Beta

Slashdot: News for Nerds

×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

cancel ×

454 comments

The cynical... (2, Funny)

KingSkippus (799657) | more than 4 years ago | (#30763612)

The cynical among us might say that we're finally catching up...

Males are not a population (3, Insightful)

mcvos (645701) | more than 4 years ago | (#30763716)

Males are not an independent population. And individuals don't evolve, so the notion of evolving males is silly.

Evolution is something that happens in a population, not in an individual. The female part of out population likely benefits just as much from the continuous changes to the Y chromosome as the male part of the population. Evolutionary speaking, that is. It's unlikely any individual would really care.

Re:Males are not a population (5, Informative)

Tony (765) | more than 4 years ago | (#30763802)

Right, but the gene distribution present within the population is indicative of the changes in genotype within the population.

The notion of evolving males is not silly. That's why peacocks have big bright displays, while peahens are boring brown. (This is even within the wild population of peacocks.)

This is called "sex selection," and Darwin wrote extensively about it.

Re:Males are not a population (0, Offtopic)

corbettw (214229) | more than 4 years ago | (#30763974)

This is called "sex selection," and Darwin wrote extensively about it.

Ugh, I always thought that old dude looked like a pervert!

Re:Males are not a population (4, Insightful)

mcvos (645701) | more than 4 years ago | (#30764104)

The notion of evolving males is not silly. That's why peacocks have big bright displays, while peahens are boring brown. (This is even within the wild population of peacocks.)

This is called "sex selection," and Darwin wrote extensively about it.

But that doesn't happen independently from the females. In fact, it happens exactly because of the hens. Sexual behaviour is a complex interaction, and the bright displays are only a manifestation of that. It happens because of tastes, roles and behaviours within the entire population, and it's likely that many genes involved in this are carried just as much by the female peacocks, but they only express themselves in the males.

Re:Males are not a population (2, Informative)

ByOhTek (1181381) | more than 4 years ago | (#30763808)

A population doesn't need to be independent, just distinct.

As TFS said, there is rapid evolution on the Y chromosome in the human race. With the exception of a few anomalies, this means males.

Yes the female population benefits from this, but these accelerated mutations and shifts in allele frequency are not within the female population, therefor they are not within the group that is evolving at a more rapid pace.

Re:Males are not a population (1)

mcvos (645701) | more than 4 years ago | (#30764146)

As TFS said, there is rapid evolution on the Y chromosome in the human race. With the exception of a few anomalies, this means males.

Yes the female population benefits from this, but these accelerated mutations and shifts in allele frequency are not within the female population, therefor they are not within the group that is evolving at a more rapid pace.

Males as a group are not evolving at a more rapid pace. Only one particular chromosome is evolving rapidly in males. All our other chromosomes are shared with females.

And exactly what traits are evolving so rapidly on that one chromosome is a mystery to me. As far as I know, the only actual gene that has been identified on the Y chromosome is the gene for hair in your ears. Yippee.

Not really. (0)

tjstork (137384) | more than 4 years ago | (#30764044)

The whole idea of evolution is that you have differentiation through physical isolation. It is very possible that, due to nationalistic and cultural considerations, we have actually successfully used our minds to create defacto pockets of isolation. These pockets, would indeed have different mutations, and ultimately, could even speciate!

Re:Not really. (2, Insightful)

afidel (530433) | more than 4 years ago | (#30764170)

Evolution does not require speciation, it requires adaptation to accommodate changing niches which may, but not necessarily will lead to speciation.

Re:Not really. (1)

log0n (18224) | more than 4 years ago | (#30764184)

No, the whole idea of evolution is that you have differentiation through physical necessitation. Often isolation can/will lead to necessity, but it's a symptom of rather than a cause of.

Re:Males are not a population (1, Interesting)

smooth wombat (796938) | more than 4 years ago | (#30764414)

Males are not an independent population. And individuals don't evolve, so the notion of evolving males is silly.

You might want to look at the hummingbirds of St. Lucia before you make such a broad statement. The male bills are much shorter and straighter than those of the female which are longer and more curved. Same species, different bills. For reference [georgefox.edu] . Also, the video [pbs.org] from the PBS show where this was discussed.

Also, why can't an individual evolve? How do you think evolution works? That everyone in the group changes at once?

Re:The cynical... (1)

dunkelfalke (91624) | more than 4 years ago | (#30763816)

Not really. Women don't evolve that much because they have got no selective pressure - there is more demand than there is supply for females.

Re:The cynical... (1)

Nursie (632944) | more than 4 years ago | (#30763906)

Really?

Because in most of the western world there are more women than men. Of course demand could be for multiple females...

Re:The cynical... (4, Insightful)

dunkelfalke (91624) | more than 4 years ago | (#30763986)

Exactly. There are far more lonely men than women and women are lonely often because of their own decision and not because they cannot find anyone. There are also very successful males who have got some kind of a harem. Hugh Hefner is a prime example.

