Implications of DNA from sperm staying in past partners- DEBATE! | INFJ Forum

Implications of DNA from sperm staying in past partners- DEBATE!

jupiterswoon

Permanent Fixture
Mar 30, 2012
967
180
587
MBTI
ISFP
Enneagram
3
http://www.medicaldaily.com/dna-spe...-and-influences-genetics-her-offspring-305934

When a woman breaks up with a man, she usually wants every remnant of him removed from her life. A new study suggests that, try as she might, there may be one last piece of him that she’s stuck with for good: his DNA. A study from Australia has managed to prove that fly offspring are able to resemble a mother’s previous sexual partner, even when conceived with their father’s sperm.

The idea of telegony, or previous mates influencing a woman’s offspring, has been around for centuries. It was first proposed by the Greek philosopher Aristotle and was accepted as science until the early 1900s when it was disproved and replaced by more modern genetic theory, according to the study's press release. Unfortunately, the theory was largely used as a fear tactic to prevent women from copulating with different races or lower classes, but the study suggests the theory may have some elements of truth – for flies, at least.

To test the age old theory of telegony, the researchers manipulated male flies to grow to a certain height by changing the amount of nutrients in their diet. They then mated immature females with either large or small males. Later on, the now mature females were again mated with males of various sizes. The subsequent offspring were then studied, and what researchers observed was quite remarkable.

"We found that even though the second male sired the offspring, offspring size was determined by what the mother's previous mating partner ate as a maggot,” Dr. Angela Crean, led researcher on the project, explained in the press release. "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.”

The researchers are not yet sure about why this phenomenon occurs but believe it may be due to molecules in the seminal fluid of the first mate being absorbed by the female’s immature eggs and then influencing the growth of offspring of a later mate. This finding only adds to the already complicated field of genetics. Scientists are only just beginning to grasp the concept that offspring genetics are influenced by non-genetic factors, such as their parent’s diet. “Our new findings take this to a whole new level,” Crean said.

Does this mean that promiscuity might be more desirable, because then the woman will have more varied genes to pass on to her children? This could be revolutionary!!

I would like to know what men and women think about this topic. Most of the women I've talked to have been fascinated, and the men, disinterested....
 
....Have ALL the babies?
 
wow, so in theory a baby may genetically be a blend of other DNA, besides the couple. Maybe this explains why children don't always look like their parents. So, sounds like another reason why unprotected sex with multiple partners may not be such a good idea.
 
I totally can see insecure men going possessive and like, demanding virginity so that the child is 'completely his' and then going nuts when she's not..
 
I look at it the exact opposite, that promiscuity would be more desireable. Ultimately, all of my friends have responded in varying ways- the women thinking this is super cool, and the guys not being particularly interested. Ultimately, it would just be minor traits, the dna would still reveal the "true" father. But could ideas like this make monogamy more of a thing of the past, and parenting more communal?
 
This might also be a function of changing RNA based on environment, at least if the phenomena happen in humans too. IIRC, the idea that a person's DNA stays the same throughout their lifetime has been disproven.
 
wow, so in theory a baby may genetically be a blend of other DNA, besides the couple.

Recessive genes from family lines too, but it's interesting to think about.
 
The study with flies fails to change the DNA of the male fly.
They're given different nutrients, but their DNA is still the same or at least not the test factor.
Also I currently cannot imagine how remaining DNA of partner would somehow influence the child as genetic factor. The spermcells die within days.

All of this, thus, couldn't be about the genetic factors.

The non-genetic factors remain.
Maybe some metaphysical link between those few sperm molecules and the previous partner.
Somehow the fetus obtains the sperm molecules? That seems weird.
Does the previous partner affect the mother in such a way (hormone changes during sex and intimacy), that this effect in turn affects the child?


-------------------------------------
Edit: Actually read the articles now.

FYI, the article is stupid. It starts with:
When a woman breaks up with a man, she usually wants every remnant of him removed from her life. A new study suggests that, try as she might, there may be one last piece of him that she’s stuck with for good: his DNA.
Though the press release of the actual study states this:
Scientists have discovered a new form of non-genetic inheritance, showing for the first time that offspring can resemble a mother's previous sexual partner – in flies at least.
So, yeah. Non-genetic.

