I had already thought of that. Wouldn’t that only be useful on the first generation?
I now see the flaw in my experimental design. What about adoption?
When’s this going to happen? Because previous requests for citations haven’t exactly been coming . . . (phrasing Crow, phrasing) from you.
You need to read the entire link I posted in post #122. It is only a few paragraphs that are pertinent, but it definitely establishes that seminal fluids play a part in evolution.
Umm, how does me reading your link accomplish you highlighting the parts of the last link you posted that apply directly to your hypothesis?
Should I just guess which paragraphs you think are the pertinent ones?
It’s not that much reading and bits and pcs are scattered throughout. Not more than 2 minutes at the very most.
So, you are not unable to cite anything that you have read that supports any of your claims you are unwilling.
Yes, I did cite the paper on it and I directed you to the link. What more do you want?
I have read it. You might as well have cited a Dr. Seuss book for all the relevance your link has to the nonsense that you are posting in this thread.
Please try to evaluate this as objectively as you can. There are very few actual behaviors that could be passed on through seminal fluid because it would have no way to interpret it. One of the few things that it could interpret would be higher levels of brain activity… because the fluid would contain more neuro chemicals. They clearly stated that the seminal does affect the behavior of the sperm and they clearly stated that it is a huge variable from male to male and very significant. I am still not claiming it actually works like I am thinking but at the very least it does warrant being looked at.
This is utter nonsense, and the article says nothing remotely like this.
Of course the seminal fluid is important for the sperm, but that does not imply any of your outlandish claims.
Mocking your Time Cube Biology has been mildly entertaining, but I’m done here. Good night.
Oh, you’re confused.
I want what this guy promised the thread,
I already asked you to quote the relevant parts of the article. You’ve not done that.
I don’t think that article supports any of the claims you said it does.
Remind me never to go drinking with you.
Epigenetics changes can occur in the germ line and be passed on to future generations. The embryo will make a few attempts to scrub the methylated genes to reset such changes but some genes are specifically avoided and some appear to remethylate.
That sounds interesting! I am going to consult with my dictionary, and I will get back to you in a bit.
Of course behavior can affect your DNA. For instance, if you stand next to a chunk of uranium, or eat mutagenic chemicals, your DNA can be randomly damaged. Sometimes even the DNA of your germ cells.
I am going to take it a step further and I don’t think this is absurd at all and might even make sense. The seminal fluid is in contact both with the sperm and the egg. Could the chemical content of the seminal fluid be communicating with the egg it’s current neuro chemical construction just as the new life was forming? If so it would experience that neuro chemical cocktail for the first time. It would be imprinted with that forever.???
There’s no “new life”. Both the egg and the sperm are already alive. The egg even has all the parts cells generally need. What’s happening is that live cells combine to make a fertilized egg.
I suspect that which sperm reaches the egg and whether the egg succeeds in implanting can both be influenced by chemicals in the seminal fluid. Neither of those “change DNA”, but they’d have a statistical effect on which genes survive to the next generation.
So you don’t think any imprint could be happening at that time?