Slashdot Mirror


How Dad's Stresses Get Passed Along To Offspring (scientificamerican.com)

An anonymous reader quotes a report from Scientific American: A stressed-out and traumatized father can leave scars in his children. New research suggests this happens because sperm "learn" paternal experiences via a mysterious mode of intercellular communication in which small blebs break off one cell and fuse with another. Carrying proteins, lipids and nucleic acids, these particles ejected from a cell act like a postal system that extends to all parts of the body, releasing little packages known as extracellular vesicles. Their contents seem carefully chosen. "The cargo inside the vesicle determines not just where it came from but where it's going and what it's doing when it gets there," says Tracy Bale, a neurobiologist at the University of Maryland School of Medicine. To probe the inheritance of such changes at the cellular level, Bale and co-workers performed a series of mouse experiments.

In one set of experiments [Jennifer Chan, a former PhD student that was part of the study] stressed a group of male mice, let them mate and looked at stress responses in the pups. The clincher was a set of in vitro fertilization -- like experiments in which she collected sperm from a male mouse that had never experienced induced stress. Half his sperm went into a lab dish with vesicles previously exposed to stress hormones. The other half was cultured with vesicles that had no contact with stress hormones. Chan injected sperm cells from each batch into eggs from a non-stressed female, then implanted the fertilized eggs -- zygotes -- into the same foster mom. The pups from non-stressed zygotes developed normally. Pups from stress-exposed zygotes, however, showed the same abnormal stress response as those whose dads had experienced stress before mating. That showed extracellular vesicles act as the conduit for transmitting paternal stress signals to the offspring, Chan says.

109 comments

  1. Meet and Greet... by Arzaboa · · Score: 0

    I want to meet the person that is not completely messed up by their parents. Isn't this how it works?

    --
    Imagination is more important than knowledge. - Albert Einstein

    1. Re:Meet and Greet... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Doesn't getting spermed on by Dad count as child abuse?
       
      BeauHD, please weigh in here with your experience and expertise.

    2. Re:Meet and Greet... by blindseer · · Score: 2

      Doesn't getting spermed on by Dad count as child abuse?

      Only after the child has left the womb. While in the womb I expect children to be spermed on quite often.

      --
      I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
    3. Re:Meet and Greet... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Believe it or not, some people didn't have a fucked up childhood.

    4. Re: Meet and Greet... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      But if you're father did, you are messed up

    5. Re:Meet and Greet... by zwarte+piet · · Score: 1

      That's only how they remember it.

  2. Well, okay then by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    So, those of that are well adjusted and donâ(TM)t handle CoCs on a daily basis will have normal kids

  3. Skeptical by Aighearach · · Score: 2, Interesting

    It seems like it might just be that adding the vesticles pollutes the petri dish environment in a harmful way.

    I'd like to see this where a control was given different vesticles, instead of only controlling for "added" vs "not added."

    1. Re:Skeptical by Xenx · · Score: 3, Informative

      The summary specifically mentioned that both groups had vesicles added. One group had stress hormones in the vesicles, one group didn't.

    2. Re:Skeptical by NicknameUnavailable · · Score: 2

      It seems like it might just be that adding the vesticles pollutes the petri dish environment in a harmful way.

      I'd like to see this where a control was given different vesticles, instead of only controlling for "added" vs "not added."

      Epigenetic changes have been known for awhile, this study isn't new in that regard, just another nail. It is a neat experiment though.

    3. Re:Skeptical by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

      The most significant stressor in life is the force of Government over you, like master to a slave.
      You are their slaves.
      A slave indeed.
      Remove that and you'll really begin feeling free again.

    4. Re: Skeptical by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I agree with you, but I don't feel free. I feel like a rat in a cage.

    5. Re: Skeptical by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Despite all your rage?

    6. Re:Skeptical by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Insightful

      So can this account for why hysterical drama queen parents have hysterical, drama queen children?

      That might account for the growth of the Leftist population.

    7. Re:Skeptical by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Troll

      So can this account for why hysterical drama queen parents have hysterical, drama queen children?

      That might account for the growth of the Leftist population.

      That's kinda funny, since Trump's election often gets blamed on the Left for being such dicks. Seems the hysterical drama is on the Right...

    8. Re: Skeptical by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Absolutely, your political affiliation isn't what makes you an asshole. It's more like you're an asshole, and you're using your political affiliation as a weapon.

    9. Re: Skeptical by anegg · · Score: 1

      Well said.

