Future Human Evolution

[Eveille]

Suicidesoldier#1

Eveille

Suicidesoldier#1

Eveille

Suicidesoldier#1

Genes don't change as a result of stimuli, that's ludicrous.
Gained traits aren't passed down to children like, ever.

Shokushu

.

I know this s**t is old, but I was looking into threads everywhere to pass the time and came across this one and came across this particular section and:

What about these?

Wiki general article on how the environment can affect us biologically, usually via extremely stressful events like toxins.

Summary article on how a famine affected females and changed their eggs so that the changes were passed on. Her kids were changed due to an environmental event that never happened to them directly.

It's not genetic and it's generally over hyped in a manner that makes it look that way but!

Maternal care isn't genetic so it makes perfect sense that toxins and whatnot would effect the children.

What are you responding to? Of course maternal isn't genetic, who ever said it was?

That's what your sources are talking about, and the effects are to be expected.

"Transgenerational effects of maternal nutrition or other environmental 'exposures' are well recognised.

historical associations of longevity with paternal ancestors' food supply in the slow growth period (SGP) in mid childhood have been reported.

After appropriate adjustment, early paternal smoking is associated with greater body mass index (BMI) at 9 years in sons, but not daughters.

paternal grandfather's food supply was only linked to the mortality RR of grandsons, while paternal grandmother's food supply was only associated with the granddaughters' mortality RR.

We conclude that sex-specific, male-line transgenerational responses exist in humans and hypothesise that these transmissions are mediated by the sex chromosomes, X and Y. Such responses add an entirely new dimension to the study of gene-environment interactions in development and health."

That is my source in a nutshell. What maternal care are you getting from this?

Cause what I got was that the grandparents smoked or suffered from famines and the grandkids (despite no exposure to smoking or famine) showed symptoms of these problems in their biologies.

So what the previous generation suffered due to the environment, the subsequent generation shows in their development.

[Suicidesoldier#1]

Eveille

Suicidesoldier#1

Eveille

Suicidesoldier#1

Eveille

I know this s**t is old, but I was looking into threads everywhere to pass the time and came across this one and came across this particular section and:

What about these?

Wiki general article on how the environment can affect us biologically, usually via extremely stressful events like toxins.

Summary article on how a famine affected females and changed their eggs so that the changes were passed on. Her kids were changed due to an environmental event that never happened to them directly.

It's not genetic and it's generally over hyped in a manner that makes it look that way but!

Maternal care isn't genetic so it makes perfect sense that toxins and whatnot would effect the children.

What are you responding to? Of course maternal isn't genetic, who ever said it was?

That's what your sources are talking about, and the effects are to be expected.

"Transgenerational effects of maternal nutrition or other environmental 'exposures' are well recognised.

historical associations of longevity with paternal ancestors' food supply in the slow growth period (SGP) in mid childhood have been reported.

After appropriate adjustment, early paternal smoking is associated with greater body mass index (BMI) at 9 years in sons, but not daughters.

paternal grandfather's food supply was only linked to the mortality RR of grandsons, while paternal grandmother's food supply was only associated with the granddaughters' mortality RR.

We conclude that sex-specific, male-line transgenerational responses exist in humans and hypothesise that these transmissions are mediated by the sex chromosomes, X and Y. Such responses add an entirely new dimension to the study of gene-environment interactions in development and health."

That is my source in a nutshell. What maternal care are you getting from this?

Cause what I got was that the grandparents smoked or suffered from famines and the grandkids (despite no exposure to smoking or famine) showed symptoms of these problems in their biologies.

So what the previous generation suffered due to the environment, the subsequent generation shows in their development.

...becuase they ended up in the same environment.

It's of little question that if raised famished you will experience the same problems as your parents who were also famished.


"maternal nutrition", straight from dah source.

The point of the article was to try to isolate something to the Y Chromosome; in any case, environmental factors were obviously present so linking it to genetics without any hard evidence is just humorous, really.

[Eveille]

Suicidesoldier#1

Eveille

Suicidesoldier#1

Eveille

Suicidesoldier#1

Eveille

I know this s**t is old, but I was looking into threads everywhere to pass the time and came across this one and came across this particular section and:

What about these?

Wiki general article on how the environment can affect us biologically, usually via extremely stressful events like toxins.

Summary article on how a famine affected females and changed their eggs so that the changes were passed on. Her kids were changed due to an environmental event that never happened to them directly.

It's not genetic and it's generally over hyped in a manner that makes it look that way but!

Maternal care isn't genetic so it makes perfect sense that toxins and whatnot would effect the children.

What are you responding to? Of course maternal isn't genetic, who ever said it was?

That's what your sources are talking about, and the effects are to be expected.

"Transgenerational effects of maternal nutrition or other environmental 'exposures' are well recognised.

historical associations of longevity with paternal ancestors' food supply in the slow growth period (SGP) in mid childhood have been reported.

After appropriate adjustment, early paternal smoking is associated with greater body mass index (BMI) at 9 years in sons, but not daughters.

paternal grandfather's food supply was only linked to the mortality RR of grandsons, while paternal grandmother's food supply was only associated with the granddaughters' mortality RR.

We conclude that sex-specific, male-line transgenerational responses exist in humans and hypothesise that these transmissions are mediated by the sex chromosomes, X and Y. Such responses add an entirely new dimension to the study of gene-environment interactions in development and health."

That is my source in a nutshell. What maternal care are you getting from this?

Cause what I got was that the grandparents smoked or suffered from famines and the grandkids (despite no exposure to smoking or famine) showed symptoms of these problems in their biologies.

So what the previous generation suffered due to the environment, the subsequent generation shows in their development.

...becuase they ended up in the same environment.

It's of little question that if raised famished you will experience the same problems as your parents who were also famished.


"maternal nutrition", straight from dah source.

The point of the article was to try to isolate something to the Y Chromosome; in any case, environmental factors were obviously present so linking it to genetics without any hard evidence is just humorous, really.

You aren't very convincing that I am wrong in my bold statements. You are saying they were both famished, they weren't. Only the grandparents were, not even the parents themselves. The whole point is to link it to environmental factors that affected the reproductive cells and their genes such that their problems transferred to future generations for no good reason, because those generations weren't starved.

It would be helpful to get the whole article..but I don't have access sadly.

[Suicidesoldier#1]

Eveille

Suicidesoldier#1

Eveille

Suicidesoldier#1

Eveille

What are you responding to? Of course maternal isn't genetic, who ever said it was?

That's what your sources are talking about, and the effects are to be expected.

"Transgenerational effects of maternal nutrition or other environmental 'exposures' are well recognised.

historical associations of longevity with paternal ancestors' food supply in the slow growth period (SGP) in mid childhood have been reported.

After appropriate adjustment, early paternal smoking is associated with greater body mass index (BMI) at 9 years in sons, but not daughters.

paternal grandfather's food supply was only linked to the mortality RR of grandsons, while paternal grandmother's food supply was only associated with the granddaughters' mortality RR.

We conclude that sex-specific, male-line transgenerational responses exist in humans and hypothesise that these transmissions are mediated by the sex chromosomes, X and Y. Such responses add an entirely new dimension to the study of gene-environment interactions in development and health."

That is my source in a nutshell. What maternal care are you getting from this?

