Re: Male vs. female mutation and gender differences

From: Graeme P. Bell <mac_logo_at_zjtgXLYwkYIryzF-I5NWx5pb3IaEkUSeYfqDMIalKBNFz_jpmJRS0uBQCTV9EPkWYV_>
Date: Sun, 01 Feb 2004 02:35:40 -0000

It's bovine scatology. All of it. The reason it's not accepted by "traditional" geneticists is that it simply doesn't fit anything other than gross generalisations spouted by "polemicists" with an agenda. Usually rubbishing Neo-Darwinist "ideology" (as they see it).

Still, little details like the fact that we all are members of the same species are easy to ignore for folks hell-bent on persuing an agenda.

There are no (none, not one, an example-free-zone, zero, etc.) mammals which are asexual. Monosexuality is the exception. It's rather rare in anything with a notochord (but I will admit, not unheard of).

Frankly, it's tedious. Been there, seen it, done it, worn the tshirt.  Worn it out actually.

Do yourself a favour, Julian, learn some science. It doesn't work in Glorantha - that I accept whole-heartedly, but the very fact we can be in dispute over this farcical topic is because of good science, backed up by superb engineering. Crackpot theories of human nature and biology? Leave 'em to the crackpots.

So to be a target for immoderation - I ain't interested in this "theory". Lemma more like.

I'm drunk and not making sense? Better than that crap.

Bah humbug.

Must be picking on the scientists cos the politicos threatened to beat the shit out of him.

Graeme            

Powered by hypermail