    10. Re:Skeptical by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0, Funny

      Found the hysterical drama queen with the hysterical drama queen parents.

    11. Re:Skeptical by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      You really need to learn to read! seems you know how to write, but have no idea what you're writing about.

    12. Re:Skeptical by HiThere · · Score: 1

      This is a different mechanism than epigenetic modifications of DNA (e.g. methylation of various codon sites). I'm not sure it counts as epigenetic modification at all.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    13. Re:Skeptical by NicknameUnavailable · · Score: 1

      Are you aware "methylation at codon sites" doesn't even make sense? Epigenetics is the switching on and off of genes in a hereditary or environmental manner not directly relating to evolutionary mutation (aside from the fact the genes evolves in the past but were deactivated by default.)

    14. Re:Skeptical by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      Use quotes. Which words in the summary do you believe say that?

    15. Re:Skeptical by Xenx · · Score: 1

      Half his sperm went into a lab dish with vesicles previously exposed to stress hormones. The other half was cultured with vesicles that had no contact with stress hormones.

    16. Re:Skeptical by HiThere · · Score: 1

      It may not make sense to you, but that's the way it happens. Methylation of a portion of the backbone holding the codon keeps the histamines from unwrapping the code so that it can be used. These are supposed to be stripped off during meiosis, but IIRC the process doesn't always happen, which is how you get inherited epigenetic phenomena. Normally it's the process used to tell, say, a liver cell that it's not a bone marrow cell.

      This process sounds more analogous to the way that mitochondria are carried in the ovum.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    17. Re:Skeptical by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      Good job, you finally said something!

      I did mention 3 groups I'd want to see in the study, and you're right; I mis-identified the missing one.

      But my complaint is still largely the same.

      Another complaint I have; this study only used the sperm of one mouse.

      The actual interesting part of the story isn't the mice though, it is the follow-up experiments they did using humans. Multiple humans, even. If the mice were the interesting part, they'd have redone it at a normal scale instead of switching to humans.

    18. Re:Skeptical by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      My advice, move to a place without a powerless, failed government for six months and compare.

    19. Re:Skeptical by Aighearach · · Score: 1

      Wouldn't you also need to not know what is being written about, in order to observe the lack of ideas?

      And how would you differentiate that from your own ignorance?

    20. Re:Skeptical by NicknameUnavailable · · Score: 1

      Epigenetics is a lot bigger than a singular effect.

    21. Re:Skeptical by Xenx · · Score: 1

      Good job, you finally said something!

      There is no finally anything. I said something the first time. Your choice of response makes you sound like a condescending twat that cannot take criticism.

      I did mention 3 groups I'd want to see in the study, and you're right; I mis-identified the missing one.

      You only mentioned wanting them to test with different vesicles. There was no mention of three groups. You then proceeded to mention they only controlled with vesicle and without vesicle. I merely corrected your interpretation. I don't know what you'd want to add to a third vesicle that would provide a known response in the test subject, as the third control would only be useful when the results are consistently known. I'm not saying you're wrong for wanting it, just pointing it out.

    22. Re:Skeptical by HiThere · · Score: 1

      Yes, but the name applies to, or at least used to apply to, molecules or radicals that attach to the DNA to modify its expression. Methylation is the one I'm least unfamiliar with. It didn't apply to stuff carried along on the cell wall or in the cytoplasm.

      --

      I think we've pushed this "anyone can grow up to be president" thing too far.
    23. Re:Skeptical by NicknameUnavailable · · Score: 1

      I didn't suggest there was anything involved outside of the nucleus, but there are a huge number of mechanisms that we know of, seemingly growing every couple years, which extend well beyond a singular trigger. It has a lot more to do with how operons are utilized that it does anything else.

  4. And then, there's the beatings... by Narcocide · · Score: 2

    This isn't what I meant when I said we need to be taking a more careful look at how parents' stresses impact their children's development.

  5. What is this called? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    looked at stress responses in the pups

    Subjective.

    1. Re:What is this called? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      looked at stress responses in the pups

      Subjective.

      From a certain point of view, everything is subjective. Even the experience of objective things is subjective.

    2. Re:What is this called? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Whoosh, pedantic buddy. Subjectively determining results is *not* science, it's bias.

    3. Re: What is this called? by anegg · · Score: 1

      There are those who claim it is impossible to be objective, even in science. There are many subtle ways that bias, such as confirmation bias, creeps in. The number of science findings that canâ(TM)t be replicated is disturbingly high. Personally, Iâ(TM)m not as gloomy. I think we can approximate objectivity, and after enough repetitions we can approach true objectivity. However, science is often not easy, and the path to valid results is longer and more resource consuming that we want to believe.

  6. Its actually pretty simple by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    When I come home from work and my kids annoy me, I just lock them in a closet or hit them a few times.

    No science required.

  7. I read TFA by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Kids of stressed parents tend to be less stressed? I guess that explains me (except when I drink, then I'm a wreck!)

  8. Re: That settles it! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Found the nazi asshole!

  9. Lamarck's revenge by blindseer · · Score: 5, Interesting

    Everything old is new again. Lamarck had his theory of evolution and Darwin had his, and for the longest time Darwin was thought to have cracked the code. I guess just like how Newton figured out physics on the macro scale there's more to be seen when one looks closely enough to see where the theory doesn't explain it all.

    I recall seeing an interesting TED Talk from a man explaining how homosexuality was not genetic but epi-genetic. That is "epi-" meaning "above" or "beyond". Epi-genetics means that environmental factors placed upon the parents produce something very much like genetics on the child, as in inherent to their "code" or "being", that cannot be undone after the child is conceived. In this TED Talk the man used his son as an example of this in that the stress he and his wife had in their life produced a homosexual son because in prior times, and through many iterations of evolution taking place, there is a survival benefit of the clan or species in having homosexual men in times of stress. Things like war and famine might be where a "pause" in further offspring would be beneficial.

    This fine article performed the experiment on mice and seemed a bit vague on the behavior they observed. If experiments like this can tell us more on human behaviors then there could be a lot on how we could improve society for the future. Since I already stepped on the landmine that there is a theory, not proven by the way but merely an educated guess by a man that seems convinced of the science, where stressed parents produce homosexual children then I feel like stepping on another will not be any worse.

    There's the theory that a stressor that is thought to lower intelligence and raise tendencies to criminal behavior, that is children conceived out of marriage. Women being pregnant without the biological father around (or other male stand in) is stressed in a way that evidence shows might be epi-genetic. There's other possible reasons for this, like such stress in childhood upon the child will bring an adult that is aggressive and poorly educated and therefore likely to exhibit anti-social (or just plain criminal) behaviors. Or that women in such a situation will not have the time for breastfeeding (shown to be far healthier than formula), time for bedtime stories (shown to improve education later), or time for making a proper meal with any regularity. Children raised in a low stress environment tend to become well behaved adults.

    Will reduced stress in society mean no more gays and criminals? Well, that would be an interesting theory to test. I don't know how we'd do that without getting into telling parents how to raise their children. Epi-genetics or not there's plenty of evidence on how a downward spiral in society can be broken by one generation of children raised in a healthy family structure. Lamarck may not have got it all right, but he wasn't all wrong either.

    --
    I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
    1. Re:Lamarck's revenge by Arzaboa · · Score: 0

      It sounds like you are projecting some personal test onto other people. It is hard to take you seriously when you combine these arguments as both can be subjective.

      If your argument is that there is some fictional place where everyone will just get along and everyone will be at the same "place" in society, then you need look no further then communism.

      --
      “If it doesn’t fit, you must acquit.” - Johnnie Cochran

    2. Re:Lamarck's revenge by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      This mischaracterizes Darwin and Lamarck.

      It's difficult to apply modern observations to old and complex theories. They're difficult to understand without going deep into their historical contexts.

      Among other things, understanding Darwin would require setting aside a century of genetics, and looking at ideas which incompletely and couldn't entirely predict it.

      Darwin did write on the topic of pangenesis, but to suggest that he might have anticipated discoveries in epigenetics is to treat him as a prophet, not a scientist. He had no clue, he was proposing a theory based on his observations to try to explain some important edge cases of these weird pre-genetics genetic issues such as regeneration.

      For modern science, Darwin's books should be considered historical works and not worth study.

      Have you ever tried to read Newton? ugh. Opticks is brutal to read with a modern understanding of light.

    3. Re:Lamarck's revenge by blindseer · · Score: 4, Interesting

      It sounds like you are projecting some personal test onto other people.

      It sounds like you are trying to read my mind and psychoanalyze me base on a few paragraphs.

      It is hard to take you seriously when you combine these arguments as both can be subjective.

      Then don't take me seriously. I'm merely pondering on where epi-genetic research might lead us.

      If your argument is that there is some fictional place where everyone will just get along and everyone will be at the same "place" in society, then you need look no further then communism.

