|
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Maybe that's why men have so much more white matter than females do.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Males, on average, have significantly larger brains than women. Even the ancient Greeks wrote about and knew about the same.History proves that the male gender has been responsible for the vast majority of social, economic,philosophical,scientific, theological,political, and cultural advancements of mankind. What is, also, clear is that social, political,economic, and cultural forces can,within two or three generations, because of the selective selection for breeding by women of males who are base or weak, denigrate the male species genetically to completely destroy those hereditary components of the male gene which have furthered the progress of mankind. I believe that the facts clearly demonstrate that the same is going on and has been going on for some time.
C.V. Compton Shaw
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Males, on average, have significantly larger brains than women.
FWIW:
That's pretty much due to the greater amount of white matter. One useful analogy that biologists often use is that gray matter is like a computer's CPU. It does the processing of information and ideas. The white matter is like the board. It handles communication of information.
White matter speeds the communication of information, but it doesn't do the processing.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Also, it should be noted that this bit about white matter is just one possibility, one guess. The researchers have not yet, as far as I know, formally postulated what the effect of men's extra brain gene is.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
I would like to take a moment to argue that the facts are not so clear as you're suggesting they are. For starters although the larger amount of grey matter is the hypothesis regarding the different levels of intelligence currently best suggested by the available facts, it is still far from being proven. I do subscribe to the hypothesis myself and have been known to comment that phrenology, which was the science that first suggested a link between brain size and intelligence, was not in entirety ever proven wrong but rather hastily discarded as a whole by people who were undoubtably small-minded. (pun intended)
The second idea presented in your post is IMO less clear, and I believe it to be false. While I agree that selective breeding could cause some devolution of the species, (it would be unlikely to affect only men), the idea that within 2 or three generations the hereditary components which benefit males would be completely destroyed is unreasonable from a modern evolutionary point of view. Take heart that our DNA is much stronger than that, heck we still have the information to grow tails in there! According to modern evolutionary theory, if some great cataclysm resulting in a very small population of humans was followed by a time of low environmental stressors what happens is first you get a lot of breeding of people who are closely related, which causes many mutations to pop up, and then the people who had the mutations would still have a good chance of survival allowing them to breed and pass them along. This is how it is believed new species are developed, (which usually occurs rapidly whenever a period of extremely hostile to life environments become friendly, such as after an ice age), and also how humans could evolve and grow tails. In other words, most of evolution occurs in short bursts, and during times of stable environments evolution occurs very slowly because there's less mutations occuring from closely related breeding.
Now, when the environment is very good for a very long time, you don't get so much "survival of the fittest", you get "survival of everybody" which doesn't weed much out of the gene pool, as has been happening which allows for more mutations, both beneficial and harmful, to be passed along although the amount is much lower than following a cataclysm due to the lack of inbreeding. This means that for any evolutionary change to take place, many generations are required even under "survival of everybody" conditions.
The other points you make that I disagree with are that women are selectively breeding with base, weak males instead of men with more desirable genes, and that each generation of men has become worse off genetically for some time.
|
|
|
|
|
[an error occurred while processing this directive]
|
