Re:The Google memo isn’t sexist or anti-diversity, it’s science
by pygy_ on Wednesday August 09, 2017 @05:21PM
(#14973758)
It could as well have diverged by accident. Sexual dimorphism in these kind of interest may not have any evolutional impact, but be affected by genes that were close to other genes that improve male fertility for example. The closer two genes are on a chromosome, the more likely they are to be selected together.
[ Parent
| on HN ]
Re:The Google memo isn’t sexist or anti-diversity, it’s science
by daughart on Thursday August 10, 2017 @04:54PM
(#14984139)
Your position is scientifically illiterate but I suppose it's worth pointing out why: It would require basically one gene to control these complex behavioral traits, which is implausible. Moreover, such a strong, population-specific, selective force on the human genome does not exist, which we know from population genomics studies. Therefore, what you are arguing here is factually wrong.
Re:The Google memo isn’t sexist or anti-diversity, it’s science
by pygy_ on Friday August 11, 2017 @07:52PM
(#14995399)
Ever heard of SRY ?
Re:The Google memo isn’t sexist or anti-diversity, it’s science
by pygy_ on Saturday August 12, 2017 @04:07AM
(#14996966)
... and more generally homeobox genes, SRY was taken as a blatant example of a single gene that controls many different traits, both micro and macroscopic. There are plenty of others.
Even more generally, transcription factors, and the way they cascade.