"Sean_MacCloud" 
wrote in message
news:BqlPd.874$0M.82{at}fe11.lga...
>
>
> Alex from NC wrote:
>
> > Women have more genetic material than men. They have two X chromosomes
> > instead of one, and if one contains defective genes, the other can
> > often pick up the slack. This is why hemophilia and color blindness are
> > almost exclusively male diseases. If a male receives an X chromosome
> > with flawed genes, he has no recourse.
> >
> > The Y chromosome is also tiny by comparison, and all that its few genes
> > govern is sperm production and little else--nothing too important, not
> > like blood clotting or seeing color.
>
> > The Y chromosome also can't benefit from sexual recombination. All it
> > can do is swap defective genes for copies from its genetic palindromes.
> > This is error prone, and if it makes a mistake, then that will never be
> > resolved, since Y chromosomes never encounter other Y chromosomes.
> >
> > Chromosomal disorders also effect men far more than women. Turner's
> > Syndrome (one X chromosome instead of two) is extremely rare, striking
> > roughly 1 girl in 3000, while Kleinfelter's Syndrome (Two X chromosomes
> > and one Y) strikes 1 in 600 boys.
> >
> > Doesn't this make women, by definition, genetically superior to men,
>
> This is the "genetic sophistry" I used to talk about at
other places. This
> is what your "age of reason" "enlightened" society
teaches. Not to mention
> it's "bigoted" and "sexist".
>
> There is no such thing as "genetic superiority" as you are using it.
You're
> just inventing your own criteria for "superiority". There is
no such thing
> as more or less evolved. Your criteria is donut hole creating donut
> syndrome.
>
> And the "tiny Y" is a switch board operator which governs
how everything
> else will manifest. The male and female of a species are the same design
> except for the fact that the male is a systemically hyper boosted version.
> This hyper boosting is done by the metabolic house keeping genes on the Y.
> This hyper boosting is key to everything. (My theory is that it's all down
> to oxygen processing at the cell and tissue level.)
>
> And number two: The Y chromosome --which is where the important stuff that
> ultimately makes human genius is --folds on itself to correct errors,
> unlike the other chroms (X included) which need partners to fold with and
> correct errors.
>
> So you're wrong multiple times in mulitple ways.
>
>
>
> > since they are virtually immune from an entire class of genetic
> > diseases and are far less susceptible to others? Doesn't this fly in
> > the face of Darwin's theory that women were less-evolved, physically
> > and mentally, than men?
>
> Darwins theory that "women were less evolved"...
>
> You're just making up your own things.
>
> How did what you say demonstrate in any way that female humans were
> intellectually or physically "equal" with men?
>
> You are absolutely a blabbering idiot. And it's genetic.
>
> ---------
> So absurd its probably a troll.

IMO the proof of the pudding is in the eating show me ALL the female
genius's
and WHO built society and i'll show you it was MEN!!!






--- UseNet To RIME Gateway {at} 2/12/05 10:44:12 AM ---