nytimes.com— The Y chromosome is just a fraction of its original size, and much smaller than its buxom partner, the X chromosome, but researchers say its gene-shedding days seem to be over.
Feb 22, 2012View in Crawl 4
So long as men can reproduce, they'll pass on the Y chromosome. The men who can't pass on enough of the Y chromosome to make more men, won't pass on their genes to the next generation of reproducing men.
except human mating doesn't really follow survival of the fittest anymore. the fittest don't necessarily pass on their genes as much as before.
a man may have horrible genes, but he reproduces because he has a lot of money and money doesn't mean you're the fittest. of course one would assume that if one can gather loads of money, they must be a genetically fit person, the logic being that their success is an expression of their physical and mental capabilities. but this assumption is not based in reality since neither of these have to be true for a person to become wealthy. they can be fat, disease ridden and have plenty of mental issues, and still become wealthy in many ways; whether it's earning it, inheriting it, stealing it, or just getting lucky and winning the lottery, etc.
or they can trick a mate into thinking they're something they aren't. for example, a person may hide their mental illness (which could indicate a genetic issue).
with the invention of modern medical technology, you allow bad genes to survive. this can range from bad eye sight to diabetes as a small example, all the way up to far more serious issues. including advances in medical fertility which can allow those with bad genes to still pass them on; but in nature without that help they would have never been able to pass on their genes. they may have even died before passing on their genes without modern medicine.
even further, if one mate with bad genes spoils a mate with good genes, that entire family line of good genes becomes soiled or reduced. for example, let's say a person has an excellent family health history, and another has cancer and other diseases that run in the family. their offspring will be for all intents and purposes, damaged. good genes don't make bad genes better, but bad genes do lessen good genes.
so since it's clearly not about survival of the fittest anymore, the strongest genetics don't necessarily get passed on to the next generation, which allows for degradations of the Y chromosome to be passed on continually. ironically, this could ultimately lead to our genetic downfall despite technology. compared to most other species and their diversity, the human race is figuratively hanging on by a thread in the grand scheme of things.
from a coldly scientific view (and kind of scary, too. did you read that last paragraph you wrote? do you have a copy of mein kampf in your nightstand?), you're right. however, that view doesn't take into account the scientific and medical ability for us to counteract most of the "bad" genes. you mention eyesight, there are contacts, eyeglasses and even surgery that can correct poor eyesight.
additionally, your assumption that "bad" genes corrupt "good" ones is false. there are dominant and recessives but dominant genes do not in all cases override recessives, it is just statistically more likely that they will.
and as far as "survival of the fittest" goes, i like to subscribe to the notion that all human beings are fit to survive.
"from a coldly scientific view (and kind of scary, too. did you read that last paragraph you wrote? do you have a copy of mein kampf in your nightstand?)"
it's just the facts. it doesn't mean I want to impose totalitarian laws to keep people with bad genes from passing them on.
"and as far as "survival of the fittest" goes, i like to subscribe to the notion that all human beings are fit to survive."
for most, not without the aid of others or technology. being fit to breathe air and eat food isn't what survival of the fittest is about. for example, something as simple as bad eye sight can be a death sentence in the wild. or if someone has diabetes, without proper medical care could die off too.
ask yourself...could you survive the winter without a home, heating, grocery stores, electricity, and only the skin on your back? the only thing that allows you to survive it is inventions. homes, easy access to food, clothes, etc. you are not physically fit to survive the environment you live in at all times without some sort of aid.
of course we don't live in the wild anymore for the most part, but our genetics have largely been built upon the environment we as a species evolved in. the main point is, we coddle genetic inferiority and allow it to thrive. there's no denying that. in other species however, their genetically inferior die off before they can reproduce much more than in humans.
if you knew anything about genetics, you'd know that it's widely known that humans have the least genetic diversity compared to most species on the planet, to the point where we are like a species of inbred rednecks by comparison.
when our species is extinct, there will be species that have been here long before us, still around.
again, i have issues with your logic as it infers that animals (other than humans) don't use forms of technology to alter their environment. some animals build shelters, for example. also, animals, including humans alter their environment in various ways in order to survive, by creating families and packs, for example. every living species has and continue to develop ways to survive in its environment, some are genetic, some are artificial.
i'm sure i know nothing compared to you with regard to genetics, but i do know that genetics with regard to the ability of a species to survive is not the sole factor and all species, regardless of genetics, have an ability to either adapt to its environment, modify its environment to better suit its adaptability, or both.
hillsfarFeb 23, 2012
So long as men can reproduce, they'll pass on the Y chromosome. The men who can't pass on enough of the Y chromosome to make more men, won't pass on their genes to the next generation of reproducing men.
