Men more evolved? Y chromosome study stirs debate

here is a good one

learn.genetics.utah.edu...

Main page with more stuff

learn.genetics.utah.edu...

This has a very simple example of how autosomal (nuclear dna) inheritance works using an example of hearing loss.

The bottom one shows mitrochondrial DNA inheritance.

www.in.gov...

[edit on 2010/1/14 by Aeons]

reply to post by Edrick


No, I showed myself, and my closely similar sister to set a scene. It doesn't make sense for either of us. After all, according to you, I SHOULD have two x chromosomes. But I don't For whatever reason, my Y chromosomes contain this data too. Because they're suppose to.

As to my sister, it disproves your flawed statement. It is not redundant, it is co dominate.

You seem to fail to see what co dominate means. SO let me explain.

Chromosome X1 says "I want her to have brown hair"

Chromosome x2 says "I want her to have blond hair"

bonding agents during conception say "f*ck it, WE'LL DO IT LIVE! You're both in"


Now. in all your supposed wisdom, explain to a poor soul like me how two SEPARATE genes BOTH turned on makes one redundant?


redundancy: 2. superfluous repetition or overlapping, esp. of words.
3. a redundant thing, part, or amount; superfluity.

IE, in order for something to be redundant, it must be a copy. How is two separate traits from two separate parents make any one X redundant?

[edit on 14-1-2010 by Gorman91]

[edit on 14-1-2010 by Gorman91]

[edit on 2010/1/14 by Aeons]

A little bit about co-dominance.

co-dominance and mendel inheritance


Things have advanced since Mendel sorted peas.

some on the effect of one chromosone inactivating itself in females. And holandric traints - traits only in males normally.

www.bio.miami.edu...

[edit on 2010/1/14 by Aeons]

[edit on 2010/1/14 by Aeons]

[edit on 2010/1/14 by Aeons]

reply to post by Aeons


tl;dr

What's the main point of the link? It seems to point out that genes both sowing up are co dominate, thus there is no redundancy.

Males do not have co-dominant genes, unless two or more areas encode for the same thing on one X (possible).

Your hair colour is showing up what would happen if only one of your mother's Xs were expressed, and what happens to that X when it is in the presence of modifying RNA and in a different circumstance (teamed with a Y expressing holandric traits).

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by Aeons

 

tl;dr

What's the main point of the link? It seems to point out that genes both sowing up are co dominate, thus there is no redundancy.

reply to post by Gorman91

No, I showed myself, and my closely similar sister to set a scene.

Fair Enough.

Chromosome X1 says "I want her to have brown hair"

Chromosome x2 says "I want her to have blond hair"

Chromosome x1 says "I determine Hair Color"

Chromosome x2 says "I determine Hair Color"

Their effects overlap, or one is dominant and the other is recessive.

Whether one is dominant and the other is recessive, or both are codominant, the end result is the same:

The hair ends up colored.

Your argument is implying that each chromosome has vital information that the other lacks, and this is not the case.

There is no information on EITHER X chromosome that cannot be completely substituted by the other.

Now. in all your supposed wisdom, explain to a poor soul like me how two SEPARATE genes BOTH turned on makes one redundant?

Because only One X chromosome is necessary for determining hair color.

Two X chromosomes make a DIFFERENT hair color than just one, but the Process is still executed regardless of how many X chromosomes are Dominant.

redundancy: 2. superfluous repetition or overlapping, esp. of words.
3. a redundant thing, part, or amount; superfluity.

Yes, exactly... the X chromosomes overlap their traits, hence, only One is necessary for determining these traits.

IE, in order for something to be redundant, it must be a copy. How is two separate traits from two separate parents make any one X redundant?

Because both sets of chromosomes are coding for Different traits in the SAME PROCESS.

If you did not have an X chromosome, you would be deformed.

If you have ONE X chromosome, you are not deformed, and your traits are defined.

If you have TWO X chromosomes, you are not deformed, and your traits are merely defined DIFFERENTLY.

The presence of the Extra X chromosome gives no additional benefit to the organism, but merely alters the Inherent TRAITS that are present.

