NationStates Jolt Archive

There are about as many males as females among humans and I think all mammals and most other animals too. To me it seems propagation would be more efficient with a lot more females and only a few males to get the females pregnant. Way back when I asked mom why I got the religious answer "Because a family is supposed to be 1 man, 1 woman and their children.". Way back in school I got the scientific answer to how, x and y chromosomes. I also got the answer to why mixing in genes from a male is better than having only females who just produce clones, diversity. But what is the scientific answer to why propagation is the most efficient when there are equal numbers of males and females so only half the population can give birth or lay eggs?

Also why is it different for chickens, if it's so good to have as many males as females why are there a dozen hens per cock and how does their chromosomes yield that ratio?

Because as a species we got it wrong.

Yes, or you start getting really inbred populations. Look at the royal families of Europe. Or the Isle of Wight.

Why, are you dreaming of getting your own harem?

Yes, or you start getting really inbred populations. Look at the royal families of Europe. Or the Isle of Wight.

It would be easy to do. Take the current gender ratio in China and flip it to make the men the smaller population and you get the ratio needed to achieve the OP.

Yes, or you start getting really inbred populations. Look at the royal families of Europe. Or the Isle of Wight.

A-zing!

It would be easy to do. Take the current gender ratio in China and flip it to make the men the smaller population and you get the ratio needed to achieve the OP.
Err how do you actually, feasibly benefit from doing this, though?

Seriously, the world has lots of hungry, hungry people in it. More people is basically a waste of time, also resources.

There are about as many males as females among humans and I think all mammals and most other animals too. To me it seems propagation would be more efficient with a lot more females and only a few males to get the females pregnant. Way back when I asked mom why I got the religious answer "Because a family is supposed to be 1 man, 1 woman and their children.". Way back in school I got the scientific answer to how, x and y chromosomes. I also got the answer to why mixing in genes from a male is better than having only females who just produce clones, diversity. But what is the scientific answer to why propagation is the most efficient when there are equal numbers of males and females so only half the population can give birth or lay eggs?

Also why is it different for chickens, if it's so good to have as many males as females why are there a dozen hens per cock and how does their chromosomes yield that ratio?

I lol'd :p


Why, are you dreaming of getting your own harem?


I'm all for having a dozen females to satisfy my needs :p

I lol'd :p





I'm all for having a dozen females to satisfy my needs :p

Ditto.

Yes. Needed for genetic diversity. The more males in a society the higher chance it has for longterm survival.

As well as some typically "male" attributes such as higher willingness to take part in risky behavior, less self-regard for personal safety, lower stability of mind (i.e higher occurring of geniuses, psychopaths, sociopaths, schizophrenics, lack of empathy, extreme anti-social behavior, isolationism, retardation, etc..) which are all invariably linked to the hormonal balance levels, hence "some" of the above attributes being highly beneficial to the race as a whole. Or at least have been for the human race.


Also you are wrong about men and women being born in equal amounts. 105 men are born for every 100 women. Reasons for this are much food for scholarly debate. Although it has been proven that in Asian population there is a natural trend for more men to be born than women. Which could be a natural adaptation to the amount of wars, suffering, starvation, etc.. that took part in that continent over the last 5,000+ years. It is suspected that this came about by the need for sons (to till fields, fight in wars, etc..) leading families with more sons born in them to reproduce more [a family with a single son and five daughters, the son gets sent to war and dies. No male genetic line to continue breeding] vs [a family with 5 sons, three die in war, but two remain to continue breeding hence the family with the many sons produces another line and more offspring. Natural (or unnatural considering the nature of war) could have preferred families with more sons to survive]. Could have led to this natural trend in specific Asian populations.


Either way. A sharp reduction of males in the population is invariably a natural disaster of epic proportions. It would start a downward spiral that could or would probably lead to extinction.

Err how do you actually, feasibly benefit from doing this, though?

Seriously, the world has lots of hungry, hungry people in it. More people is basically a waste of time, also resources.

I never said anyone would benefit from it. :p

I never said anyone would benefit from it. :p
Ah, right, OK. Well yeah, it's plausible, if you want your babies with eleven toes (on their webbed, webbed feet), also some kind of forced control on the male population level.

We could probably do with a few hundred million less, any more gone would be a big problem.

Ah, right, OK. Well yeah, it's plausible, if you want your babies with eleven toes (on their webbed, webbed feet), also some kind of forced control on the male population level.

Either that or make homosexuality enticing. Hell, encourage it! :D

There are about as many males as females among humans and I think all mammals and most other animals too. To me it seems propagation would be more efficient with a lot more females and only a few males to get the females pregnant. Way back when I asked mom why I got the religious answer "Because a family is supposed to be 1 man, 1 woman and their children.". Way back in school I got the scientific answer to how, x and y chromosomes. I also got the answer to why mixing in genes from a male is better than having only females who just produce clones, diversity. But what is the scientific answer to why propagation is the most efficient when there are equal numbers of males and females so only half the population can give birth or lay eggs?

Also why is it different for chickens, if it's so good to have as many males as females why are there a dozen hens per cock and how does their chromosomes yield that ratio?

Humanity is probably intelligent enough as a whole to realise that we need less propagation right now, not more.

Yes, or you start getting really inbred populations. Look at the royal families of Europe. Or the Isle of Wight.
So it's not enough that individuals avoid mating with relatives, if the population as a whole have limited diversity then the whole population becomes inbred. Got it, that makes sense.

Not that it surprises me as they can't even fly properly but chickens are inbred then?

