Tuesday, April 28, 2009
Science Ladies First
Posted by Charles Mudede on Tue, Apr 28, 2009 at 9:38 AM
Just look at it. That shriveled thing below...
...that is what makes a man.
[In] life forms that do set aside a pair of chromosomes to specify sex — from fruit flies to mammals and some plants — the two X chromosomes inherited by females look nearly identical to the other non-sex chromosomes, so-called autosomes... The Y chromosome, however, which is inherited by males in concert with one X chromosome, is a withered version of the X, having lost many genes since it stopped recombining with the X chromosome.What does this recall? A passage in a recent book, The thing about life is that one day you'll be dead, by the local author David Shields:
Female is the "default" sex: if you don't get a signal to form testes, your germ cells form ovaries and you become female. It takes the positive action of genes on the Y chromosome to make a potentially female body into a male body.Men are nothing more than a species of women. Men come from women. From women comes men and women. Men can not come from men. We are a dead end. The genetic information in a Y chromosome is too little to form a human. The universal human is a woman. And yet the world is not run by the default human.
This is a man's world, this is a man's world
But it wouldn't be nothing, nothing without a woman...
How true. But also how is this possible? Why this break between biological ("wouldn't be nothing") and the social ("world")? No one wonder the Taleban (as with Repbulicans) can only be at war with science. Human customs and scientific facts do not at all match.
Share via
1
Great post... I was thinking how funny it was that the creation myth of Christianity involves creating a woman from a man. When, in fact, just the opposite occurs. Even from the very beginnings of the religion, it has been in conflict with science.
2
If there were a match between human customs and the microscopic world, what would that look like? And what about what's going on on the subatomic level? Should we try to align ourselves with that in some way? Should I make choices in my life with consideration for what quarks do?
3
You know, men also have an X chromosome. We're no less of a dead end than women are.
Men can not come from men. We are a dead end.
You know, men also have an X chromosome. We're no less of a dead end than women are.
4
Actually men can only come from men. If two women had a kid it would always be a woman as there is no Y chromosome to be found. Two men would give you a 50% chance for a man, a 25% chance for a woman, and 25% chance for YY which I don't know what it would do but probably miscarriage.
5
@4 just beat me to it.
If you only had women left on earth and found a way to combine two women's chromosomes, you could only make other women. However, if you only had men left, you could make men and women.
If you only had women left on earth and found a way to combine two women's chromosomes, you could only make other women. However, if you only had men left, you could make men and women.
6
I think these metaphors relating our DNA to our being are fun, but I'm not sure they are necessarily useful. Practically speaking, both men AND women come from men AND women. Both sexes are born infertile and only become so after having lived as either a boy or a girl. Hermaphrodites, those caught in between the transformation in some way, do not reproduce, generally, and if they do, they do not do so asexually.
We are not worms or bacteria, we can not split in two. Male, Female, and Intersex are all different, equally valid aspects of the human being.
Men are no more originated from women than woman are originated from the ape-ancestor, or the amphibious ancestor, and so on, each of which is represented in our pre-birth form.
We are not worms or bacteria, we can not split in two. Male, Female, and Intersex are all different, equally valid aspects of the human being.
Men are no more originated from women than woman are originated from the ape-ancestor, or the amphibious ancestor, and so on, each of which is represented in our pre-birth form.
7
I think its indicative that male requires positive action- initiative- from which all male 'privilege' derives culturally. Women would run things if they had the initiative.
That's right lazies.
That's right lazies.
9
The explanation comes from childbirth. Me are free from the long vulnerable period of pregnancy, so evolutionary pressure favors devoting resources to increasing physical size and strength in men. A division of resources between child carrying in women and hunting/gathering/fighting in men is biologically efficient . Large men can fight other men to impregnate more women, protect said women during pregnancy, and protect the vulnerable children who take a long time to mature compared to other animals. Blame our big resource hogging brains which take years to develop for our long helpless early stages. Larger men leads to domination over women in society, historically speaking.
12
All lifeforms presently on Earth originate from females but the world would be quite boring without men. They're without the exemption of some parts of the world (like in Afghanistan's Taliban) a gift for women to enjoy. What would women do without those brutish lovable oafs to squeeze us, hold us and make us feel alive? Although they can sometimes be a pain in the ass unless you're a lesbian you gotta give thanks to God in his infinite wisdom for the existence of real men.
13
@11 now that physical size is no longer strongly correlated to power or the ability to gather resources, thanks largely to science, who knows what the evolutionary pressures are?
14
@13 Apparently evolution favors the stupid, as they seem to procreate more. For example, I bet Loveschild has like 9,000 babies.
15
Y'all should read the great graphic novel/comic book series Y: The Last Man by Brian Vaughn.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Y_The_Last_…
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Y_The_Last_…
16
@9 In many societies it is women that do the bulk of that gathering. We also don't really fight over women in the same way other species do. I mean sure women chave been 'spoils' of war, but we do not have the mating fights that some other species have. We are also a relatively monogamous species with polygamy, when present, being a life long thing.
I think you can explain our sexual dimorphism better though selection pressure stemming from conflict. In almost every society it is the men who go to war. Females were just to valuable as one female equals one child per year whereas one male can equal as many children as their are fertile women. Smaller men are going to be the more likely to lose in a conflict and so it is the larger and stronger men that come back and therefor are the ones to pass on their genes.
