But that's not what it says. RNA fragments are entering the ovum and having some sort of effect .... that's quite different from passing traits the way genes on chromosomes do.

But shouldn’t there have been an evolutionary advantage for such a thing to develop?

s/egg/which/

I and others generally don't quote things that aren't relevant to the point we're making and I'm not keen on the crypt-accusation. I didn't say that there aren't downstream molecular effects--clearly there are. Rather, the article is very unclear about the nature of epigenetics, and the wording about "transmitting traits" is misleading at best and leads to many unwarranted conclusions, as evidenced in the comments here. The statements I quoted are not about transmitting traits. e.g., "paternal exercise" refers to a trait of exercising, taking time to exercise, being motivated to exercise, etc. The "conferred benefit" of "enhanced endurance and metabolic health" is a different trait. If that is the trait being transmitted then that should be the trait being identified in male parents, not "exercise". Similarly, being exposed to nicotine is not the trait of having livers that are good at "disarming" nicotine, cocaine, and a host of other toxins ... and this is an extraordinary claim that requires extraordinary evidence, and the article provides one citation, from 2017.

And as an epigeneticist says in the article, we have no idea how RNA is having the effects its having.

As I said, I'm happy to wait until we have moved beyond this early stage of research before making any radical inferences.

For an example, scientists discovered both viruses and genetics long before they knew the molecular basis of either of them.

I'm well aware of that. The point is that people are drawing all sorts of unwarranted conclusions from this lay report on early stage research.

>I also feel that this could maybe contradict what we learned from evolution theory.

It doesn't, but the article doesn't go into this detail, so people unfamiliar with the field wouldn't understand why. The keyword is epigenetics. I.e. how certain genes become activated or deactivated through behaviour and/or environmental influences. But the DNA sequence itself remains unaltered. So no evolution necessary. There are basically a bunch of molecules than sit on top of your DNA that regulate gene expression. They don't just tell a cell to behave like a skin cell or a brain cell, they also regulate the entire cellular metabolism. The discovery that male sperm can also transmit this epigenetic information to offspring is relatively new, but now that we know that, it makes total sense that these gene-expression-modifying behaviours in fathers could affect their children. After all, they simply get to start with a good (or bad) bunch of epigenetic markers. They will not persist across many generations though, so it has no real long term effect on evolution. It may even be an evolved mechanism that allows organisms to respond to environmental changes on timeframes that would be prohibited by evolution.

Speaking mostly from personal experience here, if a kid gets a suped-up liver from their dad's smoking habits, cool. But how many kids fathers stopped smoking when the kid was born? My point, the father's smoking habits may have passed down a strong liver but his continued use damaged the child's lungs and possibly more.

These mechanisms of epigenetic inheritance or whatever need much more study. It is far too early to draw any conclusions other than we need to keep researching.

If true, I suppose there is also a opportunity cost involved. Meaning selecting for better coping with nicotine, does not help selecting for smarter offspring and maybe even preventing that. So it might be somewhat positive but at a cost unknown.

Also there are the very known costs of nicotine damaging sperms, or of course being in literal smoke as a child (or adult) and deal with those real effects.

> They must be immune to most toxins ;)

Allergies and cancer are way up.

There’s multiple causes behind those, this is almost certainly one.

  >Think of all the kids of the 60th and 70th. They must be immune to most toxins ;).

But seriously though, "immune" is a humorous exaggeration, but I'm not sure we have data to rule out the idea that this cohort has increased tolerance to some environmental toxins.

So it's possible the level of harm we see today is already "post-" this protective effect, if any.

> You took a left-turn

I certainly didn't; I simply quoted a sentence from the article. (I've noticed that some people have difficulty distinguishing between the person who quotes something and the person being quoted ... it might be a Sally-Anne effect.)

> It’s the rest of the crap in smokes and vapes to be concerned with.

Yes, which makes this article even less reliable.

nicotine is significantly more harmful than caffeine, although it is definitely way better than the other stuff in tobacco and not a carcinogen.

let’s not get started on the CFS stuff, treatments for functional disorders are often placebo-resembling.

the only purpose of hacker news comments is to aggravate readers with overly reductive takes

They’re mice. I wouldn’t worry a whole lot about them.

For this particular research, it's possible as only 5% of mouse experiments become available to humans.

But a lot of life-saving medicaments and techniques started as mouse testings, including Penicillin, cancer drugs and the polio vaccine.

Nobel prize might be waiting for two sets of octomom same-egg offspring with compatible genders that join together to have n=8 firstborn children which are conceived at same date under the same conditions (no alcohol, no ongoing infections, etc.), and the pregnancy period is spent together.