There are about as many males as females among humans and I think all mammals and most other animals too. To me it seems propagation would be more efficient with a lot more females and only a few males to get the females pregnant. Way back when I asked mom why I got the religious answer "Because a family is supposed to be 1 man, 1 woman and their children.". Way back in school I got the scientific answer to how, x and y chromosomes. I also got the answer to why mixing in genes from a male is better than having only females who just produce clones, diversity. But what is the scientific answer to why propagation is the most efficient when there are equal numbers of males and females so only half the population can give birth or lay eggs?

Also why is it different for chickens, if it's so good to have as many males as females why are there a dozen hens per cock and how does their chromosomes yield that ratio?

It has NOTHING to do with genetics or religion or any of that crap. It's all math.

Look at it like this. Your gender is decided by the combination of chromosomes from both your parents. And it's decided by the combining of those chromosomes, not your parents themselves. We humans have two genders, and two parents to contribute the chromosomes. That means that half of our genes come from each gender, and we have a roughly 50/50 chance of being either. Once conception begins, neither parent has a say (Intentional or naturally) on the gender, it happens as it happens, and if you have a 50/50 chance of being either, you'll generally get around half of each.

we could probably cut the number of males in half and still have a robust genetic diversity.

but in the end, while men are ....redundant... there is no practical way to limit their numbers.

so when you get to set up your own intelligent specie on your own planet you can decide to have twice as many female births as male. until then, youll just have to put up with it.

We've evolved into high sentience, and are therefore extremely selective about breeding partners.

Also you are wrong about men and women being born in equal amounts. 105 men are born for every 100 women. Reasons for this are much food for scholarly debate. Although it has been proven that in Asian population there is a natural trend for more men to be born than women. Which could be a natural adaptation to the amount of wars, suffering, starvation, etc.. that took part in that continent over the last 5,000+ years. It is suspected that this came about by the need for sons (to till fields, fight in wars, etc..) leading families with more sons born in them to reproduce more [a family with a single son and five daughters, the son gets sent to war and dies. No male genetic line to continue breeding] vs [a family with 5 sons, three die in war, but two remain to continue breeding hence the family with the many sons produces another line and more offspring. Natural (or unnatural considering the nature of war) could have preferred families with more sons to survive]. Could have led to this natural trend in specific Asian populations.

Sperm carrying the Y chromosome are less massive than those carrying an X (which is larger and has more data). It follows that Ys would be more likely to fertilize an egg first. It should be noted however that even though more males than females are conceived the actual birth rate doesn't bare the disparity out like expected. Seems the womb is a fairly hostile place for a male fetus.

chickens are inbred then?
http://www.aact.org.au/images/battery_hens/Pitts%20Farm.JPG

Would they put up with this without being really retarded?
Humanity is probably intelligent enough as a whole to realise that we need less propagation right now, not more.
Africa sez no.

men are ....redundant...
Aww :(

There are about as many males as females among humans and I think all mammals and most other animals too. To me it seems propagation would be more efficient with a lot more females and only a few males to get the females pregnant.

Not really more efficient, unless you're also going to add in the idea that the human females will not be free to choose whether or not they get impregnated. (You wouldn't be the first to make such a suggestion, of course.)


Way back in school I got the scientific answer to how, x and y chromosomes. I also got the answer to why mixing in genes from a male is better than having only females who just produce clones, diversity. But what is the scientific answer to why propagation is the most efficient when there are equal numbers of males and females so only half the population can give birth or lay eggs?

Let me give you a hint:

"Giving birth" is not the end of the story when it comes to human propagation.


Also why is it different for chickens, if it's so good to have as many males as females why are there a dozen hens per cock and how does their chromosomes yield that ratio?
Keep in mind that domesticated animals and "food animals" are specifically bred with an eye to human goals.

Humans who keep chickens tend to want one of two things: lots of eggs (to eat), or lots of chickens (to eat).

Individuals who want to produce eggs tend to breed chickens with an eye for increasing the number of eggs that are laid. They're not particularly interested in getting healthy chicks out of those eggs, they just want lots of eating eggs.

Individuals who want to produce lots of chickens (to eat) tend to just want to produce fat chickens with lots of good eating meat.

These artificial goals need to be eliminated if you want to look at the "natural" status for chickens.

Gallus gallus (White Leghorn chickens) tend to have a roughly equal sex ratio in my experience. I do research on the wild types, and while they are bred and kept specifically to produce eggs for research they are not intentionally modified in any way to make them produce more eggs, or to make them fatter, or to make them meatier. They can't be, because that would impact the research value of the eggs!

There are lots of studies on how artificial hormone injections or other treatments can impact the sex ratio among food-chickens or egg-layer food chickens. It turns out that if you, for instance, treat your chickens with hormones to make them big and fat, this also will fuck with the sex ratio of the eggs they lay.

Either way. A sharp reduction of males in the population is invariably a natural disaster of epic proportions. It would start a downward spiral that could or would probably lead to extinction.
Actually...no.

If all males suddenly disappeared one day, sure, that would be a pretty big problem. But if we're talking about things in terms of evolutionarily valid time frames, then that's a different story.

The Y chromosome isn't in very good shape. Frankly, it's rather pitiful. It's missing out on most of the glorious recombination fun that the other chromosomes enjoy, which--among other things--makes it even more vulnerable to mutations. It's carrying only a piddling handful of genes. It's the only chromosome that is stuck exclusively in male germ cells, and the frantic spawn rate of those little buggers further increases the odds of catastrophic mutations.

Whether we like it or not, the human Y chromosome is probably going to die out quite some time before the X chromosome. But that certainly doesn't need to mean the end of our species.