That being said humans do not have a very high level of sexual dimorphism. Our ancestors had much higher rates as do many contemporary primates. If anything we have lost sex difference rather than gained it, so perhaps conflict helps to maintain our differences preventing it form being lost.
@12 All like on earth originated from asexual organisms who in turn originated from early replicators themselves products of chemistry.
I think you can explain our sexual dimorphism better though selection pressure stemming from conflict. In almost every society it is the men who go to war. Females were just to valuable as one female equals one child per year whereas one male can equal as many children as their are fertile women. Smaller men are going to be the more likely to lose in a conflict and so it is the larger and stronger men that come back and therefor are the ones to pass on their genes.
That being said humans do not have a very high level of sexual dimorphism. Our ancestors had much higher rates as do many contemporary primates. If anything we have lost sex difference rather than gained it, so perhaps conflict helps to maintain our differences preventing it form being lost.
@12 All like on earth originated from asexual organisms who in turn originated from early replicators themselves products of chemistry.
17
I think you would be interested in the recent news about the vast palindromes in the sequence of Y chromosome DNA. They will keep the Y chromosome alive, and men around, and have yielded the awesome depiction of the Y as a Crystal Palace.
http://www.hhmi.org/news/page5.html
http://www.hhmi.org/news/page5.html
19
Biology isn't interested in your abstractions. Universal. Default. Who cares? What does that MEAN?
Women can't make men without men to provide a Y chromosome. You could just as easily argue that men are actually the "universal" (gag) humans, because they carry ALL of the human genome (if only one allele of each X gene), while women are lacking the Y genes. If two men could procreate (which they'll be able to, eventually), they'd be able to produce both genders. Not true of women.
Dude, you need to learn to argue with yourself, rather than just immediately falling in love with your own rococo notions about life, the universe, and everything. It's what good philosophers do.
Women can't make men without men to provide a Y chromosome. You could just as easily argue that men are actually the "universal" (gag) humans, because they carry ALL of the human genome (if only one allele of each X gene), while women are lacking the Y genes. If two men could procreate (which they'll be able to, eventually), they'd be able to produce both genders. Not true of women.
Dude, you need to learn to argue with yourself, rather than just immediately falling in love with your own rococo notions about life, the universe, and everything. It's what good philosophers do.
21
Taking a big hit off the inhaler and pushing up my glasses...
At a minimum, the Y-chromosome and the sex-determining part of the chromosome will eventually move to another part of the genome (read the research of Jenny Marshall-Graves and others). The Y-chromosome may disappear.
http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/stori…
Sex-determination can be reversed as in birds and some insects (females have a W and Z chromosomes and males are Z/Z). There are systems that are XX and XO (where the 'O' represents the lack of a 2nd chromosome). And there are temperature sex determination in some reptiles...there are sea turtle beaches that in warmer and colder regions that produce a high percentage of only gender.
At a minimum, the Y-chromosome and the sex-determining part of the chromosome will eventually move to another part of the genome (read the research of Jenny Marshall-Graves and others). The Y-chromosome may disappear.
http://www.abc.net.au/science/news/stori…
Sex-determination can be reversed as in birds and some insects (females have a W and Z chromosomes and males are Z/Z). There are systems that are XX and XO (where the 'O' represents the lack of a 2nd chromosome). And there are temperature sex determination in some reptiles...there are sea turtle beaches that in warmer and colder regions that produce a high percentage of only gender.
22
@19, I think it's useful to think on the idea that we all start out the same in the womb and develop into our different attributes and roles.
23
Although "physical size is no longer strongly correlat(es) to power or the ability to gather resources", 13, women still instinctively defer to and seek stronger, bigger men (on average) to protect them and their future children.
Society still favors bigger men, so the evolutionary pressures are still there.
Society still favors bigger men, so the evolutionary pressures are still there.
24
@22
But we don't. The presence or absence of a Y chromosome is determined when the gametes fuse. And we are genetically different in any case.
I get the poetry of the tabula rasa concept, but it's just not true.
But we don't. The presence or absence of a Y chromosome is determined when the gametes fuse. And we are genetically different in any case.
I get the poetry of the tabula rasa concept, but it's just not true.
25
If you only had men left, the human race would die out unless someone managed to invent an artificial uterus. Considering how advanced medical science is at this point, it's telling that no one has yet managed to do so.
However, if you only had men left, you could make men and women.
If you only had men left, the human race would die out unless someone managed to invent an artificial uterus. Considering how advanced medical science is at this point, it's telling that no one has yet managed to do so.
26
@24, the chromosomes may be different, but the form is nearly identical for a good portion of development.
27
"If two men could procreate (which they'll be able to, eventually), they'd be able to produce both genders."
WTF!!!?? WHAT are you smoking? go to the doctor because I think you might have the pig flu and it's messing with your head. And some people have the nerve to call me stupid here but if someone makes such an idiotic statement they remain silent, go figure.
WTF!!!?? WHAT are you smoking? go to the doctor because I think you might have the pig flu and it's messing with your head. And some people have the nerve to call me stupid here but if someone makes such an idiotic statement they remain silent, go figure.
28
@25, I don't know that many people have ATTEMPTED to create an artificial human uterus.
Nor has anyone attempted to use the uterus of another animal to birth human beings, whereas it has been shown cows may give birth to buffalo foals, and whatnot, if implanted.