      That's not my argument. My argument is that if stresses on the parents means poorly behaved children then it would be to our benefit to reduce stresses on parents.

      I've been watching some interesting videos lately on how IQ correlates to financial and other success in life, as well as what factors contribute to IQ. The most recent video I saw was on "McNamara's Folly" or Project 100,000, by someone that wrote a book on this and who's name I don't recall right now. I don't have the link to the video as I found it on a different computer than I'm using right now but here's the Wikipedia page on that project:
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

      Other videos I've seen were from Dr. Jordan Peterson where he describes how the US military has a large database of how people scored on their version of an IQ test and how well the people performed in their job. Dr. Peterson and others I've seen describe various possible contributing factors to IQ, and therefore future success. This simply fascinates me. There's some dispute on how genetics influence IQ, but no dispute that IQ is influenced by genetics. Maybe genetics contributes 80% to IQ, maybe only 50%. So, what contributes the rest? Can this be explained by epi-genetics? If so, then how much? Then comes the question of real importance, if epi-genetics influence future success then what should we do with this information?

      I don't want everyone in the same place since that means, as you point out, communism where everyone has an equal share of the misery. I want people to reach their greatest potential. If stresses on the parents means lowered chances of success for the children then we, as a society/nation/species/community, should do what we can to lower this stress. If epi-genetics means nothing then we should still be excellent to each other but know that such efforts may not be rewarded in better behaved children. That is we'd be no better rewarded than we already know with things like well fed children leading to healthy adults, as opposed to malnourished children leading to adults being stunted in physical and mental development.

      I mentioned the TED Talk on a possible link of epi-genetics to homosexuality as something this article reminded me about and shows possible effects on humans. Homosexual tendencies are "bad" in that the species cannot propagate with these tendencies. If homosexual behavior is genetic then one could assume that it is unlikely to have survived to today. This then leads one to think about how it might propagate, since a genetic trait that's counter to propagating the species should fade in time. There must be something beneficial to this, and there must be a mechanism for it to exist in following generations. This is perhaps no different than anti-social behavior (or rather what we define today as such) being beneficial to the species. There's little doubt that stressed parents lead to aggressive children, what might be left unexplained is the mechanism behind it. A stressed parent might need aggressive children since war is a stressor and aggressive people tend to be more successful in war. There's now another layer to the nature vs. nurture debate and it's called epi-genetics.

      --
      I am armed because I am free. I am free because I am armed.
    4. Re:Lamarck's revenge by The+Evil+Atheist · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Lamarck is wrong and epigenetic does not salvage Lamarck in any way. What Darwin's Theory is not about is where sources of variation come from, but how they persist. Epigenetic traits do not last more than a few generations and cannot contribute to speciation. It is still the genes that are selected on.

      The rest of what you write is just dribble. Part obvious - raise children well, who would have thought - and part nonsense, "therefore epi-genetics and evolution".

      --
      Those who do not learn from commit history are doomed to regress it.
    5. Re:Lamarck's revenge by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Reduced stress in Society????

      Spend your time researching and learning about Voluntaryism.

      That's really the only way in which you're ever going to reduce THE MOST SIGNIFICANT and FORCEFUL STRESSOR upon peoples natural lives and their naturally peaceful, free, and caring selves as a whole.

      You are capable respectable charitable beings.
      You don't need the therefore redundant and inefficient Governments of the world upon you,
      corroding the natural power held within your nuts.

      Men of this earth, learn, seek, establish, and practice Voluntaryism, free your nuts.

    6. Re:Lamarck's revenge by Applehu+Akbar · · Score: 1

      If your argument is that there is some fictional place where everyone will just get along and everyone will be at the same "place" in society, then you need look no further then communism.

      If people just 'got along' and everyone were 'at the same place' under Communism, then why did it require such a blisteringly high level of coercion?

    7. Re: Lamarck's revenge by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Not sure, but the way things are going, we're probably going to get to find out. I wonder if you can eat a modern shoe or if there's just not enough leather.

    8. Re:Lamarck's revenge by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      ...In this TED Talk the man used his son as an example of this in that the stress he and his wife had in their life produced a homosexual son because in prior times, and through many iterations of evolution taking place, there is a survival benefit of the clan or species in having homosexual men in times of stress. Things like war and famine might be where a "pause" in further offspring would be beneficial.