Aside from all the really cool mechanisms nature has come up with, we also have the benefit of being conscious critters who can plan ahead. Within the next century (the blink of an eye to evolutionary time), we will be able to fertilize human eggs with other eggs and produce viable offspring from these fertilizations. The male gamete would no longer be required for reproduction, and thus the species would not have to go extinct if all males were to disappear. Genetic diversity would not be harmed by this, except for the loss of the Y chromosome itself.

Well, given that scientists suggest that the male chromosome is slowly getting smaller with every passing generation, that in say 250.000 years, the male part of our species will die out, and woman will have evolved to reproduce asexually by then.

so by cutting back on males now you'll just speed that theory up a bit


So now, instead of Mad Hatters or Lunatic Goofballs being the reason we're all gonna die, it now becomes a race to see if MH, LG, or Women are the reason we all die :D

its really very simple, any evolutionary biologist can easily explain

if we look at other species we find structures with a dominant male, i.e. in deer or seals, this dominant male has as many females as he can handle. however in these species equal proportions of males and females are still born.
(i was almost tempted to put 'but why is this' in there as if im writing a paper) this means we have lots and lots of males who do no mating at all. but still we have genetically healthy populations of these animals. the dominant male structure is present in most mammilian species even the great apes. mammals are widely regarded as the most evolved creatures, therefore we can safely say the dominant male structure is the most advanced structure. the advantages of having so many males without a chance to mate is that it ensures only the strongest, fastest, fittest and most healthy males get to mate. a high proportion of males being born means there is much, much more competition between them all, therefore it means only the best of the best of the best get a sniff of a chance to mate. this ensures all offspring born both male and female. are more likely to be as fit and healthy and strong as their father.

a structure such as we find with us is completely unnatural civilization goes completely against evolution as we allow the sickly and the disbaled a chance to survive and mate, nature doesnt do this, so civilization acts to give us an evolutionary recession as oppose to the progress we might expect............. but dont look into the to much because thats what the nazi's did and we all know what they did with their disabled and sickly people


and just in case anyone asks why the dominant female structure isnt as popular (although lots of mammals do have this structure although these tend to be the ones where females form the most important part of the group) is that females put a lot of energy into mating, they have to carry it and ensure it survives, where as the male can just up and leave at any time knowing he has put almost no energy into that baby. (if you look at fish it is often the male who has to raise the offspring, and in extreme cases like seahorses reaches a state similar to pregnancy) is that in fish the female lays eggs and then the male fertilizes them, while the male is fertilizing the female can leave. then the man is buggared and has to raise the kids, as if he leaves as well the offspring are more likely to die



iv'e probably gone into that more than anyone want me too or cares about, but i do love evolutionary biology (and Dawkins)

Keep in mind that domesticated animals and "food animals" are specifically bred with an eye to human goals.<snip>
Aha, so the natural balance is equal numbers of each gender for them too. It's just yet another case of domesticated animals having lost some of their ability to survive on their own without the symbiosis with humans. Thanks for explaining what's up with those chickens.
<snip>iv'e probably gone into that more than anyone want me too or cares about, but i do love evolutionary biology (and Dawkins)
Yes that is a long explanation but that makes it more clear and easier to understand than a short and vague "Because X." so I get it now.

Aww :(

RIP
Lack of Male Redundancy
? - 2008

"This is really redundant"

Also why is it different for chickens, if it's so good to have as many males as females why are there a dozen hens per cock and how does their chromosomes yield that ratio?It doesn't. We eat the males.

In nature, the males of many species fight for their harem, but they are still around in equal numbers as the females.

but in the end, while men are ....redundant... there is no practical way to limit their numbers. If only humans were more like praying mantis, and the women ate the man after, even during, mating.
Sex and a snack; it makes sense.

And just consider the way it'd cut down on STDs, and promoting abstinence would be a trivial matter of self-preservation. Well, for guys..

(i was almost tempted to put 'but why is this' in there as if im writing a paper) this means we have lots and lots of males who do no mating at all. but still we have genetically healthy populations of these animals. the dominant male structure is present in most mammilian species even the great apes.

The link is actually one related to brood care. In species where the males do not participate in brood care, you tend to see more of the "dominant male" paradigm.



mammals are widely regarded as the most evolved creatures, therefore we can safely say the dominant male structure is the most advanced structure.

No, we really can't say that, and any evolutionary biologist would laugh at that suggestion.

For one thing, the idea that mammals are the "most evolved" creatures is one that is only held by people who are ignorant of evolutionary biology.

For another thing, it would be a serious error to assume that anything an "evolutionarily advanced" organism does must also by very advanced, or must be the best. The human olfactory system is actually significantly inferior to systems found in "lower" mammals, reptiles, and even some insects. Humans can't even see most UV light with our naked eyes, and the common honey bee can.

Finally, one of our two closest genetic cousins has a matriarchal social structure, which tends to undermine your thesis.


the advantages of having so many males without a chance to mate is that it ensures only the strongest, fastest, fittest and most healthy males get to mate.

Actually, it doesn't. Only female mate choice ensures that. Having lots of non-ideal males around doesn't increase the chances that "good" males will get to mate, unless females are the ones picking and choosing which males to mate with. Which undermines that whole male-dominance theory of yours again.


a high proportion of males being born means there is much, much more competition between them all, therefore it means only the best of the best of the best get a sniff of a chance to mate. this ensures all offspring born both male and female.