Cause what I got was that the grandparents smoked or suffered from famines and the grandkids (despite no exposure to smoking or famine) showed symptoms of these problems in their biologies.

So what the previous generation suffered due to the environment, the subsequent generation shows in their development.

...becuase they ended up in the same environment.

It's of little question that if raised famished you will experience the same problems as your parents who were also famished.


"maternal nutrition", straight from dah source.

The point of the article was to try to isolate something to the Y Chromosome; in any case, environmental factors were obviously present so linking it to genetics without any hard evidence is just humorous, really.

You aren't very convincing that I am wrong in my bold statements. You are saying they were both famished, they weren't. Only the grandparents were, not even the parents themselves. The whole point is to link it to environmental factors that affected the reproductive cells and their genes such that their problems transferred to future generations for no good reason, because those generations weren't starved.

It would be helpful to get the whole article..but I don't have access sadly.

And what is *that* based off of, exactly?

What is considered "exposure or famine" and various other factors, including the sample size which doesn't seem to be present at all.


They say "166 fit the criteria" but out of how many and how obvious were the effects; 10 years, 20 years, 3 months, etc., what is the raw data on the differences, .5%?

It could have just been random data or even worse, information complied to fit certain criteria which automatically taints it when other criteria is ignored.


And what of all the other criteria present?

It doesn't really go into much.

[Eveille]

Suicidesoldier#1

Eveille

Suicidesoldier#1

Eveille

Suicidesoldier#1

Eveille

What are you responding to? Of course maternal isn't genetic, who ever said it was?

That's what your sources are talking about, and the effects are to be expected.

"Transgenerational effects of maternal nutrition or other environmental 'exposures' are well recognised.

historical associations of longevity with paternal ancestors' food supply in the slow growth period (SGP) in mid childhood have been reported.

After appropriate adjustment, early paternal smoking is associated with greater body mass index (BMI) at 9 years in sons, but not daughters.

paternal grandfather's food supply was only linked to the mortality RR of grandsons, while paternal grandmother's food supply was only associated with the granddaughters' mortality RR.

We conclude that sex-specific, male-line transgenerational responses exist in humans and hypothesise that these transmissions are mediated by the sex chromosomes, X and Y. Such responses add an entirely new dimension to the study of gene-environment interactions in development and health."

That is my source in a nutshell. What maternal care are you getting from this?

Cause what I got was that the grandparents smoked or suffered from famines and the grandkids (despite no exposure to smoking or famine) showed symptoms of these problems in their biologies.

So what the previous generation suffered due to the environment, the subsequent generation shows in their development.

...becuase they ended up in the same environment.

It's of little question that if raised famished you will experience the same problems as your parents who were also famished.


"maternal nutrition", straight from dah source.

The point of the article was to try to isolate something to the Y Chromosome; in any case, environmental factors were obviously present so linking it to genetics without any hard evidence is just humorous, really.

You aren't very convincing that I am wrong in my bold statements. You are saying they were both famished, they weren't. Only the grandparents were, not even the parents themselves. The whole point is to link it to environmental factors that affected the reproductive cells and their genes such that their problems transferred to future generations for no good reason, because those generations weren't starved.

It would be helpful to get the whole article..but I don't have access sadly.

And what is *that* based off of, exactly?

What is considered "exposure or famine" and various other factors, including the sample size which doesn't seem to be present at all.


They say "166 fit the criteria" but out of how many and how obvious were the effects; 10 years, 20 years, 3 months, etc., what is the raw data on the differences, .5%?

It could have just been random data or even worse, information complied to fit certain criteria which automatically taints it when other criteria is ignored.


And what of all the other criteria present?

It doesn't really go into much.

I know it doesn't go into much, it's an abstract, gotta pay for the real thing (yay commodifying knowledge...that's another discussion though).

You really need to give people more credit for their intelligence though, seriously. Why would anyone publish a paper suggesting a genetic component while running the experiment on currently famished people? >.> that is dumb. The reason the research is posted at all and why it is even minimally interesting is because it ISN'T that.

That is the whole thing with epigenetics: that parents or grandparents experience something after being born and that experience taints family members further down the line even those later generations never experienced the same event or anything close to it.

[Suicidesoldier#1]

Eveille

Suicidesoldier#1

Eveille

Suicidesoldier#1

Eveille

"Transgenerational effects of maternal nutrition or other environmental 'exposures' are well recognised.

historical associations of longevity with paternal ancestors' food supply in the slow growth period (SGP) in mid childhood have been reported.

After appropriate adjustment, early paternal smoking is associated with greater body mass index (BMI) at 9 years in sons, but not daughters.

paternal grandfather's food supply was only linked to the mortality RR of grandsons, while paternal grandmother's food supply was only associated with the granddaughters' mortality RR.

We conclude that sex-specific, male-line transgenerational responses exist in humans and hypothesise that these transmissions are mediated by the sex chromosomes, X and Y. Such responses add an entirely new dimension to the study of gene-environment interactions in development and health."

That is my source in a nutshell. What maternal care are you getting from this?

Cause what I got was that the grandparents smoked or suffered from famines and the grandkids (despite no exposure to smoking or famine) showed symptoms of these problems in their biologies.

So what the previous generation suffered due to the environment, the subsequent generation shows in their development.

...becuase they ended up in the same environment.

It's of little question that if raised famished you will experience the same problems as your parents who were also famished.


"maternal nutrition", straight from dah source.

The point of the article was to try to isolate something to the Y Chromosome; in any case, environmental factors were obviously present so linking it to genetics without any hard evidence is just humorous, really.

You aren't very convincing that I am wrong in my bold statements. You are saying they were both famished, they weren't. Only the grandparents were, not even the parents themselves. The whole point is to link it to environmental factors that affected the reproductive cells and their genes such that their problems transferred to future generations for no good reason, because those generations weren't starved.

It would be helpful to get the whole article..but I don't have access sadly.

And what is *that* based off of, exactly?

What is considered "exposure or famine" and various other factors, including the sample size which doesn't seem to be present at all.


They say "166 fit the criteria" but out of how many and how obvious were the effects; 10 years, 20 years, 3 months, etc., what is the raw data on the differences, .5%?

It could have just been random data or even worse, information complied to fit certain criteria which automatically taints it when other criteria is ignored.


And what of all the other criteria present?

It doesn't really go into much.

I know it doesn't go into much, it's an abstract, gotta pay for the real thing (yay commodifying knowledge...that's another discussion though).

You really need to give people more credit for their intelligence though, seriously. Why would anyone publish a paper suggesting a genetic component while running the experiment on currently famished people? >.> that is dumb. The reason the research is posted at all and why it is even minimally interesting is because it ISN'T that.

That is the whole thing with epigenetics: that parents or grandparents experience something after being born and that experience taints family members further down the line even those later generations never experienced the same event or anything close to it.

But there's little link if any to actually being genetic and people orient things to look a certain way all the time to meet an agenda.

Especially when it comes to genetics.


Some type of "I was born superior" or otherwise racist thing that really doesn't make any sense.

Like that whole "vaccinations cause autism" thing with the so called "esteemed" doctor.


I second guess anything.

I'm not just going to take what someone has to say, especially when it comes to facts, as is without any strong evidence.


People get things wrong or make false correlations due to a failure to recognize cause and causation all the time.