The old joke demonstrates this pretty well:

Boy: I have a dick, and you dun have!
Girl: My mother said, when I grow up, I can have as many as I want

Re:The cynical... (5, Insightful)

gad_zuki! (70830) | more than 4 years ago | (#30763874)

>The cynical among us might say that we're finally catching up...

Why is shit like this tolerated? If this was said about women then it would be sexist and marked as a troll. But when its about men, its "Interesting." Sadly, making fun of boys and men is standard fare in American society. Every sitcom and commercial has the smart wife and the idiot husband dynamic where the husband cant do something simple but the wife can.

As an adult this doesnt bother me, I just feel sorry for kids growing up today believing this garbage and we wonder why so many of our boys end up as dropouts and criminals. Perhaps society shouldnt be painting them as morons 24/7 and let them develop some self-esteem.

Re:The cynical... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30763932)

Exactly, where is the GNAA troll when you need him?

Re:The cynical... (3, Informative)

Slur (61510) | more than 4 years ago | (#30763956)

It could simply be taken as a form of compliment - specifically, by way of self-deprecation. It's not uncommon, nor considered problematic in many cultures. (As one who has not yet subscribed to any particular culture, I have no opinion as to whether it offends me or not.)

So from what I can gather... (2, Insightful)

Laser_iCE (1125271) | more than 4 years ago | (#30763614)

Males masturbate more than females, amirite?

Er... (3, Funny)

Wrexs0ul (515885) | more than 4 years ago | (#30763714)

You're correct, males do tend to generate more sperm than females...

-Matt

Re:Er... (1, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30764076)

I don't think that word means what you think it means.

Re:Er... (1)

siriuskase (679431) | more than 4 years ago | (#30764252)

women making sperm would be a major evolutionary event. One that would render males unnecessary.

Re:So from what I can gather... (0)

DigiShaman (671371) | more than 4 years ago | (#30763734)

No, it means the Human monogamy is a very recent social concept. If this study is true, it means that only men with abundant, healthy sperm stand a greater chance at procreation. But AIDS is sure acting as one hellava counterweight.

Re:So from what I can gather... (1)

ZeroExistenZ (721849) | more than 4 years ago | (#30763876)

Males masturbate more than females, amirite?

Yes, I made the assumption it would be equal, but it is not.

Last week there was a small reunion of a class 10 years ago, and the "skinny unattractive girl" grown into a hottie, the "hottie" has gone through her batch of men and now has the hottie-attitude, still, yet has settle for far less you would've thought...

In this context, those two got into a whole sex-conversation, with giggles, what they had tried and such, and we ended up with the all "teen hormone driven fun" we used to have...

Somehow I came to state, because one claimed I would never have fantasized about her, "well, it's normal to masturbate fantasizing of girls around you", and nudged the guy next to me so he confirmed and agreed a bit hesitant to be as open. To the shock of these girls; "we weren't really occupied with those things as early.", after which there was an uncomfortable silence; "I'm not sure if I'm comfortable thinking the guys jerking off thinking of me back then", and the guy next to me uttered "c'mon!! You girls did it too!", to which they denied but listed girls who might've already been occupied with those things.It was pretty hilarious.

So, (this set of) women masturbate less? Could be, but they seem to catch up ALOT in later years once they discover their sexuality and the availability of men (women get it still pretty easy), while males seem to decline in sexual activity having sortof a "mismatch" in peak of sexuality.

Re:So from what I can gather... (1)

Penguinisto (415985) | more than 4 years ago | (#30764054)

Err, women can masturbate all the time, 24/7, and it wouldn't make much difference... eggs will still release on their own set schedule (see also the menstrual cycle).

Guys OTOH, through either masturbation or sex, have to generate more. Frequent orgasms will over time put the testes into overdrive, generating a higher production rate if I remember right.

Re:So from what I can gather... (1)

Schadrach (1042952) | more than 4 years ago | (#30764176)

I'm not sure that "it wouldn't make much difference", surely you eventually get tired and/or bored and/or sore.

Re:So from what I can gather... (4, Insightful)

Penguinisto (415985) | more than 4 years ago | (#30763928)

It's not just that, but look at the engineering here...

Testicles sit outside of the body (because sperm can't handle internal body temperatures for too long), so they get exposed to all kinds of fun stuff: radical temperature extremes, physical abuse, etc. Males generate new sperm all the time from scratch, and in huge frickin' numbers. Sperm cells are built to compete and operate at high energy, requiring high sugars just to survive (after all, they're literally shot into the vagina - or in most /.'ers cases, into something else).

Women OTOH have all of their eggs tucked inside, deep in the abdomen, where they stay in a nice, consistent environment. IIRC, they also have all of their eggs present in their body when they are born. Women only drop like one egg a month (excepting twins, fertility drugs, etc), so there's no competition or rush for the egg cell as it drifts slowly down the uterus - either into oblivion or fertilization.

Re:So from what I can gather... (1, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30763954)

Some scientists suspect that masturbation is actually a method to help provide non-damaging trauma to the testes, which can help alter, over time, the DNA that is contained within the spermatozoa.

In the wild, some testicular trauma is expected as part of everyday life. When human males were typically hunter-gatherers, as was the case for the vast majority of our existence, it was not unusual for a man to suffer scrotal injuries. One can only hunt deer for so long before an accident befalls one's genitals.

As we live a more sedentary lifestyle these days, penile and scrotal trauma are much less common. So any such trauma typically comes from masturbation.

Re:So from what I can gather... (3, Insightful)

SQLGuru (980662) | more than 4 years ago | (#30764092)

"One can only hunt deer for so long before an accident befalls one's genitals."

I think I saw that video on YouTube!

Re:So from what I can gather... (1)

khallow (566160) | more than 4 years ago | (#30764254)

As we live a more sedentary lifestyle these days, penile and scrotal trauma are much less common. So any such trauma typically comes from masturbation.

That pretty much sums up why I post on Slashdot... minus the penile/scrotal trama.

Re:So from what I can gather... (1)

mcgrew (92797) | more than 4 years ago | (#30764014)

Come on, mods, he was clearly joking and clearly the statement is incorrect. Masturbation in no way can make sperm genetically superior. In fact, masturbation would decrease the liklihood of passing genes along -- if you're masturbating, clearly you're not getting any sex.

At last... (4, Funny)

ls671 (1122017) | more than 4 years ago | (#30763634)

Al least some scientific data ;-)

Very seriously, I had a feminist girlfriend that wouldn't believe a child sex was defined by the spermatozoid. According to her the female genitals were as much responsible for the sex of the child.

I guess this article explains everything, she needs more evolution in order to understand those advanced concepts ;-))

Re:At last... (1)

someone1234 (830754) | more than 4 years ago | (#30763784)

How the cause of gender selection have any effect on evolution (actually, mutation speed)?
Males mutate faster, because the Y chromosome has only a single copy.

About the gender selection.
The female genitals could have as much responsibility (like the pH value).
If the environment is hostile to one type of sperm, chances are better for the other type.

Re:At last... (1)

NotBornYesterday (1093817) | more than 4 years ago | (#30763832)

About the gender selection. The female genitals could have as much responsibility (like the pH value). If the environment is hostile to one type of sperm, chances are better for the other type.

The inclusion of a X or Y chromosome in a spermatozoa has no effect on its survivability in the female.

Re:At last... (2, Informative)

afidel (530433) | more than 4 years ago | (#30764410)

But it DOES have an affect on the speed which is why there are slightly more males born than females.

Re:At last... (2, Interesting)

Darth Sdlavrot (1614139) | more than 4 years ago | (#30763814)

She might not be too far wrong though.

A slightly acidic environment is likely to kill more Y sperm, which aren't as tolerant as X sperm.

I can't cite any studies to support this, but have a friend whose OB/GYN told her that as a result of her body chemistry she was unlikely to conceive any boys. (She did manage to beat the odds though and had a boy, and three girls.)

Re:At last... (1)

DigiShaman (671371) | more than 4 years ago | (#30763964)

That would be interesting if true. Perhaps it is. That said however, I know someone whom never had daughters, only sons. According to him, having a daughter is like having a white buffalo. He said this has always been the case throughout his family lineage. Of course, he's an uber rare exception to the rule of 50/50. However, this conveniences me (and this study) that 99% if not 100% of the child's sex outcome is determined by the father.

Personally, I think it would suck not to have any daughters. But, whatever...

Re:At last... (1)

Rhaban (987410) | more than 4 years ago | (#30764226)

In my family, except my parents generation almost all siblings are same-sex.
I have 2 brothers, and my cousins are 3 brothers, 2 brothers, 2 sisters, 2 sisters again and 3 sisters. same with my 2nd degree cousins, 6 families with only girls and 1 exception with 2 girls and a boy.

I believe some people are more likely to have one sex than the other... but that it's mostly randomness.

Re:At last... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30764046)

> A slightly acidic environment is likely to kill more Y sperm, which aren't as tolerant as X sperm.

Some ammonia or bleach can fix that for you! I knew I'd find a use for those chemistry lessons...

Re:At last... (1)

furby076 (1461805) | more than 4 years ago | (#30763822)

Does she believe that all embryos start as female, and then some (approx half) evolve to male? By that statement, I had to *FIGHT* to be a male. Now I reached that goal and I have to deal with those who were "left behind" or didn't evolve....hmm actually the above was a joke but formed a thought in my head.