This is one of the funnier non sequiters I've read. :D


a structure such as we find with us is completely unnatural civilization goes completely against evolution as we allow the sickly and the disbaled a chance to survive and mate, nature doesnt do this, so civilization acts to give us an evolutionary recession as oppose to the progress we might expect

Simply wrong. You really should read more on anthropology. Caring for physical weak or ill individuals does not remotely conflict with "evolution," nor is it unnatural in any way.


and just in case anyone asks why the dominant female structure isnt as popular (although lots of mammals do have this structure although these tend to be the ones where females form the most important part of the group) is that females put a lot of energy into mating, they have to carry it and ensure it survives, where as the male can just up and leave at any time knowing he has put almost no energy into that baby.

This is partly correct, and it ties into what I said at the top of this post.

In species where males do not participate in brood care, the male simply blows his load and leaves. But there are many species (like humans) in which the young require a great deal of care to survive. A male who stays to help provide for his offspring is far, far more likely to have offspring which survive to adulthood...and THAT is the actual measure of reproductive success. A male who makes piles of babies who all die in infancy is a "failure" from an evolutionary standpoint, while a male who made only one baby but got it to adulthood is more of a "success."

But you are correct that females have more investment in each individual offspring. The female body contributes virtually all the raw materials and all of the machinery to make a baby. In species like ours, the female body bears 100% of the direct biological costs of procreation. Hence, females are more likely to be "picky" about their mates, since each procreative attempt costs them far more than it does their male partner.


(if you look at fish it is often the male who has to raise the offspring, and in extreme cases like seahorses reaches a state similar to pregnancy) is that in fish the female lays eggs and then the male fertilizes them, while the male is fertilizing the female can leave. then the man is buggared and has to raise the kids, as if he leaves as well the offspring are more likely to die.

This is not unique to the seahorse, or to fish. It is actually common among many mammalian species, including apes.

mammals are widely regarded as the most evolved creaturesExcept by biologists, because they know that every organism on earth has the same length of evolutionary history, and are simply optimally adapted to whatever niche in their environment they take up.
Humans make very poor bottom-feeders (well, some exceptions..)
I don't think you can even argue complexity; some amoebas have ten to twenty times as much DNA as us.

therefore we can safely say the dominant male structure is the most advanced structure.Sure, if we completely ignore that evolution adapts species to their situation.
For all the species that have evolved to something other than a dominant male structure, we can fairly safely assume that that is optimal for them, in their evolutionary environment.

a structure such as we find with us is completely unnaturalA lot of birds are mostly monogamous. I can't really find anything unnatural in it. Certainly there's other choices, but that doesn't make this a lesser one. Considering it's popularity, it must be effective in propagating the species.

Our close cousin the Bonobo is matriarchal, btw. The main difference with the chimp, which is have male dominated societies, is that bonobos live in a richer environment. This means that the females don't have to spend as much time on gathering food, and can band together to defend themselves against male domination. Making, I might add, for a much happier, sex-filled society. Their standard greeting is rubbing genitalia together (regardless of gender).

civilization goes completely against evolution as we allow the sickly and the disbaled a chance to survive and mate, nature doesnt do thisIf memory serves me right, wild dogs also take care of their sick and elderly.
Besides which, civilization is also subject to evolution, just on a different scale; especially a different timescale, changes accumulate much faster. Some cultures go extinct, others take their place.

but i do love evolutionary biology (and Dawkins)I can't say it shows.
Especially considering Dawkins is the one that came up with 'memes' (in analogy to genes) as carrier of cultural evolution.


If there's any discrepancy with Bottle's post, I defer to her expertise (at least, if memory serves me right she actual has an education in the field)

Actually...no.

If all males suddenly disappeared one day, sure, that would be a pretty big problem. But if we're talking about things in terms of evolutionarily valid time frames, then that's a different story.

The Y chromosome isn't in very good shape. Frankly, it's rather pitiful. It's missing out on most of the glorious recombination fun that the other chromosomes enjoy, which--among other things--makes it even more vulnerable to mutations. It's carrying only a piddling handful of genes. It's the only chromosome that is stuck exclusively in male germ cells, and the frantic spawn rate of those little buggers further increases the odds of catastrophic mutations.

Whether we like it or not, the human Y chromosome is probably going to die out quite some time before the X chromosome. But that certainly doesn't need to mean the end of our species.

Aside from all the really cool mechanisms nature has come up with, we also have the benefit of being conscious critters who can plan ahead. Within the next century (the blink of an eye to evolutionary time), we will be able to fertilize human eggs with other eggs and produce viable offspring from these fertilizations. The male gamete would no longer be required for reproduction, and thus the species would not have to go extinct if all males were to disappear. Genetic diversity would not be harmed by this, except for the loss of the Y chromosome itself.

Which is irrelevant to what I said, since we are talking about the "now." But true if one wishes to include the far future as a scenario.

Also, the question arises. If we are that advanced and scientifically adept at that time and age. Wouldn't it simply be easier to rejuvenate the y chromosome, rather than open up huge laboratories based on asexual reproduction? Genetic engineering be your friend!


Also obviously the y chromosome is not as balanced or rigid as the X chromosome. It would be odd if it were. The y chromosome itself is a mutation in the stretching of the word. Hence the y chromosome is more instable and prone to mutation, as well as faulty build. But there is a small blessing behind that curse. In the off chance should humans ever mutate in a positive sense, statistically by the instable character of the y chromosome it would probably manifest itself in a male subject first.

However even the existence of the male is somewhat of a natural miracle and wonder in itself. As hostile as the womb is for male offspring. How most miscarriages are male. The existence of man is a flip of the bird at natural conservatism. It is a spawn of chaos and mutation.


Out of interest. What is your explanation to the success of bees, ants and termites? Seeing as they have a male to female ratio of several million to one at times. Yet seen through evolution, the ant is rather successful to a very large degree. Much more efficient than the human and also architecturally more gifted. If ants would be bigger, and so possessed larger brains it is questionable who exactly would be the lord of this planet.



