4 ms·
I don't think it was necessary to imply ignorance of other people. Your loosely-worded comment hinted at misunderstanding, and was potentially misleading for pe
by sambe 10y ago
I don't think it was necessary to imply ignorance of other people. Your loosely-worded comment hinted at misunderstanding, and was potentially misleading for people who do not know much about the subject.
Wikipedia correctly points out that some of the terminology and the extent of heritability is contentious. It has references in proper journals to read further about such debate if people wish to. Linking to that as a starting point does not imply this being the extent of someone's knowledge, especially when they offer other sources.
If you are perturbed that your own knowledge has been underestimated, maybe try to assume the best of others?
- Declanomous 10y agoTo be fair, I was rather explicit in my claim of ignorance. You were the one who implied that I was ignorant. I carefully chose my words to avoid jargon, but my comment was completely unambiguous. I did not state that the epigenetic code was being inherited at any point. I'm rather certain of this, because I do not believe the epigenome is inhereted. Regardless, my use of the term "epigenetic code" is consistent with the definition on wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epigenetic_code https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Epigenetic_code
- sambe 10y agoYou are being deliberately impolite in almost every comment in this thread, whilst also aggressively demanding respect from others. I didn't understand what you meant, which is why I asked for clarification. Not being familiar with that term/usage made it look possible that you were yourself misunderstanding. It turns out that's not the case. I don't think my comments were incorrect or rude, so please try to keep the discussion civil.