Balderdash (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on 2014-10-06 22:50 (#2T5D) The lead author sounds like a terrible person, purposely conflating insect reproduction with a implied human connection that completely doesn't exist. AW. Re: Balderdash (Score: 1) by evilviper@pipedot.org on 2014-10-07 02:42 (#2T5K) The lead author sounds like a terrible person, purposely conflating insect reproduction with a implied human connectionWas there a specific quote you're referring to? She did specifically say: "But we don't know yet whether this applies to other species." Don't confuse the study authors for the journalist taking the story whichever direction they prefer. For an extreme example, the Guardian article on the same subject was one big estrogen-fueled rant about the journalist's previous boyfriends...http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/oct/02/baby-looks-like-ex-researchhuman connection that completely doesn't exist.Just because a human connection hasn't yet been proven, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. This is just the first study establishing that the effect exists... Humans absolutely are known to be greatly affected by other epigenetic effects, as TFA and tanuki both mention. It may take decades to determine how significantly affected, if at all, humans are. Re: Balderdash (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on 2014-10-07 13:33 (#2T5T) Absolutely, going by the quote in the summary right here.""We know that features that run in families are not just influenced by the genes that are passed down from parents to their children. Various non-genetic inheritance mechanisms make it possible for environmental factors to influence characteristics of a child. Our new findings take this to a whole new level - showing a male can also transmit some of his acquired features to offspring sired by other males,"From parents to their CHILDREN. She is talking about humans and human families. It's irresponsible of her. Worse, it's stupid. Re: Balderdash (Score: 2, Insightful) by evilviper@pipedot.org on 2014-10-07 20:34 (#2T5X) What? You don't think fruit fly adults can be called "parents" and offspring can't be called their "children"?I think your paranoia is running amok. And for some reason you desperately want to believe humans are immune, despite that being undetermined. Re: Balderdash (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on 2014-10-08 00:40 (#2T5Y) No. You're wrong. In quick succession she used "FAMILIES", "parent", "children", and "child". She's talking to a reporter. You know exactly what she was trying to imply to get her name in the papers. The only situation in which this is even theoretically applicable to humans would be a remarkably well timed gang bang.'Cause you can just picture the fly family sitting around the teeny tiny TV at night. Re: Balderdash (Score: 1) by evilviper@pipedot.org on 2014-10-08 05:06 (#2T60) It's 100% plausible that this effect is fully applicable to humans. Plenty of environmental factors have epigenetic effects on us. Your denials, saying it can't possibly apply to us, is utterly baseless, wishful thinking. Re: Balderdash (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on 2014-10-08 13:15 (#2T62) And why does it matter so much to this person? Re: Balderdash (Score: 1) by tanuki64@pipedot.org on 2014-10-08 13:34 (#2T65) Why does evolution matter so much to creationists? Too many people cannot distinguish between pure scientific facts and possible social and cultural reactions to scientific findings.Though he is not totally wrong. This article is sensationalistic. The leap from 'fruit flies have the size of a former mate' and possible similar mechanisms in mammals is gigantic. First they should research the exact mechanism for the effect in fruit flies. Especially if there is DNA in any way involved. For all I care they can already start similar experiments with mice. But to speculate at this point about humans... too early.But then again... often a huge gap between what scientists say and what journalists hear.
Re: Balderdash (Score: 1) by evilviper@pipedot.org on 2014-10-07 02:42 (#2T5K) The lead author sounds like a terrible person, purposely conflating insect reproduction with a implied human connectionWas there a specific quote you're referring to? She did specifically say: "But we don't know yet whether this applies to other species." Don't confuse the study authors for the journalist taking the story whichever direction they prefer. For an extreme example, the Guardian article on the same subject was one big estrogen-fueled rant about the journalist's previous boyfriends...http://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2014/oct/02/baby-looks-like-ex-researchhuman connection that completely doesn't exist.Just because a human connection hasn't yet been proven, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. This is just the first study establishing that the effect exists... Humans absolutely are known to be greatly affected by other epigenetic effects, as TFA and tanuki both mention. It may take decades to determine how significantly affected, if at all, humans are. Re: Balderdash (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on 2014-10-07 13:33 (#2T5T) Absolutely, going by the quote in the summary right here.""We know that features that run in families are not just influenced by the genes that are passed down from parents to their children. Various non-genetic inheritance mechanisms make it possible for environmental factors to influence characteristics of a child. Our new findings take this to a whole new level - showing a male can also transmit some of his acquired features to offspring sired by other males,"From parents to their CHILDREN. She is talking about humans and human families. It's irresponsible of her. Worse, it's stupid. Re: Balderdash (Score: 2, Insightful) by evilviper@pipedot.org on 2014-10-07 20:34 (#2T5X) What? You don't think fruit fly adults can be called "parents" and offspring can't be called their "children"?I think your paranoia is running amok. And for some reason you desperately want to believe humans are immune, despite that being undetermined. Re: Balderdash (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on 2014-10-08 00:40 (#2T5Y) No. You're wrong. In quick succession she used "FAMILIES", "parent", "children", and "child". She's talking to a reporter. You know exactly what she was trying to imply to get her name in the papers. The only situation in which this is even theoretically applicable to humans would be a remarkably well timed gang bang.'Cause you can just picture the fly family sitting around the teeny tiny TV at night. Re: Balderdash (Score: 1) by evilviper@pipedot.org on 2014-10-08 05:06 (#2T60) It's 100% plausible that this effect is fully applicable to humans. Plenty of environmental factors have epigenetic effects on us. Your denials, saying it can't possibly apply to us, is utterly baseless, wishful thinking. Re: Balderdash (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on 2014-10-08 13:15 (#2T62) And why does it matter so much to this person? Re: Balderdash (Score: 1) by tanuki64@pipedot.org on 2014-10-08 13:34 (#2T65) Why does evolution matter so much to creationists? Too many people cannot distinguish between pure scientific facts and possible social and cultural reactions to scientific findings.Though he is not totally wrong. This article is sensationalistic. The leap from 'fruit flies have the size of a former mate' and possible similar mechanisms in mammals is gigantic. First they should research the exact mechanism for the effect in fruit flies. Especially if there is DNA in any way involved. For all I care they can already start similar experiments with mice. But to speculate at this point about humans... too early.But then again... often a huge gap between what scientists say and what journalists hear.
Re: Balderdash (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on 2014-10-07 13:33 (#2T5T) Absolutely, going by the quote in the summary right here.""We know that features that run in families are not just influenced by the genes that are passed down from parents to their children. Various non-genetic inheritance mechanisms make it possible for environmental factors to influence characteristics of a child. Our new findings take this to a whole new level - showing a male can also transmit some of his acquired features to offspring sired by other males,"From parents to their CHILDREN. She is talking about humans and human families. It's irresponsible of her. Worse, it's stupid. Re: Balderdash (Score: 2, Insightful) by evilviper@pipedot.org on 2014-10-07 20:34 (#2T5X) What? You don't think fruit fly adults can be called "parents" and offspring can't be called their "children"?I think your paranoia is running amok. And for some reason you desperately want to believe humans are immune, despite that being undetermined. Re: Balderdash (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on 2014-10-08 00:40 (#2T5Y) No. You're wrong. In quick succession she used "FAMILIES", "parent", "children", and "child". She's talking to a reporter. You know exactly what she was trying to imply to get her name in the papers. The only situation in which this is even theoretically applicable to humans would be a remarkably well timed gang bang.'Cause you can just picture the fly family sitting around the teeny tiny TV at night. Re: Balderdash (Score: 1) by evilviper@pipedot.org on 2014-10-08 05:06 (#2T60) It's 100% plausible that this effect is fully applicable to humans. Plenty of environmental factors have epigenetic effects on us. Your denials, saying it can't possibly apply to us, is utterly baseless, wishful thinking. Re: Balderdash (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on 2014-10-08 13:15 (#2T62) And why does it matter so much to this person? Re: Balderdash (Score: 1) by tanuki64@pipedot.org on 2014-10-08 13:34 (#2T65) Why does evolution matter so much to creationists? Too many people cannot distinguish between pure scientific facts and possible social and cultural reactions to scientific findings.Though he is not totally wrong. This article is sensationalistic. The leap from 'fruit flies have the size of a former mate' and possible similar mechanisms in mammals is gigantic. First they should research the exact mechanism for the effect in fruit flies. Especially if there is DNA in any way involved. For all I care they can already start similar experiments with mice. But to speculate at this point about humans... too early.But then again... often a huge gap between what scientists say and what journalists hear.
Re: Balderdash (Score: 2, Insightful) by evilviper@pipedot.org on 2014-10-07 20:34 (#2T5X) What? You don't think fruit fly adults can be called "parents" and offspring can't be called their "children"?I think your paranoia is running amok. And for some reason you desperately want to believe humans are immune, despite that being undetermined. Re: Balderdash (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on 2014-10-08 00:40 (#2T5Y) No. You're wrong. In quick succession she used "FAMILIES", "parent", "children", and "child". She's talking to a reporter. You know exactly what she was trying to imply to get her name in the papers. The only situation in which this is even theoretically applicable to humans would be a remarkably well timed gang bang.'Cause you can just picture the fly family sitting around the teeny tiny TV at night. Re: Balderdash (Score: 1) by evilviper@pipedot.org on 2014-10-08 05:06 (#2T60) It's 100% plausible that this effect is fully applicable to humans. Plenty of environmental factors have epigenetic effects on us. Your denials, saying it can't possibly apply to us, is utterly baseless, wishful thinking. Re: Balderdash (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on 2014-10-08 13:15 (#2T62) And why does it matter so much to this person? Re: Balderdash (Score: 1) by tanuki64@pipedot.org on 2014-10-08 13:34 (#2T65) Why does evolution matter so much to creationists? Too many people cannot distinguish between pure scientific facts and possible social and cultural reactions to scientific findings.Though he is not totally wrong. This article is sensationalistic. The leap from 'fruit flies have the size of a former mate' and possible similar mechanisms in mammals is gigantic. First they should research the exact mechanism for the effect in fruit flies. Especially if there is DNA in any way involved. For all I care they can already start similar experiments with mice. But to speculate at this point about humans... too early.But then again... often a huge gap between what scientists say and what journalists hear.
