• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

Y chromosome will disappear, science says

T8SC

Gold Member
200.gif
 
Last edited:

PSlayer

Member
The Y is smaller than the X and it is getting smaller over time. The goal of the Y is to overwrite certain traits that are one way for females but another for males(we are all females at some point during pregnancy) so Y doesn't have to hold as much information as the X. Some people believe that Y will eventually vanish but another possible explanation to why the Y is getting smaller is that it's being optimized by natural selection(getting rid of redundant info that the X already have)
 
I learned about this in high school. Eventully, SRY, which is the sex gene (if you have a functional SRY along with some related receptors you will be males, otherwise you will be female almost always), will need to be grafted in the X chromosome to continue human sexual dimorphism and natural sexual reproduction.

In simple terms, the Y chromosome is basically useless outside of SRY. Males being XY is actually detrimental because X has life-critical genes, and we do not have a backup for dosing if something goes wrong with a X gene. But if you engineer a X chromosome with SRY where it has the same genetic and epigenetic activity, it would be functionally identical. We aren't at that point yet, though.
 

mansoor1980

Gold Member
I learned about this in high school. Eventully, SRY, which is the sex gene (if you have a functional SRY along with some related receptors you will be males, otherwise you will be female almost always), will need to be grafted in the X chromosome to continue human sexual dimorphism and natural sexual reproduction.

In simple terms, the Y chromosome is basically useless outside of SRY. Males being XY is actually detrimental because X has life-critical genes, and we do not have a backup for dosing if something goes wrong with a X gene. But if you engineer a X chromosome with SRY where it has the same genetic and epigenetic activity, it would be functionally identical. We aren't at that point yet, though.
so basically everyone will be a MAAM
 
so basically everyone will be a MAAM

No, people with a SRY+ X will be male, and those without one will be female. It would work identically to the current sex chromosomes. You'd still need a sperm from someone with a SRY+ X and egg from someone without to reproduce. Gametes and cross would work the same as well - sperm would have have either a SRY- X or a SRY+ X, and eggs would always have a SRY- X.
 
Do we have any other examples of this happening in nature?

Chromosomes degenerate all the time - that's why organisms have different numbers of chromosomes, and what causes a lot of genetic disorders. Sections of chromosomes will break off and attach to others, meiosis will fuck up, etc.

Generally small errors are more likely to be heritable because they are not detrimental, but it's not inconceivable over hundreds of millions of reproductions.
 
They just say stuff like this to mess with you, and to devalue masculinity. It's purely political. What's the point of being a woman if there aren't men? We are a social species. Men are as autistically productive as they are not because it gives them some kind of innate satisfaction, but because if they climb the hierarchy high enough they can get a QT 3.14 and dick them down over and over and over again, and maybe get some super hot chick pregnant and then have kids that can continue the cycle. Why do women diet, why do they exercise? Why do they study fashion? Women are more social than men, and generally love the attention they get both from other women, and from men. Every reasonably attractive women walks around with a few things men want, in other words they walk around with a series of constant "attention seeking devices," and like any social being they like positive attention, and they like it more as the value of the person giving it to them increases.


I'm actually not sexist, or at least not under any reasonable definition. Men and women are different. I think that in life women have more fun than men on average. There are drawbacks, but being able to constantly get positive attention from nearly half the population has it's perks. Would you want to be a woman if there were no men? Why would you want to go to engineering school? So that you can work for a major corporation, and maybe if you get trained really well you will engineer some contraption in such a way as to make some CEO marginally more wealthy? No one would be doing half the jobs that exist in our society if they didn't think that in some abstract way it lead to a spouse and a house to coom in. The house isn't enough by itself.


If you could be re-born tomorrow, as a thought experiment, would you be reborn into a life where if you don't really make something out of yourself and work till your smarter and tougher than most people, then no one will care about you? Or would you rather be born so that if you just take care of your body a lot of people in the previous category will want to invest the rest of their life and future into your success and provide for you? The average woman could if they made smart life choices marry an above average man both in terms of looks and career prospects, that simply isn't true for the average man. He needs to become above average if he wants a QT 3.14. If natural changes in the environment mean fewer men, I expect the ones that remain to be of higher quality, and if not we will engineer them, and if the engineering is too slow society will collapse and whatever big balled men are left will be impregnatin everryone out there.
 
Last edited:

jason10mm

Gold Member
I learned about this in high school. Eventully, SRY, which is the sex gene (if you have a functional SRY along with some related receptors you will be males, otherwise you will be female almost always), will need to be grafted in the X chromosome to continue human sexual dimorphism and natural sexual reproduction.

