You know how I knew you'd be wrong before having done any research on this? Because biology is almost always rational. Everything works the way it does for a reason (usually more than one). If biologists claim the opposite (as they often do) it's almost always because they are ignorant of the reasons. Biologists are taught to be very arrogant and assume that they understand how things work but they hardly ever do. Most biologists can't recognize patterns in nature to save their life so they never grasp basic principles like the one I just explained.
I definitely did. Like this part: "These results confirm that DNA damage, even in prepared sperm, is associated with adverse semen quality." Did you read at all?
Sir, do you understand the difference between SPERM and SEMEN?
Semen quality is just a measure of the volume and mobility of the sperm in it.
Yes, semen containing sperm with damaged DNA would result in either less volume of cells, less activity in the cells, or both. This would lower the quality of the semen.
You forgot sperm morphology, although they didn't look at that in this paper. What they did look as part of semen quality were sperm concentration, motility and progressive motility. These are all characteristics of the sperm, and they use "sperm quality" interchangeably with "semen quality". So it's disingenuous of you to split hairs over the difference between sperm and semen. The paper concludes that sperm DNA damage is correlated with low visible sperm quality, contrary to Cato's uninformed claim that you are attempting to argue for.
Wrong: https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.1080/14647273.2024.2442450
You know how I knew you'd be wrong before having done any research on this? Because biology is almost always rational. Everything works the way it does for a reason (usually more than one). If biologists claim the opposite (as they often do) it's almost always because they are ignorant of the reasons. Biologists are taught to be very arrogant and assume that they understand how things work but they hardly ever do. Most biologists can't recognize patterns in nature to save their life so they never grasp basic principles like the one I just explained.
You didn't even read the abstract of the paper you linked.
I definitely did. Like this part: "These results confirm that DNA damage, even in prepared sperm, is associated with adverse semen quality." Did you read at all?
Sir, do you understand the difference between SPERM and SEMEN?
Semen quality is just a measure of the volume and mobility of the sperm in it.
Yes, semen containing sperm with damaged DNA would result in either less volume of cells, less activity in the cells, or both. This would lower the quality of the semen.
You forgot sperm morphology, although they didn't look at that in this paper. What they did look as part of semen quality were sperm concentration, motility and progressive motility. These are all characteristics of the sperm, and they use "sperm quality" interchangeably with "semen quality". So it's disingenuous of you to split hairs over the difference between sperm and semen. The paper concludes that sperm DNA damage is correlated with low visible sperm quality, contrary to Cato's uninformed claim that you are attempting to argue for.