It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Men more evolved? Y chromosome study stirs debate

page: 8
6
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Jan, 15 2010 @ 02:16 PM
link   
reply to post by BigfootNZ
 


What happens when your body doesn't process the androgenic effects conferred by the Y?

You're female. That's what. You look female, you feel female, you act female, your body develops like a female.




posted on Jan, 15 2010 @ 02:17 PM
link   
Gorman, I regret that I have but one star to give you for your contribution.


As was mentioned earlier about males and crime statistics, here's a government statistics source

On topic:

The SRY gene is unique in that it seems to remain the same even in different men.

According to Amos and Hardwood: "SRY is a variation-free gene that has changed almost not at all since the last common ancestor of all people 200,000 years ago or so. Yet our SRY is very different from that of a chimpanzee...there is, between species, 10 times as much variation in this gene as is typical for other genes. Compared with other active genes, SRY is one of the fastest evolving.

From time to time a driving gene appears on the X chromosome that attacks the Y chromosome by recognizing the protein made by SRY. At once there is a selective advantage for any rare SRY mutant that is sufficiently different to be unrecognized. This mutant begins to spread at the expense of other males. The driving X chromosome distorts the sex ratio in favor of females but the spread of the new mutant SRY restores the balance. The end result is a brand new SRY gene sequence shared by all members of the species, with little variation.

The effect of this sudden burst of evolution (which might happen so quickly as to leave few traces in the evolutionary record) would be to produce SRY's that were very different between species but very similar within species. At least one such sweep must have occurred since the splitting of chimp ancestors and human ancestors, 5-10 million years ago, but before the ancestor common to all modern human beings, 200,000 years ago."

"And in that day seven women shall take hold of one man, saying, We will eat our own bread, and wear our own apparel: only let us be called by thy name, to take away our reproach" (Isaiah 4:1)

What would happen to the males that such a scenario could occur?


[edit on 15-1-2010 by whitewave]



posted on Jan, 15 2010 @ 02:17 PM
link   
reply to post by Gorman91
 



Also, the reason women have not innovated is simply you ignoring places where they did.


Hardly.... I conceded about the Creator of Kevlar.

But most of the "Women Inventors" either subtly altered something that already existed, or took credit for a collaborative effort of which they may not have even been involved.


As I recall, before his divorce, Eisenstein loved talking to his wife about his theories and she helped him figure stuff out.


You just love giving women credit for Everything, don't you?

Did you even bother to research this "Belief"?

No, you did not.

physicsworld.com...

www.esterson.org...

philosci40.unibe.ch...


In addition, men like John Adams contributed to the fundamentals of Republican government with the aid of his wife.


"With the Aid of his Wife" is an interesting choice of words.

Because John Adams also had the Aid of his Butcher, and His Cobbler, and his Carpenter.

But you only mention the Female one... Gee, I wonder why you have this inherent Bias?

John Adams was the Second President of the United States, and you are contributing his success to his Wife?

You are Sexist... Really.

Why do you hate yourself?


A good speech from his wife, titled something like "remember the ladies" is essentially the earliest call for equality in the nation.


Of course.... Remember the Ladies.

Not Remember to Free the slaves, or Remember the Poor, or Remember the People who shoulder the Burdon of Society...

IT's always about the Ladies, isn't it?

Like she can't think of anyone but herself. NARCISSISTIC.


Men like George Washington were unable to live without the moral and philosophical support of their wives, whereby they would have become evil old men who would be dictators.


Citation Please.


In fact, numerous presidents have pointed to their wives as the final decider of what they were going to do, seeing as they could not make the decision alone.


Citation Please.


Failing to contribute Ben Franklin's family as a source of motivation for him is simply foolish.


Thinking that the inventor is SECONDARY in the creation of inventions is Foolish.


Only recently has it been the social norm to allow women to get an education, let alone take credit. And low and behold, suddenly there's an exponential growth in women inventors and leaders.


