Thanks. "Also, injection of the epididymal small RNAs into the embryos is apparently sufficient to rescue it from abortion" From my point of view at least, th

Thanks. "Also, injection of the epididymal small RNAs into the embryos is apparently sufficient to rescue it from abortion" From my point of view at least, this is still "genetics": tomato, tomatho, RNA, DNA. RNA has just one "building block" (and there are many of the same in each) different than DNA: no thymine but uracil. Because something is in RNA and not in DNA it's not by magic "not genetic." It's all the part of the same complex mechanism of carrying the genetic information using some complex molecules, all based on the same principle. It's just that the mechanism is more complex than some obviously unsubstantiated simplification. Whoever ever tried to see how it actually looks like knows how complex that is: https://youtu.be/DfB8vQokr0Q?t=193 https://youtu.be/DfB8vQokr0Q?t=193 The "life" building blocks are mind-bogglingly complex to whoever expects something where 3D forms and small differences and immense parallelization don't work at the same time in astounding number of instances (e.g. a single human body has some 37 trillion of cells.. all made from a single one!). Moreover without the different "gene expression" mechanisms doing their job there would never be any multi-cellular life, there would be neither me nor you: every multi cellular being starts from only one instance of the "program" yet the cells develop with different functions in every multi cellular body (and all these cells still contain the same program, until some mutation happens in some of them). So there is a fundamental mechanism that allows for the same "program" to behave differently a the different moments and with the different environment, even when the "environment" means the "different neighbor cells." Not to mention that what starts the new being is never just the lone DNA (which would simply not survive alone) but the fertilized cell containing all the mechanisms around that DNA (including RNA and a lot of other stuff... the whole "factories," "supply roads," "transport vehicles", "power centrals" etc, to use the equivalent words we are familiar with. A lot of these mechanisms are provided by the mother, but why should we be surprised that some are from the father too, carried with the sperm cell? We see them there. These mechanisms are all the part of the process, it's nothing "more" than it is, and it was there since the life as we know it exists. And the (from my understanding still misleading) title about which I asked was that claim that somehow something was "passed on" that is "more than genetics". In short, it appears to me to be an example of https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/No_true_Scotsman "No true Scotsman fallacy" when somebody redefines some term "by changing the definition in an ad hoc fashion to exclude" what he wants to present as an "counterexample."