Nor has anyone attempted to use the uterus of another animal to birth human beings, whereas it has been shown cows may give birth to buffalo foals, and whatnot, if implanted.
29
Loveschild, you ever heard of cloning? Believe it or not, cloaning may not always require the presence of an egg to work.
30
It seems like there are two different points going on in Charles' post -- the DNA point and the fetal development point -- and that he's confusing them a bit. From a fetal development point, males are made from females. On the DNA side, everyone above is right, of course, that XY can beget both XX and XY. But, I think Charles was saying that there is no YY, that the defining point of male-ness, the Y, cannot exist on its own, there must be an X to make a man.
Genetics aside, I still think it's interesting that males are are made from females in the womb, and yet this contradicts the predominant cultural view of men and women (e.g., women created from Adam's rib).
Genetics aside, I still think it's interesting that males are are made from females in the womb, and yet this contradicts the predominant cultural view of men and women (e.g., women created from Adam's rib).
32
@25 I am not sure how telling it is as there is not a lot of research going into it. Partly because its not all that useful and because of ethical concerns limiting funding. We can create embryos outside of a womb. Pretty easily actually.
34
@26 Well. Our forms are nearly identical for our entire lives, really. I mean, it's relative.
@27 Do you follow news on scientific developments at all? We already have the technology to combine genetic material in the lab. The idea of combining the chromosomes of two guys isn't even slightly farfetched. And we already implant eggs into uteruses of people who didn't provide the genetic material. I suspect we'll have artificial uteruses eventually. I take it that you're not fond of the idea, but that doesn't make me stupid. I could be high and you'd STILL be wrong.
@27 Do you follow news on scientific developments at all? We already have the technology to combine genetic material in the lab. The idea of combining the chromosomes of two guys isn't even slightly farfetched. And we already implant eggs into uteruses of people who didn't provide the genetic material. I suspect we'll have artificial uteruses eventually. I take it that you're not fond of the idea, but that doesn't make me stupid. I could be high and you'd STILL be wrong.
35
@25 You know if scientists can dream up trying to grow human organs in pigs, that a uterus(and then a fetus in the uterus) isn't far away. That's right motherfuckers, in the womanless future pigs will give birth to mankind.
38
32 Thanks sgiffy for being the voice of logic here.
I swear to God if some of you here think that two men can or will be able to procreate by themselves.....I mean that's it, you are officially insane. Putting aside religion, morality and ethics, you're just void of reality and how the world works if you believe that, there's just no use. The loony bin is all you have left to look foward to.
I swear to God if some of you here think that two men can or will be able to procreate by themselves.....I mean that's it, you are officially insane. Putting aside religion, morality and ethics, you're just void of reality and how the world works if you believe that, there's just no use. The loony bin is all you have left to look foward to.
39
Irena, it's been proven that taller men make more money on average, are preferred more by women, are believed to be more trustworthy, begin being selected and empowered early on, etc, even subconsciously, by peers.
40
@38 um, not sure where you got the idea I agree with you. I am with 34 on this one. We have already made mice babies using only the genetic material from two females.
It would not be that hard (though beyond our current capabilities) to extract the DNA from an egg (or just make one), and insert the DNA from two sperms. I mean there is more to it than that, but there is nothing that we know of that would render it impossible. Hell it won't be too long before we can make people without any parents by just cooking up some DNA...
It would not be that hard (though beyond our current capabilities) to extract the DNA from an egg (or just make one), and insert the DNA from two sperms. I mean there is more to it than that, but there is nothing that we know of that would render it impossible. Hell it won't be too long before we can make people without any parents by just cooking up some DNA...
41
@38
Not by THEMSELVES. With the help of Science! :D
Something you clearly know nothing about. I responded to your previous post with some of those, like, fact-y things. Which you completely ignored. Because you're still wrong. Loudly wrong. Petulantly wrong. Wrong. :)
Not by THEMSELVES. With the help of Science! :D
Something you clearly know nothing about. I responded to your previous post with some of those, like, fact-y things. Which you completely ignored. Because you're still wrong. Loudly wrong. Petulantly wrong. Wrong. :)
42
@ 18 - At least he's keeping his promise not to post about children, and is posting about zygotes instead.
43
@39 unless you're black. Cultural preferences sink pretty deep.
Everyone with an inflated ego thinks they have a "scientific" reason why they're hot shit.
Everyone with an inflated ego thinks they have a "scientific" reason why they're hot shit.
44
@33: Make them clean the pee splatters off the wall for a while and they'll start to see the wisdom of sitting down.
45
The last thing humans need is more ways to procreate, or to become more successful at procreation. If we obeyed all the commandments the way we have that whole "be fruitful and multiply" crap, imagine what a Paradise this world would be...
46
40 "Partly because its not all that useful and because of ethical concerns"
But hey with all due respect, I'm sorry I ever used your name and the word logic in the same sentence.
41 What you are posting about is not science it can't be done. Hell, even someone like keshmeshi knows that. And if it is it would result on some type of abnormal, with birth defects, deficient being with a short lifespan as the cases of cloned sheep have proven to be, because that's all what it would be cloning.
Anyone even trying to think of doing something like this should be jailed for life.
But hey with all due respect, I'm sorry I ever used your name and the word logic in the same sentence.
