Irreversible Monarch Extinction by 2040

a reply to: chr0naut
Source for that? I feel the rise of beta males/alpha females is better documented than
your claim of male sterility. I'm always down to read/learn though.

a reply to: 4891morfih

Five years, just like the Bowie tune.

a reply to: 0zzymand0sNever heard of that song before, but I still prefer In the year 2525 by Zagar & Evans.

originally posted by: thov420
a reply to: chr0naut
Source for that? I feel the rise of beta males/alpha females is better documented than
your claim of male sterility. I'm always down to read/learn though.

Adam's Curse From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I got the time frame wrong, though. It's 125k years. My bad, sorry.

originally posted by: andy06shake
a reply to: chr0naut

In 50,000 years, if humanity has not licked genetics and mastered the art, ile be very surprised.

Not that ile be around to be surprised unless the singularity moves its arse all the same.

Yeah, apologies I got the time frame wrong.

But, I don't know, as a species, we do some fairly stupid things for even stupider reasons.

a reply to: chr0naut

Adam's Curse: A Future Without Men (also known as Adam's Curse: A Story of Sex, Genetics, and the Extinction of Men) is a 2003 book by Oxford University human genetics professor Bryan Sykes expounding his hypothesis that with the declining sperm count in men and the continual atrophy of the Y chromosome, within 5,000 generations (approximately 125,000 years) men shall become extinct.

He came up with a hypothesis and then wrote a book about it. He may be right, but I don't feel that millions of years of evolution is just going to render the Y chromosome invalid. Men and women like to have sex and babies are the result a lot of the time.
Declining sperm count just reduces the chances, but babies are still going to be born.

originally posted by: thov420
a reply to: chr0naut

Adam's Curse: A Future Without Men (also known as Adam's Curse: A Story of Sex, Genetics, and the Extinction of Men) is a 2003 book by Oxford University human genetics professor Bryan Sykes expounding his hypothesis that with the declining sperm count in men and the continual atrophy of the Y chromosome, within 5,000 generations (approximately 125,000 years) men shall become extinct.

He came up with a hypothesis and then wrote a book about it. He may be right, but I don't feel that millions of years of evolution is just going to render the Y chromosome invalid. Men and women like to have sex and babies are the result a lot of the time.
Declining sperm count just reduces the chances, but babies are still going to be born.

The Y chromosome is the most prone to damage due to the way it is mutable generation to generation, unlike the X, which is not changed generation to generation. X is carried in both males and females and Y is exclusively male.

One can see the accumulated junk DNA at the ends of the chromosome grows by generation. All you have to do is to look back at the rate of accumulation of damage over previous generations and then you can extrapolate forward.

Syke's methodology and science is sound and is strongly based in evidence.

a reply to: chr0naut

I understand that the Y chromosome is only transferred from male to male down the line. XX + XY only gives a 50% chance of the Y being passed down, I remember high school biology, but why is the Y chromosome more prone to mutations than the X? They are both simple chromosomes subject to radiation/environment/etc.

a reply to: chr0naut

Indeed we do chr0naut.

Granted, collectively, Humans are just not very smart, but we do have our moments and are capable of great achievements.

originally posted by: thov420
a reply to: chr0naut

I understand that the Y chromosome is only transferred from male to male down the line. XX + XY only gives a 50% chance of the Y being passed down, I remember high school biology, but why is the Y chromosome more prone to mutations than the X? They are both simple chromosomes subject to radiation/environment/etc.

The Y chromosome is passed only through sperm rather than the X which is included in both sperm and egg.

There are cell divisions that occur in the sperm which increase the likelihood of random mutation. The sperm also come from the testes which are flooded with oxygen rich blood. Oxygen bonds easily to other chemistry and so it can be highly disruptive and increase the likelihood of mutation.

This increase in mutation rate combines to statistically skew the relative rates for X and Y, making the Y nearly 4.8 times more likely to mutate than the X.

Sex Chromosome Specialization and Degeneration in Mammals - Cell

a reply to: chr0naut
Ok, I'll have to look into that more but it does make sense. Higher rates of mutation doesn't directly translate into higher infertility though.

Op, sorry for drawing this thread away from monarch butterflies.

originally posted by: thov420
a reply to: chr0naut
Ok, I'll have to look into that more but it does make sense. Higher rates of mutation doesn't directly translate into higher infertility though.

Op, sorry for drawing this thread away from monarch butterflies.

Cheers.

I'm just wondering how you'd actually reverse extinction.