But it is the end of our species. How can we be mankind without man? ;)

Out of interest. What is your explanation to the success of bees, ants and termites? Seeing as they have a male to female ratio of several million to one at times.The ratio of males to reproductive females, is about equal.
All those workers don't really count.

Interestingly, the male bees don't have an Y chromosome, they simply have a single unpaired X chromosome. So perhaps that's the future of humans as well, if our Y chromosome really is deteriorating out of existence. The little bit of functionality it has will have to be taken on by genes elsewhere. (Or adapted for in some other way)

Out of interest. What is your explanation to the success of bees, ants and termites? Seeing as they have a male to female ratio of several million to one at times. Yet seen through evolution, the ant is rather successful to a very large degree. Much more efficient than the human and also architecturally more gifted. If ants would be bigger, and so possessed larger brains it is questionable who exactly would be the lord of this planet.


Wrong, although the vast majority of drones may appear to be female, they're sterile and thus care not part of the equation when it comes to talking about the male / female ratio.

To put it another way, drones are more like the limbs of the Queen's body, rather then individuals.

Also, I seem to recall that if you removed the testicles of a male before he's born he'll develop into a female.

The ratio of males to reproductive females, is about equal.
All those workers don't really count.

Interestingly, the male bees don't have an Y chromosome, they simply have a single unpaired X chromosome. So perhaps that's the future of humans as well, if our Y chromosome really is deteriorating out of existence. The little bit of functionality it has will have to be taken on by genes elsewhere. (Or adapted for in some other way)

That's because gender in bees is determined by the number of chromosomes they receive.

Also, the question arises. If we are that advanced and scientifically adept at that time and age. Wouldn't it simply be easier to rejuvenate the y chromosome, rather than open up huge laboratories based on asexual reproduction? Genetic engineering be your friend!

Nope.

In fact, trying to "fix" the Y chromosome would be way more trouble than it's worth (IMO). A better solution would be to take the few useful genes left on the Y, and figure out a way to get them onto the X chromosome instead.


Also obviously the y chromosome is not as balanced or rigid as the X chromosome. It would be odd if it were. The y chromosome itself is a mutation in the stretching of the word. Hence the y chromosome is more instable and prone to mutation, as well as faulty build. But there is a small blessing behind that curse. In the off chance should humans ever mutate in a positive sense, statistically by the instable character of the y chromosome it would probably manifest itself in a male subject first.

Humans "mutate in a positive sense" constantly.

If you're talking about some kind of major species-changing mutation that would really impact the species as a whole, then it's very unlikely this will occur on the Y chromosome because there's not a single vital gene present on the Y.


However even the existence of the male is somewhat of a natural miracle and wonder in itself. As hostile as the womb is for male offspring. How most miscarriages are male.

It is slightly more common for a fertilized egg to end up XY, and thus you have more pregnancies with a male embryo/fetus, and thus it kind of makes sense that more miscarriages would occur when there's a male fetus.

Also, males tend to be miscarried more frequently because male fetuses are more likely to have catastrophic genetic failures which result in inviable fetuses. Remember that males only get one copy of many X chromosome genes, which means that if something fucks up with one of their vital genes then the male can be in a whole host of trouble. It's not that the womb is hostile to males, it's that the female body is selective and will tend to reject a pregnancy if there are serious enough problems with the developing embryo/fetus.


The existence of man is a flip of the bird at natural conservatism. It is a spawn of chaos and mutation.

No, it's not a spawn of chaos, and no, it is not simply the result of mutation.

The X and Y chromosomes diverged from what is called an "autosome." This occurred because the organism in question developed an allele that caused maleness. The chromosome that possessed that allele became the Y chromosome, but it took a very very long time for it to arrive at its current form, and a whole lot of the process involved recombination rather than mutation.


Out of interest. What is your explanation to the success of bees, ants and termites? Seeing as they have a male to female ratio of several million to one at times. Yet seen through evolution, the ant is rather successful to a very large degree.

Social insects thrive because they are very well adapted to their environmental niche. I'm not sure what more answer you're looking for. Social insects occupy a different niche than primates, so it's pretty reasonable for them to arrive at a different evolutionarily stable solution.

If you're wondering about the genetics involved, I can only speak with any authority about ants, since I haven't done research on any other social insects.

Here's the cool thing with ants:

Male and female humans are both "diploid," which means we have two copies of each gene. Most of us know about this in the sense that we know we got half our genes from our mom and half from our dad (on average).

Well, ants don't work that way.

Among ants, the males have only half as many genes as the females. Male ants are "haploid," and have only one copy of each gene. Female ants, meanwhile, are diploid.

Okay, now let's compare some siblings. You and your sister--if you haven't got one, pretend you do--share approximately 50% of your genes in common. This is because you each got your genes from the same parents, but each of your parents had two possible copies of each gene that they might pass to you.

Ant sisters, however, got half of their genes from a HAPLOID father. He's only got one copy of each gene, so he will always pass on the SAME genes to every single one of his offspring. This means that ant sisters are actually 75% related!

Now here's the really cool bit.

If you decide to make a baby, it will get half its genes from you and half from your partner. However, if a female ant decides to lay some eggs, the male ants will be 100% related to her! Male ants hatch from unfertilized eggs, and they've only got a single copy of genes (from their mother). Meanwhile, the female ants will get one copy of the mother's genes in addition to their father's single set of genes. This means that the female offspring will be 50% related to their mom.

