More

Are Men More Evolved Than Women?

SETH BORENSTEIN   01/13/10 04:28 PM ET   AP

Knocked Up

WASHINGTON — Women may think of men as primitive, but new research indicates that the Y chromosome – the thing that makes a man male – is evolving far faster than the rest of the human genetic code.

A new study comparing the Y chromosomes from humans and chimpanzees, our nearest living relatives, show that they are about 30 percent different. That is far greater than the 2 percent difference between the rest of the human genetic code and that of the chimp's, according to a study appearing online Wednesday in the journal Nature.

These changes occurred in the last 6 million years or so, relatively recently when it comes to evolution.

"The Y chromosome appears to be the most rapidly evolving of the human chromosomes," said study co-author Dr. David Page, director of the prestigious Whitehead Institute in Cambridge and a professor of biology at MIT. "It's an almost ongoing churning of gene reconstruction. It's like a house that's constantly being rebuilt."

Before men get too impressed with themselves, lead author Jennifer Hughes offers some words of caution: Just because the Y chromosome, which determines gender, is evolving at a speedy rate it doesn't necessarily mean men themselves are more evolved.

Researchers took the most detailed examination of the Y chromosome, which females do not have, of both humans and chimps and found entire sections dramatically different. There were even entire genes on the human Y chromosome that weren't on the chimp, said Hughes, also of the Whitehead Institute.

The two-year research took twice as long as expected because of the evolutionary changes found, Hughes said.

There is a bit of a proviso to the comparison to other chromosomes. While all human and chimp chromosomes have been mapped, only two chimp chromosomes have been examined in great detail: Y and chromosome 21. Yet, there's still enough known to make the claim that the Y is the speediest evolver, Hughes and Page said.

Until recently the Y chromosome was considered the Rodney Dangerfield of genetics, especially because it had fewer genes than other chromosomes. A few years ago some researchers even suggested that the Y chromosome was shrinking so that in 50,000 years it would just disappear – and so would men.

"The story is not as cut and dried as many would have liked to predict," Hughes said. "It's kind of fun to say that men are going to die out, but the science is proving – now that we've got data – that that's not true at all."

Page agreed. "The Y chromosome has many more tricks up its sleeve than it was given credit for," he said.

There are a couple of reasons Page and Hughes cite for Y being such an evolutionary powerhouse. One is that it stands alone and isn't part of a pair like 44 other chromosomes. So when there are mutations there's no matching chromosome to recombine and essentially cover up the change, Hughes said. Because women have two X chromosomes, the X chromosome doesn't have this situation.

Another reason has to do with the nature of mating. When female chimps are in heat, they mate frequently and with many partners, so there is an evolutionary pressure on the male to produce the most and best sperm to propagate his genes, Page said.

To test this out, Hughes said she hopes to soon examine the Y chromosomes of a rhesus macaque, which is fairly promiscuous, and the marmoset, which is more monogamous than early humans probably were.

Outside scientists praised the study.

"Wow," said R. Scott Hawley, a genetics researcher at the Stowers Institute in Kansas City. "That result is astounding."

"The Y chromosome clearly has the strength and tenacity to fight back," said Hawley, who wasn't part of the research. "I certainly think the Y chromosome has taken a bad rap for a long time with people doing maps showing areas for channel surfing."

___

On the Net:

Nature: http://www.nature.com/nature

FOLLOW HUFFPOST HEALTHY LIVING

Filed by Alex Leo  | 
 
 
  • Comments
  • 657
  • Pending Comments
  • 0
  • View FAQ
Comments are closed for this entry
View All
Favorites
Bloggers
Recency  | 
Popularity
Page: 1 2 3 4 5  Next ›  Last »  (11 total)
07:57 AM on 01/19/2010
I was reading a study of the bible written by scientists studying the colors and eyesight, they found no reference to any colors, like Red, White or Blue for instance. Seems evolution was in progress at the time of bible writing 2500 years ago and colors were just beginning to be seen in living color by some in the human species.

At the time frame Enoch said to the tribe. "Look at that beautiful rainbow with all those dazzling colors".

