Re: Differences in the Sexes
- From: "Scooter the Mighty" <Greyguy3@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 26 Aug 2005 14:33:47 -0700
Cyde Weys wrote:
> Scooter the Mighty wrote:
> > Cyde Weys wrote:
> > > wade.hines@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
> > > > Cyde Weys wrote:
> > > > > This seems to make a lot of sense to me. Personal experience dictates
> > > > > to me that a horny female will never have problems finding sex. Now
> > > > > horny male geeks (not that I speak from experience) find it very hard
> > > > > to obtain sex. Gender equality my ass. That's why we get to make more
> > > > > money, at least.
> > > >
> > > > That or it's tripe. An alternative bit of rationalization goes
> > > > that if females have a probability to reproduce of 1 then there is
> > > > less selective pressure and they will exhibit a wider degree of
> > > > traits than males who are competing for an optimal state, those
> > > > who are in the tails of the distribution don't mate and this
> > > > tightens the distribution.
> > >
> > > No, one tail is unsuccessful, but the other tail is extraordinarily
> > > sucessful (think playboys), which would tend to lead to a wider
> > > variation of traits.
> >
> > I don't see how men can evolve in notably different ways than women.
> > There really isn't all that much genetic difference between the
> > genders.
>
> Men can evolve separately from women because they have genes on their Y
> chromosome that women simply don't have.
True, but it's been sequenced and as far as I know (which is admittedly
not very far) there wasn't much on there except testis determining
factor and male pattern baldness.
> The extreme of this is in
> some exotic kind of ant where both male and female reproduce by cloning
> and it appears that they are not even able to reproduce with each other
> anymore!
That would be different than humans then.
> So the males and the females actually became separate
> species, but they are in a beneficial relationship with each other and
> wouldn't survive on their own.
>
> > It also seems to me that if the high end of the curve were
> > extraordinary successful at reproduction, the second generation would
> > tend to resemble the high end of the curve and not be varied, doesn't
> > it? If, for example, all the smart guys had more kids, their kids
> > would be smart, not widely varying from dumb to smart.
>
> If you look at other places in the animal kingdom there are huge
> differences between the genders.
Yes, but there are also wider genetic differences too.
> I don't seem it unreasonable at all
> that there could be some gene on the Y chromosome that affects
> intelligence. And if all the smart guys had more kids, and the
> smartness was linked to their Y chromosome, their boys might be smart
> while their girls would still be normal.
Right, but you wouldn't expect the next generation of boys to be widely
varied, since you had strong selection towards one end of the scale.
> And the gene most likely doesn't code for "smart" - it codes for higher variability in neuronal
> linkage. This gives the capability of extremely smart offspring
> provided the right nurturing and education, but it could also result in
> an extremely dumb kid.
That sounds suspiciously like making stuff up.
.
- References:
- Differences in the Sexes
- From: Cyde Weys
- Re: Differences in the Sexes
- From: wade.hines@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
- Re: Differences in the Sexes
- From: Cyde Weys
- Re: Differences in the Sexes
- From: Scooter the Mighty
- Re: Differences in the Sexes
- From: Cyde Weys
- Differences in the Sexes
- Prev by Date: Re: Darwinism is "just like gravity or somethin'..."
- Next by Date: Re: Darwinism is "just like gravity or somethin'..."
- Previous by thread: Re: Differences in the Sexes
- Next by thread: Re: Differences in the Sexes
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|