If we start out as females, and have to evolve to be males (hence why males have nipples), does that explain why males evolve faster then females? Maybe because we have to do so to become males?

Re:At last... (1)

Thiez (1281866) | more than 4 years ago | (#30764260)

> If we start out as females, and have to evolve to be males (hence why males have nipples), does that explain why males evolve faster then females? Maybe because we have to do so to become males?

No Furbymon. Stop watching pokemon. We don't 'evolve' into males, we grow into males. There is no fancy genetic changing required to become a guy.

Re:At last... (1)

mcgrew (92797) | more than 4 years ago | (#30764156)

She's is partly right. The sex of the child is determined by the sex of the sperm that enters the egg, but which sperm enters the egg is determined by the egg. It's a complex chemical dance.

Re:At last... (1)

Attila Dimedici (1036002) | more than 4 years ago | (#30764168)

There was a study a few years ago that showed that the woman's caloric intake shortly before conception (the several weeks/months leading up to conception) had a strong effect on the sex of the child. I can't remember now which sex a high caloric intake favored.

Does this change other predictions? (2, Interesting)

cabjf (710106) | more than 4 years ago | (#30763676)

I wonder if this would counter the other studies saying that the y chromosome is doomed.

Re:Does this change other predictions? (4, Informative)

metamechanical (545566) | more than 4 years ago | (#30763700)

From the very first paragraph of the article:

Contrary to a widely held scientific theory that the mammalian Y chromosome is slowly decaying or stagnating, new evidence suggests that in fact the Y is actually evolving quite rapidly through continuous, wholesale renovation.

Re:Does this change other predictions? (1)

dov_0 (1438253) | more than 4 years ago | (#30763706)

Or it just agrees with it. Writing errors!=evolution.

Mod the article flamebait (3, Insightful)

vivaoporto (1064484) | more than 4 years ago | (#30763682)

Mod the whole article flamebait. The headline plays with the common association between "evolution" and "improvement" in order to gather angry responses and its fair share of taunting.

Re:Mod the article flamebait (1)

Amorymeltzer (1213818) | more than 4 years ago | (#30763860)

You know, normally I'd lean toward the side of the MIT scientists, but here I'm with you. Sure, there are significant changes, but are allele frequencies changing? That's not there, and to conflate the two - differences and Evolution - is irresponsible.

Re:Mod the article flamebait (3, Insightful)

vivaoporto (1064484) | more than 4 years ago | (#30763924)

That was not what I meant. The study is probably valid and based on sound science. My point is that the headline should be closer to the point in question "Y cromossome still mutates and mutates fast, contrary of what thought before", but that would not generate enough controversy to pay for this site through advertisement.

Re:Mod the article flamebait (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30764006)

An article that uses language associations to imply through it's headline that men improve faster than women is an evil flamebaiting taunting troll?

Have you been gone for the last 50 years of "women are better than men at XYZ" in every written medium every month?

Re:Mod the article flamebait (1)

forsey (1136633) | more than 4 years ago | (#30764366)

I agree. They are NOT talking about evolution here, they are talking about mutation. While a mutation can turn out to be an advancement which more or less makes it evolution, it could also be negative change that doesn't end up propagating to other members of the species. On a side note, I bet that men, being a greater source of mutation, would also be a greater source of genetic birth defects.

That's because women keep changing their mind (4, Funny)

Snarfangel (203258) | more than 4 years ago | (#30763688)

...at what they are looking for in a mate.

Re:That's because women keep changing their mind (1)

Hognoxious (631665) | more than 4 years ago | (#30763968)

Not true at all, they're remarkably consistent; they always want what they haven't got.

Re:That's because women keep changing their mind (5, Funny)

MadKeithV (102058) | more than 4 years ago | (#30764290)

Correction: they always want what YOU haven't got.

Wow... (1)

Wrexs0ul (515885) | more than 4 years ago | (#30763692)

Thousands of years of wars fought because of skin tone or beliefs when really we could have done it over +/- 1/2 tsp.

Is this leading to porn actors trying to subjugate the rest of us as the inferior race?

Re:Wow... (2, Funny)

Penguinisto (415985) | more than 4 years ago | (#30763990)

Thousands of years of wars fought because of skin tone or beliefs when really we could have done it over +/- 1/2 tsp.

Err, Trojan War? That one has to count

(no, not the pun damnit, the historical one... :) )

To quote that show Daria (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30763708)

I'm proud to be the home of a Y chromosome!

A quick look at male behavior provides some clues (3, Interesting)

dvoecks (1000574) | more than 4 years ago | (#30763730)

"Darwin Award" winners are pretty overwhelmingly male.

Re:A quick look at male behavior provides some clu (1)

ArcherB (796902) | more than 4 years ago | (#30763980)

"Darwin Award" winners are pretty overwhelmingly male.

