More Black Men Are In Prison Today Than Were Enslaved In 1850.
Knowing the past is important to understanding the future. There have been improvements, but there are still disparities too numerous to list. The thought that blacks make up excuses is just ignoring present realities they have to deal with.

As for getting over slavery, well Blacks have been free less then half the time they were enslaved in this country. Studies have even concluded the stressful, violent and brutal traumas experienced over lifetimes of generations of enslaved people may even be pass down to there offspring.

Epigenetics, if one believes in that sorta thing, could lead to explaining why on top of current modern day racial based micro aggressions, bias and abuses of power things within the Black population as a whole in america are still broken. Neither political party is willing to address that.

Twins aren't genetically identical, even at birth. They begin separating from each other genetically when the zygote splits. Environmental factors determine how genes are expressed, and those factors are not identical. That makes twin studies a piss poor method of gene study. All it can tell you is how much the environment might effect their expression over time, and they aren't very good at even that.
http://learn.genetics.utah.edu/content/epigenetics/twins/

Now that genetic testing is cheap, we're finding out most identical twins aren't identical at all. Proper gene testing doesn't assume twins are identical clones for life, it actually disproved that hypothesis. The space study with twins showed that in under a year their genes permanently diverged a full 7% (with a larger temporary change initially that lowered as they returned to similar environments).
https://www.nasa.gov/feature/nasa-twins-study-confirms-preliminary-findings


I feel that people often misuse mistaken assumptions to validate their prejudices. If the science isn't clear and validated, using it against others is improper in the extreme.

Discriminating against people for their legal, culturally accepted, natural behavior makes the person doing the discriminating an asshole. Homosexuality is quite present in nature, is now culturally accepted in western cultures, and is legal. Tolerance is a learned behavior I wish was taught better, especially by churches.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

I see what you're saying, but I'm assuming they controlled for this in their research. Epigenetics is really interesting, as people used to think the germ line was untouchable.

So, the survivors of a famine (ie. the strongest ones) had strong children? There could be another explanation besides epigenetics...

Lamarckian inheritance has been a dirty word for a long time, but recently studies of DNA methylation and its role in epigenetic inheritance have, at least to some small degree, redeemed him

http://www.technologyreview.com/news/411880/a-comeback-for-lamarckian-evolution/

I appreciate your tone. I really do. I just wanted to leave you with some suggested google scholar searches. If you haven't already, check out the recent research in gametic or transgenerational epigenetic inheritance. It'll be really jargony and difficult to understand. One take home is that the gametic accessibility of genetic material for transcription has been shown to have reliable effects on the phenotype of progeny in animal models. Further, human studies have shown transgenerational effects on the adult weight of offspring in response to the diet of the mother during pregnancy and even in response starvation events dating back further generations (although the mechanism is not necessarily known).

Anyway, nice chat.

Dunno, @Stormsinger is suggesting it isn't a real thing, just some indignation over a perhaps mole hill event. TYT does do that kind of thing like all of us do, so it wouldn't be to shocking.

Personally, though, I would think homosexuality is a large enough "anomaly" to at least be worthy of mention to the person that is getting the sample. I don't know a thing at all about the sperm donation process, I assume some kind of profile is already given to people who accept the sperm, and homosexuality seems like a genuine attribute a person should know about before you accept it. To that end (anecdotal), I heard of a blind, lesbian couple that wanted to find a blind male sperm donor to inseminate one of them to increase to likelihood of a blind child. That is all just to say choice is always a good thing to have, and edifying choices require information and freedom to act. If the FDA was mandating sperm banks to provide a profile that includes homosexuality as a listed trait of the donor (which is what I thought this video was going to be about), that is one thing, but wholesale misunderstanding of the risks of spreading HIV as it was mistakenly understood as Gay-related immune deficiency seems so folly that I almost can't believe it is true. However, being that I produce sperm well enough on my own; my own desire to google if this was a story worthy of actual merit escapes my attention span.

>> ^swedishfriend:

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:
Hmmm when I read the title, I thought it was going to make at least some sense, like...since homosexuality might be genetic (though it could be epigenetic or in utero) to not allow that "anomaly" into the sperm bank. That makes at least some sense to me; this though is retarded. It makes me laugh when recollecting people wanting to put the FCC in charge of the internet...because this is the type of shit that would start happening. Perhaps not a fair comparison, but I think their respective track records are pretty similar.

It is genetic. Going with the notion that it is an anomaly, it isn't an anomaly that is medically unsafe in any way so why would it matter? If you get sperm from a clinic you must realize that there is a chance of at least some genes from the donor being expressed in the child. Are people staying away from sperm banks or are they lining up in droves?
So why FDA? who is asking for this? Business competition would lead to sperm banks with genetic controls if this is something people were clamoring for.