I do not think that you are actually ARGUING against my point... but have somehow misunderstood me.

Go back to my original argument on page Two, to see what my point WAS.

-Edrick

[edit on 14-1-2010 by Edrick]

reply to post by Aeons


Yea but then explain everything else? Eye color, sight, size, position, nose, etc etc.

I even have my upper teeth from one parent, and my lower teeth from the other parent. It's really annoying due to their lack of lining up. Braces sucked.

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by Aeons

 

Yea but then explain everything else? Eye color, sight, size, position, nose, etc etc.

I even have my upper teeth from one parent, and my lower teeth from the other parent. It's really annoying due to their lack of lining up. Braces sucked.

RNA - which science is only just beginning to realize how large of a contribution epigenetics plays in our physiology. It was laughable to even mention it ten years ago. Associated to giraffes having long necks due to stretching to reach leaves.

sex linked traits

Why two with the same genes may have different hair colour (okay FUR)

Originally posted by Edrick
Women are more evolved than men, and yet are responsible for almost NO innovations, inventions, or discoveries.

Ouch! Of course, one might argue that the reason women didn't bother inventing things is precisely because they are more evolved. Inventions can bring a lot of grief, especially in the hands of less evolved species.

Women have been oppressed, by something that they consider "Genetically Inferior" to themselves?

You have to be of inferior understanding to oppress another human being, animal, or nature for that matter.

Lets get our facts straight here.... IF women ran the world... we would still be living in Caves.

Would that be in caves with a low sub-prime rate?
Oh wait, since women didn't really invent anything we would be living rent free! Woho!

On the social side of this. Most things women have invented have been attributed to men that they were married to or were in a familial relationship with.

Further, it is real hard to do anything when your entire life is trying to sleep because you are tired from being pregnant or nursing, run after children, and avoid being beaten by a male that you were given to.

[edit on 2010/1/14 by Aeons]

reply to post by Aeons


RNA is produced from DNA. DNA is what makes up chromosomes. Therefore it would still be the source of it all.

Also giraffes didn't evolve because they stretch their necks, but I don't know if you believe that or not.

RNA is subject to environmental changes. Those changes can effect how your DNA is activated or deactivate.

Giraffes necks did not get longer that way. However, epigenetics used to be considered a nice name for giraffes have long necks because they stretched them to get leaves. It is a science in its infancy and only recently came out of being consider pure hookum.

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by Aeons

 

RNA is produced from DNA. DNA is what makes up chromosomes. Therefore it would still be the source of it all.

Also giraffes didn't evolve because they stretch their necks, but I don't know if you believe that or not.

reply to post by tungus

Ouch! Of course, one might argue that the reason women didn't bother inventing things is precisely because they are more evolved. Inventions can bring a lot of grief, especially in the hands of less evolved species.

By that logic, Fish could be said to be more advanced than humans, because they don't bother inventing anything either.

You have to be of inferior understanding to oppress another human being, animal, or nature for that matter.

Ah, the Oppression Argument... I *LOVE* the oppression argument:

Would that be in caves with a low sub-prime rate?
Oh wait, since women didn't really invent anything we would be living rent free! Woho!

You forgot agriculture, Medicine, the Rule of Law, Heaters, Air Conditioners, Cell phones, the Internet, Water Sanitation, etc, etc, etc...



-Edrick

[edit on 14-1-2010 by Edrick]

reply to post by Aeons


RNA is produced from DNA dude. And environmental changes kill of species with incompatible DNA. Giraffes evolved longer necks because the shorter ones couldn't get food, and so died off. There are no fossils of the in between because this was a quick process, probably within a few 10,000 years. The species does not have extra neck bones, just superimposed ones. And extra large blood vessels with it.


RNA is not subject to environmental change. Species do not respond to environments. They get killed off and the environment selects which species is fit. This is evolution. What you are describing is intelligent design, whereby species seem to change to their changing environments, as if they need to. This is not so. The fact is that a few luck buggers are fit, and the rest die. This is evident by the fact that shells from the east coast snails are thicker than 100 years ago due to green crabs. The crabs killed off the weaker ones. The snails did not decide to change their genes. The experiment done to prove this was that they tied the crabs claws together so they could not eat the snails. If the snails could recognize any form of presence of their predator and be able to respond to it over several generations, they would know. No change occurred. The environment was different, but the snails only changed when the crabs had their claws back and could eat the weakest link.

