re: Telegony: your kids aren’t 100% yours. They are partially her ex’s

quote:

---

Yeah, love how science of the day is so sure of itself as it makes updates every generation.

---

Uh...well...that's kind of how science works.

What bothers you most about it?

quote:

---

Uh...well...that's kind of how science works.

---

unless it's COVID or tranny related - which is 100% accurate at whatever state it exists in any given moment.

quote:

---

What bothers you most about it?

---

Firstly, there is absolutely no evidence of telegony in humans or even mammalian species. Even in cases of microchimerism, it is due to the passage of fetal cell lineages with the mother, not due to some DNA from a former partner who is not the father of that fetus.

Lastly, the physiology at play shows us that it is exceedingly improbably in humans. First, on contact between spermatozoa and fluids of the female genital tract, those fluids wash way the inhibitory factors that suppress sperm in the male genital ducts. Second, once entering the female genital tract, those spermatozoa lose the reserve of free-floating cholesterol vesicles which strengthen the acrosome. As they swim toward the uterine cavity, that excess cholesterol is lost, exposing sperm, which are coated with alkaline fluid from the seminal vesicles and the prostate gland, to the extremely acidic secretions of the female genital tract. Due to these reasons, the maximal lifespan of sperm in the female genital tract is 48 hours.

Without a very distinct biochemical process in place, the notion that random DNA is just implanted in human females is nonsensical. The sheer presence of such DNA (or rather, DNA fragments) alone would cause an immune cascade.

On its face, without a very specific mechanism in mind (which hasn't been proposed in humans), telegony is squarely in the category of nonsense.

quote:

---

It doesn’t function as well from the female side, considering that males can sire as many offspring as possible while females can generally have only one every 1.5 to 2 years.

---

It does function well. Human females, unlike other mammals, have a menses period rather than an estrus period. That broadens the period by which they can become pregnant significantly and since there are no anatomical or physiologic limitations to ensure one-pair mating, the same pressures apply to both women and men. Since human genetic profiles are very robust, it is extremely difficult to detect what genes are most appropriate for an environment.

In such scenarios as the evolution of human ancestors, we can know a couple of things. First, due to the sheer adaptability of humans to a wide variety of climates, those ancestors must have had at least some exposure to the same degree of climate variation.

Secondly, environmental factors were always in flux, especially before civilization, and thus a wide selection strategy for both females and males would be the best strategy in that situation. The paternity issues in anthropological terms are complicated, as we see a wide variety of societal structures, many with female fertility as the centerpiece of spiritual ceremonies, but generally paternity issues became a problem after the Neolithic Revolution. In tribal structures, specific parentage is less important because everyone in the tribe is vaguely (or less vaguely) related.

We also know that human ancestors were employing wide selection strategies due to the shape of the human penis. It is longer than other primates due to the fact we are bipedal, and because of that, female genital openings moved forward. The scoop shape implies that male human ancestors were mating with women shortly after those women mated with other males, as the shape of the penis allowed for semen displacement.

quote:

---

Evolutionary biology would suggest that the ability to absorb “attractive traits” to pass those to “not their offspring” would be a benefit, no?

---

What? Genes do not operate as distinct units. 'Attractive traits' are the result of several genetic and epigenetic elements interacting with one another. And what was successful in one environment doesn't ensure success in another environment.

You get the same effect, in essence, through wide sexual strategies, because it isn't as though the fact you have a child with one partner with certain characteristics precludes you from having a child with another partner with different characteristics. That could occur several times within one woman's lifetime. And again, because of the tribal structure of early human ancestors, there was no real issue related to abandonment.

the teachers pushing LBTQXYZ+ and IED programs onto students love this article!

quote:

---

Thats not good

---

For folks who have wives that get around, agreed.