Me too.

It's not my hypothesis.
Just thought I'd throw into the mix.

The idea is that mutation happens when cells divide and cells divide at a very very fast rate ,men can produce 100 million sperm a day and the DNA in a man of 60 has already been copied 1,000 times the y chromosome has been copied 1,000 times.
Over a thousand generations that is a million times it has been copied and without the ability to repair mutations there is an unstable condition that will degenerate. blah blah blah

Evolution has no plan for the future. Things change with time.

I know, I just wanted to nip it before anyone buys this silliness.

Genetic material does not just "degenerate," otherwise all lifeforms would continuously slide backwards instead of evolving. There's also no reason why this would be occurring in the human male, a relatively new species, instead of sharks or crocodiles, much older species. Why haven't their males disappeared? Their sperm certainly divides the same way ours does.

Finally, even if we assumed that genetic material did degrade due to this process, it would simply create an impetus of selection, and would be eliminated whenever it occurred. Males who produced "degenerate" sperm though whatever mechanism this fellow proposes would be eliminated in natural selection, in terms of genetic heritage.

As I said, it's all a very silly idea. If its basic premise were true, there wouldn't be life on earth, even asexual life.

>>There's also no reason why this would be occurring in the human male, a relatively new species, instead of sharks or crocodiles <<

.
The reason why the Y chromosome is so fragile is because unlike all our other chromosomes we have 23 in other chromosomes in our body, it doesn't actually exchange DNA with other chromosomes at each generation (something all the other chromosomes do) and the process of exchanging DNA actually heals mutations. The Y chromosome can’t heal its mutations any way near as effectively as the other chromosomes, and mutates at a faster rate.

I tell ya it’s an evolutionary outrage.



Just a little note and maybe interesting enough:
The Sex of Crocodiles is not decided by chromosomes but rather it is by the temperature in which the egg was fertilized.

It's basically the reason that sexual reproduction is so wide spread, it provides a chance for genetic variability which is responsible for evolution. Creatures that reproduce by either scissiparity or parthenogenesis are basically clones, as soon as you come across tough times, the whole population is wiped out. The main reason we (humans) have managed to come this far is our genetic variability.
Unlike the bee males who are really only useful for reproduction, human males are great to have around all year-round. In a world without males I'd have to take out the garbage and mow the lawn myself!!

But seriously, I think it has become almost cool to put men down for the very characteristics that have made them capable of surviving and protecting their mate and offspring. A testosterone-ridden male is not only necessary for evolutionary purposes, but also might I add quite delicious.

Me three.

I loves my men!

I was just kidding around, for most part, testosterone is associated with these kind of thing and low testosterone the opposite, I understand its not true.

Quote:

---

But seriously, I think it has become almost cool to put men down for the very characteristics that have made them capable of surviving and protecting their mate and offspring. A testosterone-ridden male is not only necessary for evolutionary purposes, but also might I add quite delicious.

---

Yes me too. I have a suspicion that the women I've known who criticize male agression secretly desire a man who can throw it down, hard or soft but always thorough, in the bedroom.

Delicious angry men aside, a friend of mine told me about a small community of natives on some island (my apologies, I have no idea where) that developed spontaneous sex change (female to male only) in puberty when a gender balance was necessary. The hypothesis was that, since they had remained isolated for so long, they had evolved this capability to propagate the species.

I am no longer in contact with this person, or I would ask her more details. Anyone ever hear of this?

OK, I'll do a drive by on this one because it's my topic of choice.

It has been recorded that men get a testosterone boost from winning during a sports event (or watching their team win) and even holding a gun. I've heard that testosterone drops dramatically when males enter boot camp and are constantly beaten down, but it goes through the roof by the time they graduate.

I'd wager that a lot of the behaviors popularly considered manly are similarly linked to boosts in testosterone. Meaning, I bet building something or shooting something generates more testosterone than, say, providing excellent customer service--which generally requires submissive behavior. I think it's possible that a decrease in testosterone could be a response to both the elevated role of women (the male-bashing you mentioned is a side effect of that) and the loss of the sorts of roles that would increase testosterone on a regular basis. In a service-oriented bureaucracy the manly man 'loses' consistently to someone who is more willing to 'go with the flow' and follow protocols. Manly men are 'unnecessary' when 'work' is something you do on a computer 40 hours a week. While jet setting executives might be playing a different game, Joe average really doesn't need any more testosterone than a woman to do his job properly. The unfortunate side-effect of this is that we may yet need our men to tap into the attributes that justify our sex.

There has always been a fear that any society that is too soft on its men will eventually become weak and will be easily conquered. Men have always guarded the idealism of masculinity in part for this reason. There are many today (men and women) who would like to see ideals of masculinity done away with altogether because they believe it leads to wars and violence and has no redeeming attributes. This is, truly, playing with fire.

Quote:

---

developed spontaneous sex change (female to male only) in puberty when a gender balance was necessary.

---

This sounds very improbable to me, mammals just do not possess this kind of versatility. It might someone who mistook a hermaphrodite for something else, or someone who misinterpreted a report of hermaphrodites in this population. Either way, I think that if these people existed, they would be more widely known and they would have been thoroughly dissected.

Yes. It does seem quite improbale. It was the source (a person doing her bachelor of science in psychology) that made me consider it reliable.