People can be smart but they choose not to be; why do they run red lights when they know it's wrong, why do they do all kinds of things despite theoretically knowing it's wrong? Not a lack of understanding or innate capability, but a choice they made to do something wrong despite theoretically knowing better. That is simply stupidity. And people like to do dumb things on purpose and do so frequently, so I always check.

[Eveille]

Suicidesoldier#1

Eveille

Suicidesoldier#1

Eveille

Suicidesoldier#1

Eveille

"Transgenerational effects of maternal nutrition or other environmental 'exposures' are well recognised.

historical associations of longevity with paternal ancestors' food supply in the slow growth period (SGP) in mid childhood have been reported.

After appropriate adjustment, early paternal smoking is associated with greater body mass index (BMI) at 9 years in sons, but not daughters.

paternal grandfather's food supply was only linked to the mortality RR of grandsons, while paternal grandmother's food supply was only associated with the granddaughters' mortality RR.

We conclude that sex-specific, male-line transgenerational responses exist in humans and hypothesise that these transmissions are mediated by the sex chromosomes, X and Y. Such responses add an entirely new dimension to the study of gene-environment interactions in development and health."

That is my source in a nutshell. What maternal care are you getting from this?

Cause what I got was that the grandparents smoked or suffered from famines and the grandkids (despite no exposure to smoking or famine) showed symptoms of these problems in their biologies.

So what the previous generation suffered due to the environment, the subsequent generation shows in their development.

...becuase they ended up in the same environment.

It's of little question that if raised famished you will experience the same problems as your parents who were also famished.


"maternal nutrition", straight from dah source.

The point of the article was to try to isolate something to the Y Chromosome; in any case, environmental factors were obviously present so linking it to genetics without any hard evidence is just humorous, really.

You aren't very convincing that I am wrong in my bold statements. You are saying they were both famished, they weren't. Only the grandparents were, not even the parents themselves. The whole point is to link it to environmental factors that affected the reproductive cells and their genes such that their problems transferred to future generations for no good reason, because those generations weren't starved.

It would be helpful to get the whole article..but I don't have access sadly.

And what is *that* based off of, exactly?

What is considered "exposure or famine" and various other factors, including the sample size which doesn't seem to be present at all.


They say "166 fit the criteria" but out of how many and how obvious were the effects; 10 years, 20 years, 3 months, etc., what is the raw data on the differences, .5%?

It could have just been random data or even worse, information complied to fit certain criteria which automatically taints it when other criteria is ignored.


And what of all the other criteria present?

It doesn't really go into much.

I know it doesn't go into much, it's an abstract, gotta pay for the real thing (yay commodifying knowledge...that's another discussion though).

You really need to give people more credit for their intelligence though, seriously. Why would anyone publish a paper suggesting a genetic component while running the experiment on currently famished people? >.> that is dumb. The reason the research is posted at all and why it is even minimally interesting is because it ISN'T that.

That is the whole thing with epigenetics: that parents or grandparents experience something after being born and that experience taints family members further down the line even those later generations never experienced the same event or anything close to it.

But there's little link if any to actually being genetic and people orient things to look a certain way all the time to meet an agenda.

Especially when it comes to genetics.


Some type of "I was born superior" or otherwise racist thing that really doesn't make any sense.

Like that whole "vaccinations cause autism" thing with the so called "esteemed" doctor.


I second guess anything.

I'm not just going to take what someone has to say, especially when it comes to facts, as is without any strong evidence.


People get things wrong or make false correlations due to a failure to recognize cause and causation all the time.

People can be smart but they choose not to be; why do they run red lights when they know it's wrong, why do they do all kinds of things despite theoretically knowing it's wrong? Not a lack of understanding or innate capability, but a choice they made to do something wrong despite theoretically knowing better. That is simply stupidity. And people like to do dumb things on purpose and do so frequently, so I always check.

You are entitled to second guess, but don't dismiss it out of hand. You aren't even trying to understand what it is, you are just suspicious and denying it completely. I can't get you a better link because I'd have to pay, and then I'D have access and not you, which defeats the purpose, I can try, but I make no guarantees about this.

Epigenetics popped out and scientists were like: whoa! this goes against everything we've thought for 100 years, this s**t is neat!! Let's do more research". The only agenda it might have is to say that the environmental justice movement just got a whole lot more scientific and that environmental racism towards poor minorities is much more harmful than previously thought. Neither of which I find offensive or evil at all, in fact I think it would improve the lot in life of a lot of people.

I would run a red light if it was 4 am and there was no one there and no reason for the light to even exist at that moment. So that is why I personally would do so. Knowing it's wrong can be overcome by situationality, not everything is wrong or right 100% of the time. It isn't stupidity, it is rationality and logic; stupidity is thinking that the world is black and white and that everyone should be that simpleminded.

[Suicidesoldier#1]

Eveille

Suicidesoldier#1

Eveille

Suicidesoldier#1

Eveille

You aren't very convincing that I am wrong in my bold statements. You are saying they were both famished, they weren't. Only the grandparents were, not even the parents themselves. The whole point is to link it to environmental factors that affected the reproductive cells and their genes such that their problems transferred to future generations for no good reason, because those generations weren't starved.

It would be helpful to get the whole article..but I don't have access sadly.

And what is *that* based off of, exactly?

What is considered "exposure or famine" and various other factors, including the sample size which doesn't seem to be present at all.


They say "166 fit the criteria" but out of how many and how obvious were the effects; 10 years, 20 years, 3 months, etc., what is the raw data on the differences, .5%?

It could have just been random data or even worse, information complied to fit certain criteria which automatically taints it when other criteria is ignored.


And what of all the other criteria present?

It doesn't really go into much.

I know it doesn't go into much, it's an abstract, gotta pay for the real thing (yay commodifying knowledge...that's another discussion though).

You really need to give people more credit for their intelligence though, seriously. Why would anyone publish a paper suggesting a genetic component while running the experiment on currently famished people? >.> that is dumb. The reason the research is posted at all and why it is even minimally interesting is because it ISN'T that.

That is the whole thing with epigenetics: that parents or grandparents experience something after being born and that experience taints family members further down the line even those later generations never experienced the same event or anything close to it.

But there's little link if any to actually being genetic and people orient things to look a certain way all the time to meet an agenda.

Especially when it comes to genetics.


Some type of "I was born superior" or otherwise racist thing that really doesn't make any sense.

Like that whole "vaccinations cause autism" thing with the so called "esteemed" doctor.


I second guess anything.

I'm not just going to take what someone has to say, especially when it comes to facts, as is without any strong evidence.


People get things wrong or make false correlations due to a failure to recognize cause and causation all the time.

People can be smart but they choose not to be; why do they run red lights when they know it's wrong, why do they do all kinds of things despite theoretically knowing it's wrong? Not a lack of understanding or innate capability, but a choice they made to do something wrong despite theoretically knowing better. That is simply stupidity. And people like to do dumb things on purpose and do so frequently, so I always check.

You are entitled to second guess, but don't dismiss it out of hand. You aren't even trying to understand what it is, you are just suspicious and denying it completely. I can't get you a better link because I'd have to pay, and then I'D have access and not you, which defeats the purpose, I can try, but I make no guarantees about this.

Epigenetics popped out and scientists were like: whoa! this goes against everything we've thought for 100 years, this s**t is neat!! Let's do more research". The only agenda it might have is to say that the environmental justice movement just got a whole lot more scientific and that environmental racism towards poor minorities is much more harmful than previously thought. Neither of which I find offensive or evil at all, in fact I think it would improve the lot in life of a lot of people.

