That text does not exist on the page that it links to.
If you ask Bing’s AI whether something is inside the blood brain barrier, it might just hallucinate and tell you what you want to hear.
It’s a quiz and blood-brain barrier is one of the incorrect answers you can select.
Somehow, that mutated into reproductive organs existing inside it, which we know physically makes no sense - in humans, the brain and reproductive glands are pretty well separated spatially.
Maintenance of blood-testis barrier, on the other hand, is one of the correct quiz responses you can select.
This is one of those cases where it behooves us all as thinking beings to take a sentence and consider it before putting it out there, at least to make sure it actually makes sense.
This is what I get from the link, not a quiz.
It’s poorly formatted but there are at least 2 links. Here’s the 2nd:
I seem to recall studies suggesting that the social status of women may affect the gender of what children she conceives (high status = more boys). And of pregnant women subjected to extreme conditions passing along epigenetic issues that can last for generations. That’s the closest thing to “brain affecting genetic expression” I can recall coming across.
Nothing about sperm or men in general, however.
This does not sound legitimate. What is the proposed mechanism by which this would happen?
Maybe they secretly kill off some daughters?
Maybe when you’re fed enough grapes or fanned with palm fronds, your eggs spontaneously change their chromosomes from X to Y in your ovaries.
Presumably their womb either rejects embryos with the disfavored gender, or provides more resources for the favored one. It’s certainly a difference detectable by the body, male tissue has a protein marker that female tissue lacks; an issue with organ donorship and one that may be involved in kicking off immune system issues in women who have male children.
Whoa…that’s a mind f#%k!
Well, wouldn’t Natural Selection choose the behavior that is most conducive to survival and reproduction? Reckless creatures that exhibit poor decision making would die and not pass on their genes, while those exhibiting the positive traits I mentioned would.
Natural selection is most likely the primary driver of evolution, but it seems highly unlikely it could produce the number and types of mutations needed to evolve.
Natural selection doesn’t produce anything, it just selects. Thus the name. The variations it selects from are from other sources, such as recombination via genetic exchange and mutation.
“highly unlikely” implies there’s some kind of underlying model of what the “proper” number and rate of mutations should be.
What is that model and where do those conclusions come from? If it’s just incredulity, well, a few hundred years ago, Lamarckism was taken seriously.
Also, mutations are almost always negative in effect. For humans and most other animals sexual recombination of existing genes is vastly more important for evolution. It’s things like bacteria and viruses that mostly rely on mutation, since they can afford the losses.
This is where my curiosity lies in is trying to identify a mechanism that had the potential of carrying a record of our activities and then exposing this to developing sperm. The eggs develop a little differently and may be a more accurate reflection of the grandparents. This could be natures way of slowing down the amount of mutations. But anyway, if the broken-down Neurotransmitters leaving behind a variety of amino acids had direct exposure to the developing sperm is their any possibility this could be a point of change?
No. That’s just not how things work.
If you expose a gemete to amino acids, that’s not sufficient. They have to get inside the cell, through a bunch of intracellular stuff, and interact with the genetic material inside somehow. What mechanism is there for that?
For solar radiation, the mechanism to do all that is known - energetic photons can penetrate cells and knock atoms or molecules about inside, sometimes even DNA. We’re hit with tons of that stuff every day, so just statistically, at least a few of our cells are affected on a daily basis. Most of the time, not enough to matter (the cell isn’t affected enough or it dies and we don’t notice). And that’s just for a single person.
Do you personally know of any potential mechanisms that have been looked at or considered? Again from what I weakly understand is that there is no seed for a sperm, that it is created start to finish in the gland???
Yeah? My old Granny said if I stepped on a snake my babby would have a birthmark on her face. That wasn’t true.
Isn’t gender determined by the male donor? Not the female uterus.