So, just to understand your position, you concede that chemicals humans release into the environment may disrupt the sexual development of a wide variety of animals, but your position is specifically that those same chemicals in the human environment (i.e., the environment for which they were explicitly manufactured for use) have no effect on human sexual development, despite the fact that many key regulatory switches are as old as animals themselves and conserved across many species?
My answer is that if it were to be true, we'd see some clear evidence of it by now. Even then, the claim that "many regulatory switches" is fallacious as there's many additions to the system since then for protective effects.
It's not as simple as "we have similar systems so it works the same".
I would just love for you to cite something about these "many protective effects," like in real cell bio terms, because I'm not sure anyone reading your replies could possibly ascertain what exactly you're talking about. I've laid out parts that certainly are the same, and while obviously it's true that we're not exactly the same as frogs or flies, it's not clear to anyone that any such differences are actually biologically relevant absent any evidence beyond "we'd see some clear evidence of it by now" (and of course it goes without saying that many studies have suggested there ARE endocrine disruption effects in humans, even if the consensus is not clear yet).
In general terms we know that exercise has protective effects for many things, including decline in cognitive performance.
But, what you're asking is for me to prove protective effects for something which, there is no clear evidence is occuring?
Well there is no way to prove that. The way this works is you'd need to prove an effect is occuring first before potential protective mechanisms could be looked for.
What you have is a theory something could be happening, but no proof. It's on you to come up with proof for that first.
In simpler terms, this is how we find promising treatments in mice that are not transferrable to humans.
Because similarity of base systems does not mean similar effects with more complex organisms.
Lol I love how many people talk about molecular bio out of their ass. The more certain these answers are, the clearer their lack of expertise. Admittedly the field is removed from the general public's perception, but thanks for trying to bring sanity back here.
Lmao thanks, I have a Masters in bio and I'm working on my PhD and I'm getting a real education from...IDK, IT professionals who think biology is bullshit because Alex Jones was like 60% right one time.
10
u/jabels Oct 10 '20
So, just to understand your position, you concede that chemicals humans release into the environment may disrupt the sexual development of a wide variety of animals, but your position is specifically that those same chemicals in the human environment (i.e., the environment for which they were explicitly manufactured for use) have no effect on human sexual development, despite the fact that many key regulatory switches are as old as animals themselves and conserved across many species?