      Putting aside this latest study for a moment. How the hell would a "pause" be considered a survival benefit after war or famine? You've just lost a considerable number of the species. In order to actually survive, the opposite would more likely be true. 200 years ago there were just over 1 billion humans on this planet, so evolution hasn't exactly been sparring against overpopulation for millions of years.

      And in those countries who have managed to escape a great impact on their population due to war or famine, theoretically there would be an absence of homosexuality, which is hardly evident today.

      "Will reduced stress in society mean no more gays and criminals?"

      No. Providing better mental health services and teaching adults not to be such shitty parents will. But that would take actual effort, so it's deemed impossible. Narcissism will continue to infect a species who will happily hand over a newborn to the iMother product to raise in the future. Oh, that sounds absolutely insane? 200 years ago most mothers would have thought the same thing about daycare.

    9. Re:Lamarck's revenge by spaceman375 · · Score: 1, Insightful

      You make it sound as if this is the full explanation for how homosexuality occurs. It's far more complicated than that. For instance, with each subsequent son a woman gives birth to, the likelihood of that son being gay goes up. To the point that a 14th son has a 50% chance of being gay. That's postulated to be the mother's immune system learning to clear out androgens and the cells that produce them.
      Another confounding factor is that women who have 2 or more gay brothers have more offspring than women with only straight brothers. Which directly contradicts your postulate that a "pause in further offspring" is somehow the justification for homosexuality resulting from parental stress.
      Implied in your post is the thought that homosexuality is an undesirable condition that would go away if "things were perfect". You forget that the higher a person's IQ is, the more likely they are to be gay or bisexual. The more creative a person is, the more likely they are to be gay or bi also. Gee, maybe there is more value to gays than just "they don't reproduce" or even "they stick around & help raise their sister's kids" (another theory trying to explain gays in Darwinian terms without considering them to have any value beyond their sexual actions.)
      You are trying to use science to excuse your culturally induced prejudices.

      --
      On the one hand you take life too seriously, and on the other, you do not take playful existence seriously enough. Seth
    10. Re:Lamarck's revenge by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "You forget that the higher a person's IQ is, the more likely they are to be gay or bisexual. The more creative a person is, the more likely they are to be gay or bi also. "

      Neither of these things are true and you have no evidence for these claims. You're crusading out of your ass.

    11. Re:Lamarck's revenge by MobyDisk · · Score: 2

      Implied in your post is the thought that homosexuality is an undesirable condition that would go away if "things were perfect".

      Nothing in blindseer's post implies any such thing. You just made-up a bunch of stuff, attributed it to him, then attacked it. You even put stuff in quotes, as if they were in the post! Probably someone else said those things to you, and you are transferring.

    12. Re:Lamarck's revenge by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      The hypothesis you're referring to PREDICTS that more intelligent individuals are more likely to identify as homosexuals or engage in homosexual behavior. That is not the same thing as saying that a higher IQ means you are more likely to be gay or bisexual. I can't help you if you're not smart enough to recognize the difference.

    13. Re:Lamarck's revenge by Whibla · · Score: 1

      Epigenetic traits do not last more than a few generations and cannot contribute to speciation. It is still the genes that are selected on.

      That is a very bold claim, given that epigenetic factors can alter or suppress gene expression and those genes might affect other genes and, hence, potentially all the cellular production machinery.

      Other than your 'feelings' on the matter do you have any evidence for your claim - and please remember that a lack of evidence is not evidence of a lack (of a potential mechanism)...

    14. Re:Lamarck's revenge by The+Evil+Atheist · · Score: 2, Interesting

      Suppressing gene expression has no affect on whether genes get inherited and selected for or against. The epigenetic effect does not come from the gene itself - it is not it's phenotype. So another organism with the exact same gene, but without the epigenetic effect can pass along that gene to an organism where its phenotype can be expressed and contribute (or be detrimental) to its survival.

      For an epigenetic effect to suppress gene expression to the point that it kicks the gene out of the gene pool, the epigenetic effect has to occur in every reproductive member of the species with the gene, meaning every reproductive member with that gene also has the same life experience to succumb to that epigenetic effect.

      Also, what "feelings"? You're the only one to bring up feelings. Is that your tactic? Pre-emptively accuse someone of arguing from "feelings" so that you feel better about yourself and hopefully no one will pull you up on your embarassingly bad argument and your obvious ignorance to what Natural Selection actually is?

      --
      Those who do not learn from commit history are doomed to regress it.
    15. Re:Lamarck's revenge by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Wow. 63 words, 70 if you count the quote, and yet nothing of intelligence was put forth.