An ant colony is made up entirely of female ants. All the workers, the soldiers, and the scouts are female...and they're sisters. That's the key bit right there.

See, a female ant is actually more genetically related to her sisters than she would be to her daughters (if she had any). In terms of getting her genes into the next generation, a female ant actually benefits more from helping her sisters survive than she would from making her own daughters!

Now, this is obviously the short version of the story, but you can hopefully see that there are some very different genetic pressures driving ant selection compared to human selection.


Much more efficient than the human and also architecturally more gifted. If ants would be bigger, and so possessed larger brains it is questionable who exactly would be the lord of this planet.

Contrary to popular myth, size isn't everything when it comes to the brain. Simply making the ant brain bigger wouldn't necessarily make them smarter.

Also, there's a sort of upper limit on the size that an organism can grow if it's got an exoskeleton. Ants can get pretty big, but not big enough to have human-comparable brains.


But it is the end of our species. How can we be mankind without man? ;)
I realize you're joking, but it's kind of a lame joke considering the sexist history of that term. Yes, our species has a pretty crummy history of sexual dominance in which 51% of human individuals are devalued to the point where our name for our kind excludes them. Ha ha ha?

More individuals means more competition. Competition is always good.

i'm not overly going to defend my comment too much, because im not really in the mood for a big argument and a lot of what i said is incredibly over simplifed so that people who have no knowlegde of evolutionary biology would be able to get a basic grasp of the concept. So i'm only gonna defend it this one time, then after that you can rip up my comments as you please. I would like you to note english is not my first language so i probably have not explained the points i made as fluently as i would have liked

Except by biologists, because they know that every organism on earth has the same length of evolutionary history, and are simply optimally adapted to whatever niche in their environment they take up.
Humans make very poor bottom-feeders (well, some exceptions..)
I don't think you can even argue complexity; some amoebas have ten to twenty times as much DNA as us. mammals have evolved into the lynchpin species of most environments (of course there are some that they arent but for the majority they are) i perhaps was overly hasty when i said mammals are the most evolved but i didnt feel the necessity to get into the fact that all life has evolved from the same point and so all have the same amount of evolutionary history as you said. however any biologist will tell you that us in the kingdom animalia are often referred to as higher organisms, and will tell you that mammals along with most of the classic animal groups ( bird reptile amphibian mammal fish ) are far more evolved than those which branched off from the common evolutionary tree far earlier, like worms and insects. so im going to stand by my comment mammals are the most highly evolved animals but will accept its over simplication.



Sure, if we completely ignore that evolution adapts species to their situation.
For all the species that have evolved to something other than a dominant male structure, we can fairly safely assume that that is optimal for them, in their evolutionary environment again an over simplification on my part for the sake of the wider audience. although perhaps i should have said dominant male is one that has evolved best for a lot of mammals, so i shall sort of stand by this one. but you are right to pick me up on it



A lot of birds are mostly monogamous. I can't really find anything unnatural in it. Certainly there's other choices, but that doesn't make this a lesser one. Considering it's popularity, it must be effective in propagating the species.

Our close cousin the Bonobo is matriarchal, btw. The main difference with the chimp, which is have male dominated societies, is that bonobos live in a richer environment. This means that the females don't have to spend as much time on gathering food, and can band together to defend themselves against male domination. Making, I might add, for a much happier, sex-filled society. Their standard greeting is rubbing genitalia together (regardless of gender) there are some species (like the japanese crane) where monogamy is the norm, but i am going to completely go against you, monogamy is not the norm and is an unnatural bi-product of our culture, other non abrahamic religion based cultures do follow something vauely resembling the dominant male structure (although often with the richest not the strongest though strongest in the wild can be seen as a sign of success, which wealth can be considered in human terms) the bonobo bit i had a bit of knowledge about that but not a huge amount so i wont contest you much on that bit


If memory serves me right, wild dogs also take care of their sick and elderly.
Besides which, civilization is also subject to evolution, just on a different scale; especially a different timescale, changes accumulate much faster. Some cultures go extinct, others take their place. african wild dogs are just one species, im sure you can give me several examples of more but it cna't be argued as the norm, im certain you can find certain aspects of civilization in various other species but you really can't argue that civilization is natural, following that belief is going along the same school of thought as that which says global warming (if you accept it is a result of human actions) is natural as we made it and we are natural. If you plan to pull on this point more then more elaboration on this point would be needed


I can't say it shows.
Especially considering Dawkins is the one that came up with 'memes' (in analogy to genes) as carrier of cultural evolution. smells like a bit of an insult to me. cultural evolution is a long jump from civilization


No, we really can't say that, and any evolutionary biologist would laugh at that suggestion.

For one thing, the idea that mammals are the "most evolved" creatures is one that is only held by people who are ignorant of evolutionary biology.

For another thing, it would be a serious error to assume that anything an "evolutionarily advanced" organism does must also by very advanced, or must be the best. The human olfactory system is actually significantly inferior to systems found in "lower" mammals, reptiles, and even some insects. Humans can't even see most UV light with our naked eyes, and the common honey bee can.

Finally, one of our two closest genetic cousins has a matriarchal social structure, which tends to undermine your thesis. i talk abit about the whole most advanced up there a bit. the point that our senses are not as profound as those found in other 'lower' species (hmm thats a point i should have put lots of ' 'marks in that other comment to help show when i was over generalising) is merely because we have evolved past the original along the original branch past the point where these were needed as we are more highly evolved. so im gonna stand by my point there. ther bit about our closest cousins i will conceed to, but in these cases our three species have not yet evolved past the point where we stop making so much Y chromosome as not enough time has passed, i suggest that perhaps given time the three would begin to show signs of lowering y chromosome count in sperm as they have evolved complex cultures and social structures.