41 What you are posting about is not science it can't be done. Hell, even someone like keshmeshi knows that. And if it is it would result on some type of abnormal, with birth defects, deficient being with a short lifespan as the cases of cloned sheep have proven to be, because that's all what it would be cloning.
Anyone even trying to think of doing something like this should be jailed for life.
48
43 and Irene --
Here's a quote from the first article I found on the topic doing only a cursory search
----
"Basically, height is a proxy for other variables that women find desirable --- men who can protect them, provide them with resources, have good social status and aren't easily dominated by other men,"
-----
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn…
Sorry it hurts, but it's real.
Here's a quote from the first article I found on the topic doing only a cursory search
----
"Basically, height is a proxy for other variables that women find desirable --- men who can protect them, provide them with resources, have good social status and aren't easily dominated by other men,"
-----
http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qn…
Sorry it hurts, but it's real.
49
I guess you missed the day in your religious education where they explained what stewards of the earth meant, Geni.
50
@48, it doesn't hurt either of us because a) we are not men and don't have dog the fight about whether tall men are more desirable b) (I'm assuming) that neither of us come to broad conclusions about human nature because of a single study done on a single population of humans about their preferences.
51
@46
It can't be done today, but it'll happen. Quite possibly in my lifetime. And the scientists won't go to jail. They'll win Nobel Prizes.
It must really suck to be a delusional person living in the real world. I'd imagine it takes a lot of energy. Though, that's probably good, since the incredulity would keep you awake at night, otherwise.
It can't be done today, but it'll happen. Quite possibly in my lifetime. And the scientists won't go to jail. They'll win Nobel Prizes.
It must really suck to be a delusional person living in the real world. I'd imagine it takes a lot of energy. Though, that's probably good, since the incredulity would keep you awake at night, otherwise.
52
@50
It hurts because you are wrong. Broad observations have been made based on research time and time again. AS I NOTED, I chose the first study that came up from a basic search, although there are tons out there.
These points still stand. When you and your womb are looking for some seed, you naturally thing a big guy is better than a guy who is small.
This point is so evolutionarily basic that I am really surprised you require and then deny elaboration.
It hurts because you are wrong. Broad observations have been made based on research time and time again. AS I NOTED, I chose the first study that came up from a basic search, although there are tons out there.
These points still stand. When you and your womb are looking for some seed, you naturally thing a big guy is better than a guy who is small.
This point is so evolutionarily basic that I am really surprised you require and then deny elaboration.
53
Loveschild, I hate to do this but...I know more about biology then you do, I'm pretty sure. My limited expertise tells me that you're wrong on this matter.
Whether it would be wrong is an entirely different question than whether it's possible.
And you're "point" about clones being genetically defective isn't necessarily true. They are more likely to have some issues but they aren't inherently vulnerable to genetic troubles.
You're the crazy one for thinking you know what you're talking about.
Whether it would be wrong is an entirely different question than whether it's possible.
And you're "point" about clones being genetically defective isn't necessarily true. They are more likely to have some issues but they aren't inherently vulnerable to genetic troubles.
You're the crazy one for thinking you know what you're talking about.
56
You tall debaters are missing the whole point. Tall men are preferred on average now because women have evolved to find them more desirable, because in the past the women who preferred tall men had more babies, and those taller babies who themselves had more babies, etc. Now however, that pressure is (maybe) removed, i.e. tall men have little or no environmental advantage over short men. If tall men still have a breeding advantage with women it is purely inertial and over the generations that advantage will be diluted, and other pressures will dominate. I haven't seen data on number of offspring vs. height, but I'm guessing there isn't a strong correlation these days. Of course you could get a peacock effect and a million years from now men will be 9 feet tall with brilliant plumage... evolution is unpredictable.
57
Well said, Arsenic7 @ 53,
I am not an authority, but my years at Keck School of Medicine at USC doing research in Molecular Biology gives me reason to think it is possible, too.
I am not an authority, but my years at Keck School of Medicine at USC doing research in Molecular Biology gives me reason to think it is possible, too.
58
I'm not an authority, but my six years doing research, at the Keck School of Medicine at USC, Department of Molecular & Microbiology, leave me to think it is entirely possible to use the X and Y chromosomes of men to create a human embryo. Should they, is a different discussion entirely.
I'm not an authority, but my six years doing research, at the Keck School of Medicine at USC, Department of Molecular & Microbiology, leave me to think it is entirely possible to use the X and Y chromosomes of men to create a human embryo. Should they, is a different discussion entirely.
60
I hate to burst everyone's bubble, but this is my field. And trust me, the theory that female development is the human (or even mammalian) default sex is quickly going the way of the dodo.
Sure, years back, we used to think of female development and male development as independent paths for many organisms. Turns out the truth is much much more complex. Femaleness likely isn't just turned on in the absence of a Y chromosome. Female development must be switched on just like male development must be switched on.
Lots of organisms have XY sex chromosomes; lots have ZW; some have both; many have none! Don't get too fixated on the genetic architecture our species uses to assign sex. Many organisms have polygenic (many genes working together to determine sex) sex determination, environmental sex determination (things like temperature, size, social cues), and even more complex interactions of genetics and environment that act together to determine sex. We're no more special than other organisms in that right.