Are you forgetting all of the Queens that have led nations throughout the history of the world?

Yeah, they must have been oppressed.


You sir Are quite biased in your outlook.


Women inventors are Strong, smart, Capable, and Angelic.

Men Inventors probably just stole it all from the women in their lives.


Seriously man... You are Transparent.



-Edrick

[edit on 15-1-2010 by Edrick]



posted on Jan, 15 2010 @ 02:29 PM
link   

Originally posted by americandingbat

Originally posted by Kailassa

If there is such a huge difference between the Y-chromosomes of chimps and those of human males, whose to say it's the human males who have been evolving. Quite possibly the human Y-chromosome has undergone little change in that time and it's the chimp Y which has been evolving. Observation of both species in their natural habitats certainly bears this out.


Awesome point, Kailassa.

As I read this thread I was thinking a couple things:

1) What effect does different generation length have on rates of evolution in chimps vs humans? I don't know my primate biology at all, but my impression is that chimps begin to produce young earlier than humans (a quick Google search gives time of first reproduction for wild chimps as 11-23 years, closer to humans than I would have thought. But I imagine that over tens of thousands of years even a small difference would produce a pretty significant difference in # of generations)

The length of time between generations will certainly have an effect on the rate of evolution.
This will also be affected by the living conditions within the society studied. The more difficult it is for individuals to live long enough to pass on their genes, the more quickly negative survival traits will disappear from the genome.
However if adverse living conditions cause the evolutionary minimum for population in that society to be reached, the smaller gene pool can cause evolutionary change to stagnate, as there is not a large enough variety of genes in the population to enable much useful adaptation.


2) Is this related to the fact that males produce so many more gametes than females?

3) Could chimps' non-monogamous sexual practices have a "steadying" impact on y-chromosome mutations getting passed along? Here's how I'm thinking: in most cases, when a woman is fertile she only mates with one man. Any successful conception is therefore likely to happen with that man -- there is no need for sperm to "compete" with other mens' sperm. On the other hand, a female chimp often spends a part of her cycle in a "group sex" situation (not the most fertile part usually, but from the little I've read it seems plausible that it's enough to cause some post-sex "competition" as to which male's sperm will be successful in fertilization.

The need for sperm of various potential sires to compete against each other causes fitter sperm to be favoured, and have a greater chance of passing on their genetic code.
The traits most likely to enable the sperm of a primate to win this race are swimming-speed, volume, and pacmanoidism. However the latter has been a little tardy in developing.
- This is lucky, as the development of this third trait would be quite a tragedy for half the males in this thread, the half who are getting any.

You see pacmanoidism, (the development of scavenger sperm which seek out and ingest sperm of the rival primate,) would inevitably result in evolutionary countermeasures, such as a taste disgusting enough to make ingestion of sperm abhorrent.

Such males could find their seminal fluid becoming as bitter and unwanted as the resident misogynists.



posted on Jan, 15 2010 @ 02:52 PM
link   
reply to post by Edrick
 


Dude, I don't give a damn about gender. It's not hating myself. It's my lack of patriotism to anything. I have no allegiance. I am neutral in all maters of politics, gender, nationality, etc etc. Pretty much the only allegiance I can claim is to Christ. That's pretty much about it. If you feel the need to take sides, I invite you to do so, but don't be surprised when you look pompous.

Einstein's beliefs have nothing to do with his wife and their discussions.

Also, John Adam's wife is the most significant contributor. As I mentioned, not taking note of the others is foolish. But I said that in regards to history books. John Adams held his wife in the highest esteem, and they together worked the most on government issues. Those other people contributed, yes, but no where near as much as his wife and himself. He essentially owed his wife his inspiration

www.thelizlibrary.org...
a funny exchange of their bickering, but as John so says:




"Depend upon it, we know better than to repeal our masculine systems. Although they are in full force, you know they are little more than theory. We dare not exert our power in its full latitude. We are obliged to go fair and softly, and, in practice, you know we are the subjects.


