wrote in message
news:1108172198.965255.128490{at}g14g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
>
> Alex from NC wrote:
>
> > 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?
>
>
> Show me the female 'geniuses' then we can discuss genetic superiority.
>
> Thanks.
>
Nature doesn't need genius, just efficient reproduction and the raising of
offspring. Morons can breed successfully.
In mammals, females are genetically "better" simply because they have the
two x chromosomes.

In the early stages, the foetus is female in appearance. It takes
testosterone at the right time of development to make a male. I wonder if
that is what Darwin meant by "less-evolved".

Interestingly enough, in birds it is the male that has the two x chromosomes
(Now bird chromosomes are called  w and z)  The hen carries the sex-linked
factors and is the weaker bird.

Geopelia




--- UseNet To RIME Gateway {at} 2/11/05 10:44:21 PM ---