Not much to debate... (Score: 2, Informative) by evilviper@pipedot.org on 2014-10-21 13:40 (#2TJ2) I believe the only thing "controversial" was that one AC just patently refused to accept that epigenetics exists, and even the most carefully qualified possibility it could possibly affect humans.It's not too surprising, as it's a new enough field that probably every one of us were taught in school about strict DNA inheritance, with no room for other mechanisms like the emerging field of epigenetics.http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/body/epigenetics.htmlEven experts have a hard time accepting it: "Genetics. It turned out to be more complicated than we thought." --Laura Hercher"My instinct is deep skepticism" --Kevin Mitchellhttps://answersingenesis.org/genetics/epigenetics/epigenetic-changes-let-mice-inherit-their-fathers-fears/But the fact that humans experience certain epigenetic effects has been rather firmly proven:https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epigenetics#Epigenetic_effects_in_humans Re: Not much to debate... (Score: -1) by Anonymous Coward on 2014-10-21 16:22 (#2TJD) He didn't use the word "controversial" so there's no real need to quote it. Boy you're really hung up on convincing people that insect genetics has direct bearing on humans. It's interesting science, but that's all it is. Re: Not much to debate... (Score: 1) by tanuki64@pipedot.org on 2014-10-21 16:43 (#2TJE) Actually I used the word 'controversial'. My story got somewhat improved by the editor (thank you), so it got dropped.But where do you see that someone want to convince people that insect genetics has direct bearing onhumans? The only thing that was said was: 'A new and unexpected mechanism in the reproduction processof insects has been discovered. Let's see if it or something similar exists for other species, too'. Epigeneticeffects have already been proven to exist for animals and even humans. Epigenetic effects provide a plausiblemechanism for what was discovered with the insects. So IMHO it is not far fetched to at least look, if something similarexists outside the insect kingdom, too. Re: Not much to debate... (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on 2014-10-21 20:08 (#2TJR) It was a response to evilviper and his or her reference to a prior thread, in which the insect story was very much positioned by one of the scientists as if it had immediate analogs to human reproduction. Re: Not much to debate... (Score: 1) by tanuki64@pipedot.org on 2014-10-21 20:12 (#2TJT) Cut the scientists some slag. They need to convince people to give research funding, who cannot distinguish Harvard from Hogwarts.
Re: Not much to debate... (Score: -1) by Anonymous Coward on 2014-10-21 16:22 (#2TJD) He didn't use the word "controversial" so there's no real need to quote it. Boy you're really hung up on convincing people that insect genetics has direct bearing on humans. It's interesting science, but that's all it is. Re: Not much to debate... (Score: 1) by tanuki64@pipedot.org on 2014-10-21 16:43 (#2TJE) Actually I used the word 'controversial'. My story got somewhat improved by the editor (thank you), so it got dropped.But where do you see that someone want to convince people that insect genetics has direct bearing onhumans? The only thing that was said was: 'A new and unexpected mechanism in the reproduction processof insects has been discovered. Let's see if it or something similar exists for other species, too'. Epigeneticeffects have already been proven to exist for animals and even humans. Epigenetic effects provide a plausiblemechanism for what was discovered with the insects. So IMHO it is not far fetched to at least look, if something similarexists outside the insect kingdom, too. Re: Not much to debate... (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on 2014-10-21 20:08 (#2TJR) It was a response to evilviper and his or her reference to a prior thread, in which the insect story was very much positioned by one of the scientists as if it had immediate analogs to human reproduction. Re: Not much to debate... (Score: 1) by tanuki64@pipedot.org on 2014-10-21 20:12 (#2TJT) Cut the scientists some slag. They need to convince people to give research funding, who cannot distinguish Harvard from Hogwarts.
Re: Not much to debate... (Score: 1) by tanuki64@pipedot.org on 2014-10-21 16:43 (#2TJE) Actually I used the word 'controversial'. My story got somewhat improved by the editor (thank you), so it got dropped.But where do you see that someone want to convince people that insect genetics has direct bearing onhumans? The only thing that was said was: 'A new and unexpected mechanism in the reproduction processof insects has been discovered. Let's see if it or something similar exists for other species, too'. Epigeneticeffects have already been proven to exist for animals and even humans. Epigenetic effects provide a plausiblemechanism for what was discovered with the insects. So IMHO it is not far fetched to at least look, if something similarexists outside the insect kingdom, too. Re: Not much to debate... (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on 2014-10-21 20:08 (#2TJR) It was a response to evilviper and his or her reference to a prior thread, in which the insect story was very much positioned by one of the scientists as if it had immediate analogs to human reproduction. Re: Not much to debate... (Score: 1) by tanuki64@pipedot.org on 2014-10-21 20:12 (#2TJT) Cut the scientists some slag. They need to convince people to give research funding, who cannot distinguish Harvard from Hogwarts.
Re: Not much to debate... (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on 2014-10-21 20:08 (#2TJR) It was a response to evilviper and his or her reference to a prior thread, in which the insect story was very much positioned by one of the scientists as if it had immediate analogs to human reproduction. Re: Not much to debate... (Score: 1) by tanuki64@pipedot.org on 2014-10-21 20:12 (#2TJT) Cut the scientists some slag. They need to convince people to give research funding, who cannot distinguish Harvard from Hogwarts.
Re: Not much to debate... (Score: 1) by tanuki64@pipedot.org on 2014-10-21 20:12 (#2TJT) Cut the scientists some slag. They need to convince people to give research funding, who cannot distinguish Harvard from Hogwarts.