You can read how they acted as one mind together here.
www.masshist.org...

Also, all inventions are based off of modification of something else. Einstein only did a few pasting together of already existing theories.

For all intensive purposes, pretty much the only person who actually invented something not based on something before hand that I can think of is Nikola Tesla. I can't really recall anyone else who didn't base their ideas off of already existing ones. I myself have a tread where I basically laid out designs for a warp engine. But for all intensive purposes, it's not hard to design one. It just requires some knowledge of previous experiments and ideas.

Now, if you'd like citations on Mr. Washington:

gwpapers.virginia.edu...

That and many others. Washington had his moral based upon seeing his wife again and her support got him through the war. Without her, he would have no point in living. Washington felt that he had been chosen for some greater good he didn't understand and did not want a part of, but had no choice. Without his wife, he would have been destroyed.

[edit on 15-1-2010 by Gorman91]



posted on Jan, 15 2010 @ 03:14 PM
link   
reply to post by Gorman91
 


Wasn't Adam the First Human Being?

Doesn't that make EVERY invention, discovery, etc, Directly Due to Men?

If you want to take responsibility to that extent, than MEN are responsible for everything.

And women are doing nothing but mooching off of Adam's Success.

Really, if you want to get Derivative, we can go there.

-Edrick



posted on Jan, 15 2010 @ 03:38 PM
link   

Originally posted by Aeons
reply to post by BigfootNZ
 


What happens when your body doesn't process the androgenic effects conferred by the Y?

You're female. That's what. You look female, you feel female, you act female, your body develops like a female.


And that has what to do with the price of cheese?..

If a male embyro has that happen to them then they arent really male nor female, instead they are a rare genetic aberration (not in a nasty bad way, they couldnt help it and its who they are)... a female (mostly) on the physical level and a male at the genetic level... thing is, often they aren't viable breeders and as such, arent fulfilling the biological role of a female, therefore they arent females... nor males since they cant pass on their male genetics the natural way.

Why exactly is there this strange aversion in this thread by some individuals against the idea we are genderless for a portion of our development in the womb?

Why must they find it necessary to make sure we all believe we are all female at conception?.. some hidden angst, shame or agenda?.. i gave my proof of the fact we are genderless at conception and for a while after that, along with the fact that genetically if you have XY chromosomes you ARE male, regardless of what your outward appearance is, the same way im a genetically white british/new zealander fusion... i can call my self, indian, asian, black or any other color along with doing cosmetic changes to my outward appearance but im still at the level that matters what i am...

An embryo normally has either XX or XY... that is your gender, doesnt matter a single iota what your exterior development is along that line... you are your genes... and you are those genes from the first Single cell onward.

If that is an affront to your, 'we are all female at conception come hell or high water' ideas then im afraid ill just have to keep on offending you... im purely just stating the scientific fact.

To think even these days something like this can cause a heated debate... i thought we'd ditched the whole one gender against the other ideals in the 70's
... i know i have, but i also dont hide from the differences, since there ARE differences, they aint going away and they dont really matter.

I am my gender and I am me... thats all that really matter for any one of us.



posted on Jan, 15 2010 @ 03:41 PM
link   
Just gonna point out something here...

You can't say that women are running things and just let men think they're in charge - "Behind every great man is a woman" - and then say things like there would be less war, crime, divorce, pollution or corruption without men.

This is a gray area subject, that's why it's controversial. When it comes to superiority and prejudice within gender, the fact is one gender could be more evolved than the other, and no being is better or worse than another, regardless of species, let alone gender. We are all a result of circumstance.



posted on Jan, 15 2010 @ 03:56 PM
link   
reply to post by Edrick
 


Adam was the first man. So what? He was a man and nothing more. Perhaps a prophet as Islam claims. Makes sense that the only man ever to walk with God would be his greatest preacher. But he was only a man and nothing more. Without a woman, he would be nothing but a temporary organism. Without eve, he would never have reproduced or done anything. Without Eve, he would have no free will to invent and challenge what God created with his incentive need to make something better. Without Eve, he would never seek to be what he lost: with God.

