All it tells me is that men represent the genetic seed of permutation that
guarantees a variety range within a species that makes its extinction less
likely. Obviously a very elegant genetic survival tactic as a result of life
on a geologically, and chemically active planet.


----------
In article , "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,
> 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?
>


--- UseNet To RIME Gateway {at} 2/12/05 6:44:17 AM ---