Also, why hasn't anyone brought up imprinting? It won't be easy for two men to reproduce someday (even if we solve the problem of YY embryos being a dead end) or for two women to reproduce someday (even if it's okay for them to only have female offspring) because of imprinting: at least 30-50 genes (not sex chromosome genes, but genes on other chromosomes) must be inherited from a paternal or maternal line. Otherwise, the embryo dies, or is born with severe genetic defects (look up diseases like Prader-Willi Syndrome or Angelman Syndrome). So, for now, we still need a man and a woman to produce a baby. Two men can't, and two women can't, without solving the problem of imprinting... an issue we know little about, I might add.
More...
Sure, years back, we used to think of female development and male development as independent paths for many organisms. Turns out the truth is much much more complex. Femaleness likely isn't just turned on in the absence of a Y chromosome. Female development must be switched on just like male development must be switched on.
Lots of organisms have XY sex chromosomes; lots have ZW; some have both; many have none! Don't get too fixated on the genetic architecture our species uses to assign sex. Many organisms have polygenic (many genes working together to determine sex) sex determination, environmental sex determination (things like temperature, size, social cues), and even more complex interactions of genetics and environment that act together to determine sex. We're no more special than other organisms in that right.
Also, why hasn't anyone brought up imprinting? It won't be easy for two men to reproduce someday (even if we solve the problem of YY embryos being a dead end) or for two women to reproduce someday (even if it's okay for them to only have female offspring) because of imprinting: at least 30-50 genes (not sex chromosome genes, but genes on other chromosomes) must be inherited from a paternal or maternal line. Otherwise, the embryo dies, or is born with severe genetic defects (look up diseases like Prader-Willi Syndrome or Angelman Syndrome). So, for now, we still need a man and a woman to produce a baby. Two men can't, and two women can't, without solving the problem of imprinting... an issue we know little about, I might add.
61
I'm a microbiologist in an unrelated field. I only have a B.S., but even that limited expertise is enough to know that it's not a very far fetched concept; not considering all we've learned about cloning and genetics in the past decade.
64
60 Thank you James, someone needed to set these delusional people straight.
By the way what is exactly the title or name of your profession? The know it alls here (who actualy know nothing) need to be seriously taught some basic science from you.
By the way what is exactly the title or name of your profession? The know it alls here (who actualy know nothing) need to be seriously taught some basic science from you.
65
@Loveschild, ever hear of cloning? Soon enough people will be able to get themselves cloned for the right price in asian countries that don't kowtow to your fucking pope.
66
What I want to know is, if you took one of those frozen woolly mammoths and made a cloned embryo with say an elephant's egg, in what creature's womb would you grow the baby woolly mammoth? An elephant would be too small because the baby woolly mammoth would probably be as big as she was. You couldn't use a whale because the minute the baby was born it would drown. So how are we going to do this?
67
Loveschild, do you just ignore the parts you find inconvenient or what?
Wait, why am I even asking you this?
After reading wikipedia I found this passage:
"No naturally occurring cases of parthenogenesis exist in mammals because of imprinted genes. Experimental manipulation of a paternal methylation imprint controlling the Igf2 gene has, however, recently allowed the creation of rare individual mice with two maternal sets of chromosomes - but this is not a true parthenogenone...."
This seems to say that mice have already been created using two maternal sets of chromosomes. Parthenogenesis is asexual reproduction and that's not what some of us are saying is possible.
Anyway, Loveschild, James didn't say that it was impossible, just that it's not possible now, which we've all been saying.
Wait, why am I even asking you this?
After reading wikipedia I found this passage:
"No naturally occurring cases of parthenogenesis exist in mammals because of imprinted genes. Experimental manipulation of a paternal methylation imprint controlling the Igf2 gene has, however, recently allowed the creation of rare individual mice with two maternal sets of chromosomes - but this is not a true parthenogenone...."
This seems to say that mice have already been created using two maternal sets of chromosomes. Parthenogenesis is asexual reproduction and that's not what some of us are saying is possible.
Anyway, Loveschild, James didn't say that it was impossible, just that it's not possible now, which we've all been saying.
68
Anyway I think it's hilarious that you can believe Jesus was born without a father and yet somehow producing a fetus from two men is impossible.
69
66 Ever heard of narcissism? Because that's what cloning is. And while cloning is a reality it is not the absurdity of what is being discussed here and furthermore human cloning is illegal and banned by all nations.
70
@64
Oh! So, science has been cancelled. We're all done with the learning of new things and development of new technologies now. What we know and do today is all we'll ever know or do. Whew! You must be so relieved. Your teeny tiny world is safe.
If science WERE to continue, we'd continue to learn new things and solve problems and stuff. Just like we've been doing since, you know, forever. And that would make Jesus SUPER sad.
@68
Right?!
Oh! So, science has been cancelled. We're all done with the learning of new things and development of new technologies now. What we know and do today is all we'll ever know or do. Whew! You must be so relieved. Your teeny tiny world is safe.
If science WERE to continue, we'd continue to learn new things and solve problems and stuff. Just like we've been doing since, you know, forever. And that would make Jesus SUPER sad.
@68
Right?!