I think Adam owes all mankind's achievement's to Eve.

As St. Augustine would testify, o joyous a curse for what Eve did allowed all mankind to achieve greatness as mortals we would never care to do as immortals.

[edit on 15-1-2010 by Gorman91]



posted on Jan, 15 2010 @ 03:57 PM
link   
Even well-articulated and smart people like you mostly cant seem to distinguish "sex" and "gender" ...


I knew there was a difference for some people, like myself, when I learned about it

But go on with your eternal MenVsWomen debates, its surely a spiritually evolving species!!



posted on Jan, 15 2010 @ 04:14 PM
link   
reply to post by Gorman91
 


Your Bias and Sexism is as transparent as it is childish.

You will look for any justification to claim that women are angelic creatures capable of no wrong, and would be the masters of the universe if only they weren't held down by these, petty, inferior, men.

Reason will not penetrate your brain.

-Edrick



posted on Jan, 15 2010 @ 04:54 PM
link   
reply to post by Edrick
 


Now where did you get that? Men and women are perfectly capable of the same things. Just about the only thing making men better are strength. To my experience, women have skills men simply don't have, including better noticing things, better choice making ability, and of course, a far better body, lol.

As a recall back to first year bio in college, a group of scientists did experiments, and then observed the Bushmen for answers. Men can track things and run simulations better in their mind because that's what they had to do to hunt. Women are better at noticing things and forethought because that's what they had to do when they gathered food and resources. The skills from these experience only add to the human experience. All humans can think and are capable of the same levels of thinking.

Religiously, it makes mankind as a species superior. No other species is so dependent on its mates. Without females, males are hopelessly lost, cannot generate advanced culture, and cannot have restraint from their otherwise barbaric tendencies. Without men, women are hopelessly lost, cannot generate proper sustainability and restraint in other aspects.

Case in point I will compare the Amazon women of ancient Greece (proven to exist) with their ultra-masculine Spartan neighbors. Women of the Amazon were not allowed to have male children and did barbaric things such as cut off their breast for better arm muscles and rape and pillage northern Greek towns. Men of Sparta were radicals, killing unfit children, practicing infanticide, and creating a pure dictatorship whose underlings had no ability to create much of a culture beyond "take stick, stab enemy, gloat"

As a contrast to both, I show you Venice, a kind of combination of both. It was a city state that had semi-progressive equality for the sexes, if only just barely, and allowed women to do things. As expected, it was the epicenter of innovation, creativity, and simply awesomeness throughout the renascence. It was the only supporter of liberal capitalism at the time, and one of the earliest semi-republic forms of government.

So you can call me sexist, bot I again claim neutrality. I take no sides. And I accept the differences from Men and women. Contrary to what you think, I simply do no think humanity can live up to its potential alone. You already show barbaric tendencies and militant behavior as I mentioned. I believe that men and women are mentally equal, but have physical strengths in areas that fit their ancestors best.

You simply have to stop thinking women are inferior. Because like it or not, they're just as good as you. You claim that women who invent things just took stuff that already exist and made it better. I tell you that there is no other way inventions have come to exist. As I said, I can only think of Nikola Tesla as a person who did not just improve on something that already existed. I invite you to challenge this claim, because I can't think of anyone else.

Like it or not, but pretty much all inventions you can think of were just little improvements on already existing things.



posted on Jan, 15 2010 @ 05:22 PM
link   

Originally posted by Edrick
reply to post by Gorman91
 


Wasn't Adam the First Human Being?

Doesn't that make EVERY invention, discovery, etc, Directly Due to Men?

If you want to take responsibility to that extent, than MEN are responsible for everything.



If that's your logic then men are also to blame for being deceived by Satan, biting into the apple and screwing the human race all to hell, since Eve was made from Adam's rib. We could have been a completely happy, serene race of people.

You have one can't take credit for it all and yet ignore the bad things. It's a double edged sword.



posted on Jan, 15 2010 @ 05:47 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gorman91
Men of Sparta were radicals, killing unfit children, practicing infanticide, and creating a pure dictatorship whose underlings had no ability to create much of a culture beyond "take stick, stab enemy, gloat"

This is actually extremely untrue. Read up on Sparta if you will. Not that it matters, but it's bad to use this.
And that biology thing with men and women, I'd hypothesize that it was due to developmental activities and differences in occupations. ex. Legos vs. dolls, outside games vs. indoor, etc.

[edit on 15-1-2010 by Johnmike]



posted on Jan, 15 2010 @ 05:50 PM
link   
Hasn't anyone else here wondered what the hell this article is talking about? Here's a simple biology lesson:

In women, there are two X chromosomes. XX. One chromosome is inactivated (almost completely, but only almost FYI) by becoming a Barr body and the other remains active. Thus one X chromosome is active per cell. This fixes the discrepancy in potential gene expression between men and women, as otherwise women would have way too much genetic expression of that chromosome.

Now let us look at XY. The X does not form a Barr body and thus in males XY is expressed. The Y is what gives males the male characteristics -- this extra gene expression.
Yes, this means that despite the extra template material, men actually seem to express more of it than their female counterparts.

But the Y is just an incomplete copy of the X. The extra potential for genetic disorders is due to the X chromosome, not the Y chromosome. See, most disorders are recessive -- that is, that an individual becomes diseased by having not one, but two pairs of the genetically abnormal chromosome. Therefore both the mother and father had at least one copy of the disease. But in men, we only have one copy of the genetic material that is on the X yet absent from the Y chromosome. Therefore, men only need one bad copy of the gene -- always from the mother (she gives the X chromosome, as she has no Y) -- to have a genetic disease.

So how does mutating the Y chromosome have more of an effect that mutating a regular chromosome? IT DOESN'T. Its genes are doubled on the X just like all the others! The Y contains no genes that are not doubles on the X, so it isn't any different! If anything, we should be looking at the unpaired parts of the X chromosome!


Here are some parts of the article which are particularly, well...wrong, or misleading.


Researchers took the most detailed examination of the Y chromosome, which females do not have, of both humans and chimps and found entire sections dramatically different. There were even entire genes on the human Y chromosome that weren't on the chimp, said Hughes, also of the White. Institute..

A female has no Y chromosome, true. But she has an X chromosome in its place! The X chromosome contains all of the genetic material that would be on the Y chromosome! So difference between the Y chromosome of a chimp and the Y chromosome of a human will also be differences on their X chromosomes! The Y contains no genetic material independent of the X chromosome at all. And not only that, but any mutation in the Y chromosome may also be transferred to an X chromosome and passed down to a daughter via crossing over during gamete cell division. So the article here makes no sense -- and is trying to sensationalize and mislead you.



There are a couple of reasons Page and Hughes cite for Y being such an evolutionary powerhouse. One is that it stands alone and isn't part of a pair like 44 other chromosomes. So when there are mutations there's no matching chromosome to recombine and essentially cover up the change, Hughes said.


This is just plain wrong. The Y is part of a pair; its partner is the X chromosome. The Y does recombine with the X chromosome in meiosis, the kind of cell division to create gametes (sex cells). Here crossing over, the exchange of genetic material between chromosomes, does occur! Thus this article is completely misleading. It's just plain wrong.

[edit on 15-1-2010 by Johnmike]



posted on Jan, 15 2010 @ 07:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Johnmike

This is just plain wrong. The Y is part of a pair; its partner is the X chromosome. The Y does recombine with the X chromosome in meiosis, the kind of cell division to create gametes (sex cells). Here crossing over, the exchange of genetic material between chromosomes, does occur! Thus this article is completely misleading. It's just plain wrong.

[edit on 15-1-2010 by Johnmike]


Heh i havent really read the article properly myself (only posted to rebute some 'facts' a poster was bandying around), since really who gives a poop if the Y is more 'evolved'


But yeah your right, the article is pretty misleading on the examples you gave especially the last one. Granted as my brother who proof reads science journal articles for a living always says... mainstream media really has a bad habit of sensationalizing and miss interpreting scientific studies and data. Best thing to do when seeing news articles like this is to assume 50% of its wrong or poorly rewritten for the average joe to comprehend.

At least you cleared up a nigling i had, since in the back of my mind I couldnt remember and wasn't sure if X and Y recombination happened, I could have looked it up but it wasnt at the front of my mind so didnt.

Star for that.



posted on Jan, 15 2010 @ 08:28 PM
link   
reply to post by Gorman91
 



Now where did you get that? Men and women are perfectly capable of the same things.


No, they are not.

Gender is a division of labor on a biological level.

Men are better than women at some things, and women better than men at other things.

This is why the term "Equality" is meaningless in this context.


Just about the only thing making men better are strength.


This is patently False.

Men are better at mathematics, spacial awareness, inventiveness, Science, etc, etc, etc...

Your presumption that men are only dominant because of brutish strength is a form of propaganda that is the basis of Third Wave Feminism.


To my experience, women have skills men simply don't have, including better noticing things, better choice making ability, and of course, a far better body, lol.


So, on the one hand, you say that women have skills that men arent as good at, and on the other, you claim that women are just as good as men at everything else.

Your perspective, whether you realize it or not, is SEXIST... by definition.

You espouse the Superiority of Females, over males.


As a recall back to first year bio in college, a group of scientists did experiments, and then observed the Bushmen for answers. Men can track things and run simulations better in their mind because that's what they had to do to hunt.


And this statement directly contradicts your previous statement that men and women are perfectly capable of the same things.

You really don't see your cognitive dissonance, do you?


All humans can think and are capable of the same levels of thinking.


This statement is patently False also... you are saying that you are just as good at thinking as our greatest minds, Stephen Hawkings, Albert Einstein, Nicholai Tesle, Michio Kaku.....

You have no idea what the words that you are typing mean.


Religiously, it makes mankind as a species superior. No other species is so dependent on its mates. Without females, males are hopelessly lost


And how many species do you know of that can reproduce without females?

You just keep saying things that make absolutely no sense.

And you don't SEE it.. that is the problem.


Case in point I will compare the Amazon women of ancient Greece (proven to exist)


No, they are not... they are mythological, a story, a fiction, a fable.


So you can call me sexist, bot I again claim neutrality. I take no sides.


Yes, you *CLAIM* you take no sides, but you attribute the greatness of the best men, to Women.

You are espousing the Superiority of one sex, over the other.

This is the Dictionary DEFINITION of Sexism.


You already show barbaric tendencies and militant behavior as I mentioned.


Because I am calling you on your Lies, and deliberate mistruths?

That is what makes me barbaric?

That is the funniest thing that I have ever heard... and quite an obtuse statement at that.


You simply have to stop thinking women are inferior.


You have to stop thinking that they are superior.


Because like it or not, they're just as good as you.


*AT WHAT*?


You claim that women who invent things just took stuff that already exist and made it better.


The examples that were given were of poor quality, and thus, required refutation.


Like it or not, but pretty much all inventions you can think of were just little improvements on already existing things.


Mathematics
Logic
Science
Gunpowder
Metallurgy
Mining
Electronics
Etc, etc, etc...

Your statement does not hold water.

-Edrick

[edit on 15-1-2010 by Edrick]



posted on Jan, 15 2010 @ 08:30 PM
link   
reply to post by sos37
 



If that's your logic then men are also to blame for being deceived by Satan, biting into the apple and screwing the human race all to hell, since Eve was made from Adam's rib. We could have been a completely happy, serene race of people.


