Even the blue/green/purple hairs are getting the fatigue
(twitter.com)
New here?
Create an account to submit posts, participate in discussions and chat with people.
You are viewing a single comment's thread. View all
Toast message
That looks to be what your sources are saying too, with some discussion of residual sperm DNA in the uterus also affecting expression. The genetic code could ultimately be affected too, if genes are downregulated enough as to never be expressed, they may not get replicated or passed on. Which is functionally the same as a DNA change (and thus a niggerfied lineage), just different in the particulars.
But ova don't undergo mitosis and thus don't have a good opportunity to accidentally incorporate free DNA into their genomes. They're made in fetal development, they undergo meiosis (split into two half-genome daughter cells) at sexual maturity, which *may* be a chance for external DNA to be incorporated, but by the time the cell divides, the new chromosomes are already wrapped up so it's unlikely foreign DNA would be incorporated.
In any case I don't think this is a "jews lied" situation - just a "we're never as smart as we think we are or know as much as we think we do" situation.
No U see above. I already looked at your sources (your second being the strongest) - only the fly one posits manipulation of the genetic material in the mature ova (I'll come to that later), but the lit review (2nd source) discusses changing the environment in which the embryo exists/will exist, which could affect which genes (aka traits) are expressed, i.e. "epigenetics." The second in particular discusses uterosomes transferring proteins and/or genetic info to the new sperm, or the prior sexual partner's sperm affecting the genetics of the *endometrial cells*, not the ova. Biochem/molecular biology is very nuanced and complicated - lots of moving parts.
Which is kinda funny from two ends - it's ridiculously complicated, so very difficult to simplify for the layperson, and also complicated enough to surprise and confound professionals. Which, again, is why I don't think this is a "jews lied" situation. Mendelian genetics was still the model (and it still works okay as a generalization) when I was in school 20ish years ago. But Dunning-Kruger kicks in often; the laypeople not knowing what they don't know, and the professionals knowing that they don't know everything, which is why I checked your sources. Hell, one of your sources even echoes the sentiment:
>"...Just as we think we have things figured out, nature throws us a curve ball and shows us how much we still have to learn," says lead author Dr Crean.
That's the fly one. They didn't observe the genomes, just the expressed traits (size), and they offered an explanation (without having examined the genome, even of the offspring let alone the female's ova) of genetic material being transferred to the female flies immature ova (a condition that doesn't apply to humans). On that note... it's hard enough to map the rat model onto the human one - the further you get from human (and flies don't even have spinal cords), the less likely it is to map onto humans. But they gave phenotypical (i.e. "traits expressed") evidence, not genotypical (i.e. genetic material) evidence.
You're right in principle - previous uncondomed sexual partners can potentially taint the woman's uterus and affect future offspring, but the mechanism is not through the ova. At least, not through any source you've given here.
It wouldn't be the internet if not for pedants. But this was my trade once upon a time.
I’ll wait.