Home Politics & Debate
We've started our first discussion for our Christmas campaign which is focusing on religion or cultural beliefs that help you when you're feeling down. Some of the responses will be used anonymously on social media as a video. If you'd like to take part, head over to this thread.
Read the community guidelines before posting ✨

Promiscuous females 'help species'

Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
Promiscuous females could prevent their species becoming extinct, scientists have found.

According to research by the Universities of Exeter and Liverpool, females that have multiple mates reduce the risk of producing a brood of offspring without males.

The study, published in Current Biology, says an all-female brood could occur when all the 'male' Y chromosome sperm are killed before fertilisation, because of a sex-ratio distortion (SR) chromosome.

Scientists believe all-female broods will pass the chromosome on to their sons, which will in turn produce more female-only broods and eventually there will be no males and the population will die out.

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/21/20100225/thl-promiscuous-females-help-species-d831572.html

:crying: ;)

Comments

  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Organised religion and evolution clash again :D
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Congratulations to the Universities of Exeter and Liverpool - they are today's winners of the Talking Utter Horseshit Awards. It's nice to know, in these troubled times, they have nothing else they can do research into.

    There seems to have been a fairly even number of men and women on the planet for many years, although ratios vary from country to country. Even if this were true, it would take thousands of years for men to die out completely.

    Their next project will presumably be to discover if my suspicion that the Pope is a Catholic has any truth to it.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I love the whistling science makes as it rushes out of your ears.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    stargalaxy wrote: »
    Congratulations to the Universities of Exeter and Liverpool - they are today's winners of the Talking Utter Horseshit Awards. It's nice to know, in these troubled times, they have nothing else they can do research into.

    I assume you have your own peer tested research project that contradicts what they say so that you can state with absolute confidence that they're "talking horseshit"?

    I would say that the study of genetics and how chromosomes are passed to offspring and how gender ratios can be affected and thus lead to extinction is an important and worthy research topic. What would you have geneticists research?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Once DNA testing got cheap enough to be practical, scientists got an unexpected result. Species previously though to mate for life were found to "cheat" - the 'classic case' being swans.

    This sent a shockwave through the community, which had previously considered such thinks to demonstrate the validity of God's commanded family, and they've been looking for why such a thing could happen - i.e. what the genetic benefits are.

    Interestingly, there are some that believe a dearth of male hormones at a particular stage of pregnancy results in children that have an interesting ratio between the lengths of their index and ring fingers, and who grow up to want to have sex with lots of men - regardless of their of sex.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    It makes perfect sense. The richer the gene pool, the better the offspring.

    The emphasis of the article however is distracting. The human race is nowhere near being in danger of extinction, and the implied message appears to be 'sluts to thank for survival of mankind'. Non story really.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    I don't see humans mentioned once.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    stargalaxy wrote: »
    Their next project will presumably be to discover if my suspicion that the Pope is a Catholic has any truth to it.

    Hahahaha!!! :lol: Legend.
    Xx
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Big Gay wrote: »
    I don't see humans mentioned once.
    You're completely right. I read the article once and somehow my mind established it was aimed at people.

    Then again, I feel the term 'promiscuous' does carry a lot more weight if applied to humans, don't you? I mean, who talks about promiscuous cats?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote: »
    Then again, I feel the term 'promiscuous' does carry a lot more weight if applied to humans, don't you? I mean, who talks about promiscuous cats?

    Cats are so slutty!
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Aladdin wrote: »
    Then again, I feel the term 'promiscuous' does carry a lot more weight if applied to humans, don't you? I mean, who talks about promiscuous cats?

    Quite a lot of people - have you never heard the expression "the morals of an alley cat?"

    But no, it is a technical term, so it doesn't carry more weight. It's only if you use it as a pejorative that it has a moral weight.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Since human females (Octomom excluded) don't typically have litters, and many will have only one or two (or no) offspring in a lifetime, I'm guessing it's less relevant with people than with species that reproduce more quickly?
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    SteelWool wrote: »
    Since human females (Octomom excluded) don't typically have litters, and many will have only one or two (or no) offspring in a lifetime, I'm guessing it's less relevant with people than with species that reproduce more quickly?

    Genetically speaking, women have a good number of offspring (10 or so seems about right), so the instinct is still there.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Hahahaha!!! :lol: Legend.
    Xx

    You're on your own with that opinion. ;)
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Teagan wrote: »
    You're on your own with that opinion. ;)

    Haha yeah... I thought that as I posted it :p
    Xx
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    You can have a rich and diverse gene pool without being "promiscuous" :p
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    It seems to be nature's way of fighting what I once heard referred to as "one sire syndrome" that is frequently seen in pedigree dogs and many horse breeds.

    If one individual is extremely dominant and gets all the girls it's logical for females to mate with somebody else to maintain genetic diversity. In a way, their offspring can be guaranteed to mate with strong sons/daughters of the dominant sire eventually and not get too inbred while at it. ;)

    For humans promiscuity doesn't really matter as today we have few offspring that take a long time to raise. There's plenty of diversity on offer because the gene pool is large, humans aren't exactly under the threat of becoming too inbred. :p
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    The fact that offspring take so long to raise increases the pressure to be promiscuous, and the reducing family size also increases the urgency.
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Big Gay wrote: »
    The fact that offspring take so long to raise increases the pressure to be promiscuous, and the reducing family size also increases the urgency.

    True.

    On the other hand there's pressure to keep your partner around as the young are so time consuming. However many women have done so successfully while still having other men's children so yeah. ;)
  • Former MemberFormer Member Posts: 1,876,324 The Mix Honorary Guru
    Jaloux wrote: »
    On the other hand there's pressure to keep your partner around as the young are so time consuming.
    Ah, that's pressure to not get caught, quite different.

    Interstingly, it has been observed in some species that the amount of effort the male expends raising the young is proportional to the amount of time they spent ni the presence of the female during the mating season - a biological counter to the promiscuous female - and analogous to the controlling partner not allowing their girlfriend to see other men?
Sign In or Register to comment.