I would run a red light if it was 4 am and there was no one there and no reason for the light to even exist at that moment. So that is why I personally would do so. Knowing it's wrong can be overcome by situationality, not everything is wrong or right 100% of the time. It isn't stupidity, it is rationality and logic; stupidity is thinking that the world is black and white and that everyone should be that simpleminded.

And there in lies the problem; people will jump to inane conclusions all the time.

Did I mention when it was bad to run a red light; course not, but you considered yourself within a particular situation.


They'll word documents in a particular way to make it seem like things when it's really not becuase other people tend to jump to conclusions.

Some kind of random bias; usually favor, but it can be hate but wanting something to hate, /shrug.


Anyways lots of people run stop lights at inappropriate times becuase they don't consider anything associated with it, the consequences or even why stop lights exist in the first place.

While looking at something in a black and white manner can be stupid that is not the only definition of stupid.


Stupidity is doing something stupid despite knowing better; ignorance is simply not knowing.

As far as it's concerned though again, due to a lack of raw information I simply cannot come to an adequate conclusion so if that's the basis there's really not much more to go in to.


So it's kind of dead here.

How's the weather?

[Eveille]

Suicidesoldier#1

Eveille

Suicidesoldier#1

Eveille

Suicidesoldier#1

Eveille

You aren't very convincing that I am wrong in my bold statements. You are saying they were both famished, they weren't. Only the grandparents were, not even the parents themselves. The whole point is to link it to environmental factors that affected the reproductive cells and their genes such that their problems transferred to future generations for no good reason, because those generations weren't starved.

It would be helpful to get the whole article..but I don't have access sadly.

And what is *that* based off of, exactly?

What is considered "exposure or famine" and various other factors, including the sample size which doesn't seem to be present at all.


They say "166 fit the criteria" but out of how many and how obvious were the effects; 10 years, 20 years, 3 months, etc., what is the raw data on the differences, .5%?

It could have just been random data or even worse, information complied to fit certain criteria which automatically taints it when other criteria is ignored.


And what of all the other criteria present?

It doesn't really go into much.

I know it doesn't go into much, it's an abstract, gotta pay for the real thing (yay commodifying knowledge...that's another discussion though).

You really need to give people more credit for their intelligence though, seriously. Why would anyone publish a paper suggesting a genetic component while running the experiment on currently famished people? >.> that is dumb. The reason the research is posted at all and why it is even minimally interesting is because it ISN'T that.

That is the whole thing with epigenetics: that parents or grandparents experience something after being born and that experience taints family members further down the line even those later generations never experienced the same event or anything close to it.

But there's little link if any to actually being genetic and people orient things to look a certain way all the time to meet an agenda.

Especially when it comes to genetics.


Some type of "I was born superior" or otherwise racist thing that really doesn't make any sense.

Like that whole "vaccinations cause autism" thing with the so called "esteemed" doctor.


I second guess anything.

I'm not just going to take what someone has to say, especially when it comes to facts, as is without any strong evidence.


People get things wrong or make false correlations due to a failure to recognize cause and causation all the time.

People can be smart but they choose not to be; why do they run red lights when they know it's wrong, why do they do all kinds of things despite theoretically knowing it's wrong? Not a lack of understanding or innate capability, but a choice they made to do something wrong despite theoretically knowing better. That is simply stupidity. And people like to do dumb things on purpose and do so frequently, so I always check.

You are entitled to second guess, but don't dismiss it out of hand. You aren't even trying to understand what it is, you are just suspicious and denying it completely. I can't get you a better link because I'd have to pay, and then I'D have access and not you, which defeats the purpose, I can try, but I make no guarantees about this.

Epigenetics popped out and scientists were like: whoa! this goes against everything we've thought for 100 years, this s**t is neat!! Let's do more research". The only agenda it might have is to say that the environmental justice movement just got a whole lot more scientific and that environmental racism towards poor minorities is much more harmful than previously thought. Neither of which I find offensive or evil at all, in fact I think it would improve the lot in life of a lot of people.

I would run a red light if it was 4 am and there was no one there and no reason for the light to even exist at that moment. So that is why I personally would do so. Knowing it's wrong can be overcome by situationality, not everything is wrong or right 100% of the time. It isn't stupidity, it is rationality and logic; stupidity is thinking that the world is black and white and that everyone should be that simpleminded.

And there in lies the problem; people will jump to inane conclusions all the time.

Did I mention when it was bad to run a red light; course not, but you considered yourself within a particular situation.


They'll word documents in a particular way to make it seem like things when it's really not becuase other people tend to jump to conclusions.

Some kind of random bias; usually favor, but it can be hate but wanting something to hate, /shrug.


Anyways lots of people run stop lights at inappropriate times becuase they don't consider anything associated with it, the consequences or even why stop lights exist in the first place.

While looking at something in a black and white manner can be stupid that is not the only definition of stupid.


Stupidity is doing something stupid despite knowing better; ignorance is simply not knowing.

As far as it's concerned though again, due to a lack of raw information I simply cannot come to an adequate conclusion so if that's the basis there's really not much more to go in to.


So it's kind of dead here.

How's the weather?

The weather is delicious, ******** winter, so glad it hasn't arrived!

Also, I FOUND IT! This is their story

+

Ctrl + F Epigenetics to get to the relevant part, it's pretty down there

General link

I know these aren't journals, but like I said, gotta cough up $$$ for those. This is the stuff I've been reading and I find it fascinating.

[Suicidesoldier#1]

Eveille

Suicidesoldier#1

Eveille

Suicidesoldier#1

Eveille

I know it doesn't go into much, it's an abstract, gotta pay for the real thing (yay commodifying knowledge...that's another discussion though).

You really need to give people more credit for their intelligence though, seriously. Why would anyone publish a paper suggesting a genetic component while running the experiment on currently famished people? >.> that is dumb. The reason the research is posted at all and why it is even minimally interesting is because it ISN'T that.

That is the whole thing with epigenetics: that parents or grandparents experience something after being born and that experience taints family members further down the line even those later generations never experienced the same event or anything close to it.

But there's little link if any to actually being genetic and people orient things to look a certain way all the time to meet an agenda.

Especially when it comes to genetics.


Some type of "I was born superior" or otherwise racist thing that really doesn't make any sense.

Like that whole "vaccinations cause autism" thing with the so called "esteemed" doctor.


I second guess anything.

I'm not just going to take what someone has to say, especially when it comes to facts, as is without any strong evidence.


People get things wrong or make false correlations due to a failure to recognize cause and causation all the time.

People can be smart but they choose not to be; why do they run red lights when they know it's wrong, why do they do all kinds of things despite theoretically knowing it's wrong? Not a lack of understanding or innate capability, but a choice they made to do something wrong despite theoretically knowing better. That is simply stupidity. And people like to do dumb things on purpose and do so frequently, so I always check.

You are entitled to second guess, but don't dismiss it out of hand. You aren't even trying to understand what it is, you are just suspicious and denying it completely. I can't get you a better link because I'd have to pay, and then I'D have access and not you, which defeats the purpose, I can try, but I make no guarantees about this.

