Can a child carry the genetic information of his mother’s previous partners?
I’ve wanted to write about this for a long time, and then an opportunity came up. A friend asked a question: “Is it true that people really believe that the first man’s MATRIX is preserved in a newborn?” Of course, this sounds unequivocally absurd. What is this “matrix”? Why specifically the first man? And overall, what nonsense? On one hand, yes. But on the other… Genetics is not such a thoroughly studied field. There’s a lot of surprising stuff in it.
I personally have seen many cases where children were born into families who were completely dissimilar to their parents, and it was guaranteed that they were the children of these parents, the mother definitely didn’t play any games there. Why does this happen? Sometimes it happens when somewhere among distant ancestors someone had such unusual appearance – and then it emerges. But sometimes the cases are very characteristic: for example, a woman is petite, slim, dark-skinned, with a hooked nose, black hair, in short, all “witchy.”
But the mother and father are of Russian appearance, tall, fair-skinned, with light eyes. And suddenly, such an Eastern-looking “clump” pops out. It’s known that in the family, for several generations, everyone was purely Russian, no Eastern ancestry there in the great-grandparents or great-great-grandparents. From a genetic point of view, “dark” (or as she called it, “Eastern”) genes are dominant, so at least one of the parents should have had them as physical characteristics. But no. And the mother was definitely faithful to her husband.
There is a perfectly reasonable genetic theory that easily explains this phenomenon. The thing is, when a woman has sex without a condom, the sperm (saturated with genetic information) is partially expelled from the body, and partially absorbed into the tissues. Why do married women – naturally slender and even skinny by nature – often start to “gain” butt and thighs? Because they are literally constantly “fertilized” with a very potent protein nectar, which contains an aggressive amount of genetic information.
If you notice, “passive” gays often also have quite well-developed butts and/or thighs/legs in the upper part and lower abdomen. In other words, they seem to become slightly thicker in these areas. This is exactly it – fertilization.
Therefore, it wouldn’t be surprising if the walls of the uterus could somehow “preserve” the genetic information of those men, whose sperm actively fertilized the bodies of their women. Of course, it’s unlikely from just one or two times. I think it should be very active “fertilization”. And considering that the cellular composition completely changes over several years (about seven), then this fertilization, theoretically, should precede conception.
That is, the genetic information from “ancient” fertilizers probably can be “washed out” of the body during cell renewal. But this is also an unstudied fact; it’s not excluded that somehow this information is preserved, I’ve read several articles that genetic information from many centuries can be preserved in us, and when one man actively and regularly fills a woman with his genetic code over a long period of time, well, this information can’t just evaporate.
Theoretically, it’s not surprising if a child is born from a womb that, for the last few years, has been literally overflowing with genetic code of someone who isn’t the father, thus carrying this “other” genetic code. Maybe, this is also possible? I’m not saying it’s a scientific fact; it’s just a theory. But we know so little about genetics that it’s entirely possible that it could be turned into a proven fact. At least it makes sense.
And consequently (not provable, but not as crazy anymore) – a child can somehow be subject to the influence of the genetic information of all the men with whom a woman had unprotected sex.
It’s intriguing to consider the potential influence of viruses, even the smallest organisms, on our body’s chemistry. I recall a moment when I assisted a friend who had chickenpox, a virus to which I was immune. While tending to his vesicles, he unexpectedly burst into tears—an extremely unusual reaction for him, given his typically low emotional disposition. Could this sudden emotional outburst have been linked to a chemical imbalance caused by viral activity?
If so, might such effects be more prolonged, potentially altering our basic chemistry? While it’s speculative to suggest that viruses could directly affect our DNA, and there’s no specific research supporting this notion, it’s also true that there’s no definitive evidence disproving it. Thus, while we must approach such hypotheses with caution, it’s worth considering the potential impact viruses may have on our physiological and emotional well-being.
Here’s another link, roughly on the topic, although not quite, but… “Grandma’s Experiences Leave a Mark on Your Genes” – if even “experience” is preserved and affects us, then why wouldn’t the direct impact of a substance saturated with genetic information on the tissues, from which we received nutrients, affect our genetic background?
It is essential to approach such theories with skepticism and critical thinking, as they lack empirical support and are based on anecdotal observations. While the article offers an intriguing perspective on the potential complexities of genetic inheritance, it is not grounded in established scientific evidence and should be regarded as speculative rather than factual. Always consult reputable scientific sources for accurate information on genetic inheritance and related topics.
No responses yet