your physical attributes what they are? So if you were born with long legs, or large arms, or being tall or whatever it came from your parents genes. Can't they also control or have laid the groundwork for how you think, learn and what you are capable of excelling at?
Maybe I'm in the minority I'd like to hear what others have to say.
"It's all about stickin it to the man!"
It's a long way to the top if you want to rock n roll!
your genetic makeup may have a lot to do with whether you're willing to put in the time to become a good guitar player in the first place. and i strongly believe that has more to do with it than any physical attribute.
there are a lot of musicians, but there really aren't that many putting in a concerted effort to be the greatest ever. and there's no reason to believe that a certain genetic makeup is what it takes. jimi hendrix was lanky with long fingers and part native american. srv had stubby fingers and wide hands. willie mctell was born blind. noone thinks he won the genetic lottery, but he has some of the most complex fingerpicking ever. b.b. has diabetes. clapton looks nothing like albert king or buddy guy, but he can sound like them. john mayer is at least 40% vinegar and water, but people tell me he can play the blues. derek trucks is not just white, but pale and blond, and johnny winter's an albino, but they're some of the best slide players around, as is bonnie raitt, who looks like none of the above, and has two x chromosomes to boot. and i'm half asian, half white, and i'm better than all of them. so now what?
Chris,
I feel like we -- by "we," I mean "you" -- are arguing for the sake of arguing, which seems to me a waste of time.
However. Once more into the breach....
For 99% of us we have a regular genetic makeup
Whatever that means....
and sure we can become good even very good guitarists but no matter what environment we are put into our skills will never develop past a certain level. Don't equate getting better to just mean putting in the time. Sure the time is needed but the predisposition to actually be able to do that and excel beyond all others comes from something else and it's not the environment or I haven't seen any evidence that would prove that.
Or disprove it. A question of belief, once again.
Can't honestly say I've seen anything to back my premise but it sure seems more logical than magic dust or divine intervention.
No one has brought those possibilities into the discussion. Argument for its own sake. Don't you have something better to do?
Do you at least agree that genes/chromosome/DNA are what made your physical attributes what they are? So if you were born with long legs, or large arms, or being tall or whatever it came from your parents genes.
Why are you trying to make it sound like I don't believe in genes? One more time: I'M MARRIED TO A GENETICS PROFESSIONAL. I know that genes influence how we turn out physically. My mom smoked & drank during pregnancy. That's not a "genetic" influence on my present height, weight & mental condition. That's environment. Just one example of an endless stream of environmental influences on how we turn out.
Can't they also control or have laid the groundwork for how you think, learn and what you are capable of excelling at?
Control? No.
"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whipped cream." - Frank Zappa
I don't see any evidence that genes act as a governor of ability. Since we have no evidence either way, I'm sticking with my argument that Mitt Romney is a unicorn.
what's that line? i like my steak so rare i only eat unicorn?
what's that line? i like my steak so rare i only eat unicorn?
As a vegetarian, I'm not qualified to answer. :lol:
"You can't write a chord ugly enough to say what you want to say sometimes, so you have to rely on a giraffe filled with whipped cream." - Frank Zappa
Jason yes you've described a bunch of different musicians who were all good that had different physical attributes but that is not the crux of my debate. But in a way it reinforces what I am saying to me they all possesed something "and I'm calling it their genetic makeup" that allowed them, despite other things to excel at what they did.
Crow obviously my "theory" is not factual nor is yours so neither of us can really say for sure so we will just have to go on believing what we believe. This is not personal or mean sprited in any way I just find the whole thing fascinating.
But for the record I'm probably an 80% genetics 20% environment guy.
"It's all about stickin it to the man!"
It's a long way to the top if you want to rock n roll!
i've heard of blue jeans, but blues genes? you're really sticking with that?
