Are women gentically superior to men?

[KrakHed]

There is research being put into the subject of self-fertilization, when a woman can get herself pregnat, & it looks like with a couple million years evolution, it will be possible. I have expanded on this theory. I say that there is another step after that, that woman will begin to only produce eggs with female infants inside them. So, in multiple million years, it seems likely that only woman will exist. According to this, woman realy are the superior gender. This is all my opinon, don't let it affect your's

Yes, woman are gentically superior

No, woman are not gentically superior

[NamerOfStars]

... And to think, I'm the one who failed high school biology.

Okay, thought experiment time: take a baby chimp and abandon it in the middle of the jungle. What're the odds it's going to survive? Not great. Now try it with a human baby; what're its odds? Much worse, right? Pretty much nil? Yeah. Evolution doesn't just reward those who reproduce, it rewards those who survive long enough to produce offspring that also survive to adulthood. Even if you can produce a baby with just women, it's going to be a severe resource and protection disadvantage compared to one that has a father on the scene as well.

(Since I know some are going to raise the objection- and if they aren't, they should- yes, a woman can take all the same risks and produce all the same results that a man can, if she's willing to work a lot harder. But the fact that A woman can do something does not mean that ALL women can; much less that ALL women will. Look at the video footage of, say, some terrible traffic accident, where people are trapped in burning cars. Or even when some whale gets beached. Look at the gender balance of the people who leap in to try to rescue the afflicted. This isn't a moral failing on the women's part; they're simply not wired to take those risks.)

But that's viability, not genetics, you say. True, but it is relevant. Nonetheless, let's move on to genetics. A woman who only has her own genetic code to work with will not produce "children" in the sense of "viable competitors in the great game of Natural Selection", she'll produce clones. Barring mutations, you'll wind up with the (genetically) same person, over and over and over again, without variability, and as soon as a situation they're not fit for comes up, it's all over. Parthenogenesis does work out okay for some species, it's true, but genetic diversity has proven to be the winning formula on the mammal side of things- and does double for primates, and triple for the human family. It's not a viable long-term strategy.

Okay, I hear you think, but that's long-term. What about on the individual level? Doesn't having two X-chromosomes make you less vulnerable to sex-linked traits? Yes, it does- but that's not uniformly an asset. "Recessive" doesn't mean "bad"; it means "recessive". How many fingers do you have on each hand? Six? No? The gene that causes that- polydactly- is dominant. (And no, it's not an advantage to have them, as those extra fingers don't work). As selective pressure goes up, the value in adhering to proven patterns increases; there's less room to experiment. Now, take a look around you- how high is selection pressure these days? Two words: Stephen Hawking.

One sex goes for quantity, one goes for quality. One for safety, one for risk. And the kids get the best of both worlds. It wouldn't work nearly as well without both.

[KrakHed]

Hadn't thought of this... thanks

[ThisIsMyOpinion]

You know that if a women only makes girls she is basically making a clone right? She does not have within her more generic code so if they just give birth without our aid they will produce clones of themselves over and over again. That will not change no matter how many years pass.

Also why the hell does that make them genetically superior? Let's say we also develop a artificial uterus and men can just make babies on their own too. No really this is also being studied. This would mean we can reproduce alone and still never need to give birth.
So no real advantage here.

[KrakHed]

Thanks man, I didn't even think of the clone thing

[ThisIsMyOpinion]

Both men and women will always be necessary.

[Oeuvre]

female anatomy is far more complex than male anatomy, thats a fact

[KrakHed]

I agree, with things like menustration & breast feeding. I've been thinking about things like gender & sexuality lately, & this thought crossed my mind. I can't decide if this makes you guys supeior in any way.

[slatyb]

Women have two X chromosomes, men only one. There are some important genes on the X chromosome where a single copy is adequate. So a woman would have to inherit two defective genes to suffer from the defect. Males are more vulnerable because they have only one copy. Color-blindness is a good example.

[Anonymous]

when science tampers with nature it always works out poorly