Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Evidence suggests women's ovaries can grow new eggs

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 57 posts

Re: Evidence suggests women's ovaries can grow new eggs

#41

Post by kevinnk »

acaciapalm wrote: post #35
kevinnk wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That study showed a "link" (i.e. correlation) between hormonal contraception and first diagnosis of depression or use of antidepressants. That's not the same as showing the pill causes depression! Even the study authors explicitly say that more study is needed before we can definitively say there is cause and effect.

It's difficult to truly prove, but many women have noticed this and complained about it. It is only now that they are finally actually looking in to the possibility. I find it incredibly ironic that people take it as a given that women's hormones might affect moods (PMS, anyone?), but then brush off women's concerns that taking large doses of female hormones might --in fact!-- have an affect on mood.

To be clear, I'm not denying the possibility that hormonal birth control can cause depression or that many women experience problems while on it (I've heard similar complaints to what you're describing). What I'm commenting on is your misrepresentation of what the study is "proving".

Re: Evidence suggests women's ovaries can grow new eggs

#42

Post by ghurtado »

oldmanjay wrote: post #31
hashberry wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

4. Consciousness wasn't supposed to happen as living organisms do not need it to survive and reproduce. But since humans are so successful: "It's a feature, not a bug!"

What does "supposed to happen" mean in the context of evolution?

I believe what was meant was "not selected for".

However, this could well be argued at length: human consciousness has clearly played a big role in humans becoming the dominant species in the planet.

Re: Evidence suggests women's ovaries can grow new eggs

#43

Post by acaciapalm »

kevinnk wrote: post #41
acaciapalm wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's difficult to truly prove, but many women have noticed this and complained about it. It is only now that they are finally actually looking in to the possibility. I find it incredibly ironic that people take it as a given that women's hormones might affect moods (PMS, anyone?), but then brush off women's concerns that taking large doses of female hormones might --in fact!-- have an affect on mood.

To be clear, I'm not denying the possibility that hormonal birth control can cause depression or that many women experience problems while on it (I've heard similar complaints to what you're describing). What I'm commenting on is your misrepresentation of what the study is "proving".

I used the word "show" not "prove" for that reason. Point taken though: in the future, I will use "showed a link" or "found correlation".

I am really very careful not to use the word "proved" for the same concerns you have.

Re: Evidence suggests women's ovaries can grow new eggs

#44

Post by mjevans »

hashberry wrote: post #26
hacker_9 wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have three possible theories for this: 1. Evolution saw no need for it; knowing how our eye's classify light signals into objects and figure out depth etc are not important to survival. What is important is knowing exactly if you are looking at a predator as soon as possible. 2. Too much data for consciousness to handle; There is something like 1 million connections between each eye and the brain alone. Then there…

4. Consciousness wasn't supposed to happen as living organisms do not need it to survive and reproduce. But since humans are so successful: "It's a feature, not a bug!"

My personal belief is that evolution moved from the slowly iterating biological cycle to a much more rapid external augmentation cycle.

We moved to evolving tools that augment our other natural capabilities when it became faster and more effective to focus on making better tools than better humans.

Re: Evidence suggests women's ovaries can grow new eggs

#45

Post by mjevans »

nnq wrote: post #21
bordercases wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I wonder why we don't have several conscious thoughts at once.

My theory is that we can have several conscious thoughts at once but most of us suppress this most of the time because without a clear "winner thought" that gets the attention and gets to decide what reality is and gets to control the body, you'd end up with what people with schitzophrenia or other psychoses have... I'd also bet that the first "human-type & human-level" AI will be quire insane by human standards at l…

I like the term from the Halo series for that kind of AI: 'rampant' / 'rampancy'. It's sort of like having a terrible 2-year-old that happens to be inside of a virtual world, on the internet, thinking at super-human speed.

We should probably make that internet uplink mostly mirror-down libraries only.

Re: Evidence suggests women's ovaries can grow new eggs

#46

Post by sambe »

Declanomous wrote: post #29
sambe wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What do you mean by "epigenetic code"? Epigenetic means not encoded in DNA. Heritability is hotly debated (and anything positive in that area tends to be overstated in the media). Wiki has a few links on contested terms and taking caution vs enthusiasm of eg Chopra. There have also been several stories like this http://epgntxeinstein.tumblr.com/post/127416455028/over-inte... over the last months.

I realize epigenetic traits are not encoded in DNA. It's perfectly acceptable to use the term code to refer to an epigenetic "configuration". I didn't point out this fact because I figured the people reading Hacker News probably know that things can be encoded without using DNA, and I felt the distinction was needlessly pedantic. I recognize the limited scope of epigenetics, however epigenetics do play a significant…

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?

Re: Evidence suggests women's ovaries can grow new eggs

#47

Post by Declanomous »

photogrammetry wrote: post #38
Declanomous wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I realize epigenetic traits are not encoded in DNA. It's perfectly acceptable to use the term code to refer to an epigenetic "configuration". I didn't point out this fact because I figured the people reading Hacker News probably know that things can be encoded without using DNA, and I felt the distinction was needlessly pedantic. I recognize the limited scope of epigenetics, however epigenetics do play a significant…

They are encoded in DNA. They are patterns in the physical structure of DNA beyond the raw A,T,G,C etc. Please be accurate in HN comments, and don't oversimplify for 'clarity' or 'readability,' especially for a topic as complex as the heritability of epigenetic traits. Additionally, Wikipedia [0] is a quite satisfactory source for information on epigenetics. Your casual dismissal of it suggests that you don't even kn…

Is this a smurf account? Why is this your first comment on a two day old account?

My dismissal of the article was calculated, rather than casual. I read the Wikipedia page before commenting. That article, like many articles on Wikipedia, provides a great overview of the topic. However, it isn't a substitute for an actual education in the field. I stand by my claim that being able to read Wikipedia puts you on about the same level as the average media correspondent.

I'd appreciate if you didn't insult me. You and the other comment I replied to are clearly over-estimating your knowledge, especially regarding terminology. Nowhere did I simplify anything for clarity or readability. I deliberately chose not to use jargon for readability, however my comment would have been clear and unambiguous to another biologist.

Both of your comments were based on a pedantic reading of my comment that a trained biologist never would have made. Yes, the parts that make the epigenome are coded in DNA. However, the epigenome is not part of the genome. If I say "epigentic code" I'm specifically referring to the part of gene expression controlled by the epigenome. I'm not referring to the bits that end up making the epigenome (such as histones, etc) that end up making the parts of the epigenome. You each chose an incorrect interpretation in each case, when the alternative was perfectly obvious and correct.

Re: Evidence suggests women's ovaries can grow new eggs

#48

Post by Declanomous »

sambe wrote: post #46
Declanomous wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I realize epigenetic traits are not encoded in DNA. It's perfectly acceptable to use the term code to refer to an epigenetic "configuration". I didn't point out this fact because I figured the people reading Hacker News probably know that things can be encoded without using DNA, and I felt the distinction was needlessly pedantic. I recognize the limited scope of epigenetics, however epigenetics do play a significant…

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…

To 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

Re: Evidence suggests women's ovaries can grow new eggs

#50

Post by sambe »

Declanomous wrote: post #48
sambe wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

To 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…

You 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.

Post reply on HN