Evolution is driven by mutation. The vast majority of mutations are not beneficial. The fact that these Darwin Award winners are male only adds evidence that males are evolving at a faster pace than females.

Fortunately, in order to truly be a Darwin Award winner, you must remove yourself from the gene pool. The Darwin Awards show that evolution works!

Re:A quick look at male behavior provides some clu (1)

MrMr (219533) | more than 4 years ago | (#30764012)

As are Nobel prize winners.
Yet it is a popular concept that A. proves something about males and B. something about society, and not the reverse.

Our ADN is getting ready... (1)

Rhaban (987410) | more than 4 years ago | (#30763742)

... for 3D pron [slashdot.org]

Related to sperm production ... (1)

lolococo (574827) | more than 4 years ago | (#30763764)

What is it already, about us and our testicles? Anyway, no wonder women look at us like we're mutants or something.

Re:Related to sperm production ... (1)

Farmer Tim (530755) | more than 4 years ago | (#30764026)

Yeah, well it's really easy to feel superior when your reproductive organs aren't dangling around at convenient kicking height.

I thought the Y chromosome contained nothing (1)

NotSoHeavyD3 (1400425) | more than 4 years ago | (#30763776)

At least that's how they explained it to us in BIO 101. (Yes I realize it was probably a massive simplification.) The idea was that the Y chromosome has almost nothing on it and is little more than a female to male switch. (All the info for creating a male body are else where in the genome.) If that's sort of correct that means it doesn't really matter if the Y chromosome changes since all it has to get across is the signal "You male, UGG" Anyway if us guys evolve so quickly where are all my super-powers? (You know, besides my super power to turn green lights red when I drive up to them.)

Re:I thought the Y chromosome contained nothing (1)

ArcherB (796902) | more than 4 years ago | (#30764106)

At least that's how they explained it to us in BIO 101. (Yes I realize it was probably a massive simplification.) The idea was that the Y chromosome has almost nothing on it and is little more than a female to male switch. (All the info for creating a male body are else where in the genome.) If that's sort of correct that means it doesn't really matter if the Y chromosome changes since all it has to get across is the signal "You male, UGG"

If the Y contained nothing, then males would inherit exactly zero traits from their fathers.

The way I understand it, and IANAGeneticist, is that the Y chromosome has roughly 75% of the genes as the X. The Y is basically an X with one of the bottom legs cut off. This is why baldness, for example, is inherited from your mother. The gene that determines baldness is located on that leg that cut off. This is also why women are much less likely to go bald. The gene is recessive, meaning that even if women get the baldness gene from their mothers, there's a chance that they may not get it from dad. I believe color blindness works the same way.

Yes, this is also a gross simplification.

Re:I thought the Y chromosome contained nothing (4, Informative)

Sciros (986030) | more than 4 years ago | (#30764332)

If the Y contained nothing, then males would inherit exactly zero traits from their fathers.

That bit is wrong... fathers provide 23 chromosomes in total, just like mothers. Daughters inherit plenty of traits from their fathers, after all, and they don't have a Y chromosome.

Ahh the womens groups... (0, Flamebait)

furby076 (1461805) | more than 4 years ago | (#30763778)

You know the womens groups will come out that this is sexist? I swear it's like the religious groups who come out with their nonsense when science disproves one of their "theories" - you know like the earth is not flat, does not reside in the center of the universe, and is not approximately 6000 years old.

I remember, in highschool, writing a science paper and basically went about that the strongest man is stronger then the strongest woman, and the average male strength is greater then the average female strength. That physically, men were superior to women.

It caused an issue in school, and I was called into the principals room. So where my mom and dad. My dad was pissed...at the principal. My mom just thought the principal was an idiot.

Now there is this article, stating men evolve faster then women. I remember, a few years back, showing that men have a greater affinity for science/math, and women more for culture/literature and this extends beyond the nurture part of nature vs nurture.

FYI: The universe is not equal. The world is not equal. The genders are not equal. It's not fiction, it's not sexism, it's fact.

Yeah, yeah, yeah. (2, Insightful)

Dr. Manhattan (29720) | more than 4 years ago | (#30763996)

The genders are not equal.

Yes... and no. The "differences" you mention are not hard, sharp divisions. They are bell curves with peaks in different places, but there is lots of overlap. Even in the realm of sheer upper-body strength, I guarantee that (unless you happen to be a champion powerlifter) there are are women who can outbench you.

It's not that differences don't exist. (They do, and vive la difference.) It's just they they are of a different kind, and a different size, and a different range, than you seem to understand.

Re:Yeah, yeah, yeah. (1)

aicrules (819392) | more than 4 years ago | (#30764070)

I guarantee there are no 100% women anywhere who can pee as far standing up as I can.

Re:Yeah, yeah, yeah. (1)

Dr. Manhattan (29720) | more than 4 years ago | (#30764232)

I guarantee there are no 100% women anywhere who can pee as far standing up as I can.