>> ^GeeSussFreeK:

Hmmm when I read the title, I thought it was going to make at least some sense, like...since homosexuality might be genetic (though it could be epigenetic or in utero) to not allow that "anomaly" into the sperm bank. That makes at least some sense to me; this though is retarded. It makes me laugh when recollecting people wanting to put the FCC in charge of the internet...because this is the type of shit that would start happening. Perhaps not a fair comparison, but I think their respective track records are pretty similar.


It is genetic. Going with the notion that it is an anomaly, it isn't an anomaly that is medically unsafe in any way so why would it matter? If you get sperm from a clinic you must realize that there is a chance of at least some genes from the donor being expressed in the child. Are people staying away from sperm banks or are they lining up in droves?

So why FDA? who is asking for this? Business competition would lead to sperm banks with genetic controls if this is something people were clamoring for.

Hmmm when I read the title, I thought it was going to make at least some sense, like...since homosexuality might be genetic (though it could be epigenetic or in utero) to not allow that "anomaly" into the sperm bank. That makes at least some sense to me; this though is retarded. It makes me laugh when recollecting people wanting to put the FCC in charge of the internet...because this is the type of shit that would start happening. Perhaps not a fair comparison, but I think their respective track records are pretty similar.

Epigenetics is fascinating and is changing the world's view on health! I have devouted my entire website to epigenetics and helping people improve their health through exercise, nutrition, their environment and the spiritual and social aspect of their life.

If we make wiser decisions we can go a long way in effecting the outcome of our health!

Thanks for sharing your video, I look forward to more posts and video's from you!

Cheers to your health!

RussEpigenetics and Nutrition

>> ^jonny:

Apparently, just the opposite is true, but your basic point is correct. The physical environments of the womb and early childhood have a huge impact on DNA expression through epigenetics.
>> ^ghark:
One example is when people make lifestyle decisions that lead to obesity - this physical transformation results in altered epigenetic tags, some of which will be passed on to their children. The children are paying the price for their parents mistakes in the form of increased fat accumulation which often leads to diabetes, obesity and other problems.


While there is evidence that undernutrition can lead to obesity in offspring (if that's what you meant), the research also seems to show that the same is true for other factors, such as the mother being obese e.g.
http://www.nature.com/ijo/journal/v33/n7/abs/ijo200976a.html
and
http://www.nature.com/oby/journal/v16/n3s/full/oby2008518a.html

That first research article found that the chance of a girl becoming obese was 10 times higher when the mother was obese, and 6 times higher for a boy when the father was obese. This wasn't true for opposite sex (e.g. mother-son) so that indicates that it's epigenetic rather than genetic causes. The second article suggests that in addition to epigenetics other factors are also involved such as abnormal neural development in the womb because of abnormal energy intake by the mother. Either way, the field of epigenetics is bloody fascinating and is going to be the source of some very major breakthroughs in the future.

I watched the vid you posted, there's some excellent science there so thanks for that link.

Apparently, just the opposite is true, but your basic point is correct. The physical environments of the womb and early childhood have a huge impact on DNA expression through epigenetics.

>> ^ghark:

One example is when people make lifestyle decisions that lead to obesity - this physical transformation results in altered epigenetic tags, some of which will be passed on to their children. The children are paying the price for their parents mistakes in the form of increased fat accumulation which often leads to diabetes, obesity and other problems.

The field of epigenetics is far, far more important than many people realise. It essentially means that every life decision you make can get passed on to your kids due to epigenetic inheritance.

One example is when people make lifestyle decisions that lead to obesity - this physical transformation results in altered epigenetic tags, some of which will be passed on to their children. The children are paying the price for their parents mistakes in the form of increased fat accumulation which often leads to diabetes, obesity and other problems.

Obesity is just one example however, it's also important to realise that how you treat your kids affects these methylation tags, and their behaviour later in life is partly to do with how these tags are laid down during developmental stages.

I think he was referring to Lamarckism - the idea the the acquired traits of an individual were passed on to their offspring (ie. the stretching of a giraffe's neck to reach higher branches caused it's neck to lengthen, which passed to the offspring resulting in longer and longer necks.)

After Darwin, Lamarckism lost ground continuously. It has only been in the last 50 years or so that we have begun to have hints that there is a small kernel of truth in it as evidenced by epigenetic phenomena.>> ^carneval:

>> ^L0cky:
The idea that the changes you make to your body will be passed on is a very old one, but since Darwin it's been pretty much ridiculed. For it to come back is pretty big stuff.

I don't think that it's been really ridiculed, epigenetic phenomena are accepted in the scientific community as very real, testable changes to the DNA and DNA packaging structures (histone acetylation/deacetylation, histone methylation, DNA methylation, etc).

>> ^L0cky:

The idea that the changes you make to your body will be passed on is a very old one, but since Darwin it's been pretty much ridiculed. For it to come back is pretty big stuff.


I don't think that it's been really ridiculed, epigenetic phenomena are accepted in the scientific community as very real, testable changes to the DNA and DNA packaging structures (histone acetylation/deacetylation, histone methylation, DNA methylation, etc).