It's not about the DNA.


The article gives a possible explanation:
The researchers propose that the effect is due to molecules in the seminal fluid of the first mate being absorbed by the female's immature eggs and then influencing the growth of offspring of a subsequent mate.
So molecules. Probably just H2O, water, or possibly some protein that are common in many bodily fluids. The molecules aren't as individualised as DNA is. Thus storing any information in them is going to be hard. A metaphysical bond between the molecule and the previous partner could explain it.

Otherwise some proteins could be more numerous in sperm of big flies. Lot of nutrients -> bigger child. For this to work, the actual conception cannot be very long after the first non-conception intercourse, otherwise the sheer presence of the proteins would dwindle and the effect wouldn't work. This would work for the flies as the eggs in the female are already growing. For humans this doesn't work as the spermfluids don't reach the egg cell.
 
Last edited:
I totally can see insecure men going possessive and like, demanding virginity so that the child is 'completely his' and then going nuts when she's not..

Why are these men insecure to you?
 
From me briefly reading the op, it seems like we'd have to test it on humans by molesting girls, then having them get pregnant after they are mature. Gross.
 
I totally can see insecure men going possessive and like, demanding virginity so that the child is 'completely his' and then going nuts when she's not..

Consider the possibility of negative traits being thrown into the mix. What if the child inherits a genetic disease because of the first guy?
 
Telostylinus angusticolli and Homo Sapiens spermatozoa are completely different in many ways (viability, size, genome size, amount of sperm per mL, and actual composition). The important thing is not the genetic material (as @Erlian mentioned above). The actual article never even mentions our species. To make conclusions about Human DNA residuals and how it affects future offspring we would need to test this in Humans (which probably isn't happening anytime soon).
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: muir and invisible
From me briefly reading the op, it seems like we'd have to test it on humans by molesting girls, then having them get pregnant after they are mature. Gross.

What?
 
Consider the possibility of negative traits being thrown into the mix. What if the child inherits a genetic disease because of the first guy?

I think only the strongest genes would be passed on, or at least that was my theory.
 
Why are these men insecure to you?
Too much control. How much we can control our partner's life? Who they've been with, who they fucked?
and also, because this is different than presumptions of unfaithfulness or extramarital affair.

Assuming this is true in humans..
Having outside influences does not mean bad, after all. It's just that if true, some not quantified elements of it were not yours or your partner's.
But there's no way to know until people actually have babies, I think?

I admit it might have been a projection of mine, as I have quite a fragile ego myself and a tendency to be VERY paranoid of what people may hide, not to mention being very possessive.
Or maybe it speaks of a stereotype of a fragile ego, for me. I can see the ability to provide children biologically as a form of traditional masculinity.
Then -usually- it will affect the sort of people who will question their worth as a man (then as an individual, then as a human being) if their masculinity is threatened.
But I won't be pregnant and/or made someone pregnant, god bless, so I won't know exactly.

Consider the possibility of negative traits being thrown into the mix. What if the child inherits a genetic disease because of the first guy?
But this, I admit I haven't considered, and an interesting factor to note, as far as genetic diseases were concerned.
 
I don;t think this effect much effect on human reproduction. First of all, just to repeat this, this finding was NOT based in DNA. The hypothesis is that various nutrients that a male receives in early life makes their way into his seminal fluid. These nutrients then make their way into the females eggs, providing those eggs with the same nutrients. The composition of these nutrients somehow influences the development of offspring, making the effect detectable.

I think the point being forgotten is that these are flies, and their life span ranges from 20-40 DAYS. The period of time between larval eating and reproduction is maybe a week. So basically, these nutrients have to hang around in the female ovum for a few days.

If a human female has sex with one man, then a day or two later has sex with another man, and a few weeks later discovers she's pregnant, there's going to be confusion over who the father is anyway. PLUS the nutrients available in the seminal fluid from either partner are still going to linger for a few days anyway, so it will only influence the development of the blastula. I sincerely doubt this find will have much if any bearing on our understanding of human reproduction.