You haven't seen "The Full Monty", have you? :->

Re:Yeah, yeah, yeah. (1)

CAIMLAS (41445) | more than 4 years ago | (#30764210)

Even in the realm of sheer upper-body strength, I guarantee that (unless you happen to be a champion powerlifter) there are are women who can outbench you.

Yeah, but that's unimportant. Again, let's go back to:

1) averages exceptional
2) absolutes

That is, the averages are different for those who are exceptional. Smart men are smarter than smart women, on average. (Stupid men are also retards compared to stupid women due to a male intellectual bell curve with significantly more outliers). Women are much more normalized, intellectually.

Strong men are (with rare exception) stronger than strong women, on average.Pick a thousand fit men and women, and compare their body strength: men win. And chances are there are a lot more men in those categories to pick from at that.

Re:Yeah, yeah, yeah. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30764262)

They do, and vive la difference.

and vive italics!!

oops.

Re:Yeah, yeah, yeah. (1)

jedidiah (1196) | more than 4 years ago | (#30764304)

> Even in the realm of sheer upper-body strength, I guarantee that (unless you happen to
> be a champion powerlifter) there are are women who can outbench you. ...yeah, and the woman in question is going to be herself a "professional" athlete.

Her male peers will still be able to outlift her just as I am able to outlift
any of my female peers and that is despite the fact that I don't posess a good
muscle/body type for bodybuilding.

Unlike what some people would like to believe, we're not all the same make and model
stamped out of the same mold from the same factory. There may be a few stronger women
but most are weaker than the weakest guys.

It's like they are a different gender or somesuch...

Re:Yeah, yeah, yeah. (1)

Vanderhoth (1582661) | more than 4 years ago | (#30764334)

I think what the OP is saying is that on average males will be able to demonstrate more physical ability then females. There remains the exceptional women out there that isn't a professional athlete who would be more physically inclined then the average male, but again, exception not rule and most likely there is also an exceptional male out there that isn't a professional athlete who would out preform her. I believe this along with endurance are part of the reason males and females generally don't compete professionally in most sports. Although I'd like to see co-ed hockey I think it would create a much more strategic game.

Over all I agree with the OP. A cousin of mine was trying out for the police force in my area and was denied because the department had an affirmative action quota to keep. During the obstacle course trials the guys had to lift and carry a 150 lb weight for part of the course to simulate carry a person to safety, the women only had to carry a 75 lb weight for a shorter distance. I have no problem with female officers, but they should have to meet equal requirements, I don't know too many adults that are less then 150 let alone 75 lb. But god forbid you ever mention something like that in public where the mod points would be more of a knife or high heal shoe

Re:Ahh the womens groups... (2, Insightful)

Sockatume (732728) | more than 4 years ago | (#30764062)

Equating mechanical strength to physical superiority is specious. Overall survival value is the name of the game, and the physical strength of the strongest - or even average - individual doesn't speak to a survival advantage in modern or ancient society. The higher percentage body fat in female humans is a significant survival advantage in cold weather conditions, while the lower body mass and associated lower energy overhead can be the difference between starving exhaustion and mental and physical readiness. It's a complex issue and it was rather naive of you to announce a "winner" in a complex, argument-launching question on the basis of a single attribute.

Re:Ahh the womens groups... (2, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30764364)

You know the womens groups will come out that this is sexist? I swear it's like the religious groups who come out with their nonsense when science disproves one of their "theories" - you know like the earth is not flat, does not reside in the center of the universe, and is not approximately 6000 years old.

Perhaps if you didn't flamebait them at every opportunity that arose? I swear every damn article that talks about evolution has DOZENS of agnostic drones bitching about 'religious groups'. Wtf really... Is it really that bad someone doesn't believe what you do? They are not part of the borg so you call them out at every opportunity? Perhaps you act as bad as you accuse others of doing? Is this how you want to present yourself to others? Sounds like you (and your parents) also missed the point of being called to the principals office. You like to piss people off (btw that is not a good thing). Not what the article was about... So far my sample of 2 examples from your rant shows this about you.

But my little rant will not change your mind. You will just blunder on thru life wondering why everyone around you is an 'idiot'. Perhaps you need to reflect on what *YOUR* actions do to others.

Sorry to rant on you but the 6000 number is getting old. I would be willing to bet cold hard cash 99.9% of 'religious groups' do not even believe that number. You are generalizing what a fairly small group calculated out of the bible and what meme you heard on the internet about 'religious groups'.

Perhaps if you attended some 'religious groups' meetings you might get something from it instead of hatred (which is all I have seen from you so far). Here is what I have gotten out of it. You get out of life what you put into it. In life you make good choices and bad choices all the time. Ignore hatred it is self destructive and not helpful in life.