No, that is not *MY* logic, that is the logic of the person that I am arguing with, claiming that the inventions of Albert Einstein were because of his wife, claiming that the Leadership qualities of George Washington were because of his Wife, etc, etc, etc....

I was taking *HIS* argument to its final logical conclusion to highlight the ABSURDITY of it.

He fell into my trap, AND STARTED DANCING!

IT was quite a sight to behold, actually.


You have one can't take credit for it all and yet ignore the bad things. It's a double edged sword.


THAT WAS MY ENTIRE POINT!

-Edrick

[edit on 15-1-2010 by Edrick]



posted on Jan, 15 2010 @ 08:42 PM
link   

Originally posted by sos37
I agree with whomever said men were catching up, not superior to women.

Let's face it - if there were no men in this world and women had found a way to clone themselves I would guess there would be far, far fewer wars; everyone regardless of nationality would be treated equal and the earth would be much better taken care of - to name just a few.

Face it - men are the real evil doers in this world. There is absolutely no question about that whatsoever.


WHOA! Less wars? seriously? obviously you have never worked in a female dominated environment. Women are every bit as aggressive as men and are more clever about disguising it. We have 2 women in our dept where I work and both claim that they would far rather work with men than women.

There would still be wars...... just over shoes or something.



posted on Jan, 15 2010 @ 08:54 PM
link   

Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by Edrick
 


Now where did you get that? Men and women are perfectly capable of the same things. Just about the only thing making men better are strength. To my experience, women have skills men simply don't have, including better noticing things, better choice making ability, and of course, a far better body, lol.


what
haveing more strenght dose not mean better just stronger. what skills are you talking about?both sex`s have skills the other don`t. women are not better at "noticeing things" thay can however track multiple objects better and spot stationery objects better, thay don`t have better "choice makeing ability" (what ever that is:puz
as i see my girl buying crap all the time that never gets used thay GENRALY are less logical


Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by Edrick
 


As a recall back to first year bio in college, a group of scientists did experiments, and then observed the Bushmen for answers. Men can track things and run simulations better in their mind because that's what they had to do to hunt. Women are better at noticing things and forethought because that's what they had to do when they gathered food and resources. The skills from these experience only add to the human experience. All humans can think and are capable of the same levels of thinking.


running simulation is a big advantage when trying to invent something


Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by Edrick
 

Religiously, it makes mankind as a species superior. No other species is so dependent on its mates. Without females, males are hopelessly lost, cannot generate advanced culture, and cannot have restraint from their otherwise barbaric tendencies. Without men, women are hopelessly lost, cannot generate proper sustainability and restraint in other aspects.


nope. what make humans better is the thumb, the ability to sweat and the massive redundency of the brain. barbaric people wont listen to anyone so how would women resrain them were men can`t?


Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by Edrick
 

Case in point I will compare the Amazon women of ancient Greece (proven to exist) with their ultra-masculine Spartan neighbors. Women of the Amazon were not allowed to have male children and did barbaric things such as cut off their breast for better arm muscles and rape and pillage northern Greek towns. Men of Sparta were radicals, killing unfit children, practicing infanticide, and creating a pure dictatorship whose underlings had no ability to create much of a culture beyond "take stick, stab enemy, gloat"



you don`t know enough about ether of these cultures to comment on them spartan women were the dominants and amazons only cut off one brest for better aim with a bow, i mean how would thay feed the babies


Originally posted by Gorman91
reply to post by Edrick
 


As a contrast to both, I show you Venice, a kind of combination of both. It was a city state that had semi-progressive equality for the sexes, if only just barely, and allowed women to do things. As expected, it was the epicenter of innovation, creativity, and simply awesomeness throughout the renascence. It was the only supporter of liberal capitalism at the time, and one of the earliest semi-republic forms of government.


this sounds about right but i don`t know enough about it to be sure

this whole argument is like "my hammer is better than your fruit basket" stupid and pointless


[edit on 15-1-2010 by Aceofclubs]



new topics

top topics



 
6
<< 5  6  7    9  10  11 >>

log in

join