In simple terms, the Y chromosome is basically useless outside of SRY. Males being XY is actually detrimental because X has life-critical genes, and we do not have a backup for dosing if something goes wrong with a X gene. But if you engineer a X chromosome with SRY where it has the same genetic and epigenetic activity, it would be functionally identical. We aren't at that point yet, though.
Women inactivate one of their x chromosomes in each cell (so they effectively express 50% of each one throughout their bodies.

Males dont need to have longevity, testosterone makes us risk takers and fighters, we just gotta live long enough to prove ourselves and have a few kids.

One mighty Chad can have a harem of a dozen women, leaving a score of betas in the dust. MEN ain't going away....ever.
 
Women inactivate one of their x chromosomes in each cell (so they effectively express 50% of each one throughout their bodies.

Males dont need to have longevity, testosterone makes us risk takers and fighters, we just gotta live long enough to prove ourselves and have a few kids.

One mighty Chad can have a harem of a dozen women, leaving a score of betas in the dust. MEN ain't going away....ever.

The one inactivated can change after mitosis in the child cells vs parent, IIRC. Both chromosomes have to unwind in order to be replicated, so which one gets fully condensed and deactivated in the end in each child cell is a 50/50 chance each division. So it is still there to act as genetic backup.

SRY is what controls testosterone. If you graft it into X in such a way that it's activity (dosing, or how often transcription is run) is the same, the new SRY+ X would act just like Y, just with genetic stability. It would be a crowning feat of genetic engineering and requires more knowledge than we have now, but it's theoretically possible. Genes are still modular in higher organisms if you understand epigenetics.
 

Alx

Member
No, people with a SRY+ X will be male, and those without one will be female. It would work identically to the current sex chromosomes. You'd still need a sperm from someone with a SRY+ X and egg from someone without to reproduce. Gametes and cross would work the same as well - sperm would have have either a SRY- X or a SRY+ X, and eggs would always have a SRY- X.
I suppose that's basically how it was originally, before the equivalent of SRY+X shrank to the current smaller Y chromosome. You'd wonder why it did so, if having the redundancy of the X information was useful for a better viability, though ? Are we sure "big SRY+X" is better than "small Y" ?
 
I suppose that's basically how it was originally, before the equivalent of SRY+X shrank to the current smaller Y chromosome. You'd wonder why it did so, if having the redundancy of the X information was useful for a better viability, though ? Are we sure "big SRY+X" is better than "small Y" ?

Probably some major crossover(s) happened in a male of some shared ancestor at some point and the "critical X & sex determining Y" configuration just happened to be stable and not result in terrible mutations. Then sperm that held the smaller Y moved faster and could penetrate the egg easier than sperm with the now much (relatively) heavier X, and thus "small Y" was the selected adaptation and tended to get passed on. It probably would happen again over time, but I was just suggesting how Y could be restabilized.

It's not necessarily better for long-term viability, but short-term selection. If the "new" males with the small Y start dying 10% earlier on average than the new "big X" women, is that really a detriment from Y's "POV"? At that point in history, it's not like organisms usually lived to their maximum theoretical age. It's still getting passed on before the "small Y" males get killed/eaten/die of disease/etc. Selection is all about short-term gain to just make sure the genes get passed on as soon and as much as possible.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Alx
Science said we would run out of oil by the year 2000.

Science says the end of the world is in 9 years.

Science says a lot of dumb shut that turns out wrong. At one point it was considered medically sound for people to ingest mercury.
 

Soodanim

Gold Member
You can tell who neither clicked the link nor read the replies before posting their emotional reply.

Even reading as far down as posts 4 and 13 would have been enough. Bless your angry little souls.
 
Lemme save you the TLDR then; it's basically an advert for a book.

It's a book, but like I said I learned about this in high school over a decade ago. My microbiology and genetics professors discussed it as well. This is definitely true. It's not something to get emotional about or act like it is an attack on masculinity - genes aren't emotional, aren't moral agents, just like phenotypes aren't generally something to be judged from a moral perspective. This is just a physical reality that can be fixed, theoretically. It is what it is.
 

TriSuit666

Banned
It's a book, but like I said I learned about this in high school over a decade ago. My microbiology and genetics professors discussed it as well. This is definitely true. It's not something to get emotional about or act like it is an attack on masculinity - genes aren't emotional, aren't moral agents, just like phenotypes aren't generally something to be judged from a moral perspective. This is just a physical reality that can be fixed, theoretically. It is what it is.
Oh yeah, nature is cruel.
 
Top Bottom