Are their loony jobs out there? Yes, they tend to exist in all groups. Just ask someone who collects every star wars memorabilia that exists. While the rest of us played with the toys a bit and then let it go. To give you an example my gf. Her first encounter with star trek was a dude who built his own klingon costumes. What sort of impression does that give to her? She will not watch star trek. She will not even give it a chance. Oh and I call her out on this too so you are not alone. Perhaps you do the same with other things in your life?

bad headline? (1)

xZgf6xHx2uhoAj9D (1160707) | more than 4 years ago | (#30763798)

The researchers said their finding, published this week in the journal Nature, doesn't mean that men are evolving faster than women, though.

Uhh maybe a less sensationalist headline? [www.cbc.ca]

Re:bad headline? (1)

Theaetetus (590071) | more than 4 years ago | (#30764388)

The researchers said their finding, published this week in the journal Nature, doesn't mean that men are evolving faster than women, though.

Uhh maybe a less sensationalist headline? [www.cbc.ca]

Even the minor change "Human Males Mutate At a Faster Pace Than Females" would be less sensationalist.

Not surprising (1)

gmuslera (3436) | more than 4 years ago | (#30763834)

To mate, must make happy one of the opposite sex. Now, the requirements for men are far more complex than for women [boreme.com] .

Re:Not surprising (1)

jedidiah (1196) | more than 4 years ago | (#30764362)

Being able to cook, in a society that has discouraged women from learning how to cook for "feminist" reasons, can be a real survival skill... '-)

Misleading summary... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30763840)

TFA doesn't say there's 33% variation among humans. It says there is an unexpected amount of variation between human and chimpanzee Y chromosomes.

Re:Misleading summary... (1)

MrMr (219533) | more than 4 years ago | (#30764078)

OK, so people differ 5% from chimps but men differ 33% from male chimps?
I get the feeling there may be a joke in there somewhere.

TFA (1)

mcgrew (92797) | more than 4 years ago | (#30763844)

The article doesn't entrely match the summary, especially the title. It says little about the evolution of the X chromosome, only that the Y is evolving faster than they thought it did. TFA makes no comparison between the X and Y chromosomes. There can be in inferrence, as it mentions that the Y has no chance to swap genes as the other chromosomes do.

It also infers that it's the chimp's Y that is evolving more, and the "better" is sperm production, and it's the difference between how chimps and humans mate. One female chimp will have many sperm donors, while most human females don't.

So rather than saying that men's sex chromosome is evolving faster than the female's X, it could be said that chimp's Ys are the ones doing most of the diverging.

Because multiple male chimpanzees may mate with a single female in rapid succession, the males' sperm wind up in heated reproductive competition. If a given male produces more sperm, that male would theoretically be more likely to impregnate the female, thereby passing on his superior sperm production genes, some of which may be residing on the Y chromosome, to the next generation.

Because selective pressure to pass on advantageous sperm production genes is so high, those genes may also drag along detrimental genetic traits to the next generation. Such transmission is allowed to occur because, unlike other chromosomes, the Y has no partner with which to swap genes during cell division. Swapping genes between chromosomal partners can eventually associate positive gene versions with each other and eliminate detrimental gene versions. Without this ability, the Y chromosome is treated by evolution as one large entity. Either the entire chromosome is advantageous, or it is not.

In chimps, this potent combination of intense selective pressure on sperm production genes and the inability to swap genes may have fueled the Y chromosome's rapid evolution. Disadvantages from a less-than-ideal gene version or even the deletion of a section of the chromosome may have been outweighed by the advantage of improved sperm production, resulting in a Y chromosome with far fewer genes than its human counterpart.

This may be Degeneration, not Evolution (1)

viking80 (697716) | more than 4 years ago | (#30763936)

"Evolving" might not be the right term. "Changing" might be better. Simplistically explained, so don't hang me for this: Evolving is genetic changes that is the result of environmental pressure. Evolving therefor results in better adaptation and superior individuals. Any disadvantageous mutation quickly perish. Very few changes are beneficial.

If there is no or little environmental pressure, any non-lethal mutation survives, and mutations flourish, good and bad.

If the rate of mutation increases rapidly, it is either due to intense environmental pressure, such as arriving on the Galapagos Island, or it is due to the fact that there is no environmental pressure on this genetic treat, and you survive either way. Literally Degeneration.

-1, Study fail (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30763944)

They compared the speed of evolution of the Y cromosome in men and chimps, which compares men and chimps, not men and women. Women have no Y cromosome, so how could the speed of evolution of the Y cromosome in men say anything about men in relation to women? That's like saying that the Adam's apple in men evolves faster than the one in women.

What I would like to see is a study done on the size of the clitoris in women compared to the one found in chimp females.

I hate this 'Slow Down Cowboy!' shit, let me post already!

Get back in the kitchen and... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30763970)

This is why I appreciate being a scientist. Science has its way of continuing to tell women, "Get back in the kitchen, and make me a pie".

