Slashdot Mirror


Human Males Evolve At a Faster Pace Than Females

Tisha_AH writes "A report by the Whitehead Institute indicates that the human Y chromosome present in males is evolving at a furious pace. Across the chromosome there can be as much as a 33% difference within humans alone. The portions of the chromosome evolving fastest are related to sperm production."

21 of 454 comments (clear)

  1. Mod the article flamebait by vivaoporto · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Mod the article flamebait by vivaoporto · · Score: 3, Insightful

      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.

  2. Males are not a population by mcvos · · Score: 3, Insightful

    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.

    1. Re:Males are not a population by mcvos · · Score: 4, Insightful

      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.

    2. Re:Males are not a population by Trails · · Score: 4, Insightful

      It may also represent societal pressures on men.

      Men have a shorter life expectancy, also indicative of stronger pressure on the males of the species.

      For example, if men tend to do more dangerous jobs (soldering, firefighting, etc...) this means the selective process among males is different, possibly harsher.

      In other words, this is proof that men have it tougher than women, so my wife should quit her belly-achin' and bring me a sammich!!!

    3. Re:Males are not a population by bjourne · · Score: 4, Insightful

      Yes, that is true. Historically only 40% of all males were able to produce offspring while over 80% of all females were. Since 60% of all males were evolutionary losers but only 20% of females ofcourse that produces different survival strategies for the genders.

    4. Re:Males are not a population by tmosley · · Score: 3, Insightful

      Females never at any time have access to the Y chromosome, so any evolution that occurs there by definition only effects males. There are numerous examples of male only evolution occurring throughout the animal kingdom.

    5. Re:Males are not a population by TheRaven64 · · Score: 5, Insightful

      Evolution is nothing more than mutations over time.

      Absolutely untrue. Evolution is mutation plus culling. Without the culling, you do not have evolution. If you put together a situation in which all mutations are likely to survive, then there is no evolution, there is just divergence (this doesn't happen in nature and is very hard to make happen in a lab). Evolution requires some conditions which will make some mutations more able to survive and reproduce than others. In each generation, some mutations will be favourable, some will not. Most will be a mixture of both.

      The culling process (starvation from inability to catch prey, death from not being able to outrun predators, inability to attract a mate caused by not having bright enough feathers, and so on) ensures that the mutations that are beneficial are more likely to enter the next generation than the ones that are not. The result of this process over time is evolution. Mutation is just a part of it. You can even have evolution without mutation if you start with a sufficiently varied population. Over time, the population will evolve towards a less varied group with only the characteristics suited to that particular niche.

      Further, you can have a few individuals of a group evolve at a different rate and in a different direction than the remainder of the group. Humans are good example of this.

      Absolutely. White skin, for example, was a mutation with both advantages and disadvantages. It increased the risk of death from skin cancer, but also made it easier to absorb vitamin D. In regions with lots of sunlight, evolution selects against this mutation because it kills more than it saves (you aren't likely to be short of vitamin D in the middle of Africa, but you are likely to develop skin cancer). In colder climates, vitamin D shortage is a real problem, even in a modern society; there have been a number of well-publicised cases in the north of England recently where black children suffer from a deficiency caused by not receiving enough exposure to sunlight, while skin cancer from exposure to sunlight is much rarer.

      Note, however, that both the mutation and the culling are required. An individual that develops white skin has not evolved, it has mutated. A population that develops white skin because it has a greater survival utility in northern Europe has evolved. The same mutation in Africa will be as likely, but is much less likely to be passed on because it does not confer a survival advantage (the reverse, in fact) and so will not contribute to evolution.

      --
      I am TheRaven on Soylent News
    6. Re:Males are not a population by Creedo · · Score: 3, Insightful

      No, but that doesn't mean that they don't exert a selection pressure upon the Y chromosome via sexual selection, which is exactly the point.

      --
      All that is necessary for the triumph of good is that evil men do nothing.
  3. Re:The cynical... by gad_zuki! · · Score: 5, Insightful

    >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.

  4. Re:So from what I can gather... by Penguinisto · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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.

    --
    Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
  5. Re:The cynical... by dunkelfalke · · Score: 4, Insightful

    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

    --
    "It's such a fine line between stupid and clever" -- David St. Hubbins, Spinal Tap
  6. Re:So from what I can gather... by SQLGuru · · Score: 3, Insightful

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

    I think I saw that video on YouTube!

  7. Re:The cynical... by log0n · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Sorry you got modded down.. I wholeheartedly agree with this.

    Like you, I could care less now.. but you are correct - ever since the old school women's liberation movement (which was a good and necessary thing) the balance his shifted so that women aren't equals, they are male superiors. Most advertising portrays females as the wise and NECESSARY figureheads of families while men are bumbling with 0 (or equally idiotic) focus. I'm very fortunate in my marriage.. but the occasional times we bump heads, why is the supposition that I'm automatically the one who's wrong?