Simply wrong. You really should read more on anthropology. Caring for physical weak or ill individuals does not remotely conflict with "evolution," nor is it unnatural in any way i shall leave you to your view, but from the books i have read about biology and anthropology one of the main points is that civilization is not a natural thing. this may be a result of me looking more into the subject or you looking more into the topic, or perhaps we both took a liking to different schools of thought but i am standing fast on the idea that civilzation is not natural



thats about as much as i feel needed defending, ( if any posts have appeared condeming me after the first two condems then im sorry i started writing before you posted so you may have found a way to completely destryo what ive said, or you may have already countered a lot of their points.

basically the point i was trying to pull across was the basic idea that we have so many males because it is an backthrow to the days of our evolution when we relied on the dominant male system to survive, and we simply have not been given enough time to evolve away from it. and as such our civilizations have equal numbers of men and women im sure if i had stuck to just that point you would have understood perfectly fine, i probably went in too much

I quite like the number of males there are, to be honest.

I quite like the number of males there are, to be honest.

even though I'm male the idea of swarms of women roaming about the place is actually rather terrifying :p

if anything we need some kind of supersex who can both cook and drive!

There are about as many males as females among humans and I think all mammals and most other animals too. To me it seems propagation would be more efficient with a lot more females and only a few males to get the females pregnant. Way back when I asked mom why I got the religious answer "Because a family is supposed to be 1 man, 1 woman and their children.". Way back in school I got the scientific answer to how, x and y chromosomes. I also got the answer to why mixing in genes from a male is better than having only females who just produce clones, diversity. But what is the scientific answer to why propagation is the most efficient when there are equal numbers of males and females so only half the population can give birth or lay eggs?

Also why is it different for chickens, if it's so good to have as many males as females why are there a dozen hens per cock and how does their chromosomes yield that ratio?

. . .Because there is more to human existence than propagation?

Let's of course leave out the implicit acceptance of the idea that women need sex less than men (because they do it only to conceive, after all), and that men would be perfectly happy with multiple partners over monogamy. The redundant number of males is evolutionarily beneficial for the basic reason that it's a safer strategy than having few men who could all potentially be wiped out by disease, disaster, or war.

there are some species (like the japanese crane) where monogamy is the norm, but i am going to completely go against you, monogamy is not the normI'm not saying it's the norm, I'm saying it is common. it may be 10%, it may be 90%, doesn't matter. And of course, you should take monogamy too strictly, even in the most monogamous societies people simply aren't, on the whole, strictly monogamous.

"90 % of all birds are socially monogamous, living and raising young together, but many frequently have extra-conjugal sex." (random source: http://news.softpedia.com/news/Monogamy-is-an-Oddity-42006.shtml)
Just like humans..

and is an unnatural bi-product of our cultureThere is nothing unnatural about any product of culture. That's simply the kind of animal we are. A kind of animal that build civilization and invents technology.
Just because we're the only one so far (that we know of) that has stumbled on this solution to our evolutionary woes, does not make it less natural. I'm fairly certain there are quite a few animals that have a feature not quite found in any other species on earth before. That doesn't make it unnatural.

other non abrahamic religion based cultures do follow something vauely resembling the dominant male structure (although often with the richest not the strongest though strongest in the wild can be seen as a sign of success, which wealth can be considered in human terms)I dare you to name any society where over 90% of the males don't get to marry and have children. Even in societies that have harems, most men can get a wife. Having a harem is simply too expensive as a general strategy for humans.

african wild dogs are just one species, im sure you can give me several examples of more but it cna't be argued as the normI'm not arguing it is a norm; I'm arguing it occurs in nature, outside the human influence, and hence is not unnatural. Whether it occurs once or a million times is irrelevant.

im certain you can find certain aspects of civilization in various other species but you really can't argue that civilization is naturalHow can you argue it isn't? It naturally emerges out of the interactions between humans. I have little doubt the same process would occur with any animal that had the same level of intelligence and similar social instincts. It is an inevitable part of the kind of animal we are (-- inevitable, assuming we lived through the process, and we did; the range of catastrophes nature provides makes nothing inevitable in an absolute sense).

following that belief is going along the same school of thought as that which says global warming (if you accept it is a result of human actions) is natural as we made it and we are natural.I don't think global warming is as inevitable as civilization in the course of human evolution. If it is, though, then it must be considered natural.
Mind you, "natural" does not in any way imply that it's good (not bad). It only implies that given enough time an opportunity you'd expect it to arise somewhere, somewhen, by itself (rather than by supernatural intervention).

If there were less of us men the world would be a much bitchier place. :p

If there were less of us men the world would be a much bitchier place. :p

Oprah would hold more power than any elected official. *nod*

If only humans were more like praying mantis, and the women ate the man after, even during, mating.
Sex and a snack; it makes sense.

And just consider the way it'd cut down on STDs, and promoting abstinence would be a trivial matter of self-preservation. Well, for guys..

So what youre saying is that You WANT women to become ferocious predators who routinely hunt down, hump, then eat any male they find?

I shall say:
"good thing i eat alot of sugary crap, the woman who eat me will get diabetes"

-----------
On a similar note, the woman who decide to eat Lunatic Goofballs and/or Mad Hatters must remember the old saying "you are what you eat", so by eating their insane selves, a woman would be or become insane

Yes, or you start getting really inbred populations. Look at the royal families of Europe. Or the Isle of Wight.

*looks out for Carisbrooke* :p

If there were less of us men the world would be a much bitchier place. :p

i had considered suggesting that women need men to keep us from killing each other but then i realized that no one has died from a good hard hair-pulling.