His mother said, "Don't pay any attention to what Enoch sez he see's"

2500 years later, We all know now that Enoch was right, he was the Al Gore of his time and era.
10:56 AM on 01/14/2010
The notion than men are more evolved than women is actually counterintuitive, given that the XY chromosome is merely an extension on the XX chromosome. The former can't exist without the genetic basis being grounded by the latter. This contradicts the ludicrous Biblical story of Creation in the book of Genesis whereby Eve allegedly emerged from Adam's rib. The male reproductive organ is an addendum to the female reproductive anatomy, since the male simply has excessive testosterone, often leading to destructive or overly agressive behavior in daily affairs. When we learn to think with the brains given by Mother Nature, rather than the phalluses between our legs, then we can truly evolve to a higher spiritual state toward egalitarianism and respect for our fellow Earthlings. Unfortunately, not all women can be considered more enlightened than their male counterparts, as if they also have excessive testosterone in their bloodstreams, such as Michelle Malkin, Sarah Palin, Anne Coulter and others of like mind, whose sensibility is no more evolved than that of Rush Limbaugh or Pat Robertson. The true freaks of nature among the male population are those with extra chromosomes, particularly YYY or other chromosomal variations that prove even Mother Nature (or some imaginary "God") is far from perfect and Chuck Darwin was right about the randomness of evolution.
photo
Roses
In a gentle way, you can shake the world.
12:26 PM on 01/14/2010
Most Christians realize that the Genesis story is a metaphor or parable.
JStading
Trust me, I'm an attorney...
01:23 PM on 01/14/2010
I've always had a problem with "Christians" who dismiss anything in the Bible that is irrational, implausible, contrary to hard science, or simply morally revolting as being "metaphorical." People in the Iron Age, those who wrote and interpreted the Bible, did not mean for Genesis to be a metaphor. The fact that we know it to be an absurdity is a testament to our evolution as a species rather than the impact of some literary trick.
03:23 AM on 01/14/2010
Where do these articles go, once they leave the main page?

It's been less than 24 hours and it's off the Living page, had to Google it.
photo
Roses
In a gentle way, you can shake the world.
01:18 PM on 01/14/2010
If you can get into your profile you can find your comment tab. Click on the comment tab and it will take you to all your comments. If you commented to the article you click on your comment it will take you back to this article.....otherwise I think it is floating around in cyberspace in the HuffPo archives and you would have to search for it through your search engine and the title of the article..
This user has chosen to opt out of the Badges program
photo
02:17 AM on 01/14/2010
If masturbating with one hand while drinking a can of beer with the other is considered evolved, yes.
photo
Roses
In a gentle way, you can shake the world.
02:09 AM on 01/14/2010
The X chromosome........why improve (or evolve) when you have perfection?
02:44 AM on 01/14/2010
Good one. But do you know that about 10% of the genes on the X chromosome actually code for proteins that are expressed in the male testes? And do you know that the gene for the male testosterone receptor is actually located on the X chromosome? The X chromosome's not nearly as 'female' as you might think.
photo
Roses
In a gentle way, you can shake the world.
03:03 AM on 01/14/2010
I know not completely (after all men have one).
Also the 'male hormone' of testosterone is also needed in females just as the 'female hormone' estrogen is needed by males.
We are all made of the same stuff.....just in different amounts.
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
seehowtheyrun
I have a dog and I vote.
01:26 AM on 01/14/2010
When males start having babies, I'll start to think the Y chromosome has caught up.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
anthonytaurus
don't f&f me. you dont' know what I'll say next
03:15 AM on 01/14/2010
pfft.. if men start having babies, then women will be absolutely useless.. we all know women are only good for making babies.. lol jk
photo
Roses
In a gentle way, you can shake the world.
03:21 PM on 01/14/2010
If men had babies Anthony, all families would only have one child and the human race would have quickly died out.
01:24 AM on 01/14/2010
Men eat a better cheeseburger, woman do not understand the concept of duck tape. If a man is all alone and talking in a forest and no woman can hear him is he still wrong? Sarah Palin....the hooorrroooorrrr.
photo
Roses
In a gentle way, you can shake the world.
02:08 AM on 01/14/2010
Pat R. and Rush L. are male (at least I think they are).

