Re: human/chimp oral differences

Gerry's questions

> Glen: As for the sexuality "template", I view it as originally
> _assexual_ meaning that no sex is ascribed to it until later if at

all.

> This doesn't mean that all people start out bisexual but rather that
> they start out asexual, both in terms of sexuality and in terms of

sex.

> The gender of a baby is obviously determined by the amount of
> testosterone at key times during pregnancy. It's possible for a baby

to

> be XX (female) but look completely male when it pops out simply

because

> of the wrong levels of testosterone present in the womb.

In fact, the latest evidence suggests that rather than asexual, female
is the sexual template. It is testosterone releases that make a child
a male. While XX males have been seen XY females are more common
genetically.

> Gerry: I like your asexual template. But here you are back on
> testosterone again? I really haven't communicated much with you so
> guess I should ask whether you are stating both sides of the argument
> for argument's sake?
>
> Let me ask a few questions:
> 1) does a high level of testosterone cause aggressive behavior?

Testosterone endochrinologically has been linked to adrenal function.
This is not aggressive behaviour so much as preparation for
fight-flight. Which of the two it manifests in I would suggest depends
upon the memes operating in your culture.

> 2) do all infants begin as XX entities?

Nope. They have a slightly more than 50% chance of being XY. Higher
prenatal mortality amongst XY's (due to sex-linked inheritance of fatal
characteristics) brings the male-female rate close to 50% (still
slightly higher in male cases). This seems due to the fact that there
is a slight Y preponderance in male sperm. Infants start as either XX
or XY (with very slight numbers of XXY or XYY). The fact that XYY
males tend to be higher proportions in basketball teams (due to their
height) or prisons (due to their social difference) was once linked to
testosterone, but now seems due to social marginalisation as seeming
physically "different".

> 3) is the Y put in place by testosterone levels in ??both male and
> female? Or only the male?

Nope. Y is put in place by chance at fertilisation.

> Glen: Now does that mean the baby is "animalistic"? Perhaps we should
> leave these prejudicial attitudes buried with Hitler (<- or is he
> cremated... or maybe he's living in Texas right now?) :P
>
> Gerry: And here it's Hitler again. But how do we talk about "social
> Darwinism" and "group selection" without invoking the concept of

"Nazi".

> We can refuse to acknowledge the issues, I guess. I'd be most

pleased

> to hear your ideas.

Gerry, group selection theory has been on the outer ever since it was
demonstrated by Darwinians to not hold water in an evolutionary sense.
For instance, Darwin used group selection to explain altruism, but it
is clear that any group that has wide altruistic genes is extremely
vulnerable to an individual that mutates to have a selfish state.
Selfish genes produce more offspring. Thus no "group selection".

Only recently has a very limited group selection re-emerged in looking
at the "energy cost of Hawkishness" as a negative selection pressure,
but it would seem that the equilibrium point is still much closer to
selfish individualistic evolution than "group selection". Social
Darwinism went out with the disappearance of eugenics (which was abused
not just by Nazi's, but also by the good state of California before the
war with complusory sterilisation orders on those who were not white,
middle class, heterosexual protestants!)

Hope this helps

John