It was a worthwhile post. This site is about fighting ignorance. I was pointing out the crank website that was the source of the misinformation in your OP and subsequent posts.
If you are careless about reading what I post, that’s on you.
The “question” was in fact advancing a preposterous hypothesis based on a deeply misguided understanding of basic science. The requests for cites were about OP’s source of underlying facts, in order to address any underlying scientific misconceptions. OP has a longstanding MO of stubbornly refusing to provide cites for any of his underlying factual assumptions. You’d have to ask him why that is, but more often than not (as an easy bit of detective work revealed here) these sources turn out to be crank pseudoscientific sources or (depending on subject matter) online sources of unevidenced right wing propaganda or similar.
I don’t want to keep beating a dead horse but the site that originally got my interest was not a crank web site. They simply made reference to the testes being in the same system as the spine and brain and any mistakes from there are on me.
Then CITE YOUR SOURCE and prove it. Otherwise people will read your posts that expound the exact same nonsense that’s posted on the crank/scam site that I linked, and draw the same conclusion that I did it, that this is the obvious source.
Again, the only two sources I have found for that flavor of nonsense are (a) Leonardo Da Vinci pre-1500 before he performed his own dissections; (b) the crank site that comes up as a paid link at the top of a Google search for related terms.
Were you studying Leonardo Da Vinci’s early drawings, and mistook them for a modern anatomy textbook?
Sorry, the internet ate it. (or his dog)
… picks up club and beats on expired member of genus Equus…
What do you mean by “in the same system”?
His dog ate the internet? I think this could definitely be a problem. I saw on some site I can’t find anymore that dogs will eat garbage if you don’t watch them carefully. On another site somewhere, I read that it’s a fact that the internet is full of garbage.
If you put these two irrefutable facts together, it raises my question “How many dogs would be required to consume the entire internet and what breed would be best for this?”
This is obviously an important legitimate question that scientists refuse to answer.
I bow to your brilliant analysis. 
In recent decades, the Leydig cells of the human testis have been recognized as members of the neuroendocrine system. The synthesis and release of a large number of biologically active substances that are typical for nerve and neuroendocrine cells has revealed that Leydig cells are neuroendocrine cells [26]. Indeed, several neuron-specific peptides and proteins, such as Substance-P [27], synaptophysin and neural cell-adhesion molecule, have been detected in human Leydig cells [28]. Some glial-cell-specific antigens—(glial fibrillary acidic protein (GFAP), galactocerebroside (GalC), cyclic 2′,3′-nucleotide-3′-phosphodiesterase (CNPase), A2B5-antigen and O4-antigen, which are considered to be marker molecules of astrocytes and oligodendrocytes—were also found in Leydig cells of human testis [26]. Besides Leydig cells, Sertoli cells also express some neuron- and glial cell-specific proteins. In fact, the three isoforms of neurofilament proteins, and GFAP, GalC and CNPase were found in both Leydig and Sertoli cells of human testis [26,29].
That’s an interesting paper, I was not aware of it.
But let’s be clear, that research is saying that the two tissue types have similar proteomes (the same genes are expressed), not remotely suggesting that they are connected together and interact in the body.
And the paper goes on to explain that the proteome similarity is because the two tissue types use similar tools do some of the same generic kind of things, not because they do the same thing.
The morphology, genomic activity and function of human neuron and sperm are as different as any other two cells in the body…[but]…
Both neuron and sperm can activate other cells, though the activation mechanisms involved are different. After the plasma membrane interaction of sperm with oocyte, the sperm activates the oocyte and triggers a signal transduction cascade that ultimately results in the conversion of the oocyte to a diploid embryo. Neurons also have the capacity to activate other cells, namely other neurons or somatic effector cells, through chemical synapses or gap junctions (electrical synapses), not requiring contact between cells.
Human neuron and sperm seem also to share similarities in exocytic process. Exocytosis is a central process to their individual abilities to carry out their functions… [continues with extensive detail about why both cell types use exocytosis, but with different details and for different purposes]
Calcium (Ca2+) signalling is central to the regulation of function in both neuron and sperm cells…
Several signalling pathways are common to neuron and sperm, and seem to play essential roles in both cell types. For instance, anandamide (AEA) signalling seems to modulate human sperm motility . A role as a modulator of synaptic function was also described for AEA signalling pathway. In addition, Wnt signalling occurs also in both cell types where it controls both sperm maturation and neuronal differentiation. The mTOR signalling pathway was also associated with crucial events in both neuron and sperm…
[ my bold ]
So the explanation for the similar proteomes is that the two tissue types are using similar tools to accomplish different things.
Another mundane similarity that will result in similar levels of expression of metabolic genes is that both tissues use a lot of energy - one to think, the other to produce large quantities of sperm every day.
That says they’re similar but ‘very distinct’. Does it say anything about behavior affecting DNA or sperm being affected by the brain?
No it does not, that was my question based on the similarities between the two and the things they share. Even if it did I doubt it would be something that could be researched in a meaningful way.
I will try to do better in posting links and believe it or not I appreciate constructive criticism. The snarkiness is just a minor aggravation. .
Why? Everything that goes in the body is investigated in astonishing detail down to the subatomic scale. The contents of a cell biology or molecular biology or biochemistry textbook derive from the work of hundreds of thousands of researchers over centuries, literally millions of experiments.
You didn’t seem to appreciate it the prior 1000 times over the years and many threads that you were asked for a cite.
Probably nobody was snarky the first 50 times they asked for a cite.
However, Weismann’s experiment was bogus. He didnt understand Lamarkism. The mice were not striving for nor had any advantage in having their tails cut off, unlike say a Giraffe striving to each every higher branches.
Later experiments were mostly flawed.
Modern science has presented also Somatic hypermutation and reverse transcription to germline, which may be sorta kinda Lamarkism, mildly. But that has been disputed also.
Finally there is the
Which has been called " Neo-Lamarckism within a Darwinian context". Again debated.
So, maybe some effects, but “survival of the fittest” and being able to survive long enuf pass down your genes is the BIG main driver, no doubt.
I’m not sure what you’re responding to. I was posting background reading on some of the relevant science, which includes understanding that Lamarck proposed (or endorsed and was unlucky enough to get naming rights) similar kinds of ideas that were shown to be wrong.
Years ago, I would respond to Lktt with rantings about my fictional scientific explorations of the universe as an Etheric Scientist. I would often refer to the Universe as being made up of Quantum Etheric Foam.
I just read this "Nothing" doesn't exist. Instead, there's "quantum foam" - Big Think
It scares me a little. I can only regard the universe and quote My Cousin Vinny “You were serious about that?”