Epigenetics popped out and scientists were like: whoa! this goes against everything we've thought for 100 years, this s**t is neat!! Let's do more research". The only agenda it might have is to say that the environmental justice movement just got a whole lot more scientific and that environmental racism towards poor minorities is much more harmful than previously thought. Neither of which I find offensive or evil at all, in fact I think it would improve the lot in life of a lot of people.

I would run a red light if it was 4 am and there was no one there and no reason for the light to even exist at that moment. So that is why I personally would do so. Knowing it's wrong can be overcome by situationality, not everything is wrong or right 100% of the time. It isn't stupidity, it is rationality and logic; stupidity is thinking that the world is black and white and that everyone should be that simpleminded.

And there in lies the problem; people will jump to inane conclusions all the time.

Did I mention when it was bad to run a red light; course not, but you considered yourself within a particular situation.


They'll word documents in a particular way to make it seem like things when it's really not becuase other people tend to jump to conclusions.

Some kind of random bias; usually favor, but it can be hate but wanting something to hate, /shrug.


Anyways lots of people run stop lights at inappropriate times becuase they don't consider anything associated with it, the consequences or even why stop lights exist in the first place.

While looking at something in a black and white manner can be stupid that is not the only definition of stupid.


Stupidity is doing something stupid despite knowing better; ignorance is simply not knowing.

As far as it's concerned though again, due to a lack of raw information I simply cannot come to an adequate conclusion so if that's the basis there's really not much more to go in to.


So it's kind of dead here.

How's the weather?

The weather is delicious, ******** winter, so glad it hasn't arrived!

Also, I FOUND IT! This is their story

+

Ctrl + F Epigenetics to get to the relevant part, it's pretty down there

General link

I know these aren't journals, but like I said, gotta cough up $$$ for those. This is the stuff I've been reading and I find it fascinating.

Winter is nice, but only if it snows. sad

Awesomely.


Anyways, there's no concrete link it's attached to the Y gene in any case; it's speculation based on data- what was the population like before the famine, what was the average life expectancy, and what are the raw numbers?

Again if it's like .5% change it still doesn't really mean anything.


And the ideas of "epigenetics" are debated, even if they jump to those conclusions.

What they're describing sounds a lot like what we already know, which is basically scarring; you exercise, your muscle gets bigger, it stays that way after replicating. Or scar tissue with skin. You make changes to the body after being born but it doesn't directly change DNA; this is already widespread. What hasn't been confirmed yet, is if this is some new kind of DNA or if it's even passed on to kids.


Sample sizes, previous data, etc. I'm not the only one who has disputed this type of thing.

There really isn't anymore data just becuase they talk about what the implications would infer more.


That being said, the Twins things isn't surprising. More or less there's a certain level of randomness, even to genetics, some of which isn't even inherited, and again nature/nurture etc. which can easily explain differences despite the same maternal care and genetics.

Interesting but the same results same finding same studies with inconclusive evidence regarding anything other than obvious major features and realizing that minute distinguishable features exist.


I don't even really see the point of that link.

Anyways the evidence still doesn't lead to anything but inconclusive results and given the general lack of a back story to any of these families, how the tests were conducted, what the criteria was, what the difference was or how many were included in whole with their study it's basically irrelevant.

[Eveille]

Suicidesoldier#1

Eveille

Suicidesoldier#1

Eveille

Suicidesoldier#1

Eveille

I know it doesn't go into much, it's an abstract, gotta pay for the real thing (yay commodifying knowledge...that's another discussion though).

You really need to give people more credit for their intelligence though, seriously. Why would anyone publish a paper suggesting a genetic component while running the experiment on currently famished people? >.> that is dumb. The reason the research is posted at all and why it is even minimally interesting is because it ISN'T that.

That is the whole thing with epigenetics: that parents or grandparents experience something after being born and that experience taints family members further down the line even those later generations never experienced the same event or anything close to it.

But there's little link if any to actually being genetic and people orient things to look a certain way all the time to meet an agenda.

Especially when it comes to genetics.


Some type of "I was born superior" or otherwise racist thing that really doesn't make any sense.

Like that whole "vaccinations cause autism" thing with the so called "esteemed" doctor.


I second guess anything.

I'm not just going to take what someone has to say, especially when it comes to facts, as is without any strong evidence.


People get things wrong or make false correlations due to a failure to recognize cause and causation all the time.

People can be smart but they choose not to be; why do they run red lights when they know it's wrong, why do they do all kinds of things despite theoretically knowing it's wrong? Not a lack of understanding or innate capability, but a choice they made to do something wrong despite theoretically knowing better. That is simply stupidity. And people like to do dumb things on purpose and do so frequently, so I always check.

You are entitled to second guess, but don't dismiss it out of hand. You aren't even trying to understand what it is, you are just suspicious and denying it completely. I can't get you a better link because I'd have to pay, and then I'D have access and not you, which defeats the purpose, I can try, but I make no guarantees about this.

Epigenetics popped out and scientists were like: whoa! this goes against everything we've thought for 100 years, this s**t is neat!! Let's do more research". The only agenda it might have is to say that the environmental justice movement just got a whole lot more scientific and that environmental racism towards poor minorities is much more harmful than previously thought. Neither of which I find offensive or evil at all, in fact I think it would improve the lot in life of a lot of people.

I would run a red light if it was 4 am and there was no one there and no reason for the light to even exist at that moment. So that is why I personally would do so. Knowing it's wrong can be overcome by situationality, not everything is wrong or right 100% of the time. It isn't stupidity, it is rationality and logic; stupidity is thinking that the world is black and white and that everyone should be that simpleminded.

And there in lies the problem; people will jump to inane conclusions all the time.

Did I mention when it was bad to run a red light; course not, but you considered yourself within a particular situation.


They'll word documents in a particular way to make it seem like things when it's really not becuase other people tend to jump to conclusions.

Some kind of random bias; usually favor, but it can be hate but wanting something to hate, /shrug.


Anyways lots of people run stop lights at inappropriate times becuase they don't consider anything associated with it, the consequences or even why stop lights exist in the first place.

While looking at something in a black and white manner can be stupid that is not the only definition of stupid.


Stupidity is doing something stupid despite knowing better; ignorance is simply not knowing.

As far as it's concerned though again, due to a lack of raw information I simply cannot come to an adequate conclusion so if that's the basis there's really not much more to go in to.


So it's kind of dead here.

How's the weather?

The weather is delicious, ******** winter, so glad it hasn't arrived!

Also, I FOUND IT! This is their story

+

Ctrl + F Epigenetics to get to the relevant part, it's pretty down there

General link

I know these aren't journals, but like I said, gotta cough up $$$ for those. This is the stuff I've been reading and I find it fascinating.

Winter is nice, but only if it snows. sad

Awesomely.


Anyways, there's no concrete link it's attached to the Y gene in any case; it's speculation based on data- what was the population like before the famine, what was the average life expectancy, and what are the raw numbers?

Again if it's like .5% change it still doesn't really mean anything.


And the ideas of "epigenetics" are debated, even if they jump to those conclusions.

What they're describing sounds a lot like what we already know, which is basically scarring; you exercise, your muscle gets bigger, it stays that way after replicating. Or scar tissue with skin. You make changes to the body after being born but it doesn't directly change DNA; this is already widespread. What hasn't been confirmed yet, is if this is some new kind of DNA or if it's even passed on to kids.