71
And I quote James who obviously knows about this subject that any of us here since it seems its his field of expertise:
"It won't be easy for two men to reproduce someday (even if we solve the problem of YY embryos being a dead end) or for two women to reproduce someday (even if it's okay for them to only have female offspring) because of imprinting: at least 30-50 genes (not sex chromosome genes, but genes on other chromosomes) must be inherited from a paternal or maternal line. Otherwise, the embryo dies, or is born with severe genetic defects (look up diseases like Prader-Willi Syndrome or Angelman Syndrome). So, for now, we still need a man and a woman to produce a baby. Two men can't, and two women can't, without solving the problem of imprinting... an issue we know little about, I might add."
If it ain't broke, don't fix it or you might end up breaking it.
"It won't be easy for two men to reproduce someday (even if we solve the problem of YY embryos being a dead end) or for two women to reproduce someday (even if it's okay for them to only have female offspring) because of imprinting: at least 30-50 genes (not sex chromosome genes, but genes on other chromosomes) must be inherited from a paternal or maternal line. Otherwise, the embryo dies, or is born with severe genetic defects (look up diseases like Prader-Willi Syndrome or Angelman Syndrome). So, for now, we still need a man and a woman to produce a baby. Two men can't, and two women can't, without solving the problem of imprinting... an issue we know little about, I might add."
If it ain't broke, don't fix it or you might end up breaking it.
72
@69
Cloning technology gets us a lot of the way -- most of the way, even -- to the combination of genetic material from two people of the same gender.
I don't get what your big freakout is. Seriously, why are you so offended by the idea? Not the idea of cloning (though I do think cloning is demonized to an unreasonable extent by people who don't understand it). The idea of any two people being able to reproduce. What's the big deal?
I mean, assuming your rationality is intact and you aren't a raging homophobe?
Cloning technology gets us a lot of the way -- most of the way, even -- to the combination of genetic material from two people of the same gender.
I don't get what your big freakout is. Seriously, why are you so offended by the idea? Not the idea of cloning (though I do think cloning is demonized to an unreasonable extent by people who don't understand it). The idea of any two people being able to reproduce. What's the big deal?
I mean, assuming your rationality is intact and you aren't a raging homophobe?
73
@71
It wasn't EASY to go to the moon. We did it anyway.
And some of what James said doesn't ring true to me. Like, the YY issue isn't really a problem. You just don't create, or implant, those embryos. I'm only vaguely familiar with imprinting, but I wonder if it's as big of an issue as he suggests, given the simplicity of the YY thing.
It wasn't EASY to go to the moon. We did it anyway.
And some of what James said doesn't ring true to me. Like, the YY issue isn't really a problem. You just don't create, or implant, those embryos. I'm only vaguely familiar with imprinting, but I wonder if it's as big of an issue as he suggests, given the simplicity of the YY thing.
74
72 "the embryo dies
or is born with severe genetic defects
Prader-Willi Syndrome
Angelman Syndrome"
Aren't these reasons enough for you?
This is against what nature intended don't mess with it has nothing to do with phobias or whatever else some here might want to project on to people.
or is born with severe genetic defects
Prader-Willi Syndrome
Angelman Syndrome"
Aren't these reasons enough for you?
This is against what nature intended don't mess with it has nothing to do with phobias or whatever else some here might want to project on to people.
75
Men / Women. . . either or. . . XY or XX. :)
Um. . . what about the other twelve chromosomal combinations that are known?
http://www.isna.org/faq/y_chromosome
And it happens often:
http://www.isna.org/faq/frequency
The fundamental goal of a species isn't to procreate - it's to maintain diversity.
Um. . . what about the other twelve chromosomal combinations that are known?
http://www.isna.org/faq/y_chromosome
And it happens often:
http://www.isna.org/faq/frequency
The fundamental goal of a species isn't to procreate - it's to maintain diversity.
76
@75
And then there's that. And X-inactivation. Blah blah blah. I mean, the original post was really very silly.
And then there's that. And X-inactivation. Blah blah blah. I mean, the original post was really very silly.
77
@74 Nature does not intend anything. It has no will. Evolution produces traits that are adapted to an environment, it does not intend to do this any more than an volcano intends to erupt. While selection plus mutation is a great way to get fitness (hell we use it design things like airplanes), it is not a normative process.
78
@74
Embryos die all the time. That is a natural process.
The process will be perfected on animals (which isn't something I wholeheartedly support, btw) before it's attempted in humans, and there will probably be bad outcomes sometimes. Annndd, Challenger exploded, but we still go to space.
Are skyscrapers against what nature intended? How about antibiotics? The internal combustion engine? Brain surgery? Rollercoasters?
We aren't outside of nature. We're part of it. Our intelligence, and the products of it, are the result of natural processes. And science will continue, and these technologies will be developed. They just will.
Unless some magical sky daddy strikes us all down, of course. Cross your fingers!
Embryos die all the time. That is a natural process.
The process will be perfected on animals (which isn't something I wholeheartedly support, btw) before it's attempted in humans, and there will probably be bad outcomes sometimes. Annndd, Challenger exploded, but we still go to space.
Are skyscrapers against what nature intended? How about antibiotics? The internal combustion engine? Brain surgery? Rollercoasters?
We aren't outside of nature. We're part of it. Our intelligence, and the products of it, are the result of natural processes. And science will continue, and these technologies will be developed. They just will.
Unless some magical sky daddy strikes us all down, of course. Cross your fingers!
79
You people honestly frighten me beyond anything I have read before. The things you advocate are more repulsive and diabolical than anything Dan and his cohorts can come up with. I just hope that all this is just shit talk and you're just trying to mess with people's minds. May God take pity on the sick brain that's contemplating this. May this ill never come to pass.
80
@79
If you can calm the fuck down for a second, I'm still curious why this is so evil.
Let's assume we manage to get past the technological hurdles and consistently combine chromosomes from people regardless of gender, resulting in healthy people. What's so awful about that?
Let's further assume that, if we can select chromosomes in this way, we'll eventually have the capacity to eliminate a lot of disease-causing genes, resulting in people who live longer, healthier lives. Still evil?
Help a repulsive, diabolical, worse-than-Dan (fuck! LOL), non-shit-talker understand the issue. Even the biblical issue, which I assume is your actual issue. Where is it? What is it?
If you can calm the fuck down for a second, I'm still curious why this is so evil.
Let's assume we manage to get past the technological hurdles and consistently combine chromosomes from people regardless of gender, resulting in healthy people. What's so awful about that?
Let's further assume that, if we can select chromosomes in this way, we'll eventually have the capacity to eliminate a lot of disease-causing genes, resulting in people who live longer, healthier lives. Still evil?
Help a repulsive, diabolical, worse-than-Dan (fuck! LOL), non-shit-talker understand the issue. Even the biblical issue, which I assume is your actual issue. Where is it? What is it?
81
(The rest of you: I'm sorry for doing the feeding, but I'm cranky today, and this makes me happy. Plus, my pack of biology students are keeping themselves occupied and I'm bored. Kthx.)
84
@82
IT DOESN'T COUNT IF YOU ASK FOR IT. Throws the probabilities off!
You have to let these things bloom of their own accord. Don't fuck with teh nature.
IT DOESN'T COUNT IF YOU ASK FOR IT. Throws the probabilities off!
You have to let these things bloom of their own accord. Don't fuck with teh nature.
86
@80
the operative words are "disease" and "healthy."
Who exactly gets to define those? And who decides what to "fix?"
Homosexuality used to be in the DSM. . . gender identity is still unfortunately considered a disorder. . . etc. You wanna be the one that decides these people have a defect that needs fixin' so they lead a culturally "normal" healthy life?
I am as liberal as they come, but who gets to decide what is natural variation and "birth defect?"
the operative words are "disease" and "healthy."
Who exactly gets to define those? And who decides what to "fix?"
Homosexuality used to be in the DSM. . . gender identity is still unfortunately considered a disorder. . . etc. You wanna be the one that decides these people have a defect that needs fixin' so they lead a culturally "normal" healthy life?
I am as liberal as they come, but who gets to decide what is natural variation and "birth defect?"
88
@86 I would start with the ones that the kill people in childhood then move on to the ones that cause debilitating conditions such as blindness or paralysis.
90
Tall @52:
Probably too late for this, but I was busy yesterday. Yet now that I see what was said, I gotta admit that in my first comment I was jumping to conclusions about the point you were trying to make. My mistake, because I don't really take issue with what you actually said at 23. So I looked at that, and I'm all ready to apologize, and then you say this:
"When you and your womb are looking for some seed, you naturally thing a big guy is better than a guy who is small."
Well, damn, there you go, confirming my suspicions by jumping to conclusions yourself. This is the flaw in most pop ev psyche thinking -- you take some data and from it, draw some general conclusion about what is "natural" and universal behaviour for men and women. Women do not "naturally" think a big guy is better. It's a tendency, not a truism. When I walk into a bar, I don't instinctively find myself flirting with the tallest guy -- in fact, the guy I'm currently crushing on is 5'3. There are so many other factors that come into play. But your sloppy thinking cuts away all the complexity, making things nice and simple -- and frequently wrong. So, as I said, Tall: enjoy your delusions.
Probably too late for this, but I was busy yesterday. Yet now that I see what was said, I gotta admit that in my first comment I was jumping to conclusions about the point you were trying to make. My mistake, because I don't really take issue with what you actually said at 23. So I looked at that, and I'm all ready to apologize, and then you say this:
"When you and your womb are looking for some seed, you naturally thing a big guy is better than a guy who is small."
Well, damn, there you go, confirming my suspicions by jumping to conclusions yourself. This is the flaw in most pop ev psyche thinking -- you take some data and from it, draw some general conclusion about what is "natural" and universal behaviour for men and women. Women do not "naturally" think a big guy is better. It's a tendency, not a truism. When I walk into a bar, I don't instinctively find myself flirting with the tallest guy -- in fact, the guy I'm currently crushing on is 5'3. There are so many other factors that come into play. But your sloppy thinking cuts away all the complexity, making things nice and simple -- and frequently wrong. So, as I said, Tall: enjoy your delusions.
91
@30 the genesis story really isn't at odds with the scientific account if you assume it's poetry or metaphorical -- which you have to in order to make the comparison at all! (otherwise, you'd just say it goes against science in that man was not made from dust, in one day, etc...) once you stop taking the story literally in that way, it can really mean anything. for instance, if man has an X and Y, then if woman was made from man, you can still say it holds water.
i'm not sure who would want to argue that, though, as a non-literal story likely holds meaning other than to provide evidence to be proved or disproved by science. and for those who believe it is literal, well, that person must believe god created the world and people apart from science.
i'm not sure who would want to argue that, though, as a non-literal story likely holds meaning other than to provide evidence to be proved or disproved by science. and for those who believe it is literal, well, that person must believe god created the world and people apart from science.