In addition to this, other experiments have been done. But that's proof enough. RNA only changes when DNA does.

Originally posted by Dookie Master
So, to begin with the name of the chromosomes are not just "x" and "y" for $h!ts and giggles, it is there in reality, a close mirror of the shape of those chromosomes. The extra leg on the second "x" chromosome carries genetic mutations with it. That extra leg also carries genetic diseases. I think this may be the advantage the study is supposing. Without the extra leg there are some genetic malfunctions that DO NOT get passed on through the male's X chromosome.

Diseases that only affect sex (x,y) chromosomes have a greater chance of affecting males.

This is simply because if the disease affects the y chromosome, since only males have it, only males will be affected by the disease. If the disease affects the the x chromosome, then both x chromosomes will need to be infected in order for the female to have the disease. If one is affected then they are carriers of the disease. Since males only have one x chromosome, we're screwed.

Just thought I should clear that up

The vagina is more powerful than money, military, and politics youtube examples. Love it. Really.

There isn't anything ON your Y chromosone that would make you more "inventive" dear. It only tells you that you have testicles and hair in your ears. You get what you are from your X, and unless you can prove that having two Xs somehow deactivates innovative intelligence you're argument blows goats.

Originally posted by BigfootNZ
Its funny but i was thinking about this last night and realized...

The Y chromosome is inherited from the farther obviously, however since theirs only one, the one you inherit is the same as your fathers, and his fathers and so on. I know there is some recombination (I think?) and im thinking rather simply, but im not sure if the Y chromosome goes through it during gamete production...

Because a man only has one Y chromosome, (except in a rare variant of Klinefelter's,) it has no pair to recombine with. However some researchers suggest another possibility:

The researchers also suggest that because the Y cannot exchange genes with the X chromosome anymore, it uses other unusual ways to reconfigure its DNA, such as recombining with itself to add on new segments of identical DNA--or palindromes--into its genome.

So effectively if you go back along a family line every male of that line that wasnt introduced from an outside line shares that same Y chromosome. I know its probably wrong on a lot of levels but in a way if you go back far enough wouldnt that mean huge segments of the male populations would share the same Y chromosome?

Yes. Apart from mutations a man's Y-chromosome will be identical with those of his direct paternal ancestors.

This fact has enabled scientists to learn a lot about how humans dispersed around the globe.

I mean while with females who inherit 2 X chromosomes, usually from their fathers mother and either of their mothers X chromosomes which she inherited from her mother and her mothers fathers mother (and so on back and back)... basically for the X chromosomes theirs a whole lot of generational genetic line mixing going on since there's 2 possibilities for X from the mother. ie Females are a lot more mixed line wise...

While for a guy you get a single predefined choice for one of yours, the Y... basically the same Y your farther had, and his farther and his farther and so on... there's no 50/50 mixing where a new Y could be introduced. ie if your a guy and your sister has kids any males she bears arent of the same Y so they arent even the same male line as you, unless if you went back far enough that the male lines of the two families ended up coming from the same male, in which case the Y would be related, or maybe even the same.

You're spot on according to current thinking.

Y-chromosomal Adam is named after the Biblical Adam. While the name implies that Y-chromosomal Adam was the only living male of his time, it is important to understand that he probably co-existed with a large population of human males. None of Y-chromosomal Adam's male contemporaries, however, have a direct unbroken male line to the present day. Either their lines died out entirely, or at least one generation within each line produced only daughters, who could not pass their fathers' and ancestors' Y-chromosomes to their own children.

Y-chromosomal Adam probably lived between 60,000 and 90,000 years ago, judging from molecular clock and genetic marker studies. While their descendants certainly became close intimates, Y-chromosomal Adam and mitochondrial Eve are separated by tens of thousands of years.