Sample sizes, previous data, etc. I'm not the only one who has disputed this type of thing.

There really isn't anymore data just becuase they talk about what the implications would infer more.


That being said, the Twins things isn't surprising. More or less there's a certain level of randomness, even to genetics, some of which isn't even inherited, and again nature/nurture etc. which can easily explain differences despite the same maternal care and genetics.

Interesting but the same results same finding same studies with inconclusive evidence regarding anything other than obvious major features and realizing that minute distinguishable features exist.


I don't even really see the point of that link.

Anyways the evidence still doesn't lead to anything but inconclusive results and given the general lack of a back story to any of these families, how the tests were conducted, what the criteria was, what the difference was or how many were included in whole with their study it's basically irrelevant.

Snow sucks.

Building muscle and scar tissue would be comparable if your kids were born with that muscle or scar tissue as well.

You can keep hating genetics because you think it might lead to racism; I'll trust in new discoveries that force chemical companies to stop being asshats.

[Suicidesoldier#1]

Eveille

Suicidesoldier#1

Eveille

Suicidesoldier#1

Eveille

You are entitled to second guess, but don't dismiss it out of hand. You aren't even trying to understand what it is, you are just suspicious and denying it completely. I can't get you a better link because I'd have to pay, and then I'D have access and not you, which defeats the purpose, I can try, but I make no guarantees about this.

Epigenetics popped out and scientists were like: whoa! this goes against everything we've thought for 100 years, this s**t is neat!! Let's do more research". The only agenda it might have is to say that the environmental justice movement just got a whole lot more scientific and that environmental racism towards poor minorities is much more harmful than previously thought. Neither of which I find offensive or evil at all, in fact I think it would improve the lot in life of a lot of people.

I would run a red light if it was 4 am and there was no one there and no reason for the light to even exist at that moment. So that is why I personally would do so. Knowing it's wrong can be overcome by situationality, not everything is wrong or right 100% of the time. It isn't stupidity, it is rationality and logic; stupidity is thinking that the world is black and white and that everyone should be that simpleminded.

And there in lies the problem; people will jump to inane conclusions all the time.

Did I mention when it was bad to run a red light; course not, but you considered yourself within a particular situation.


They'll word documents in a particular way to make it seem like things when it's really not becuase other people tend to jump to conclusions.

Some kind of random bias; usually favor, but it can be hate but wanting something to hate, /shrug.


Anyways lots of people run stop lights at inappropriate times becuase they don't consider anything associated with it, the consequences or even why stop lights exist in the first place.

While looking at something in a black and white manner can be stupid that is not the only definition of stupid.


Stupidity is doing something stupid despite knowing better; ignorance is simply not knowing.

As far as it's concerned though again, due to a lack of raw information I simply cannot come to an adequate conclusion so if that's the basis there's really not much more to go in to.


So it's kind of dead here.

How's the weather?

The weather is delicious, ******** winter, so glad it hasn't arrived!

Also, I FOUND IT! This is their story

+

Ctrl + F Epigenetics to get to the relevant part, it's pretty down there

General link

I know these aren't journals, but like I said, gotta cough up $$$ for those. This is the stuff I've been reading and I find it fascinating.

Winter is nice, but only if it snows. sad

Awesomely.


Anyways, there's no concrete link it's attached to the Y gene in any case; it's speculation based on data- what was the population like before the famine, what was the average life expectancy, and what are the raw numbers?

Again if it's like .5% change it still doesn't really mean anything.


And the ideas of "epigenetics" are debated, even if they jump to those conclusions.

What they're describing sounds a lot like what we already know, which is basically scarring; you exercise, your muscle gets bigger, it stays that way after replicating. Or scar tissue with skin. You make changes to the body after being born but it doesn't directly change DNA; this is already widespread. What hasn't been confirmed yet, is if this is some new kind of DNA or if it's even passed on to kids.


Sample sizes, previous data, etc. I'm not the only one who has disputed this type of thing.

There really isn't anymore data just becuase they talk about what the implications would infer more.


That being said, the Twins things isn't surprising. More or less there's a certain level of randomness, even to genetics, some of which isn't even inherited, and again nature/nurture etc. which can easily explain differences despite the same maternal care and genetics.

Interesting but the same results same finding same studies with inconclusive evidence regarding anything other than obvious major features and realizing that minute distinguishable features exist.


I don't even really see the point of that link.

Anyways the evidence still doesn't lead to anything but inconclusive results and given the general lack of a back story to any of these families, how the tests were conducted, what the criteria was, what the difference was or how many were included in whole with their study it's basically irrelevant.

Snow sucks.

Building muscle and scar tissue would be comparable if your kids were born with that muscle or scar tissue as well.

You can keep hating genetics because you think it might lead to racism; I'll trust in new discoveries that force chemical companies to stop being asshats.

It's not just that genetic studies might lead to racism just that people have given the same pseudoscience again and again and it's generally been proven false.

You'll often find that the people funding the studies or groups are racist or have been known for other racist agendas which taints supposed findings even more.


But more importantly it's not just that the data sets are inaccurate but that none seem to exist at all; perhaps if they released how much a difference was present, possibly even in percentages (so I'd have to calculate but whatever), direct evidence concerning the Y Chromosome and the genes or molecular compound they found that changes as a result of smoking and got it peer reviewed, tested multiple times and it was present in thousands, if not ten's of thousands of individuals.

Then I might find it interesting or convincing.


But it's gone none of that; they assume it's a molecular compound but on what basis?

They assert that "there is a difference" without the average comparison data set and without what the difference was.


It's hardly evidence at all to say "This is what we did... and this is how it works" without providing raw evidence to support it.

There isn't even a direct statement of what it does, just implications. Fancy wording to avoid the truth or the central whole that the evidence is still inconclusive.


And there's no mention of the accuracy of the data sets in the 1800's when compared to now, and generally people didn't have exactly accurate measures of things back in the 1800's so why we should trust this evidence in the first place is beyond me.

The say 160 or so people look like they would have expected without first releasing what the initial sample size was, without saying how big the change was and without even backing up their claims that they were unexposed to harsh treatment or that the test was done at all. Even assuming they actually did the test they still didn't really release any evidence. Out of a country wide famine why only 160 people; all of it seems suspicious and there is no real data to be found.


So it's simply impossible to accurately come to a viable conclusion based on the evidence provided.

Although you can believe what you like, there's really no question to that, or even keep hoping for a new breakthrough or development.

[Eveille]

Suicidesoldier#1

Eveille

Suicidesoldier#1

Eveille

Suicidesoldier#1

Eveille

You are entitled to second guess, but don't dismiss it out of hand. You aren't even trying to understand what it is, you are just suspicious and denying it completely. I can't get you a better link because I'd have to pay, and then I'D have access and not you, which defeats the purpose, I can try, but I make no guarantees about this.

Epigenetics popped out and scientists were like: whoa! this goes against everything we've thought for 100 years, this s**t is neat!! Let's do more research". The only agenda it might have is to say that the environmental justice movement just got a whole lot more scientific and that environmental racism towards poor minorities is much more harmful than previously thought. Neither of which I find offensive or evil at all, in fact I think it would improve the lot in life of a lot of people.