It will definitely need 8 scientist relationships, a lot of energy and money.

> they all have the same mother, grew up in the same house, etc.

I’m pretty sure the first one didn’t have siblings, and the second only had one. Also their mother is not the same person after raising the first kid, or raising two.

Parenting never have reproducible conditions.

Well that’s just

> No man ever steps in the same river twice, for it's not the same river and he's not the same man

On the other hand, you sometimes get identical twins who share every random tick and tendency and finish each others thoughts.

But your kids will likely not have your insights and experiences so “tuning” is another word for broadening their awareness.

When expectations are bundled with trying, then yes disappointment is inevitable. Expectations are not a good reason to not try.

> I told the waitress “you too” wrt to her telling me to enjoy my meal.

That's not too bad unless you are in a group and they make fun of you right away, but it's a fumble that you can fix and start a good play if you don't just get super nervous.

Laugh it off, ask her if it's not the first one, ask her to join, even if you know she's actually working and can't.

I've never done any improv, but it seems like something maybe everyone should do so we all can avoid awkward moments that stick for way longer than they should.

> saves cumming

> savescumming

Savecumming?

There isn't any specific way that boomers behave.

Adding "jk" after a casual prejudiced insult to a demographic doesn't undo the prejudiced insult.

"Hard headed", "not a cheap date", "not a lightweight"? Hard to say if increased tolerance is good or bad (especially if we're uncertain about how addictiveness/susceptibility to addictive behavior it passed)

I would have thought the main armament that nicotine has is its addictiveness

perhaps "making less harmful to the body"? this could potentially be accomplished separately from making them less effective

Well, there's always next time.

In the article, there's a link in the text right before they put that parenthetical. I'm guessing they're saying that the link interested them so they clicked it to read but opened it in a new tab so they could finish the current article first.

Probably a screen reader callout.

"microdose cocaine"

It does depend on how specific the thing is. Spiders in general maybe, but for a particular type of spider seems to have close to nil possibility.

The comment you’re replying to suggests “lived experience” is too broad, not too narrow. The issue isn’t that it fails to include your example. It fails to exclude other things. Part of my lived experience today was seeing a manatee. It is unlikely this will be passed on.

A lot of this is transmitted via the language. The stories we form as a result of events in our lives, have power to set our values in all areas. These myths of the self, have what is essentially a value manifest for someone. And these myths, can be so strongly held that it will influence the person and family’s moods, actions, habits.

What is important is to note that there are many formulas for consciousness. Some are truely bonkers, some are just fundamental truth. And some… have yet to be discovered.

Permutations and combinatorics create a hyperspace of all ridiculous things!

> The authors pointed out “there are significant drawbacks in the existing human literature” including “lack of longitudinal studies, methodological heterogeneity, selection of tissue type, and the influence of developmental stage and trauma type on methylation outcomes”

The literature in this area is a mess, has become highly politicized. I’d give it another 10 or so years before I made any strong statements about these effects in humans. Famously the study of Holocaust survivors’ descendants didn’t show transgenerational effects.

Yes, it was configured in his mRNA

Note sure if I understand what you mean?

You mean that we showed them already by that age to not mix fries & ketchup? :-D If children are that small and you are sitting with two of them at the table, handing over those ideas to them in a "nurturing way" is the last thing on what you can focus on with two small kids at the table :-))

And its always great if someone gives a downvote here if you share some personal life stories :-D

Freud was not a scientist, he was a great artist. It is not clear whether any of his patients got better after Freud's treatment.

Interesting about the epigenetics, transposons, and other DNA augmentations…

These are all fundamentally a story of how the individual encounters and uses information in their lived experience. But there is also a very strong consensus narrative that must be respected, but also challenged and evolved. DNA is literally the informational substrate of a life… when you adopt a personal belief, or are subject to someone elses, you have the ability to help but also harm your informational substrate. Tend your garden of ideas with love and care.

The dirty little secret is that there is an incredible ideological incentive for many for Lamarckianism to be true so that they can blame “lived experience” for every ill in the world. Retroviruses, transposons, etc do not have that specific property and thus you see far fewer articles extolling their purported impacts.

Not just epigenetics, cells (and probably organisms) have mechanisms to induce mutations at elevated rates (e.g. E. Coli lacZ mutation under pressure). I wouldn't be surprised if nervous systems are elegantly wired to both epigentic and mutagenic levers to accelerate evolution through stimulus guided modifications rather than just raw survival/selection.

From the perspective of an individual breeder, they cannot know how much of a trait is from DNA or not. It may be more likely to be DNA-driven if you can prove that the trait is durable over many generations, in different environments. At least, that is my guess.