      See what I did by even responding to you?!?!? My guess is, you won't.

    16. Re:Lamarck's revenge by Gilgaron · · Score: 1

      Hmm... but if there are just population level epigenetic changes, you'll end up with something more like a ring-species than a non ambiguous speciation event, yes?

    17. Re:Lamarck's revenge by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Jordan Peterson and Project 100,000, aka cannon fodder to keep college applications up.

      When you base your argument on such widely discredited sources you undermine it.

      How are you calling the only objective source in modern psychology "discredited?"

    18. Re:Lamarck's revenge by Gilgaron · · Score: 1

      It could still be genetic, the add on effects can effect group selection in a cooperative species like ours. Even if we weren't social, you'd still see, say, male infertility due to genetic causes, if the same genes caused hyperfertility in females. It's just the "birth order" trends that would necessarily be epigenetic.

    19. Re:Lamarck's revenge by tsqr · · Score: 1

      If your argument is that there is some fictional place where everyone will just get along and everyone will be at the same "place" in society, then you need look no further then communism.

      If people just 'got along' and everyone were 'at the same place' under Communism, then why did it require such a blisteringly high level of coercion?

      Brace yourself for some great examples of the "no true Scotsman" fallacy.

    20. Re:Lamarck's revenge by jbmartin6 · · Score: 1

      I read in one of Matt Ridley's books that there was a positive correlation between the number of male children a woman had and the chance of homosexuality in the next male child. i.e. more older brothers, more likely to be gay. Probably "Nature via Nurture" since that one was about epigenetics.

      --
      This posting is provided 'AS IS' without warranty of any kind, implied or otherwise.
    21. Re:Lamarck's revenge by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Putting aside this latest study for a moment. How the hell would a "pause" be considered a survival benefit after war or famine?

      Yeah, this sounds like complete bullshit. Nature already has a perfectly cromulent way of dealing with food shortages (a good chance that's why that war happened in the first place), and after a war, a population that will succeed will breed itself back up to strength as soon as possible.

      Homosexuals kind of don't help out with that, for some strange reason nobody has ever discovered, I am sure.

    22. Re:Lamarck's revenge by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      "Discredited sources" Amusing a commenter who supports so much pop psychology is concerned with credible.

    23. Re:Lamarck's revenge by spaceman375 · · Score: 1

      Nothing in blindseer's post implies any such thing. You just made-up a bunch of stuff, attributed it to him, then attacked it. You even put stuff in quotes, as if they were in the post! Probably someone else said those things to you, and you are transferring.

      Last line of second paragraph. Now who's making something up?

      --
      On the one hand you take life too seriously, and on the other, you do not take playful existence seriously enough. Seth
    24. Re:Lamarck's revenge by spaceman375 · · Score: 1

      The second claim is harder to prove for various values of creative. However, the Savanna-IQ Interaction Hypothesis was proposed to explain the statistically significant finding that in the general population people with higher IQs ARE more likely to identify as Bi or gay.
      Try looking it up before you spout your ignorance.

      --
      On the one hand you take life too seriously, and on the other, you do not take playful existence seriously enough. Seth
    25. Re:Lamarck's revenge by lexman098 · · Score: 1

      Suppressing gene expression has no affect on whether genes get inherited and selected for or against.

      Doesn't it? Behavioral changes (for whatever reason) can affect which genes are later inherited. This is what allows a species to adapt to a changing environment.

    26. Re:Lamarck's revenge by lexman098 · · Score: 1

      To clarify, this was meant in the context of choosing mates, not that behavior would physically affect gene inheritance.

    27. Re:Lamarck's revenge by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Dr. Peterson actually makes a far more complex argument on an individual's potential, saying that intelligence alone is insufficient to success. He points out that motivation is very important, as is being social, and other emotional and behavioral factors. What probably gets him in the most trouble is pointing out that men tend to be both more competitive and tend to be more intelligent. What people seem to overlook is that he sees this male tendency to be hyper-competitive as anti-social or otherwise poor mental health. A person that works 80 hours or more per week might be very successful in business but also a poor father, a terrible friend, and just generally someone others would rather not be around. He points out that just because one is financially successful and highly intelligent does not mean they are in good mental health.

      The US military likes their IQ test because it works very well for them in finding people that fit certain jobs. Emotional health is difficult to measure and is simply left to things like commanders' recommendations for things like promotions, or getting discharged if the soldier is severe in their anti-social behavior.

      Project 100,000 was not a total failure. What it required though was a commander and/or fellow soldiers that recognized the "slow" soldier needed to be put out of a stressful environment, needed things simplified to their level of comprehension, and compassionate supervision. The US Army was built around people with an IQ of 85 and above, and if there's people that test lower than that then they will have problems unless exceptions are made for them.

    28. Re:Lamarck's revenge by Whibla · · Score: 1

      That was an awful lot of words to say nothing about whether or not epigenetics can cause speciation - which was the point I raised. And, again, you provide no evidence just your belief stated as fact.

      The epigenetic effect does not come from the gene itself

      No, indeed, epigenetic changes arise as a result of hormones (coded for by genes), non-coding RNA (produced from a DNA template), DNA methylation (caused by enzymes (DNMTs) within the cells), and probably other factors we have yet to discover. The fact they don't, necessarily, come from the gene they're modifying doesn't mean they don't come from genes however.

      Now, in simple terms, since epigenetic changes have been associated with a change in mutation rates (hence increased cancer risk for some changes etc.) it logically follows that they can cause genetic changes, and that there is therefore a chance that these mutations can be passed on to the next generation. Since that is the basis of speciation it follows that epigenetics can contribute to speciation.

      Also, what "feelings"? You're the only one to bring up feelings. Is that your tactic? Pre-emptively accuse someone of arguing from "feelings" so that you feel better about yourself and hopefully no one will pull you up on your embarassingly bad argument and your obvious ignorance to what Natural Selection actually is?

      The reason I put 'feelings' in inverted commas was to differentiate them from facts, of which you gave none. Perhaps I'd have been better served by using the word 'opinion' as you seem to have been a tad triggered. That aside, as it happens, pretty much everybody argues from feelings first. The reasoning we use afterwards is simply a post hoc justification for what we already feel.

      As for my "embarassingly (sic) bad argument" I didn't give much of an argument at all in my original post. Most of it was focused on questioning your assertion and asking whether you could back it up. I am very impressed you managed to divine my ignorance from the two lines I did write though, but I note you still failed to back up your position - at all.

      Care to try again?

    29. Re:Lamarck's revenge by Whibla · · Score: 1

      I'm pretty sure that there's several different ways for speciation to occur, but I'm equally sure I'm not really sure of all the details. The point of my original post was simply to question an assertion based on what I saw as false certitude.

      As a prelude I'll just say that, by my understanding, findings over the last few decades have made the term 'species' rather vague, as we've discovered that individuals from different species can in fact interbreed, with the offspring being fertile (unlike for example the mule), and these offspring essentially form a new species on their own. Since the fact they can breed goes against one of the original tenets of what constitutes a species the terminology is proving to be ... insufficient.

      In the case of my suggested speciation due to epigenetics affecting 'vertical' gene transfer I'm not sure the result would be what you'd consider a classic ring species as this concept, I thought, involved a minimum of two endpoint populations that cannot interbreed and a subspecies that can breed with either end. If a subspecies descends from an extant single species there is no second endpoint, hence no ring. Hence I'm going to, hesitantly, say not really - at least not at first. Without a fairly non ambiguous speciation event I'm not sure how you'd reach the point of having ring species.

      It is an interesting question though. I have long wondered if humankind hasn't been speciating (based on the inability of certain couples to have children). Perhaps the notion of ring species fits us better though. Well, I'm sure (a long) time will tell, if we manage to not kill ourselves for our differences first...

    30. Re: Lamarck's revenge by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      Makes sense. The older sons get what little attention the father gives, the mother overcompensates with the younger son, he imitates the mother, and the son yearns for the dad's affection. And gets it from men.

      This is proven and yet censored psychology.

    31. Re:Lamarck's revenge by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

      I've always been interested in what effects of the environment are on the sperm produced. ex. more male or female to balance the population, perceived advantages of certain traits translated into the genetic code?

  10. Dad's stresses by AbdulWaheed7074 · · Score: 0

    Check our phone cases wolrdwide delivery

  11. Re: THEORY of Evolution needs work by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Looks like the local idiot has made it to Slashdot? Take a science class or stay in church where your stupidity is welcome.

  12. What's most benefiting? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I want to optimize my sperm

  13. Re:Thinking the same thing. by wolfheart111 · · Score: 1

    Its the stresses that improve us.

