You know the post I opened on epigenetics is a good example I think I spent about 150 post just I defending the idea that epigenetics is a valid topic we never got past that that’s as far as it went, if I would have seen a discussion develop on that I would have happily just sat back and watched
Which thread was this?
Yeah, I’d love to know what thread that was, too.
Epigenetics has a real scientific basis
But whatever notion is going on in that head of yours, “epigenetics” is not it. As above, your notion of the concept is closer to warmed over Lamarckism
You didn’t answer my question the first time, but you re-worded your claim from the previous post where you said “the people disliked on this board get nitpicked and harassed over the smallest errors.”
So, I’ll ask again. Why do you think people dislike him in the first place? Or, with your reworded statement, why do you think people are trying to drive him off the board.
Do you really think this is some random thing, or might you agree that maybe there’s a reason for it? In both of these posts, you’re accusing us of harassing posters we don’t like and/or trying to drive them off the board, but you’re not considering that perhaps there’s a self-induced reason for it?
But ask yourself why they’re getting hounded? Actually, you don’t even have to ask yourself as the reasoning is typically laid out pretty well right here in these threads, which are nearly always a spillover from another thread where you can see exactly how things played out.
Yeah, but I was trying to keep the pit threads separate, but that’s hard when he says:
How many times have you been ‘gently reminded’ to post cites? How many times have you been ‘gently reminded’ that your cites should back up your claims, not disprove them? How many times should people have to ‘gently remind’ you before it’s time to take it to the pit?
Here’s the thing, again I’ll say that people get fed up and will sometimes overreact, but generally people don’t get nitpicked and harassed when they post ‘reasonable’ things, despite their rep. However, when their rep includes posting unreasonable things, they’re going to get nitpicked and harassed when they post more unreasonable things.
Look, if you tell me widgets are in short supply and the price is going to skyrocket this summer and provide a link saying the same thing, you’re not going to get pitted over it. However, if you tell me widgets are in short supply and the price is going to skyrocket this summer and provide a link to an article in the the well respected “Widgets Today” trade magazine about how widget manufacturers are seeing a decline in demand and the price is expected to be down over the next few months, well, off to the pit we go.
This, exactly.
The actual science is empirical and supported by a vast amount of rigorous experimental data.
The nonsense you’re spouting is difficult to positively identity because it’s still covered in feces from when you pulled it out of your ignorant colon.
Of course epigenetics is a “valid topic”. It’s a huge field of research, there are literally thousands of very smart people doing experiments in the field every day across the world.
You just don’t understand what it is, and you ignore any explanation that is provided, persistently coming back with your feelies about how you imagined things might work one day when you were stoned.
Nitpick 1: faeces.
Nitpick two: rectum.
Aside from that I am in agreement.
For a normal person. Honeybadger is feces from the rectum all the way up.
ETA:
I was wrong on this. I thought there was a dipthong " æ )" in there, and I was incorrect, at least in the USA
I apologise to both the subject of the thread, and the board.
I grew up with the faeces spelling in the UK, I’m not sure if that’s still standard in the UK. US spelling is feces.
Thanks. A rescue!
But stil I should use US spelling on a US board.
For the avoidance of doubt, once again, there is zero evidence, NONE, that any learned behavior like this can be passed on in a Lamarckian manner by transgenerational epigenetic inheritance. And this is not because “more research is needed”. Epigenetics has been one of the hottest topics in research for the last twenty years.
Again, most epigenetic research concerns gene expression in somatic cells, not in the germline. Virtually all epigenetic marks are wiped in the germline. There is limited evidence (massively overhyped by pop science articles that can be reliably identified by clickbait headlines saying “Darwin was wrong”) that some of the most persistent epigenetic marks like methylation can be passed down the germline, so that the level of some gene expression established in a parent persists in the offspring. This is not remotely close to any notion of a complex learned behavior like “how we hunt” being inherited in a Lamarckian manner via epigenetics. And even if it were, in order to be significant in evolution the epigenetic information would need to be permanent, but there is no evidence that ANY epigenetic information persists for more than a few generations (and rarely more than one).
It’s also worth noting that we don’t need epigenetics to inherit complex behavior from our parents. Nature has found a very efficient way to do this, via the brain. And no, this does not involve bathing the sperm in cerebrospinal fluid and magic.
Tim Hortons is now owned by Brazilian investment firm 3G Capital. They decided pre-frozen donuts would make them more money.
Were they shitty neighbors?
You only need to apologize to the feces.
You just need to say: “This is the operative spelling. The others spellings are inoperative.”
If you’re really in trouble, you can concede that “mistakes were made”, but you don’t need to go there right away.
How on earth do you think it’s possible to have the a discussion of what type of traits (if any) might be passed on that way without having a discussion of the science of epigenetics?
Not separable.
No, you didn’t. The validity of epigenetics as a topic was acknowledged and people were trying to discuss it. What you kept trying to defend was the indefensible idea that epigenetics must work exactly the way you want it to; and the reason that’s indefensible is that it doesn’t. Which has been researched, confirmed, and explained multiple times to you (and to me) in laymen’s language – yes, @Sam_Stone, that technique has been tried. Over and over.
You’ve been doing the equivalent of insisting on discussing how magical levitation affects species interactions while trying to shut down anyone who wants to talk about how actual flight and climbing abilities do so; while claiming that everyone refuses to acknowledge that it’s possible for any species to move above ground level.
Honeybadger’s got the exact same problem.
Thank you for the example of how to respond when one’s been shown to be wrong. (Which you will follow, of course, by not continuing to insist on the dipthong spelling in multiple threads, including unrelated ones, over an extended period of time.)
Honeybadger and Sam Stone: that’s how it’s done.
(And this is how some folks do it)
Faeces is the only correct spelling, and anyone who disagrees with me is only doing so because they are a hive mind, and you just love picking on me. Did you not read or comprehend what I posted?
Also, it’s clear you only wrote that because the president of Brazil is not in power legitimately, and you can’t prove otherwise.
Here are some cites that show I am right:
I wanted to understand the term, so I went and Googled it, and the very first thing i came to was the CDC’s definition: “Epigenetics is the study of how your behaviors and environment can cause changes that affect the way your genes work. Unlike genetic changes, epigenetic changes are reversible and do not change your DNA sequence, but they can change how your body reads a DNA sequence.” (Bolding mine.)
Anyone continuing to insist that epigenetic changes are inheritable is either willfully blind or impervious to alteration of initial beliefs. Either way, it’s a waste of other Dopers’ time and effort to keep on battering against such a brick wall of ignorance.
You should probably inform these guys: