Y Chromosome Vanishing

The source, the Metro isnt even a proper newspaper. Its given away free on buses in the UK.

originally posted by: SprocketUK
The source, the Metro isnt even a proper newspaper. Its given away free on buses in the UK.

It's given away free vs paying for that rag The Daily Mail?

Sometimes you *don't* get what you pay for.

originally posted by: SprocketUK
The source, the Metro isnt even a proper newspaper. Its given away free on buses in the UK.

They're also incredibly pro-trans as far as UK papers go - weekend editions have dozens of trans writers dominating the paper with militant pro-trans views. I've had numerous comments removed for pointing out flaws in the articles.

There's still a lot of good research/papers on the subject though

Heavy smoking causes loss of Y chromosome in men

The study shows heavy smokers lost their Y chromosome but it reappeared after they quit or reduced smoking - I have no idea how or why this happens though. I think there needs to be a lot more research in the area as current research hints theh Y chromosome plays a huge role in reducing cander risks.

originally posted by: SchrodingersRat

originally posted by: SprocketUK
The source, the Metro isnt even a proper newspaper. Its given away free on buses in the UK.

It's given away free vs paying for that rag The Daily Mail?

Sometimes you *don't* get what you pay for.

Why believe either?
Both publications are careful never to let the truth get in the way of whatever narrative they are pushing.

originally posted by: bastion

originally posted by: SprocketUK
The source, the Metro isnt even a proper newspaper. Its given away free on buses in the UK.

They're also incredibly pro-trans as far as UK papers go - weekend editions have dozens of trans writers dominating the paper with militant pro-trans views. I've had numerous comments removed for pointing out flaws in the articles.

There's still a lot of good research/papers on the subject though

Heavy smoking causes loss of Y chromosome in men

The study shows heavy smokers lost their Y chromosome but it reappeared after they quit or reduced smoking - I have no idea how or why this happens though. I think there needs to be a lot more research in the area as current research hints theh Y chromosome plays a huge role in reducing cander risks.

Smoking made sense when people expected to be killed in a war...not so much these days though.

originally posted by: DBCowboy
a reply to: FlyersFan

Agenda-driven bull poop.

Too many of the so-called "scientists" wouldn't know integrity or honor if they got slapped on their overgrown brains by them.

I'll take a dumbass who practices integrity and honor over a highly intelligent person that practices neither ... any day.

Cheers

originally posted by: SprocketUK
The source, the Metro isnt even a proper newspaper. Its given away free on buses in the UK.

www.sciencealert.com...

I linked it earlier but in case you haven't noticed.

originally posted by: SprocketUK
The source, the Metro isnt even a proper newspaper. Its given away free on buses in the UK.

Geeeze ... it's in a bunch of sources. I just picked one and used it.
Here ya' go .... same information picked up by multiple sources ..,

MSN - The Y Chromosome is Disappearing

Science Alert - Y Chromosome is Vanishing

UC Santa Cruz EDU - Discusses Y Chromosome and if it Disappeared

Live Science - Is the Y Chromosome Dying Out

Newsweek - The Y Chromosome Will Disappear

There are bunches of more links when you google this.
Lots to choose from.

a reply to: FlyersFan

womens hormones from birth control pills in urine,
go into water supply, cannot be filtered out

and only the rich a-holes can afford to
buy bottles of testosterone pills every month
and you know how their children turn out....

SPOILED rich a-holes

originally posted by: Venkuish1

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: chr0naut

...not only outside of, but directly contrary to every theory of evolution.

I see no contradiction. But you are right that this disappearing-Y-chromosome business is old news.

It means that you don't get millions of years for lifeforms to evolve, because they degrade towards reproductive inviability in a fraction of the time.

It doesn't mean that evolution doesn't happen, it does mean that it has to happen faster than usually proposed, and we need to adjust the theoretical frameworks to accommodate degeneration.

The Cambrian explosion is one such time where the rates of morphological and genetic evolution were much higher in comparison to other eras including out own era.

This isn't new information.

We can see evidence that during the Cambrian explosion, there was an apparent rise in diversity of species, but most evolutionary theories have no explanation why that period was different to others in terms of rate of speciation.

The issue is that gradualism is a baked-in component of evolutionary theories, but there are too many evidences of things not being gradual.

If there is stuff that a proposed model doesn't explain, then we should modify the model, extending theory with new complementary models that encompass the deficiencies in the original model, or, sometimes we have to discard the old model but only if a better, more explicatory one is proposed (i.e: you don't 'throw the baby out with the bathwater').

originally posted by: FlyersFan
Interesting article. Go to the link to read what is happening to the Y Chromosome. No time frame is given for when the Y Chromosome in humans will disappear - anywhere from a few thousand years to never. But it is shrinking and that has consequences.

Y Chromosome Vanishing

We were all taught that the X and Y genes determine sex. Women have a pair of XX chromosomes, and men XY. But what you might not have been taught is that the Y chromosome is much smaller, carrying around 55 genes compared to roughly 900 on the X.

All embryos are technically female until around 12 weeks, when a gene on the Y chromosome kicks in and male development starts (hence why men have nipples). However, it seems the Y chromosome wasn’t always so small – and that’s where the problem lies. It’s shrinking – and some scientists worry it could disappear altogether.

That explains the gen z males and male Swifties, most are probably vegans and steer clear of real meat too.

a reply to: TheMichiganSwampBuck
Cuz, this planet has had male animals for hundreds of millions of years. I just do not understand where this theory is coming from. Maybe I am not understanding though and only humans have a Y chromosome, or mammals at least? Even so, it just sounds preposterous.

a reply to: ScarletDarkness

Actually they can, there have been successful fertilization of a female egg with female genetic material... A women could probably even have a baby all by herself...

It's 11 million years away, its fine. 😂

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Venkuish1

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: chr0naut

...not only outside of, but directly contrary to every theory of evolution.

I see no contradiction. But you are right that this disappearing-Y-chromosome business is old news.

It means that you don't get millions of years for lifeforms to evolve, because they degrade towards reproductive inviability in a fraction of the time.

It doesn't mean that evolution doesn't happen, it does mean that it has to happen faster than usually proposed, and we need to adjust the theoretical frameworks to accommodate degeneration.

The Cambrian explosion is one such time where the rates of morphological and genetic evolution were much higher in comparison to other eras including out own era.

This isn't new information.

We can see evidence that during the Cambrian explosion, there was an apparent rise in diversity of species, but most evolutionary theories have no explanation why that period was different to others in terms of rate of speciation.

The issue is that gradualism is a baked-in component of evolutionary theories, but there are too many evidences of things not being gradual.

If there is stuff that a proposed model doesn't explain, then we should modify the model, extending theory with new complementary models that encompass the deficiencies in the original model, or, sometimes we have to discard the old model but only if a better, more explicatory one is proposed (i.e: you don't 'throw the baby out with the bathwater').

The rate at which organisms evolve isn't constant. This is well known and recorded in the Cambrian explosion. It's a misconception to assume 'constant rates' of evolution.

Why it happened is not really a mystery and organisms will react to different environmental conditions like for example more oxygen in the atmosphere and more food in the form of nutrients that eroded from continental rocks and ended up in the oceans.

originally posted by: Venkuish1

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Venkuish1

originally posted by: chr0naut

originally posted by: Astyanax
a reply to: chr0naut

...not only outside of, but directly contrary to every theory of evolution.

I see no contradiction. But you are right that this disappearing-Y-chromosome business is old news.

It means that you don't get millions of years for lifeforms to evolve, because they degrade towards reproductive inviability in a fraction of the time.

It doesn't mean that evolution doesn't happen, it does mean that it has to happen faster than usually proposed, and we need to adjust the theoretical frameworks to accommodate degeneration.

The Cambrian explosion is one such time where the rates of morphological and genetic evolution were much higher in comparison to other eras including out own era.

This isn't new information.

We can see evidence that during the Cambrian explosion, there was an apparent rise in diversity of species, but most evolutionary theories have no explanation why that period was different to others in terms of rate of speciation.

The issue is that gradualism is a baked-in component of evolutionary theories, but there are too many evidences of things not being gradual.

If there is stuff that a proposed model doesn't explain, then we should modify the model, extending theory with new complementary models that encompass the deficiencies in the original model, or, sometimes we have to discard the old model but only if a better, more explicatory one is proposed (i.e: you don't 'throw the baby out with the bathwater').

The rate at which organisms evolve isn't constant. This is well known and recorded in the Cambrian explosion. It's a misconception to assume 'constant rates' of evolution.

"It's all variable and stuff" = science???

Why it happened is not really a mystery and organisms will react to different environmental conditions like for example more oxygen in the atmosphere

Where did the extra Oxygen come from, and where did it go to?

and more food in the form of nutrients that eroded from continental rocks and ended up in the oceans.

And was there more erosion than there was before, or since?

Is it possible this could create a new slave race ? ⚠️

originally posted by: Terpene
Actually they can, there have been successful fertilization of a female egg with female genetic material... A women could probably even have a baby all by herself...

'all by herself'?? As in spontaneous pregnancy? I dunno ...

a reply to: FlyersFan

Obviously it's invitro, but there might not be any other gene material necessary, talk about incest per excellence...