Male vs. female vs. male mutation and gender differences

From: Julian Lord <jlord_at_tCR9ThSAWgqQHPcGHcfj8Cmdu7nTuax7jk4X4qnEe-ofIZ6k9ybT1RQJD2LOlDv0El0V.y>
Date: Fri, 30 Jan 2004 22:06:40 +0100


Jane :

> > The world economy entered into a massive state of
> > crisis
> > as a direct result of the destruction of the WTC by
> > the Evil Genius.
>
> It did?

It did.

> > I've a fascinating newspaper article saying that
> > the ratio for male vs female genetic mutation is
> > massively towards the male end of the scale.
>
> That's *weird*. I wonder why?

For genetic reasons.

In genetic terms, women (I'll avoid the unpleasant but more correct word "females") attempt to produce clones of themselves, whereas men ("males") attempt, via the DNA contained in their spermatazoa, to take control (via mutation) of the generative process so as to induce reproduction of their own unique qualities.

In more mythical terms, and probably more correct ones, the purpose of normal women, genetically, is to perpetuate the survival abilities of the species, and therefore to adopt the "if it ain't broken don't fix it" line of genetic action, whereas the purpose of men is to randomly mutate in a species-wide attempt to discover improved genes and other biological information (including intellectual or linguistic or otherwise DNA-related or non-DNA-related info) to mutate and potentially change their progeny, and hence the species itself.

> > The article also suggests that 20% of
> > men think like women, whereas only 10% of women
> > think like men.
>
> But since we're all in the final 1% of the weirdness
> scale anyway, I suspect that does not aid analysis of
> this group.

Oh, _definitely_ ; and that certainly goes for the GD too ...

Julian

--
__________________________________
"Hmmm, I've heard of other powers.
Can you tell me about ...

... Real Life ?"



           

Powered by hypermail