Human Y Chromosome Evolving Faster Than Expected

Submitted by Broadsword on Thu, 2010-01-14 15:04

Article here. Excerpt:

"The Y chromosome is often seen as the rotten corner of the human genome — a place of evolutionary decline that is slowly decaying and threatening the end of man. Reports of its imminent demise, however, have been exaggerated.

Research has indicated that, far from stagnating, the male chromosome is a hotspot of evolution that is changing more quickly than any other part of humanity’s genetic code.
...
But the first comparison of the human Y chromosome with its counterpart in chimpanzees has revealed that they differ radically. The findings suggest that the Y chromosomes of both are evolving rapidly and dynamically — probably because of their critical roles in reproduction — and have a vibrant future.

In the new research, which is published in the journal Nature, Dr David Page, of the Massachusetts Institute of Technology — who first sequenced the Y chromosome in 2003 — has now sequenced the Y chromosome of the chimp, humanity’s closest relative, and compared this with the human version.

The scientists expected the two sequences to look very similar. However, while human and chimp DNA generally differ by less than 2 per cent, more than 30 per cent of the Y chromosome differed between the two species.
...
“This research shows that the Y chromosome isn’t necessarily degrading, but is evolving very fast,” said Professor Robin Lovell-Badge, of the National Institute for Medical Research in London, an expert on the Y chromosome. who was not involved in the study."'

Also covered on FOX News here and on the NY Times (surprisingly) here.

-----------

Submitted by user lance:

'Offensive title aside ("Y chromosome not stagnating, men not idiots"), the take home is pretty important: while for the past few decades biology teachers and popular culture have derived great pleasure in painting men as genetically inferior. In fact, this attitude is one of the reasons why I took up a vocation with a strong biological component. In my early days, I figured I could "right the wrongs" I perceived or I was taught existed in our genome. Well it turns out the wrongs are not quite so wrong. Similar reporting in "Nature" here.

As commented here (Nature article) and here (TG Daily article), it seems our little Y chromosome is not the unadulterated failure it once was thought to be.'

Like0 Dislike0

Comments

Nothing new here. Y chromosomes have been the main force of on-chromosome evolution since sexed species emerged. Unisex species are frail and can survive in only small ranges and in certain climates (most prominent examples of these are non-mammalians, like certain unisex lizard species that are fragile and die off fast when removed from very narrow ranges and environments). Most of these unisex or unsexed beings are single-celled creature.

If we limit our consideration to creatures with spinal columns, the biggest example of a unisex species is the Mourning Gecko. She lives mostly in Hawaii and among unisex species, shows a bit more adaptability than the others. The problem she faces is that she evolves slowly due to the lack of the more birth-cyclical, DNA-cross-driven variation that bi-sexed species have. She can evolve via spontaneous adaptive mutation and while this is slower, it is still something. For these lizards, what is established in their biology generally works and tends to work well, so they do have this going for them.

Alas though these poor lizards [I have a thing for lizards - I like them. They are cute :)] are losing ground to other lizard species that are, unsurprisingly, bi-sexed. Like other species, they live or die based on how well they can handle the competitive nature of new arrivals. Plants, animals, insects, single-celled creatures, indeed, all species must contend with this.

People of no particular inclination in terms of gender issues may fairly ask "Why do species have males at all if all it takes is females to make new creatures? Or for that matter, why can't we all just be like single-celled beings?" Well, the answer is this: Look at those beings. They don't get past a certain point because they can't evolve and/or adapt fast enough to their environment, whether it be the weather, other species moving in, sources of energy suddenly getting depleted (light falling off, the air's gaseous content changing, prey animals disappearing, etc.). They find a way to do things and stay with it even if they can't or won't adapt. They handle this matter by making loads of copies of themselves and hope a few can survive to do the same (e.g.: paramecia). This is how they have been doing it for millions of years. It works for them, but they have little hope of ever learning how to type. =)

Males are here because we create a huge advantage for species survival. It works to have us around - really well, too. Our advantage to species is so large that not a single unisex species can claim to have reached the degree of evolution that sexed species have, just because we can beat the clock so effectively with sexed species' "rapid-cycle genetic variation". Feminists like the recently-planted Mary Daly were simply too uneducated or too filled with hate to grok this.

Like0 Dislike0
Submitted by Matt on Thu, 2010-01-14 19:23

"Women may think of men as primitive, but new research indicates that the Y chromosome -- the thing that makes a man male -- is evolving far faster than the rest of the human genetic code."

Primitive? Well maybe some women need to do that to make themselves feel better, like some men need to view women as "simple" or "too emotional" to make themselves feel good. But I find it hard to think a woman with an IQ above a certain point, who also has not been indoctrinated into feminism, and who is paying the least bit of attention to who is doing all the road-construction, building-building, most of the creative, philosophical, scientific, other kinds of writing throughout history, and has somehow has also managed to spare time to do most of the other stuff that allows civilization to function, could actually look at the collective lot of us and say "They're primitive".

I suppose it's possible. But such a woman has to really, really want to be a gender-bigot to do that.

Like0 Dislike0
Submitted by Matt on Thu, 2010-01-14 19:38

Nice assessment Broadsword.

If you think back to when the “Y chromosome decline” theory was all the rage, major publications such as Time Magazine ran a cover page story on the possible “decline of the males” due to the withering Y chromosome. I read it at an airport magazine stand, and looked at all the busy men walking around and wondered what type of insidious process lead to the publishing of such tripe… Mind you, this magazine was displayed in prominence, at both airports, then at the checkout at my local grocery store. A fine example of how the feminist hate machine operates…

Like0 Dislike0
Submitted by liberty on Fri, 2010-01-15 14:19