Re:Get back in the kitchen and... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30764016)

If I told my wife to get in the kitchen and make me a pie. I wouldn't eat it when she was done, who knows what she would put in it.XD

Old News... (5, Informative)

kyriosdelis (1100427) | more than 4 years ago | (#30763988)

This has been known for a long time. It is called "male driven evolution". This happens because in humans (and most animals) the cells producing sperms divide about 6 times more than the egg cells. And guess what: studies in a human gene that has a homologue in both X and Y chromosomes, showed that (you guessed it) the Y homologue changes about 6 times faster than the X one.
Did I say old news? 1947 old:
“The primordial oocytes are mostly if not all formed at birth, whereas spermatogonia go on dividing throughout the sexual life of a male. So if mutation is due to faulty copying of genes at a nuclear division, we might expect it to be commoner in males than females.”
“ we should expect higher mutability in the male to be a general property of human and perhaps other vertebrate genes.”
J. B. S. Haldane. 1947. The mutation rate of the gene for haemophilia and its segregation ratios in males and females. Ann. Eugen. 13:262-271.

interesting factoid: (4, Interesting)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 4 years ago | (#30763992)

testicle size in simians is correlated with female permissiveness. such that, in chimpanzees, where a female in estrus is pretty much a gangbang, chimpanzees males have evolved humongous testicles. they need to, because in such a situation, the only strategy available to the male to ensure his genetic continuance is to simply overwhelm other male's sperm with sheer ejaculate volume

meanwhile, in highly monogamous simians who mate for life, such as gibbons, the testicles are tiny. there's simply no need for so much ejaculate volume, its a waste of resources. she's not going anywhere

interestingly enough, human males have intermediate sized testicles, owing to the fact that human females are semi-monogamous/ semi-polygamous

however, i've always wondered why testicles appeared on the outside of the male mammalian body. it seems a ridiculous vulnerability and i've never heard a good explanation as to why. for example, dolphins aren't swimming around with their balls out: the need to be streamlined. of course sperm need a lower temperature to develop, but thats an effect, not a cause. i'm saying wouldn't it be better to have your testicles inside your body and evolve sperm that develop at a higher temperature? its pretty ridiculous to have such an important organ dangling outside unprotected. i never understood why

Re:interesting factoid: (1)

cheros (223479) | more than 4 years ago | (#30764166)

I'm not entirely sure this is a load of bollocks, or a load about bollocks. :-)

Re:interesting factoid: (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30764396)

human testicles are outside of a body so they can descend and cool down when the environment they are in is hot or ascend and heat up from body temperature when it's cold

hmm (1)

MagicM (85041) | more than 4 years ago | (#30763998)

I for one welcome our...

No, it's nasty. I can't do it.

Re:hmm (1)

kramerd (1227006) | more than 4 years ago | (#30764264)

Then post it AC...

The actual paper... (1)

johndiii (229824) | more than 4 years ago | (#30764028)

Here's a link to the actual paper [nature.com] (rather than the press release), for those who have a subscription to Nature or are willing to pay $32 to read it.

It's Simple (1)

Low Ranked Craig (1327799) | more than 4 years ago | (#30764056)

Apparently size does matter.

Mortality (1)

COMON$ (806135) | more than 4 years ago | (#30764082)

Could our faster evolution be due to our higher mortality rate than females?

But isn't this kind of obvious?. Changes that effect reproduction should happen the fastest. I mean isnt that what evolution is all about, getting better more efficient ways to procreate?

Error correction. (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30764206)

Well that's what you get for using non error correcting memory err... DNA. The y branch does not have a second table to look things up in.

Also if I'm not mistaken we also evolve to get rid of this evolution since the y branch keeps getting shorter. At some point they will be v chromosomes :)

development analogy (1)

jackflap (715225) | more than 4 years ago | (#30764276)

Men are the testing area :P Y chromosome is the development brach, X is the stable?

Not fast enough (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30764350)

Not fast enough, since we haven't evolved winged sperm yet. We basement dwellers may be a dying breed!

Anonymous Coward (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#30764380)

In Soviet Sweden sex is said to be a social construction.

Be afraid...be VERY afraid (1)

hyades1 (1149581) | more than 4 years ago | (#30764390)

"The portions of the chromosome evolving fastest are related to sperm production..."

God help us if the little bastards learn how to fly.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Account

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?

Don't worry, we never post anything without your permission.

Submission Text Formatting Tips

We support a small subset of HTML, namely these tags:

  • b
  • i
  • p
  • br
  • a
  • ol
  • ul
  • li
  • dl
  • dt
  • dd
  • em
  • strong
  • tt
  • blockquote
  • div
  • quote
  • ecode

"ecode" can be used for code snippets, for example:

<ecode>    while(1) { do_something(); } </ecode>
Create a Slashdot Account

Loading...