From: Alejandro Dubrovsky (s335984@student.uq.edu.au)
Date: Wed Jul 28 1999 - 05:26:27 MDT
phil osborn wrote:
> You are seemingly contradicting yourself. On the one hand, you want
> to indicate that other factors on other chromosomes are in the mix
> that gives us "intelligence." Then you want to make it into an
> exclusivity? Clearly, this is a fuzzy logic sort of argument, as most
> real world analyses are. However, the fact that having good
> mitochondrial DNA (which ARE exclusively inherited via the mother)
> would probably enhance good DNA specific for intellect is pretty much
> irrelevant to the argument, as the mitochondrial DNA influence just
> about everything. In so far as the influences have been
> experimentally isolated, the intelligence specific genes seem to be
> exclusively on the female sex chromosomes.
I fail to see in my message where i wanted to make it into an exclusivity.
I was observing that even if none of the "intelligence genes" are mapped
to the Y chromosome (which is what i assume you are referring to by the
male sex chromosome, but biology and genetics are definitely not my field
so please correct me if i'm mistaken), this does not mean that all of
these "intelligence genes" are mapped on the female sex chromosome (my
asumption, X chromosome) since there are 23 pairs of chromosomes, taking
one of the possible male influences out, would still leave another 22
chromosomes by which the father might have an influence on his son's
"intelligence genes". If, on the other hand, all of the "intelligence
genes" would map to the X chromosome or mitochondrial dna, then i would
agree that the son's "intelligence genes" is wholly dependent on his
mother's genetics, but since this is not what you are claiming, i was just
pointing out that the conclusion seemed not to be substantiated (i'm sorry
to keep putting "intelligence genes" in quotes, but, as someone else
pointed out, i don't even know if those exist)
>
> As I pointed out further, there is a secondary causal chain here as
> well, in that good genes for one survival factor may mask bad genes
> for another. If
> male intelligence is already discounted by the argument you quoted, then
it
> is further discounted by the fact that it might mask really valuable or
> really bad (from the woman's genetic line's point of view) traits.
There is
> even a further corrolary to this in that intelligence on the male side
may
> actually lead to general misevaluation on the female side. Smart,
sneaky
> men could both mask deficiencies in other areas and also conceal the
very
> fact that they are smart! Thus, male intelligence becomes a hazard to
the
> process of mating choice.
>
Even then, you have to consider the benefits of male smartness in
supplying resources and in supplying good genes for the female offspring.
chau
Alejandro Dubrovsky
>
> >This doesn't seem quite right. Even if the "genes necessary for
> >intelligence" are not present on the male sex chromosome (Y
chromosome?)
> >it does not mean that they are not present on any of the chromosomes
> >passed from the male side unless all of them are located on the X
> >chromosome. Assuming this is not the case, intelligence on offsprings
of
> >both sexes would be influenced by both parents. What am i missing
here?
> >chau
> >Alejandro Dubrovsky
> >
> >
>
> _______________________________________________________________
> Get Free Email and Do More On The Web. Visit http://www.msn.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Fri Nov 01 2002 - 15:04:36 MST