    The cynical and sexist side of me thinks that this is because women generally still feel inadequate in some capacity.

    But yea.. factor in TV advertising, divorced moms who typically end up with custody ranting about how evil fathers/men are and doctors prescribing away 'boys will be boys' (generally at the request of the mom), future generations will have some serious genetics to do battle with.

    No wonder males are evolving faster than women. Survival of the fittest.. and men are no longer fit in the battle of the sexes.

  8. Re:The cynical... by TheTyrannyOfForcedRe · · Score: 4, Insightful

    TV panders to women because TV is all about selling advertising. Advertising is all about selling crap. Who does the day to day shopping? Unless you're a single guy it's probably a woman. For most goods, advertisers value the eyeballs of women far more than those of men. This is why nearly every TV program that isn't a guy's show (sports/fishing/woodworking/etc) must be palatable to women. If women won't like it it's not on TV.

    --
    "Liechtenstein is the world's largest producer of sausage casings, potassium storage units, and false teeth."
  9. Re:obviously by Asic+Eng · · Score: 4, Insightful
    There doesn't have to be a good reason - the human body is littered with such "design faults". The thing is - once a solution works well enough it becomes difficult to evolve an even better solution which is far apart from the existing one. For example, one day you might have mutated offspring who is able to produce sperm at room temperature. What's his evolutionary advantage? Nothing because his balls are already out receiving sufficient cooling. And while that requires a huge step already, it would take another huge one, in which his offsprings balls don't drop. Only then a very slight evolutionary advantage would appear. The advantage would be even smaller since we usually don't like sexual partners who are looking "wierd" or defective, and we have already adapted our environment to protect our balls by wearing clothes.

    Evolution doesn't give us the best possible solution, just one which was "good enough" at some point in time. As a result we have spines which hurt, wrists which break easily when we try to protect us from a fall, women who become infertile long before they would lose the strength to carry a child, etc.

  10. Re:The cynical... by superdana · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Most advertising portrays females as the wise and NECESSARY figureheads of families while men are bumbling with 0 (or equally idiotic) focus.

    Yeah, let me tell you how great it is to be constantly reminded that my place is in the home. It makes me feel so SUPERIOR. It's a miracle that I can manage to hold down a software development job too, in which my undeniable superiority rakes in 70% as much as the man in the other cube. Thank God for that old school women's lib thing that is obviously no longer necessary.

  11. Re:The cynical... by yabos · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Unless it's a non white person, then they can be as racist as they want. Just look at Chris Rock, his comedy is mostly white racist jokes.

  12. Re:The cynical... by Daniel+Dvorkin · · Score: 3, Insightful

    Compliment by self-deprecation is fine. Compliment by half-the-human-race-deprecation is not.

    --
    The correlation between ignorance of statistics and using "correlation is not causation" as an argument is close to 1.
  13. Re:The cynical... by KingSkippus · · Score: 3, Insightful

    It's called self-deprecating humor. I'm a male, so I get to make fun of men. I'm also a white guy, so I can make fun of white guys. I've witnessed African-Americans making fun of the African-American stereotype, and guess what. It's funny. I've also witnessed women making fun of female stereotypes, and guess what. It's funny, too.

    You should try it sometime yourself. Stop taking yourself, your race, your gender, your religion, your [whatever] so seriously. Ironically, most people respect folks more who are able to laugh at themselves. It's people like you are are "that guy" that no one wants to be around because they're so self-righteous.

    I don't feel sorry for our children at all. I want my kids to have a healthy sense of humility and not be like you. And if you think that comments like these about one's own cultural groups are a contributing factor to society's ills, you really need to get a better perspective things.

    In other words, man up, Nancy.

  14. Re:The cynical... by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Insightful

    By and large, the idea than women earn less for equal work is incorrect these days. Yes, women earn less, but that's because they choose safer jobs on average (over 90% of workplace deaths are men), they are more likely to take extended periods of time away from their careers for child-rearing (in most places in the world, paternity leave is a pittance compared with maternity leave), they aren't as demanding when they ask for raises, they choose more pleasant indoor jobs at a higher rate than men do, they work fewer hours on average (men work more overtime on average and are more likely to be employed full-time), and other things of this nature. Once you control for factors like this - factors that boil down to women being less committed to their careers on average than men (who are viewed as the bread-winner and judged harshly if they can't provide for their families) you'll find that the sexes are about equal. Sure, you might put in equal work to your male peers, but other women who make different choices bring down the average salary for women. It's not discrimination, it's choice that causes women to earn less on average.

    Look at it this way: if you really could get the same amount of work from a woman at only 70% the cost, who would ever hire men?