Re: Balderdash (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on 2014-10-08 00:40 (#2T5Y) No. You're wrong. In quick succession she used "FAMILIES", "parent", "children", and "child". She's talking to a reporter. You know exactly what she was trying to imply to get her name in the papers. The only situation in which this is even theoretically applicable to humans would be a remarkably well timed gang bang.'Cause you can just picture the fly family sitting around the teeny tiny TV at night. Re: Balderdash (Score: 1) by evilviper@pipedot.org on 2014-10-08 05:06 (#2T60) It's 100% plausible that this effect is fully applicable to humans. Plenty of environmental factors have epigenetic effects on us. Your denials, saying it can't possibly apply to us, is utterly baseless, wishful thinking. Re: Balderdash (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on 2014-10-08 13:15 (#2T62) And why does it matter so much to this person? Re: Balderdash (Score: 1) by tanuki64@pipedot.org on 2014-10-08 13:34 (#2T65) Why does evolution matter so much to creationists? Too many people cannot distinguish between pure scientific facts and possible social and cultural reactions to scientific findings.Though he is not totally wrong. This article is sensationalistic. The leap from 'fruit flies have the size of a former mate' and possible similar mechanisms in mammals is gigantic. First they should research the exact mechanism for the effect in fruit flies. Especially if there is DNA in any way involved. For all I care they can already start similar experiments with mice. But to speculate at this point about humans... too early.But then again... often a huge gap between what scientists say and what journalists hear.
Re: Balderdash (Score: 1) by evilviper@pipedot.org on 2014-10-08 05:06 (#2T60) It's 100% plausible that this effect is fully applicable to humans. Plenty of environmental factors have epigenetic effects on us. Your denials, saying it can't possibly apply to us, is utterly baseless, wishful thinking. Re: Balderdash (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on 2014-10-08 13:15 (#2T62) And why does it matter so much to this person? Re: Balderdash (Score: 1) by tanuki64@pipedot.org on 2014-10-08 13:34 (#2T65) Why does evolution matter so much to creationists? Too many people cannot distinguish between pure scientific facts and possible social and cultural reactions to scientific findings.Though he is not totally wrong. This article is sensationalistic. The leap from 'fruit flies have the size of a former mate' and possible similar mechanisms in mammals is gigantic. First they should research the exact mechanism for the effect in fruit flies. Especially if there is DNA in any way involved. For all I care they can already start similar experiments with mice. But to speculate at this point about humans... too early.But then again... often a huge gap between what scientists say and what journalists hear.
Re: Balderdash (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on 2014-10-08 13:15 (#2T62) And why does it matter so much to this person? Re: Balderdash (Score: 1) by tanuki64@pipedot.org on 2014-10-08 13:34 (#2T65) Why does evolution matter so much to creationists? Too many people cannot distinguish between pure scientific facts and possible social and cultural reactions to scientific findings.Though he is not totally wrong. This article is sensationalistic. The leap from 'fruit flies have the size of a former mate' and possible similar mechanisms in mammals is gigantic. First they should research the exact mechanism for the effect in fruit flies. Especially if there is DNA in any way involved. For all I care they can already start similar experiments with mice. But to speculate at this point about humans... too early.But then again... often a huge gap between what scientists say and what journalists hear.
Re: Balderdash (Score: 1) by tanuki64@pipedot.org on 2014-10-08 13:34 (#2T65) Why does evolution matter so much to creationists? Too many people cannot distinguish between pure scientific facts and possible social and cultural reactions to scientific findings.Though he is not totally wrong. This article is sensationalistic. The leap from 'fruit flies have the size of a former mate' and possible similar mechanisms in mammals is gigantic. First they should research the exact mechanism for the effect in fruit flies. Especially if there is DNA in any way involved. For all I care they can already start similar experiments with mice. But to speculate at this point about humans... too early.But then again... often a huge gap between what scientists say and what journalists hear.