    --
    [($)]
  14. Re:Genetically alter your sperm. by wolfheart111 · · Score: 1

    Women would pay you for it. :)

    --
    [($)]
  15. How Dad's Dresses Get Passed Along to Offspring by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    the Bruce Jenner story

  16. Re: That settles it! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Found the NPC

  17. Re: That settles it! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    ::whoosh!::

  18. Re:Thinking the same thing. by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Its the stresses that improve us.

    How are you sure those stress is not the last straw that breaks the camel's back ?

  19. Nietzsche had a similar idea by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    As Nietzsche wrote: "What was silent in the father speaks in the son, and often I found in the son the unveiled secret of the father"

    1. Re:Nietzsche had a similar idea by Oligonicella · · Score: 1

      Nietzsche was a guy, not a god. Read deeply into quotes of his statements to figure *him* out, not the world. Looks to me to be a statement attempting to blame parents for progeny's fuck ups. In other words, Nietzshe had issues he projected into his writings.

  20. More fraudulent vivisection by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Notice how the title implies HUMANS, by NOT saying "mice fathers"... How surprising.

    More completely pointless 'research' from psychopaths who enjoy torturing animals. Gee... who would think that people who enjoy torturing animals all day are also untrustworthy, and that their 'research' can't be trusted?

    https://science.slashdot.org/story/12/04/06/139231/majority-of-landmark-cancer-studies-cannot-be-replicated

    Hmm...

  21. Re: Great news for libs! by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Dune!

  22. Scientific Jibber Jabber by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    This is nonsense designed for great-great-grandchildren of WW2 era Jews to cry that they deserve reparations for things that didn't happen to them.

    DNA determines victimhood -- but not your sex or intelligence.

    Pure horseshit.

  23. Good thing ..... by ripvlan · · Score: 1

    I wasn't stress out until AFTER the children were born.

    gosh - raising children is stressful. Making them is easy.

  24. Pseudo Science by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    I read the article. Clearly, the article has a feminist slant / bias to it (ie. It's all the father's fault) What about environmental factors? (ie. crop failures and war mentioned in the article) Didn't occur to the researchers that children growing up in that environment would be directly affected?
    Last time I checked, a family is a team effort - Mother and Father. Did the researchers ignore the effects the environment had on the mother? (during fetus growth and subsequent child raising)
    Then there is a question about the ethical treatment of the mice during the "experiments". I'm surprised that PETA wasn't involved with the research group.

    Just my opinion, that article should have not been published. It's a disgrace to the legitimate science community.

    1. Re:Pseudo Science by SirSlud · · Score: 1

      The Dunning–Kruger effect, ladies and gentlemen!

      --
      "Old man yells at systemd"
  25. Explains All The US Austism by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Jim Carrey is to blame for his babby's autismo. Shocking

    1. Re:Explains All The US Austism by Oligonicella · · Score: 1

      Canadian.

  26. Case and Point by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Kyle Reese was probably facing stress none of us can understand when he fathered John Connor. Without those factors, the machines would have won.

  27. The fathers have eaten sour grapes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 1

    The fathers have eaten sour grapes and their children's teeth are set on edge.

  28. Somehow, this just reinforces the old adage: by Mnemennth · · Score: 1

    "Insanity is hereditary; you get it from your kids."

    mnem
    This is where I usually put some pithy remark.

  29. Give me a break by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    How on earth does stupid shit like this get on /.

  30. POC Socioeconomic outcomes by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    And people still ask why descendants of slaves in the US have worse outcomes than other minority groups.

  31. In vitro fertilization by PPH · · Score: 1

    ... for the unstressed control group. Because the primary source of male stress is having to deal with the female of the species.

    Now pardon me while I make up my bed in the garage.

    --
    Have gnu, will travel.
  32. Fear instincts? Why would this happen? by omfglearntoplay · · Score: 1

    It sure sounds like a really good way for animals to learn what is deadly and what to avoid. If you run into deer where hunters kill them, they are scared of people. If you see deer in a park where people feed them by hand, they trust people. Do their offspring get some of this response via the mechanisms in the study? I bet they do at least by some degree.

  33. Why is that a bad thing? by shaitand · · Score: 1

    We learn from stresses, this could be part of a mechanism for passing information genetically to offspring. Sorry ladies, you won't replace fathers with artificial sperm anytime soon, we pass genetic wisdom to our children.

  34. Genius, what is your theory? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Where have you published your research?

  35. All your blebs are belong to us by RogueWarrior65 · · Score: 1

    So, all those snowflakes flipping out over the last two elections are going to bleb all over the place?

  36. More proof that women should not anger men by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 0

    Basically don't be a woman