“The 5 causes of illness are shock, nutrition, bacteria, structure, and genetics. Shock is the real cause of all illness. The cell doesn’t know how to de-shock itself. It keeps printing shock,” according to Swami Nitty-Gritty (Adano Ley).

Almost all contemporary chronobiologists refer to a 24-hour “genetic clock.”

Yes, no, maybe.

Genetics is the study of the genome, the entire set of genes in an organism.

The well-publicized spawn of genetics, proteonomics, the study of the proteome, the entire set of proteins in an organism, is already beginning to overthrow its overtouted parent science in a palace revolution.

A parallel palace revolution is fomenting with another cutting-edge spawn of genetics, glyconomics, the study of the glycome, the entire set of sugars in an organism.

Other epigenomic disciplines are emerging, including metabolomics, transcriptonomics, ribonomics, etc.

Scientists define ionomics as “the study of how genes regulate ions in a cell,” but perhaps they’ve got the cart before the horse and it’s the other way around, or perhaps the ions and genes are interregulative.

It’s been well validated that epigenomic microRNAs, via “RNA-mediated interference,” are capable of switching genes on and off.

Biological science will eventually miniaturize down past proteonomics and glyconomics down through histone bioengineering down through molecular engineering down to even atomic and electron nanoengineering.

Chaos and complexity scientists will finally supplant miniscule reductionism by reinstating the environmental field as the central control center of heredity.

Computer engineers have already discovered a “field-effect” model for the brain, technically known as “cooperative action.”

Ruth Hubbard & Elijah Wald (Exploding the Gene Myth: How Genetic Information Is Produced and Manipulated by Scientists, Physicians, Employers, Insurance Companies, Educators, and Law Enforcers, 1993) wrote, “The language that geneticists use often carries considerable ideological baggage. Molecular biologists, as well as the press, use verbs like ‘control,’ ‘program,’ or ‘determine’ when speaking about what genes or DNA do. These are all inappropriate because they assign far too active a role for DNA. The fact is that DNA doesn’t ‘do’ anything; it is a remarkably inert molecule. It just sits in our cells and waits for other molecules to interact with it.”

Dr. Ben K. Green (The Color of Horses: The Scientific and Authoritative Identification of the Color of the Horse, 1974, 2000) wrote, “For more than two hundred years scientists and especially geneticists have listened to and practiced the theories of Mendel, the great botanist of his time who established Mendel’s Law in the hybrid crossing of peas. It is true, and I am more than willing to concede, that Mendel’s Law has been a great governing factor and contribution to the improvement of plant varieties by agricultural and plant scientists. However, scientists who do their research from the manuscripts and printed matter of others, I term reading scientists. Those people have gone far amiss in their attempts to apply Mendel’s Law to animal life and especially to domestic animal life. From research actually done on the horse, I cannot agree with the writings and conclusions drawn by old writers who have reached their suppositions and conclusions by applying Mendel’s Law to animal life.”

Wallace Thornhill (“The Electric Universe: Based on observation and experiment, the Electric Universe model unifies the nuclear forces, magnetism and gravity as manifestations of a near-instantaneous electrostatic force,” Nexus, Jul.-Aug. 2004) wrote, “Biological systems show evidence of communicating via resonant chemical systems, which may lend a physical explanation to the work of Rupert Sheldrake. DNA does not hold the key to life but is more like a blueprint for a set of components and tools in a factory. We may never be able to read the human genome and tell whether it represents a creature with two legs or six because the information that controls the assembly line is external to the DNA. There is more to life than chemistry.”

For more evidence of epigenetic inheritance, consult Stu Borman, “Proteomics: Taking Over Where Genomics Leaves Off: Researchers use a variety of tools to probe protein function and interactions, with drug discovery the major goal,” Chemical & Engineering News, Jul. 31, 2000; John Travis, “Brief diet alters gene activity,” Science News, Sept.15, 2001; Philip Cohen, “You are what your mother ate: A few genes vital for health and development might be controlled by what your mother or your grandmother ate before she even knew she was pregnant,” New Scientist, Aug. 9, 2003; Celia M. Henry, “High Hopes for RNA Interference: Chemists have a role to play in turning this biological discovery into pharmaceutical reality,” Chemical & Engineering News, Dec. 22, 2003; “Light-triggered DNA self-repair [of shorter wavelength UV-induced thymine dimer lesions by longer UV wavelengths of about 305-310 nanometers],” Chemical & Engineering News, Jan. 5, 2004; Susan Milius, “Plastic vs. Plants: Mulch method changes tomato’s gene activity,” Science News, Jul. 10, 2004; “Acid test: Moment of truth for RNAi,” New Scientist, Jan. 8, 2005; Andy Coghlan, “Mendel will be turning in his grave: Some plants appear to be inheriting genes that their parents did not possess. That should be impossible,” New Scientist, Mar. 26, 2005; etc., etc., etc.