You did a great deal more work than i did. I just mentioned the eyes in his thread. 
Holy crap! Never saw this thread before (or apparently read Hoenybadger’s posts). Yeah, I’m formally rescinding my apology on that other thread.
Your comment on the my post would have been fine in the pit, it did not belong in the thread.
It doesn’t matter if it’s “unique” it matters if the brain can influence what DNA goes into a sperm cell, and then ensure that specific sperm cell impregnates an egg in an entirely different person. Not only is that not right, it’s not even wrong.
I’m ok with this. If you want to comment on science, you should have your shit together, or at a minimum, have enough humility when you don’t have your shit together to accept the statements of people who do.
Your problem is that you refuse to accept that your idea isn’t right, despite the fact that it’s comically wrong, and people are no longer interested in nicely attempting to educate you about the things you don’t understand. We’re like the old lady in the commercial “That’s not how any of this works.”
Epigenetics is an accepted field of study, I don’t think it affects the DNA directly more about turning genes off and on. I was hoping for a speculative discussion on how behavior might affect this process. I never came in here pretending to know anything about it. I just found it interesting. Tomorrow something else will catch my attention, I am sure. In a coffee shop conversation this would have probably passed 15 minutes of time.
Can you please acknowledge the fine work done by @MrDibble and show the humility that others are basically begging for? Show that you’ve learned something (specifically, there’s nothing unique about the brain connection to the reproductive organs) and thank folks for patiently showing you all the places that your guesses and suppositions turned out to be wrong.
I do appreciate his fine work, but what it does show is that nearly all of these types of connections are unique in their own way. If this was not already an accepted field of study I would have dropped it a long time ago. I am not trying to make any specific point beyond whether or not it is worth talking about how behavior or environment can affect gene expression.
Finally figured out what’s really bothering me about you, HBDC.
Dude, you have a chance to actually LEARN about the world (and the body) you live in. If you’re obsessed with a subject like genes or seminal fluid or epigenetics or seminal fluid or evolution or seminal fluid, stay away from social media; find some well-respected books on the subject and read about it.
Or would that be too frustrating because you couldn’t tell the authors they were all wrong and spout your half-formed pet theories and rile them up?
SHUT UP AND LEARN!
You can lead a honey badger to water but you can’t make it think. Honey badgers don’t care.
Yes, epigenetics is an accepted field of study, but what you are describing is not how epigenetics works.
Adaptive evolution is not a new field of study. Organisms can evolve to adapt to their environment, and it doesn’t take millions of years. If the environmental pressures are strong enough, it can happen fast. As an extreme hypothetical, if there was a highly contagious emergent virus that was 100% fatal to people with a certain dominant gene, and everyone without that gene was immune - that gene would be eliminated from the gene pool and it wouldn’t take long.
People that are better adapted to their environment are healthier and tend to have more surviving children than those that aren’t as well adapted. Communities that are comprised of better adapted individuals grow faster than communities made up of less well-adapted individuals and soon become the dominant population in the area.
There are other mechanisms, like epigenetics, that are not as well understood but can accelerate the process. It’s possible that environmental factors may affect gene expression - the mechanism that “switches” genes on and off - in the womb and early in life, causing adaptive genes to be activated.
When studying this in the real world it gets complicated, because it’s not always possible to separate genetic effects from environmental effects. For example, the average North Korean is about 5 inches shorter and 15-25 pounds lighter than their South Korean counterparts. This is typically attributed to nutrition, but I also believe that generations of famine accompanied by millions of deaths by starvation has resulted in natural selection moving the population towards people that are more energy efficient, ie smaller.
There is a lot going on with adaptive evolution, but the mechanism you are trying to describe just doesn’t make sense on any level. The DNA component of the sperm cell is very small and located in the center of the cell, and 99.6% of human DNA is identical across the board, a very small percentage of DNA is responsible for all our variations. There just isn’t any theoretical mechanism that makes sense that would allow the seminal fluid to “know” which cells contain the .04 of the DNA that is best adapted, no matter how many chemicals the body produces.
Brain chemistry does play an important role in reproduction, because that chemistry is deeply involved in our sex drives and our selection of sexual partners, and brain chemistry plays a big part in the parent/ child bonding process.
If you read, I highly recommend a book called Evolution in Four Dimensions - Genetic, Epigenetic, Behavioral and Symbolic Variation in the History of Life by Eva Jablonka and Marion Lamb. It’s highly technical but written so the non-scientist can skim through the more complicated parts and still comprehend the underlying theories.
I beginning to worry what he believes happened to his parents immediately before his conception.
Spermbadger: “I’m coming in hot, baby”
Eggbadger: “Nooooo! It won’t end well, aaccccckkk!”
Thank You Ann, that was very informative, and I will follow up with the reading you recommended. Some of the articles on epigenetics I didn’t have full access to because I am not a member of any organization. All I had access to was a single paragraph description of a study. that was exploring the roll of seminal fluids in passing information. The process I had no idea about and did not pretent to. Thanks agin!
I actually do wonder about that, we have 6 kids in the family and we are all very different from one another when it comes to personalities but very similar in looks.
Sweet motherfucking Hastur on a unicycle, just fucking don’t.
This is even worse than the “I just read the abstract” that’s always been all the rage here. Fuck off! Stay out of science topics until you do the bare fucking minimum.
It appears not, Ann.
You are one stupid mother fucker! I don’t belong here that’s obvious, thank god I have 75 years worth of healthy, rewarding constructive interactions in my real life world or else I might be tempted to believe all the bull shit you idiots enjoy spewing.
Then SHUT UP and let the people who read and comprehend things talk!
With people who flunked sixth grade science?
Yeah…that’s positive reinforcement of bad behavior (fact finding/science in this case).
In real life/ in-person there’s a greater incentive to be get along socially, even if somebody is just flat wrong or stupid as all hell. Online here, the incentive is on factual accuracy, not being polite for the sake of being polite
That’s only “constructive” in the sense that if we have to see other people every day, it’s worth not getting into conflict all the time. It sure as hell isn’t constructive in the sense of avoiding dumbass ideas
I’m not the one who thinks reading a description of a study means fuck all, shit-for-brains.
Ya think?
Sure, sure, yep, yep, heard that kind of crap from other tedious assholes here before.
Posting history and general sad behaviour here says your pants are on fire.
Oh, and you shit them too…
Hobgoblins, I say!
Very nice to see some skillful swearing!