92
Irena: I'll make it simple for you. I'm better than the guy you're crushing on because I'm bigger, stronger, better, faster. If we were placed together 1,000 years ago to compete for you, you would have chosen me.
People still tend to be this way.
We agree. All is good.
People still tend to be this way.
We agree. All is good.
95
Tall: Believe me, "bigger, stronger, better, faster" don't sound at all bad... it's just that I prefer "more intelligent". Sorry!
96
@4 If you only had men left, you would die out b/c you can't reproduce without an egg. Those come from women.
97
Not necessarily, #96.
If you could mix the DNA of two cells and get them to divide, you might be able to get around that part.
Lots of animals can reproduce asexually, mind you, and don't start from an egg.
If you could mix the DNA of two cells and get them to divide, you might be able to get around that part.
Lots of animals can reproduce asexually, mind you, and don't start from an egg.
98
97 Arsenic7 Would you agree that someone attempting to do what you just typed should be sent to The International Criminal Court under charges of crimes against humanity? Something tells your answer would be of a distorted nature but if you enjoy your liberty and don't want to find yourself in the Hague with a pair of shackles in front of a court then desist from this diabolical idea.
99
Evolutionary psychology (the whole "tall" debate) is very close to pseudoscience. It makes assumptions about what humans were like at a previous evolutionary state using information from today, and these assumptions often can't be tested. Evolutionary psychology insists that men and women are fundamentally different (psychologically, not biologically; no one argues that biological differences, like height, are large) with some similarities, while mainstream psychology has concluded that women and men are fundamentally the same with some differences, and there is strong evidence that these differences are the product of culture, not evolution. Culturally diverse but genetically similar populations will have diverse behavior. It also tends to be reductionist (as irena has pointed out) by claiming that our behaviors are essentially determined by our genes, ignoring cultural factors.
Also, it tends to make excuses for sexism, which makes me even more skeptical. It's based on the assumptions of researchers, not empiric data, and since those researchers are part of a generally sexist society, it's not surprising that the assumptions they make are also sexist. Ironically, their essentialist theories prove cultural construction. The findings of evolutionary psychology are being less and less accepted in mainstream psychology, and I won't be surprised (or sad) to see the field die out.
Also, it tends to make excuses for sexism, which makes me even more skeptical. It's based on the assumptions of researchers, not empiric data, and since those researchers are part of a generally sexist society, it's not surprising that the assumptions they make are also sexist. Ironically, their essentialist theories prove cultural construction. The findings of evolutionary psychology are being less and less accepted in mainstream psychology, and I won't be surprised (or sad) to see the field die out.
100
@98
So either I agree with you or I'm "diabolical." Gee, that makes it tough.
For the record, I don't think it's necessary to experiment on human eggs and embryos or with human DNA when investigating new techniques. You can prove them possible without doing so.
For example, no one has cloned a human being, to my knowledge. That said, we know it's possible. We know that if we had a good reason to do so we could.
And no, I don't think that anyone experimenting with stem cells or cloning should go to jail or be brought up on war crimes. I think that's rather immature, actually.
So either I agree with you or I'm "diabolical." Gee, that makes it tough.
For the record, I don't think it's necessary to experiment on human eggs and embryos or with human DNA when investigating new techniques. You can prove them possible without doing so.
For example, no one has cloned a human being, to my knowledge. That said, we know it's possible. We know that if we had a good reason to do so we could.
And no, I don't think that anyone experimenting with stem cells or cloning should go to jail or be brought up on war crimes. I think that's rather immature, actually.
101
Since when does taller instantly mean better, stronger, faster, etc.? I know lots of tall guys who are stick-skinny weaklings and lots of shorter men who are full of muscles and can run and all that jazz.
I know what you all are getting at, but the "tall" thing isn't a trump card by itself.
I know what you all are getting at, but the "tall" thing isn't a trump card by itself.
102
comment to cfr unfortunately palindromes will not keep men alive because this configuration in the Y chromosome has been present since Y became Y.. it just slows it's shrinking and extinction time. Despite the Y being arraganed in palindromes always (mirror)-madam im adam- it has lost genes, without that arrangement though forget it, Y's demise would have been quicker. After males go extinct (assuming no nuclear weapon has eliminated the entire human race by then) the autosomes will adapt and the species might evolve into a new species or like some moles do, reproduce without the Y. Unless humans learn to manipulate the Y chromosome and keep it from mutations the Y will expire. Men are genetically modified women. England.
Most Commented on Slog
-
Your Daily Douchebag by Dominic Holden
-
The Procession for Officer Brenton by Dominic Holden
-
What She Said by Dan Savage
-
SL Letter of the Day: She Needs Oral by Dan Savage
-
Rules for Waitstaff by Bethany Jean Clement
-
What He Said by Dan Savage
-
Titties and Beer by Dan Savage
-
This "Pledge of Allegiance" Drives Me Crazy, Teabaggers! by Paul Constant
-
That's It: R-71 Wins! by Dominic Holden
-
Two Announcements: Dominic Holden to Become News Editor, Eli Sanders to Become Associate Editor by Christopher Frizzelle
RSS
Facebook
Twitter
Comments (102) RSS