'nuf said.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
anthonytaurus
don't f&f me. you dont' know what I'll say next
03:16 AM on 01/14/2010
ducT tape
photo
Roses
In a gentle way, you can shake the world.
02:58 PM on 01/14/2010
Sorry, I use duct tape all the time and I am the small appliance, plumbing, and electrical repairperson around our house. My father taught me to work with wood, metal, and cars at the same time my mother was teaching me to sew.
Am I the exception that proves the rule.......or are maybe your preconceptions a trifle......skewed?
01:22 AM on 01/14/2010
Maybe one of these days the math genes in women will catch up to those in men...
photo
Roses
In a gentle way, you can shake the world.
03:04 AM on 01/14/2010
Where can I get me some 'math genes'?....sounds like good stuff.
12:38 AM on 01/16/2010
This is what I don't get about the misogynists: if you take the average man and the average women, their difference in higher cognitive function(such as mathematics) is a result of socialization; this has been shown in numerous studies.

The only thing that perhaps has a natural, genetic male or female bias are more down-to-earth things, such as spatial reasoning and manipulation(where men seem to have an advantage) and language aquisition(where women have the advantage). If we limit the above to math, this would mean that *maybe* men would have better ability in mathematical fields requiring spatial manipulation(topology for one) while women would be better in more syntactical regimens(group/field/ring theory,etc.).

Of course, your views and mine won't influence those men that are so impotent they have to cling onto something to affirm their superiority over others.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
anthonytaurus
don't f&f me. you dont' know what I'll say next
03:17 AM on 01/14/2010
hahaha you should listen to a reggae artist called vybz cartel.. math class is the song. check it out on youtube. you'll love it.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
insidious
Socialist Progressive Liberal Independent Feminist
12:49 AM on 01/14/2010
After this article, I wonder if coelom will develop again as a phylogenetic marker? Hmmmm....
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Tazirai
Society is not your friend.
12:32 AM on 01/14/2010
It's funny that an article comes out.. kinda in defense of men... and it's criticized, because of it's defense of men. We just can't win for losing lol.
photo
Roses
In a gentle way, you can shake the world.
03:25 PM on 01/14/2010
Don't feel bad, you usually win in the end......just look at patriarchy.
12:41 AM on 01/16/2010
Unfortunately trends that began with the basis of "(physical) might makes right" allowed egotistical males to assert their authority over all other males and all females instead of resulting in a more egalitarian setup.
12:39 AM on 01/16/2010
The article linked may be in defense of men, but the original journal article detailing the research doesn't really bring up superiority/inferiority at all.
photo
chaya
Another proud veteran
12:18 AM on 01/14/2010
It's absolutely stunning to me that the "director of the prestigious Whitehead Institute in Cambridge and a professor of biology at MIT" doesn't have a clue about how to analyze data.

There is a huge difference between 1) a high rate of mutation and 2) evolution. Evolution can't proceed without mutations, but a high rate of mutation is NOT EVOLUTION. It's sad and perhaps frightening, but it's not evolution.

I feel sad for this guy's students.
02:23 AM on 01/14/2010
FTA- "Researchers took the most detailed examination of the Y chromosome, which females do not have, of both humans and chimps and FOUND ENTIRE SECTIONS DRAMATICALLY DIFFERENT. There were even ENTIRE GENES on the human Y chromosome that weren't on the chimp, said Hughes, also of the Whitehead Institute."

Sorry, but you can't argue that the presence of new genes on the Y chromosome isn't evidence of evolution. It's your analysis of the article that is at fault here.
photo
Roses
In a gentle way, you can shake the world.
04:45 PM on 01/14/2010
Unless the X chromosome evolved MORE to the point that those genes were no longer necessary :)
12:43 AM on 01/16/2010
The study was comparing male chimps to male humans, it doesn't imply anything about evolution within the human species.
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Dnietz
Tired of censorship? Reddit
06:18 AM on 01/14/2010
i think you are confusing what the article says with what the researcher said
12:13 AM on 01/14/2010
Wow, there's a lot of misogyny *and* misandry on this comment thread. I gotta admit, its rare to see such equal amounts of ignorance on both sides of an argument. Kudos.