I would run a red light if it was 4 am and there was no one there and no reason for the light to even exist at that moment. So that is why I personally would do so. Knowing it's wrong can be overcome by situationality, not everything is wrong or right 100% of the time. It isn't stupidity, it is rationality and logic; stupidity is thinking that the world is black and white and that everyone should be that simpleminded.

And there in lies the problem; people will jump to inane conclusions all the time.

Did I mention when it was bad to run a red light; course not, but you considered yourself within a particular situation.


They'll word documents in a particular way to make it seem like things when it's really not becuase other people tend to jump to conclusions.

Some kind of random bias; usually favor, but it can be hate but wanting something to hate, /shrug.


Anyways lots of people run stop lights at inappropriate times becuase they don't consider anything associated with it, the consequences or even why stop lights exist in the first place.

While looking at something in a black and white manner can be stupid that is not the only definition of stupid.


Stupidity is doing something stupid despite knowing better; ignorance is simply not knowing.

As far as it's concerned though again, due to a lack of raw information I simply cannot come to an adequate conclusion so if that's the basis there's really not much more to go in to.


So it's kind of dead here.

How's the weather?

The weather is delicious, ******** winter, so glad it hasn't arrived!

Also, I FOUND IT! This is their story

+

Ctrl + F Epigenetics to get to the relevant part, it's pretty down there

General link

I know these aren't journals, but like I said, gotta cough up $$$ for those. This is the stuff I've been reading and I find it fascinating.

Winter is nice, but only if it snows. sad

Awesomely.


Anyways, there's no concrete link it's attached to the Y gene in any case; it's speculation based on data- what was the population like before the famine, what was the average life expectancy, and what are the raw numbers?

Again if it's like .5% change it still doesn't really mean anything.


And the ideas of "epigenetics" are debated, even if they jump to those conclusions.

What they're describing sounds a lot like what we already know, which is basically scarring; you exercise, your muscle gets bigger, it stays that way after replicating. Or scar tissue with skin. You make changes to the body after being born but it doesn't directly change DNA; this is already widespread. What hasn't been confirmed yet, is if this is some new kind of DNA or if it's even passed on to kids.


Sample sizes, previous data, etc. I'm not the only one who has disputed this type of thing.

There really isn't anymore data just becuase they talk about what the implications would infer more.


That being said, the Twins things isn't surprising. More or less there's a certain level of randomness, even to genetics, some of which isn't even inherited, and again nature/nurture etc. which can easily explain differences despite the same maternal care and genetics.

Interesting but the same results same finding same studies with inconclusive evidence regarding anything other than obvious major features and realizing that minute distinguishable features exist.


I don't even really see the point of that link.

Anyways the evidence still doesn't lead to anything but inconclusive results and given the general lack of a back story to any of these families, how the tests were conducted, what the criteria was, what the difference was or how many were included in whole with their study it's basically irrelevant.

Snow sucks.

Building muscle and scar tissue would be comparable if your kids were born with that muscle or scar tissue as well.

You can keep hating genetics because you think it might lead to racism; I'll trust in new discoveries that force chemical companies to stop being asshats.

It's not just that genetic studies might lead to racism just that people have given the same pseudoscience again and again and it's generally been proven false.

You'll often find that the people funding the studies or groups are racist or have been known for other racist agendas which taints supposed findings even more.


But more importantly it's not just that the data sets are inaccurate but that none seem to exist at all; perhaps if they released how much a difference was present, possibly even in percentages (so I'd have to calculate but whatever), direct evidence concerning the Y Chromosome and the genes or molecular compound they found that changes as a result of smoking and got it peer reviewed, tested multiple times and it was present in thousands, if not ten's of thousands of individuals.

Then I might find it interesting or convincing.


But it's gone none of that; they assume it's a molecular compound but on what basis?

They assert that "there is a difference" without the average comparison data set and without what the difference was.


It's hardly evidence at all to say "This is what we did... and this is how it works" without providing raw evidence to support it.

There isn't even a direct statement of what it does, just implications. Fancy wording to avoid the truth or the central whole that the evidence is still inconclusive.


And there's no mention of the accuracy of the data sets in the 1800's when compared to now, and generally people didn't have exactly accurate measures of things back in the 1800's so why we should trust this evidence in the first place is beyond me.

The say 160 or so people look like they would have expected without first releasing what the initial sample size was, without saying how big the change was and without even backing up their claims that they were unexposed to harsh treatment or that the test was done at all. Even assuming they actually did the test they still didn't really release any evidence. Out of a country wide famine why only 160 people; all of it seems suspicious and there is no real data to be found.


So it's simply impossible to accurately come to a viable conclusion based on the evidence provided.

Although you can believe what you like, there's really no question to that, or even keep hoping for a new breakthrough or development.

There's no data sets because generally you have to personally email the scientists who ran the experiment to obtain those >_>. You are welcome to do so.

There is no fancy stuff because as I've said I would have to pay for the journal article and you still wouldn't be able to see it. Go look for them yourself using the authors if you have access via a school or a subscription because I have neither.

We use old data alllllll the time in science and anthropology so the fact that it is old isn't a very good reason to hate on it.

I linked you to the next best thing I found because it directly contradicted your initial assertion while you were talking to another user and I thought you would like to know that the field has developed and you might need to change your mind and learn new things.

[Suicidesoldier#1]

Eveille

Suicidesoldier#1

Eveille

Suicidesoldier#1

Eveille

The weather is delicious, ******** winter, so glad it hasn't arrived!

Also, I FOUND IT! This is their story

+

Ctrl + F Epigenetics to get to the relevant part, it's pretty down there

General link

I know these aren't journals, but like I said, gotta cough up $$$ for those. This is the stuff I've been reading and I find it fascinating.

Winter is nice, but only if it snows. sad

Awesomely.


Anyways, there's no concrete link it's attached to the Y gene in any case; it's speculation based on data- what was the population like before the famine, what was the average life expectancy, and what are the raw numbers?

Again if it's like .5% change it still doesn't really mean anything.


And the ideas of "epigenetics" are debated, even if they jump to those conclusions.

What they're describing sounds a lot like what we already know, which is basically scarring; you exercise, your muscle gets bigger, it stays that way after replicating. Or scar tissue with skin. You make changes to the body after being born but it doesn't directly change DNA; this is already widespread. What hasn't been confirmed yet, is if this is some new kind of DNA or if it's even passed on to kids.


Sample sizes, previous data, etc. I'm not the only one who has disputed this type of thing.

There really isn't anymore data just becuase they talk about what the implications would infer more.


That being said, the Twins things isn't surprising. More or less there's a certain level of randomness, even to genetics, some of which isn't even inherited, and again nature/nurture etc. which can easily explain differences despite the same maternal care and genetics.

Interesting but the same results same finding same studies with inconclusive evidence regarding anything other than obvious major features and realizing that minute distinguishable features exist.


I don't even really see the point of that link.

Anyways the evidence still doesn't lead to anything but inconclusive results and given the general lack of a back story to any of these families, how the tests were conducted, what the criteria was, what the difference was or how many were included in whole with their study it's basically irrelevant.

Snow sucks.

Building muscle and scar tissue would be comparable if your kids were born with that muscle or scar tissue as well.

You can keep hating genetics because you think it might lead to racism; I'll trust in new discoveries that force chemical companies to stop being asshats.

It's not just that genetic studies might lead to racism just that people have given the same pseudoscience again and again and it's generally been proven false.

