2 ms·

I'm not sure why I'm getting downvoted. Y chromosomes are smaller and have less genetic information. Having XY vs XX would lead to extremes as opposed to balanc

by lotusleaf1987 16y ago

I'm not sure why I'm getting downvoted. Y chromosomes are smaller and have less genetic information. Having XY vs XX would lead to extremes as opposed to balanced out genes--exactly what he was talking about, heights/intelligence/violence. I may not be a geneticist but I'm pretty sure this generally what is happening."Because males have only one X-chromosome, they are more likely to have an X chromosome-related disease." From: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X_chromosome http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/X_chromosome

araneae 16y ago
Yes, but there are plenty of organisms where the male is homogametic and the female is heterogametic and the behavioral trend is the same: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ZW_sex-determination_system http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ZW_sex-determination_system
- yungchin 16y ago
  Wow, that's pretty cool, I didn't know any of that. From the wikipedia link, it seems this should still be consistent with lotusleaf's suggestion: the avian sex chromosomes are thought to be related to the autosomal chromosome 9 in mammals - so any variability in intelligence which was determined by X-chromosomal genes would not necessarily be as apparent in those ZW-carrying animals.
nollidge 16y ago
Why would XY lead to extremes just because men are more susceptible to X-linked recessive diseases? That's a total non-sequitur.
- lotusleaf1987 16y ago
  It was an example because I'm at work and don't have time to find another...But anyways the X is larger than the Y chromosome and also has more genetic information. So XX would have more genetics information, thus moderating the extremes---height, weight, intelligence etc. Whereas the Y these would be more pronounced because there would be fewer chances to have the genetics balance out. I can't explain it any better than that or I would. I am just trying to have a discussion, not an argument.
yungchin 16y ago
I don't get it either, looks like more than one person misread your comments[1]. Here's a nice and brief starting point with some citations for further reading: http://www.pnas.org/content/106/37/E101.full http://www.pnas.org/content/106/37/E101.full [1] and in any case, I think down-voting ought to be used only to punish bad form, not to express disagreement - there's not-voting for that.
- lotusleaf1987 16y ago
  Thanks! I actually said something similar before: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1606824 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1606824 HN is turning into Reddit way too fast for my liking.

araneae 16y ago

Yes, but there are plenty of organisms where the male is homogametic and the female is heterogametic and the behavioral trend is the same: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ZW_sex-determination_system http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ZW_sex-determination_system

yungchin 16y ago
Wow, that's pretty cool, I didn't know any of that. From the wikipedia link, it seems this should still be consistent with lotusleaf's suggestion: the avian sex chromosomes are thought to be related to the autosomal chromosome 9 in mammals - so any variability in intelligence which was determined by X-chromosomal genes would not necessarily be as apparent in those ZW-carrying animals.

nollidge 16y ago

Why would XY lead to extremes just because men are more susceptible to X-linked recessive diseases? That's a total non-sequitur.

lotusleaf1987 16y ago
It was an example because I'm at work and don't have time to find another...But anyways the X is larger than the Y chromosome and also has more genetic information. So XX would have more genetics information, thus moderating the extremes---height, weight, intelligence etc. Whereas the Y these would be more pronounced because there would be fewer chances to have the genetics balance out. I can't explain it any better than that or I would. I am just trying to have a discussion, not an argument.

yungchin 16y ago

I don't get it either, looks like more than one person misread your comments[1]. Here's a nice and brief starting point with some citations for further reading: http://www.pnas.org/content/106/37/E101.full http://www.pnas.org/content/106/37/E101.full [1] and in any case, I think down-voting ought to be used only to punish bad form, not to express disagreement - there's not-voting for that.

lotusleaf1987 16y ago
Thanks! I actually said something similar before: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1606824 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=1606824 HN is turning into Reddit way too fast for my liking.