cantstopwontstopFeb 23, 2012
except human mating doesn't really follow survival of the fittest anymore. the fittest don't necessarily pass on their genes as much as before.
a man may have horrible genes, but he reproduces because he has a lot of money and money doesn't mean you're the fittest. of course one would assume that if one can gather loads of money, they must be a genetically fit person, the logic being that their success is an expression of their physical and mental capabilities. but this assumption is not based in reality since neither of these have to be true for a person to become wealthy. they can be fat, disease ridden and have plenty of mental issues, and still become wealthy in many ways; whether it's earning it, inheriting it, stealing it, or just getting lucky and winning the lottery, etc.
or they can trick a mate into thinking they're something they aren't. for example, a person may hide their mental illness (which could indicate a genetic issue).
with the invention of modern medical technology, you allow bad genes to survive. this can range from bad eye sight to diabetes as a small example, all the way up to far more serious issues. including advances in medical fertility which can allow those with bad genes to still pass them on; but in nature without that help they would have never been able to pass on their genes. they may have even died before passing on their genes without modern medicine.
even further, if one mate with bad genes spoils a mate with good genes, that entire family line of good genes becomes soiled or reduced. for example, let's say a person has an excellent family health history, and another has cancer and other diseases that run in the family. their offspring will be for all intents and purposes, damaged. good genes don't make bad genes better, but bad genes do lessen good genes.
so since it's clearly not about survival of the fittest anymore, the strongest genetics don't necessarily get passed on to the next generation, which allows for degradations of the Y chromosome to be passed on continually. ironically, this could ultimately lead to our genetic downfall despite technology. compared to most other species and their diversity, the human race is figuratively hanging on by a thread in the grand scheme of things.
aworldgonecrazyFeb 23, 2012
from a coldly scientific view (and kind of scary, too. did you read that last paragraph you wrote? do you have a copy of mein kampf in your nightstand?), you're right. however, that view doesn't take into account the scientific and medical ability for us to counteract most of the "bad" genes. you mention eyesight, there are contacts, eyeglasses and even surgery that can correct poor eyesight.
additionally, your assumption that "bad" genes corrupt "good" ones is false. there are dominant and recessives but dominant genes do not in all cases override recessives, it is just statistically more likely that they will.
and as far as "survival of the fittest" goes, i like to subscribe to the notion that all human beings are fit to survive.
cantstopwontstopFeb 23, 2012
"from a coldly scientific view (and kind of scary, too. did you read that last paragraph you wrote? do you have a copy of mein kampf in your nightstand?)"
it's just the facts. it doesn't mean I want to impose totalitarian laws to keep people with bad genes from passing them on.
"and as far as "survival of the fittest" goes, i like to subscribe to the notion that all human beings are fit to survive."
for most, not without the aid of others or technology. being fit to breathe air and eat food isn't what survival of the fittest is about. for example, something as simple as bad eye sight can be a death sentence in the wild. or if someone has diabetes, without proper medical care could die off too.
ask yourself...could you survive the winter without a home, heating, grocery stores, electricity, and only the skin on your back? the only thing that allows you to survive it is inventions. homes, easy access to food, clothes, etc. you are not physically fit to survive the environment you live in at all times without some sort of aid.
of course we don't live in the wild anymore for the most part, but our genetics have largely been built upon the environment we as a species evolved in. the main point is, we coddle genetic inferiority and allow it to thrive. there's no denying that. in other species however, their genetically inferior die off before they can reproduce much more than in humans.
if you knew anything about genetics, you'd know that it's widely known that humans have the least genetic diversity compared to most species on the planet, to the point where we are like a species of inbred rednecks by comparison.
when our species is extinct, there will be species that have been here long before us, still around.
aworldgonecrazyFeb 23, 2012
again, i have issues with your logic as it infers that animals (other than humans) don't use forms of technology to alter their environment. some animals build shelters, for example. also, animals, including humans alter their environment in various ways in order to survive, by creating families and packs, for example. every living species has and continue to develop ways to survive in its environment, some are genetic, some are artificial.
i'm sure i know nothing compared to you with regard to genetics, but i do know that genetics with regard to the ability of a species to survive is not the sole factor and all species, regardless of genetics, have an ability to either adapt to its environment, modify its environment to better suit its adaptability, or both.
rudegarFeb 23, 2012
well women cheat they have 2 X chromosomes they can run in raid!
particleman420Feb 23, 2012
it's not the size that matters. it's how you use it.
2learnFeb 23, 2012
We are shriveling up and women will have to come up with a new and novel way to insure viability of the species!
gouhierFeb 23, 2012
Perhaps time has come for http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Artificial_uterus :-)