You'll often find that the people funding the studies or groups are racist or have been known for other racist agendas which taints supposed findings even more.


But more importantly it's not just that the data sets are inaccurate but that none seem to exist at all; perhaps if they released how much a difference was present, possibly even in percentages (so I'd have to calculate but whatever), direct evidence concerning the Y Chromosome and the genes or molecular compound they found that changes as a result of smoking and got it peer reviewed, tested multiple times and it was present in thousands, if not ten's of thousands of individuals.

Then I might find it interesting or convincing.


But it's gone none of that; they assume it's a molecular compound but on what basis?

They assert that "there is a difference" without the average comparison data set and without what the difference was.


It's hardly evidence at all to say "This is what we did... and this is how it works" without providing raw evidence to support it.

There isn't even a direct statement of what it does, just implications. Fancy wording to avoid the truth or the central whole that the evidence is still inconclusive.


And there's no mention of the accuracy of the data sets in the 1800's when compared to now, and generally people didn't have exactly accurate measures of things back in the 1800's so why we should trust this evidence in the first place is beyond me.

The say 160 or so people look like they would have expected without first releasing what the initial sample size was, without saying how big the change was and without even backing up their claims that they were unexposed to harsh treatment or that the test was done at all. Even assuming they actually did the test they still didn't really release any evidence. Out of a country wide famine why only 160 people; all of it seems suspicious and there is no real data to be found.


So it's simply impossible to accurately come to a viable conclusion based on the evidence provided.

Although you can believe what you like, there's really no question to that, or even keep hoping for a new breakthrough or development.

There's no data sets because generally you have to personally email the scientists who ran the experiment to obtain those >_>. You are welcome to do so.

There is no fancy stuff because as I've said I would have to pay for the journal article and you still wouldn't be able to see it. Go look for them yourself using the authors if you have access via a school or a subscription because I have neither.

We use old data alllllll the time in science and anthropology so the fact that it is old isn't a very good reason to hate on it.

I linked you to the next best thing I found because it directly contradicted your initial assertion while you were talking to another user and I thought you would like to know that the field has developed and you might need to change your mind and learn new things.

I'll keep it in mind but it hasn't really proven anything that wasn't already up to debate for the last 30 or so years.

Again, sense you haven no fancy stuff this conversation is dead.


I said that a while ago.

So I heard that that groundhog predicted 6 more weeks of winter. sad

[Eveille]

Suicidesoldier#1

Eveille

Suicidesoldier#1

Eveille

Suicidesoldier#1

Eveille

The weather is delicious, ******** winter, so glad it hasn't arrived!

Also, I FOUND IT! This is their story

+

Ctrl + F Epigenetics to get to the relevant part, it's pretty down there

General link

I know these aren't journals, but like I said, gotta cough up $$$ for those. This is the stuff I've been reading and I find it fascinating.

Winter is nice, but only if it snows. sad

Awesomely.


Anyways, there's no concrete link it's attached to the Y gene in any case; it's speculation based on data- what was the population like before the famine, what was the average life expectancy, and what are the raw numbers?

Again if it's like .5% change it still doesn't really mean anything.


And the ideas of "epigenetics" are debated, even if they jump to those conclusions.

What they're describing sounds a lot like what we already know, which is basically scarring; you exercise, your muscle gets bigger, it stays that way after replicating. Or scar tissue with skin. You make changes to the body after being born but it doesn't directly change DNA; this is already widespread. What hasn't been confirmed yet, is if this is some new kind of DNA or if it's even passed on to kids.


Sample sizes, previous data, etc. I'm not the only one who has disputed this type of thing.

There really isn't anymore data just becuase they talk about what the implications would infer more.


That being said, the Twins things isn't surprising. More or less there's a certain level of randomness, even to genetics, some of which isn't even inherited, and again nature/nurture etc. which can easily explain differences despite the same maternal care and genetics.

Interesting but the same results same finding same studies with inconclusive evidence regarding anything other than obvious major features and realizing that minute distinguishable features exist.


I don't even really see the point of that link.

Anyways the evidence still doesn't lead to anything but inconclusive results and given the general lack of a back story to any of these families, how the tests were conducted, what the criteria was, what the difference was or how many were included in whole with their study it's basically irrelevant.

Snow sucks.

Building muscle and scar tissue would be comparable if your kids were born with that muscle or scar tissue as well.

You can keep hating genetics because you think it might lead to racism; I'll trust in new discoveries that force chemical companies to stop being asshats.

It's not just that genetic studies might lead to racism just that people have given the same pseudoscience again and again and it's generally been proven false.

You'll often find that the people funding the studies or groups are racist or have been known for other racist agendas which taints supposed findings even more.


But more importantly it's not just that the data sets are inaccurate but that none seem to exist at all; perhaps if they released how much a difference was present, possibly even in percentages (so I'd have to calculate but whatever), direct evidence concerning the Y Chromosome and the genes or molecular compound they found that changes as a result of smoking and got it peer reviewed, tested multiple times and it was present in thousands, if not ten's of thousands of individuals.

Then I might find it interesting or convincing.


But it's gone none of that; they assume it's a molecular compound but on what basis?

They assert that "there is a difference" without the average comparison data set and without what the difference was.


It's hardly evidence at all to say "This is what we did... and this is how it works" without providing raw evidence to support it.

There isn't even a direct statement of what it does, just implications. Fancy wording to avoid the truth or the central whole that the evidence is still inconclusive.


And there's no mention of the accuracy of the data sets in the 1800's when compared to now, and generally people didn't have exactly accurate measures of things back in the 1800's so why we should trust this evidence in the first place is beyond me.

The say 160 or so people look like they would have expected without first releasing what the initial sample size was, without saying how big the change was and without even backing up their claims that they were unexposed to harsh treatment or that the test was done at all. Even assuming they actually did the test they still didn't really release any evidence. Out of a country wide famine why only 160 people; all of it seems suspicious and there is no real data to be found.


So it's simply impossible to accurately come to a viable conclusion based on the evidence provided.

Although you can believe what you like, there's really no question to that, or even keep hoping for a new breakthrough or development.

There's no data sets because generally you have to personally email the scientists who ran the experiment to obtain those >_>. You are welcome to do so.

There is no fancy stuff because as I've said I would have to pay for the journal article and you still wouldn't be able to see it. Go look for them yourself using the authors if you have access via a school or a subscription because I have neither.

We use old data alllllll the time in science and anthropology so the fact that it is old isn't a very good reason to hate on it.

I linked you to the next best thing I found because it directly contradicted your initial assertion while you were talking to another user and I thought you would like to know that the field has developed and you might need to change your mind and learn new things.

I'll keep it in mind but it hasn't really proven anything that wasn't already up to debate for the last 30 or so years.

Again, sense you haven o fancy stuff this conversation is dead.


I said that a while ago.

So I heard that that groundhog predicted 6 more weeks of winter. sad

Well if you don't like my sources at least use them for a jumping off point if you really care to change your mind.

Did it? Should stuff the little bugger into an LHC tunnel and let it wander down there forever /:<. Not that it matters, I get winter around the end of Feb or March anyway. I shall enjoy its delay for as long as it lasts. I hate the cold so very very much. I avoided going to the NE universities because it would be cold there... no joke. So I went to a cheapy local one instead, saved money too.