I can think of a few reasons.

It improves genetic diversity. If we had fewer males and more females, then the male half of our genome would be less diverse, which is bad. As for why other species get along fine with more femalse than males, know that humans have a lot less genetic diversity than other species. There was a bottleneck back in the Ice Age, when the global human population dropped to several thousand.

ok i have another reason.

women have babies and men dont.

if instead of an even-ish number of boys and girls being born there were 2 or 3 girls for every boy, all those extra girls would grow up to have even more babies and the population would explode even more than it does today.

males are a curb to excessive population growth.

Like its bad enough my best friend has humped well over 60 women before he turned 18, but to encourage him, and others like him to go on sex crusades

especially if women kill off alot of men, then my friend would rally men to the cause of sex crusades to keep as many woman satisfied as possible

if anything we need some kind of supersex who can both cook and drive!

Someone who knows football and fashion.

Just think of the energy savings we could reap by eliminating males from the human gene pool - women are smaller, and probably consume fewer resources (energy resources, at least).

Then again, women live longer. Perhaps instead we could simply eliminate males and females over a specific height/weight, just to be more green. I recommend a cull of anyone taller than 6'4, or heavier than 220lbs (that's right, anyone bigger than me ;)). It makes perfect sense! :p

There are about as many males as females among humans and I think all mammals and most other animals too. To me it seems propagation would be more efficient with a lot more females and only a few males to get the females pregnant. Way back when I asked mom why I got the religious answer "Because a family is supposed to be 1 man, 1 woman and their children.". Way back in school I got the scientific answer to how, x and y chromosomes. I also got the answer to why mixing in genes from a male is better than having only females who just produce clones, diversity. But what is the scientific answer to why propagation is the most efficient when there are equal numbers of males and females so only half the population can give birth or lay eggs?

Also why is it different for chickens, if it's so good to have as many males as females why are there a dozen hens per cock and how does their chromosomes yield that ratio?

I think I like where this is going...

If there were less of us men the world would be a much bitchier place. :p
Without men, what would we have to be bitchy about?

;)

Without men, what would we have to be bitchy about?

;)

There'd be men but you all would be fighting over the few that were left. It'd be hell on Earth for any surviving man once the sex had been counted out. Constant nagging and arguing I tell you! I'vealso noticed women will be bitchy about anything so I'm sure you'd find something.

There'd be men but you all would be fighting over the few that were left.

You wish. :D


It'd be hell on Earth for any surviving man once the sex had been counted out. Constant nagging and arguing I tell you! I'vealso noticed women will be bitchy about anything so I'm sure you'd find something.
Poor poor men, having to live in a world dominated by the opposite sex. Why, I can't even imagine how hard that might be...

Yes we do need this many males. How else are we gonna experiment with new drugs and techinques if men aren't plenty to abuse of?:confused:

J/K!

Yes we do need this many males. How else are we gonna experiment with new techinques if men aren't plenty to abuse of?:confused:

*volunteers for experimentation*

Poor poor men, having to live in a world dominated by the opposite sex. Why, I can't even imagine how hard that might be...

This calls for experimentation!! :eek:

The Y chromosome isn't in very good shape. Frankly, it's rather pitiful. It's missing out on most of the glorious recombination fun that the other chromosomes enjoy, which--among other things--makes it even more vulnerable to mutations.

It's carrying only a piddling handful of genes. It's the only chromosome that is stuck exclusively in male germ cells, and the frantic spawn rate of those little buggers further increases the odds of catastrophic mutations.

The X chromosome has some problems with reproducing to many genes (leading to a weaker X chromosome and eventually fragile-x syndrome).

Too bad we don't have ancient ape Y chromosomes, they could recombine completely. However there is still a small amount of recombination, especially between X-Y and between Y-Y(though it recombines much, much less than other chromosomes).

Whether we like it or not, the human Y chromosome is probably going to die out quite some time before the X chromosome. But that certainly doesn't need to mean the end of our species.

Aside from all the really cool mechanisms nature has come up with, we also have the benefit of being conscious critters who can plan ahead. Within the next century (the blink of an eye to evolutionary time), we will be able to fertilize human eggs with other eggs and produce viable offspring from these fertilizations.
You could also use that to combine the DNA of two sperm (then create an egg that would house it)

Even if we did lose the X chromosome there is a chance that their would still be multiple genders (whether set at birth or if they switch during their lives is up for debate), due to either the sex determining gene linking to another chromosome (such as in the abnormality of the sex determining gene existing on the X chromosome) or environmental factors being solely responsible fo gender.

*volunteers for experimentation*

*goes http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41M3VKTD6CL._AA280_.jpg on Dyakovo*

*goes http://ecx.images-amazon.com/images/I/41M3VKTD6CL._AA280_.jpg on Dyakovo*

:D ¿Dejé de mencionar que estoy en el sadomasoquismo? :D

:D ¿Dejé de mencionar que estoy en el sadomasoquismo? :D

Ala, Dió! Sodomasoquista y todo me ha salido el nene, eh.
http://talk.wwwomen.com/images/smilies/crackthewhip.gif

Ala, Dió! Sodomasoquista y todo me ha salido el nene, eh.
http://talk.wwwomen.com/images/smilies/crackthewhip.gif

lol
http://i236.photobucket.com/albums/ff315/Sarothai/Smileys/Smiley_Scared.gif ;)

lol
http://i236.photobucket.com/albums/ff315/Sarothai/Smileys/Smiley_Scared.gif ;)

:D

I hope so, otherwise about a third of men would be useless.