Agreed. There's something about the gestational phase, aka nanotechnological self-assembly, that surely requires at least a few lines of code(!) and which otherwise is never used again -- until passed on to the next generation. Probably a good bet that the "repetitive elements" are accumulated lines of code for all successive phases of fetal development, from single-celled organism to two, to four, etc until all echoes of evolution are replayed and the present species emerges. "Junk," indeed.

Postage price increases over the past hundred years generally match inflation to within a couple percentage points. So agreed: it's a very low price for an impressive and efficient service.

Relevant study: living within 1 mile of a golf course, or relying on groundwater affected by them, significantly increases Parkinson's risk over time.

https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle...

Conversational or otherwise, you keep saying it's inheritable but these "ADHD genes" are only correlated with increased risk, not predictability. That's key, because one is nature, the other nurture.

Also, proving a correlation doesn't necessarily mean it's exclusively, automatically the only variable. That's the tricky bit with confounding variables: they could be one of several, or many, correlative effects, and where none could be the cause -- much less a useful avenue of solution. It's helpful, but not conclusive.

Great, we found some genes. But other studies should also look at psychotherapy, or even diaphragmatic breathing (asthma is another great example). Alternative analysis, i.e. anything other than the most lucrative option for pharmas to sell drugs -- as in, alternative solutions that are closer to the root cause, not just the most complicated.

There's definitely a moral aspect / undertone here (similar to many other topics).

I think also, disputes like this suffer from a double red herring of sorts, where folks argue past each other and confuse "whether a solution has efficacy" vs. "is there an alternate solution closer to the root cause that renders the initial problem moot".

In this case, "whether ADHD meds work" is a separate topic vs. "could most ADHD cases just be childhood anxiety, or mitigated with therapy, etc". Or diabetes: "$20B+ industry for insulin to lower blood sugar," vs. "why not just consume less sugar in the first place". Could it be that we're all be so busy trying to find solutions to a problem that itself is optional?