Speaking as a guy, and more importantly as someone who passed High School Biology, this article says absolutely nothing about one gender being better than the other, only that one gene that's unique to males tends to accrue mutations faster than other genes for reasons as yet undiscovered. There is no moral superiority inherent in having "more" evolution, as evolution is merely the process through which species play genetic Mr. Potato Head until they find a shape that best allows them to reproduce well in a certain environment.

Also, to all the self-righteous ladies out there: As someone who keeps up with politics, passed High School History (or attended High School in general), have 2 little sisters, etc..., women are just as capable of being petty, vindictive and nasty as *any* guy. They just tend to have less opportunity to express it on the general public in patriarchal societies, and are generally forced to apply those impulses in different manners than men, which, I admit, is completely unfair. They are also just as capable of being generous, merciful and benevolent as any guy -- and vice versa.
photo
Roses
In a gentle way, you can shake the world.
02:21 AM on 01/14/2010
I think that alot of the comments (from both men and women) are a little kidding. You have to admit it is kind of a silly study.
My advice to you is exactly the same as to my teenagers......lighten up a little.
05:19 AM on 01/14/2010
Not taking everything on the Internet as the literal truth? NEVER!!!!!!!
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Dnietz
Tired of censorship? Reddit
06:26 AM on 01/14/2010
i agree with most of what you said

but in general, looking at the biology of all species that we know of, i think consensus is that the more complex and the more "advanced" or evolved a species, the more complex its dna structure

higher level animals (smarter and more adapted) have more total genes, and it took mutations to get there. mutations in the long run lead to greater adaptation and more success

obviously a more complex species needs more data stored in its dna

this of course doesn't necessarily mean greater success long term. some of the most successful species are simpler (anything from crocodiles to cockroaches). the more complex and adapted a species, the more at risk it is when the environment changes.

none of this means a thing morally. it is just fun to watch people fight gender wars and laugh
12:54 AM on 01/16/2010
"higher level animals (smarter and more adapted) have more total genes, and it took mutations to get there. mutations in the long run lead to greater adaptation and more success"

This isn't necessarily true. Mus musculus and Homo sapiens have pretty much the same number of genes, yet I believe most would argue that we are definitely smarter and better adapted than they are by a long shot.

"none of this means a thing morally. it is just fun to watch people fight gender wars and laugh"

I have had to do the same, lest I get depressed by the number of apparently serious posters who think that their sex is the superior one.
11:36 PM on 01/13/2010
Or, alternately the 30 percent "evolution" could as easily be seen as 30% mutation.

That's the one I'm going with. No way men are more evolved than women.

Just look around at this f0cked-up world. Evolved my ass.......
11:54 PM on 01/13/2010
"More" as in *amount* of evolution. Speaking as a man, there is no actual ranking for *quality* in evolution.
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
Jack Davies
orange rabblerousing radical moderate!
10:58 PM on 01/13/2010
Just because it's evolving faster don't mean it's ahead.
11:29 PM on 01/13/2010
because............
photo
HUFFPOST COMMUNITY MODERATOR
seehowtheyrun
I have a dog and I vote.
01:25 AM on 01/14/2010
because it was way behind in the first place.
10:55 PM on 01/13/2010
The gender that scratches its' balls and pees outside is NOT more evolved than mine.
11:31 PM on 01/13/2010
versus a gen.der that cries at almost anything and bl.ee.ds for 5 days but does not d.ie?

wow, it is fun to make generalizations about a gender without any concrete facts to back it up.
11:36 PM on 01/13/2010
I'm sensing some hostility...
11:36 PM on 01/13/2010
And is is a fact that some MEN scratch their balls and pee outside!
photo
HUFFPOST SUPER USER
cruzking2000
01:16 AM on 01/14/2010
You would if you could, baby.....
02:02 PM on 01/14/2010
Don't count on it.