Tuesday, January 19, 2010

Man stems from Woman; not vice versa: agrees NYT.

 Genes. Love 'em.
Genesis. Any connection?

People.  Genetically.  Women have XX.  Men have Xy.  Note the little y - that corresponds to the information it carries. Far less.
 full size image
Do a search for chromosomes XX and XY and see the difference.  Consistent photos. Big and Little.  Clear shape X, and then a squig. Fair use thumbnail here, from ://www.bio.miami.edu/~cmallery/150/mendel/c7.15.X.Y.jpg/

But there is more: The NYT notes these items in an article about rapid changes apparently (finally?) taking place in the y, as the genders differentiate further:
  • Ladies:  that both X's in women have remained complete and stable as they were, over a long time; and
  • Gents:  that the y, in men's Xy, originated as an X.  A Lady-thing. So - goes the reasoning - Men were once XX's also; then one of the X's went rogue.
  • Ladies First. For a reason. Therefore, suggests the evidence, the Gents' y, deriving from the X, has had to evolve into something else in order to make Men.  The y has had to shed, over time, what parts of the X it would not need if it is to be a clear y. That process is ongoing.
It follows then, for those who look to science for proofs, that man stemmed from woman, not woman from man.

The process of shedding so that men could be men is a long one, and not yet done.  Men are still on the road. Most discrepancies, then, have disappeared, but not all.  Does that gray area of gender differentiation in men answer the question why, since men have the vestiges of the X, they are trying so hard to prove that they do not, so there is such animosity among many for men who may have a better formed y, or for people who mate with same gender? Somebody go check.

Meanwhile, read the NYT article.  Then ask of the early paleo-Hebrew, where the "human" was first formed, who decided to make the story of bones and fruits and frauds anti-woman. 
" * * * In the Y, which originally had the same set of genes as the X, most of the X-related genes have disappeared over the last 200 million years.* * * "

See Rapid Change Found in Male Chromosome, by Nicholas Wade, at ://www.nytimes.com/2010/01/14/science/14gene.html/

Extra credit: 

Evolution debate goes on, apparently. Here is the Bible supporter view.  See Women, Stem-cells and the Darwinian Debate, Developmental Biology May Have Created the First Woman, see ://www.associatedcontent.com/article/1450153/women_stemcells_and_the_darwinian_debate.html/.

That is a religious site that proposes going back to the Bible for facts, not evolution.  And poses this issue against evolution: that evolution would mean that women and men came from the same source and that XX genes somehow morphed into Xy; that the first beings were androgynous or self-perpetuating until the gene pool had an abnormality.  Sounds sensible, and fits with "eadm" meaning "human", see http://www.scripture4all.org/OnlineInterlinear/OTpdf/gen2.pdf/  

Game of clue:  what preceded the paleo-HebrewThere must be multiple versions. Originalism and literalism.  Can any culture leave old ideas, to consider new.

Genesis Papers.  Ongoing. Eve's Role - another look. When it comes to scripture, for those who rely, do reason and practicality have a role in interpretation.  Reason and practicality in interpretation.  A sensible choice if we seek common ground for mutual survival.  See Vetting Roots:  Originalism and Literalism and Violence.

No comments: