General fitness, health and nutrition · Public discussion

Human Conception Ratio

Started by Rick · · Last activity · 37 posts · 1,886 views

Thread navigation

Jump through the discussion

Go to the original post, the replies on this page, or the latest preserved contribution.

Thread details

What we know about this thread

Original section
General fitness, health and nutrition
Published
14 February 2004
Last activity
25 February 2004
Original author
Rick
Posts
37
Discussion status
Public discussion
Total views
1,886
Views / 30 days
0
Topics

The navigation and discussion metadata provide context. Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Showing posts 1–20 of 37
Posts remain in their original chronological order.

Text size
  1. I'd always thought the ratio of males to females in humans was about 1:1. Then learnt that the
    actual birth ratio is about 1.06 boys to every girl. Then I read that the conception ratio is 1.25
    boys to every girl. The reason for the difference between birth and conception ratios are that males
    are more likely to be terminated in the womb or to be still-born. Boys more likely to die at any age
    than girls so by the age of about 22 there is a 1:1 ratio.

    How has this conception ratio evolved?

    chance. I am puzzled because 25% more males are conceived than females and that is difficult to
    explain without using out of date ideas like "for the good of the species" (or even for the good of
    a monogamous society!). This is especially true if you put it down to XY sperm swimming faster
    because they are lighter. Have XY sperm evolved to be lighter or is it just that they happen to be
    lighter because they carry less DNA?

    ---
    Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (grisoft.comgrisoft.com).
    Version: 6.0.587 / Virus Database: 371 - Release Date: 12/02/2004

  2. "Rick" <[email hidden]> wrote in message
    "]news:[email hidden]...
    : I'd always thought the ratio of males to females in humans was about 1:1. Then learnt that the
    : actual birth ratio is about 1.06 boys to every girl. Then I read that the conception ratio is 1.25
    : boys to every girl. The
    reason
    : for the difference between birth and conception ratios are that males are more likely to be
    : terminated in the womb or to be still-born. Boys more likely to die at any age than girls so by
    : the age of about 22 there is a
    1:1
    : ratio.
    :
    : How has this conception ratio evolved?
    :

    : chance. I am puzzled because 25% more males are conceived than females
    and
    : that is difficult to explain without using out of date ideas like "for
    the
    : good of the species" (or even for the good of a monogamous society!).
    This
    : is especially true if you put it down to XY sperm swimming faster because they are lighter. Have
    : XY sperm evolved to be lighter or is it just that they happen to be lighter because they carry
    : less DNA?
    :
    See:

    BJOG. 2003 Apr;110 Suppl 20:34-8. Links

    Gender aspects of preterm birth.

    Ingemarsson I.

    Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University Hospital, Lund, Sweden.

    undifferentiated gonads formed either testes or ovaries. Studies in recent

    on the Y-chromosome is already transcribed at the 2-cell stage and triggers growth acceleration in
    the XY embryos. This accelerated growth is believed to be important for the male embryo as it allows
    complete testicular differentiation before the levels of oestrogenic hormones become too high as
    pregnancy progresses. It is well known that the death rate is higher for male than for female
    fetuses and that the increase is about 30% in chromosomally normal spontaneous abortions (i.e.
    significantly higher than at birth). National figures from Sweden show that boys are more likely to
    be delivered prematurely, accounting for 55-60% of all newborns between 23 and 32 gestational weeks.
    Neonatal deaths in these gestational weeks are also more common among boys. In 1993, the overall 1-
    year mortality rate (including all gestational weeks) in Sweden was 5.4% for boys and 4.1% for
    girls. The difference in infant mortality (within 1 year) is most pronounced at extremely early
    birth (23-24 gestational weeks) being 60% for boys compared with 38% for girls. The release of
    catecholamines during labour is an important defence mechanism by a hypoxic fetus. Preterm females
    have significantly higher catecholamine levels than males, which may explain the better outcome in
    females after a hypoxic event. Deaths occurring secondary to respiratory distress syndrome are
    greater for males and their cognitive recovery from perinatal intracranial haemorrhage is worse.
    Pulmonary hypoplasia after preterm rupture of the membranes is significantly more common among male
    newborns.Gender differences in mode of delivery, fetal heart rate in labour, acidaemia at birth, and
    age degenerative changes will also be discussed.

    t Supports you statement without saying how conception ratio evolved.

    Jois

  3. Rick <[email hidden]> wrote or quoted:

    Quoted message said:

    I'd always thought the ratio of males to females in humans was about 1:1. Then learnt that the
    actual birth ratio is about 1.06 boys to every girl. Then I read that the conception ratio is 1.25
    boys to every girl. The reason for the difference between birth and conception ratios are that
    males are more likely to be terminated in the womb or to be still-born. Boys more likely to die at
    any age than girls so by the age of about 22 there is a 1:1 ratio.

    How has this conception ratio evolved?

    When I last looked into this, the most likely theory seemed to be differential sperm swimming speed.

    However it seems to be "inconceivable" that this could produce such a large conception bias ;-)

    While I don't know the mechanism, the "why" of the phenomenon seems

    Fisher - given the existence of parental care and the greater mortality of males.

    [moderator's suggestion: I would suggest a more recent and more powerful explanation (based on the
    same ideas, of course) would be due to Eric Charnov and several different co-authors, most often Jim
    Bull, under

    "ultimate" why question, but not the proximate one, namely, how do they DO that? - JAH]

    --
    __________
    |im |yler timtyler.orgtimtyler.org [email hidden] Remove lock to reply.

  4. Rick said:


    I'd always thought the ratio of males to females in humans was about 1:1. Then learnt that the
    actual birth ratio is about 1.06 boys to every girl. Then I read that the conception ratio is 1.25
    boys to every girl. The reason for the difference between birth and conception ratios are that
    males are more likely to be terminated in the womb or to be still-born. Boys more likely to die at
    any age than girls so by the age of about 22 there is a 1:1 ratio.

    How has this conception ratio evolved?

    Quoted message said:

    chance. I am puzzled because 25% more males are conceived than females and that is difficult to
    explain without using out of date ideas like "for the good of the species" (or even for the good
    of a monogamous society!). This is especially true if you put it down to XY sperm swimming faster
    because they are lighter. Have XY sperm evolved to be lighter or is it just that they happen to be
    lighter because they carry less DNA?

    about that.

    Sperm are lighter because the egg carries a lot of food to nourish the developing embryo.

    Mitchell Timin

    --
    "Many are stubborn in pursuit of the path they have chosen, few in pursuit of the goal." -
    Friedrich Nietzsche

    annevolve.sourceforge.netannevolve.sourceforge.net is what I'm into nowadays. Humans may write to me at this address:
    zenguy at shaw dot ca

  5. Rick said:


    I'd always thought the ratio of males to females in humans was about 1:1. Then learnt that the
    actual birth ratio is about 1.06 boys to every girl. Then I read that the conception ratio is 1.25
    boys to every girl. The reason for the difference between birth and conception ratios are that
    males are more likely to be terminated in the womb or to be still-born. Boys more likely to die at
    any age than girls so by the age of about 22 there is a 1:1 ratio.

    How has this conception ratio evolved?

    Quoted message said:

    chance. I am puzzled because 25% more males are conceived than females and that is difficult to
    explain without using out of date ideas like "for the good of the species" (or even for the good
    of a monogamous society!). This is especially true if you put it down to XY sperm swimming faster
    because they are lighter. Have XY sperm evolved to be lighter or is it just that they happen to be
    lighter because they carry less DNA?

    I raised a similar question in a post entitled "Why so many males?" about 2 years ago on
    talk.origins. Here's the link to the thread on google.groups.com:

    tinyurl.com2s8gm

    thorough, with input provided by some pretty knowledgeable people. Here's my original post:

    ++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

    Subject: Why so many males? Date: Wed, 20 Mar 2002 08:53:47 -0700 From: dkomo <[email hidden]>
    Newsgroups: talk.origins

    Given that in animal species a male can impregnate an almost unlimited

    to females born is so often close to 50/50. In human beings, for example, there are 51 boys for
    every 49 girls born.

    This is understandable in monogomous species such as human beings where parental investment by the
    male is needed for rearing of the young, but in animals where the males go their merry way after
    mating and the females are left to bear and ensure the survival of offspring, it isn't obvious why
    such a high ratio of males is efficient for propagating the species.

    Indeed, one way to reason is that selection pressure should lead to a higher ratio of females being
    born because that would maximize the number of offspring produced across many generations. Evidence
    shows that almost every female has a high chance to reproduce, but males much less so despite the
    ability to have multiple partners. The male's chances are reduced because in many species a few
    alpha males sire almost all the offspring. The male's chances are also reduced because females are
    often quite choosy in selecting who they mate with.

    Mating and having offspring is a quite considerable investment in time and energy for an organism,
    so the production of so many superfluous

    is so close to parity:

    1. The mechanics of reproduction forces an almost equal number of males and females to be born.

    ratio if it drifts to one side or the other.

    2. There is some evolutionary advantage to producing so many males, and some disdavantage to
    producing a surplus of females.

    I'd appreciate some informed opinion on this question of why so many males.

    [email hidden]

  6. Jois quotes:

    Quoted message said:

    BJOG. 2003 Apr;110 Suppl 20:34-8. Links

    Gender aspects of preterm birth.

    Ingemarsson I.

    Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University Hospital, Lund, Sweden.

    Quoted message said:

    undifferentiated gonads formed either testes or ovaries. Studies in recent

    Quoted message said:

    on the Y-chromosome is already transcribed at the 2-cell stage and triggers growth acceleration in
    the XY embryos. This accelerated growth is believed to be important for the male embryo as it
    allows complete testicular differentiation before the levels of oestrogenic hormones become too
    high as pregnancy progresses. It is well known that the death rate is higher for male than for
    female fetuses and that the increase is about 30% in chromosomally normal spontaneous abortions
    (i.e. significantly higher than at birth). National figures from Sweden show that boys are more
    likely to be delivered prematurely, accounting for 55-60% of all newborns between 23 and 32
    gestational weeks. Neonatal deaths in these gestational weeks are also more common among boys. In
    1993, the overall 1-year mortality rate (including all gestational weeks) in Sweden was 5.4% for
    boys and 4.1% for girls. The difference in infant mortality (within 1 year) is most pronounced at
    extremely early birth (23-24 gestational weeks) being 60% for boys compared with 38% for girls.

    These are some of the most robust statistics in existence and were well-known in Darwin's time.
    Indeed, he wrote the following in the "Descent of Man" (Chapter 8), with the last quoted paragraph
    being the most important:

    =====================================

    In England during ten years (from 1857 to 1866) the average number of children born alive yearly was
    707,120, in the proportion of 104.5 males to 100 females. But in 1857 the male births throughout
    England were as 105.2, and in 1865 as
    104. to 100. Looking to separate districts, in Buckinghamshire (where about 5000 children are
    annually born) the mean proportion of male to female births, during the whole period of the
    above ten years, was as 102.8 to 100; whilst in
    N. Wales (where the average annual births are 12,873) it was as high as 106.2 to 100. Taking a still
    smaller district, viz., Rutlandshire (where the annual births average only 739), in 1864 the male
    births were as 114.6, and in 1862 as only 97.0 to 100; but even in this small district the
    average of the 7385 births during the whole ten years, was as 104.5 to 100: that is in the same
    ratio as throughout England.* The proportions are sometimes slightly disturbed by unknown causes;
    thus Prof. Faye states "that in some districts of Norway there has been during a decennial period
    a steady deficiency of boys, whilst in others the opposite condition has existed." In France
    during forty-four years the male to the female births have been as 106.2 to 100; but during this
    period it has occurred five times in one department, and six times in another, that the female
    births have exceeded the males. In Russia the average proportion is as high as 108.9, and in
    Philadelphia in the United States as 110.5 to 100.*(2) The average for Europe, deduced by Bickes
    from about seventy million births, is 106 males to 100 females. On the other hand, with white
    children born at the Cape of Good Hope, the proportion of males is so low as to fluctuate during
    successive years between 90 and 99 males for every 100 females. It is a singular fact that with
    Jews the proportion of male births is decidedly larger than with Christians: thus in Prussia the
    proportion is as 113, in Breslau as 114, and in Livonia as 120 to 100; the Christian births in
    these countries being the same as usual, for instance, in Livonia as 104 to 100.*(3)

    Prof. Faye remarks that "a still greater preponderance of males would be met

    birth. But the fact is, that for every 100 still-born females, we have in several countries from
    134.6 to 144.9 stillborn males. During the first four or five years of life, also, more male
    children die than females, for example in England, during the first year, 126 boys die for every 100
    girls- a proportion which in France is still more unfavourable."* Dr. Stockton-Hough accounts for
    these facts in part by the more frequent defective development of males than of

    than the female; and variations in important organs would generally be injurious. But the size of
    the body, and especially of the head, being greater in male than female infants is another cause:
    for the males are thus more liable to be injured during parturition. Consequently the still-born
    males are more numerous; and, as a highly competent judge, Dr. Crichton Browne,*(2) believes, male
    infants often suffer in health for some years after birth. Owing to this excess in the death-rate of
    male children, both at birth and for some time subsequently, and owing to the exposure of grown men
    to various dangers, and to their tendency to emigrate, the females in all old-settled countries,
    where statistical records have been kept,*(3) are found to preponderate considerably over the males.

    Na. Stark also remarks (Tenth Annual Reports of Births, Deaths, &c., in Scotland, 1867, p. xxviii.)
    that "These examples may suffice to show that, at almost every stage of life, the males in
    Scotland have a greater liability to death and a higher death-rate than the females. The fact,
    however, of this peculiarity being most strongly developed at that infantile period of life when

    that the higher male death-rate is an impressed, natural, and constitutional

    =====================================

    Diploid heterogamy in mammals (XY males) is a very mild form of haplodiploidy, but the phenomenon
    does put the heterogametic gender at some greater informational risk than the homogametic gender.
    Whatever defects lie on the nonredundant X in males are expressed without hope of correction by a
    "backup" copy residing on a now absent homologous chromosome.

    There is also good evidence to support the contention that males have been evolved to be more
    universally fragile and more error expositive than their conspecific females. Males in most metazoan
    species succumb more readily than females to disease, trauma, exhaustion and starvation; suffer
    higher embryonic

    bear generally higher parasitic worm loads; live shorter lives or are driven from the population
    after breeding, occasionally dying synchronously. Polygynous males rarely care for their young, thus
    they become especially dispensible to the population in times of ecological stress and may be
    actively discriminated against during such periods.

    Male excess mortality in some mammals appears to be directly and programmatically derived from
    androgenic hormonal levels, especially testosterone. Castrated human males live on average 13.6
    years longer than unmodified men. Similarly, in feral Soay sheep (Ovis sp.), wether lambs (castrated
    males) significantly outlive both ewe and ram lambs. In contrast, mortality in normal males due to
    (aggressive, combative) masculine behaviours

    normal rams 5:1. The loss of gonads not only markedly alters the aggressive nature of the males but
    also diminishes behaviours that would otherwise promote high levels of physiological and
    nutritional stress.

    In contrast, in the birds, heterogamety is reversed. It is the female who now has an unpaired
    chromosome (WZ) and is the gender who is put at greater informational risk. The effect of this
    informational reversal appears to have

    easily seen in the data taken from wild populations that appears at:

    As mammalian populations age, the percentage of males drops. The pattern is precisely reversed in
    birds. As birds age, the percentage of females decline and we are left with conclusion (using
    Darwin's words) "that the higher female

    alone."

    Wirt Atmar

  7. Quoted message said:

    Sperm are lighter because the egg carries a lot of food to nourish the developing embryo.

    It is not that sperm are lighter than eggs that I was referring to. It is that XY sperm swim faster
    than XX sperm possibly because they are lighter.

    [moderator's gentle chiding: Of course you are aware that gametes are haploid, and so cannot be
    "XY", but must be, simply, "X" or "Y" in the case of males (and, in mammals, solely "X" in females).
    So the sperm are Y or X, and the DNA load in a Y sperm is noticeably less. - JAH]

    ---
    Outgoing mail is certified Virus Free. Checked by AVG anti-virus system (grisoft.comgrisoft.com).
    Version: 6.0.587 / Virus Database: 371 - Release Date: 13/02/2004

  8. (Wirt Atmar) said:

    Jois quotes:

    Quoted message said:

    BJOG. 2003 Apr;110 Suppl 20:34-8. Links

    Gender aspects of preterm birth.

    Ingemarsson I.

    Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University Hospital, Lund, Sweden.

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    undifferentiated gonads formed either testes or ovaries. Studies in recent

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    on the Y-chromosome is already transcribed at the 2-cell stage and triggers growth acceleration in
    the XY embryos. This accelerated growth is believed to be important for the male embryo as it
    allows complete testicular differentiation before the levels of oestrogenic hormones become too
    high as pregnancy progresses. It is well known that the death rate is higher for male than for
    female fetuses and that the increase is about 30% in chromosomally normal spontaneous abortions
    (i.e. significantly higher than at birth). National figures from Sweden show that boys are more
    likely to be delivered prematurely, accounting for 55-60% of all newborns between 23 and 32
    gestational weeks. Neonatal deaths in these gestational weeks are also more common among boys. In
    1993, the overall 1-year mortality rate (including all gestational weeks) in Sweden was 5.4% for
    boys and 4.1% for girls. The difference in infant mortality (within 1 year) is most pronounced at
    extremely early birth (23-24 gestational weeks) being 60% for boys compared with 38% for girls.

    These are some of the most robust statistics in existence and were well-known in Darwin's time.
    Indeed, he wrote the following in the "Descent of Man" (Chapter 8), with the last quoted paragraph
    being the most important:

    =====================================

    In England during ten years (from 1857 to 1866) the average number of children born alive yearly
    was 707,120, in the proportion of 104.5 males to 100 females. But in 1857 the male births
    throughout England were as 105.2, and in 1865 as
    104. to 100. Looking to separate districts, in Buckinghamshire (where about 5000 children are
    annually born) the mean proportion of male to female births, during the whole period of the
    above ten years, was as 102.8 to 100; whilst in
    N. Wales (where the average annual births are 12,873) it was as high as 106.2 to 100. Taking a
    still smaller district, viz., Rutlandshire (where the annual births average only 739), in 1864
    the male births were as 114.6, and in 1862 as only 97.0 to 100; but even in this small district
    the average of the 7385 births during the whole ten years, was as 104.5 to 100: that is in the
    same ratio as throughout England.* The proportions are sometimes slightly disturbed by unknown
    causes; thus Prof. Faye states "that in some districts of Norway there has been during a
    decennial period a steady deficiency of boys, whilst in others the opposite condition has
    existed." In France during forty-four years the male to the female births have been as 106.2 to
    100; but during this period it has occurred five times in one department, and six times in
    another, that the female births have exceeded the males. In Russia the average proportion is as
    high as 108.9, and in Philadelphia in the United States as 110.5 to 100.*(2) The average for
    Europe, deduced by Bickes from about seventy million births, is 106 males to 100 females. On the
    other hand, with white children born at the Cape of Good Hope, the proportion of males is so low
    as to fluctuate during successive years between 90 and 99 males for every 100 females. It is a
    singular fact that with Jews the proportion of male births is decidedly larger than with
    Christians: thus in Prussia the proportion is as 113, in Breslau as 114, and in Livonia as 120
    to 100; the Christian births in these countries being the same as usual, for instance, in
    Livonia as 104 to 100.*(3)

    Prof. Faye remarks that "a still greater preponderance of males would be met

    Quoted message said:

    birth. But the fact is, that for every 100 still-born females, we have in several countries from
    134.6 to 144.9 stillborn males. During the first four or five years of life, also, more male
    children die than females, for example in England, during the first year, 126 boys die for every
    100 girls- a proportion which in France is still more unfavourable."* Dr. Stockton-Hough accounts
    for these facts in part by the more frequent defective development of males than of

    Quoted message said:

    than the female; and variations in important organs would generally be injurious. But the size of
    the body, and especially of the head, being greater in male than female infants is another cause:
    for the males are thus more liable to be injured during parturition. Consequently the still-born
    males are more numerous; and, as a highly competent judge, Dr. Crichton Browne,*(2) believes, male
    infants often suffer in health for some years after birth. Owing to this excess in the death-rate
    of male children, both at birth and for some time subsequently, and owing to the exposure of grown
    men to various dangers, and to their tendency to emigrate, the females in all old-settled
    countries, where statistical records have been kept,*(3) are found to preponderate considerably
    over the males.

    Dr. Stark also remarks (Tenth Annual Reports of Births, Deaths, &c., in Scotland, 1867, p.
    xxviii.) that "These examples may suffice to show that, at almost every stage of life, the
    males in Scotland have a greater liability to death and a higher death-rate than the females.
    The fact, however, of this peculiarity being most strongly developed at that infantile period
    of life when

    Quoted message said:

    that the higher male death-rate is an impressed, natural, and constitutional

    Quoted message said:


    =====================================

    Quoted message said:


    Diploid heterogamy in mammals (XY males) is a very mild form of haplodiploidy, but the phenomenon
    does put the heterogametic gender at some greater informational risk than the homogametic gender.
    Whatever defects lie on the nonredundant X in males are expressed without hope of correction by a
    "backup" copy residing on a now absent homologous chromosome.

    There is also good evidence to support the contention that males have been evolved to be more
    universally fragile and more error expositive than their conspecific females. Males in most
    metazoan species succumb more readily than females to disease, trauma, exhaustion and starvation;
    suffer higher embryonic

    Quoted message said:

    bear generally higher parasitic worm loads; live shorter lives or are driven from the population
    after breeding, occasionally dying synchronously. Polygynous males rarely care for their young,
    thus they become especially dispensible to the population in times of ecological stress and may be
    actively discriminated against during such periods.

    Male excess mortality in some mammals appears to be directly and programmatically derived from
    androgenic hormonal levels, especially testosterone. Castrated human males live on average 13.6
    years longer than unmodified men. Similarly, in feral Soay sheep (Ovis sp.), wether lambs
    (castrated males) significantly outlive both ewe and ram lambs. In contrast, mortality in normal
    males due to (aggressive, combative) masculine behaviours

    Quoted message said:

    normal rams 5:1. The loss of gonads not only markedly alters the aggressive nature of the males but
    also diminishes behaviours that would otherwise promote high levels of physiological and
    nutritional stress.

    In contrast, in the birds, heterogamety is reversed. It is the female who now has an unpaired
    chromosome (WZ) and is the gender who is put at greater informational risk. The effect of this
    informational reversal appears to have

    Quoted message said:

    easily seen in the data taken from wild populations that appears at:

    Quoted message said:


    As mammalian populations age, the percentage of males drops. The pattern is precisely reversed in
    birds. As birds age, the percentage of females decline and we are left with conclusion (using
    Darwin's words) "that the higher female

    Quoted message said:

    alone."

    Wirt Atmar


    ....found your post last... I am pleased you mentioned the adverse effects of testosterone.

  9. Wirt Atmar <[email hidden]> wrote or quoted:

    Quoted message said:

    Male excess mortality in some mammals appears to be directly and programmatically derived from
    androgenic hormonal levels, especially testosterone. Castrated human males live on average 13.6
    years longer than unmodified men. [...]

    ...according to one old study on mental patients.

    More recent work has failed to detect any such effect:

    ``Androgens shorten the longevity of women: sopranos last longer''

    Earlier we found that longevity of castrati was identical to that of intact singers. These
    findings were in disagreement with the prevailing concept that testosterone might shorten life and
    might be responsible for the shorter life expectancy of men compared to women. [...]''

    - calorierestriction.orgpmid
    --
    __________
    |im |yler timtyler.orgtimtyler.org [email hidden] Remove lock to reply.

  10. Quoted message said:

    It is not that sperm are lighter than eggs that I was referring to. It is that XY sperm swim
    faster than XX sperm possibly because they are lighter.

    [moderator's gentle chiding: Of course you are aware that gametes are haploid, and so cannot be
    "XY", but must be, simply, "X" or "Y" in the case of males (and, in mammals, solely "X" in
    females). So the sperm are Y or X, and the DNA load in a Y sperm is noticeably less. - JAH]

    It's a fair cop. Actually, I realised my mistake after posting it. Too much time thinking of males
    as XY and females as XX (I am aware that XX can be male).

    If the nuts and bolts explanation of the conception ratio is that Y sperm are more successful
    because they swim faster because they are lighter then doesn't that mean that ratio has not evolved,
    i.e. it is just a natural side-effect of producing 50:50 Y and X sperm and that Ys are quicker?

  11. I, Tim Tyler <[email hidden]> wrote or quoted:

    Quoted message said:

    When I last looked into this, the most likely theory seemed to be differential sperm
    swimming speed.

    However it seems to be "inconceivable" that this could produce such a large conception bias ;-)

    If there's a bias, it would be interesting to know if it is male-determined or female-determined.

    ``Smokers produce more baby girls''

    - news.bbc.co.uk1937690.stm

    ...suggests a male-determined bias is a possibility.
    --
    __________
    |im |yler timtyler.orgtimtyler.org [email hidden] Remove lock to reply.

  12. Wirt Atmar said:


    Male excess mortality in some mammals appears to be directly and programmatically derived from
    androgenic hormonal levels, especially testosterone. Castrated human males live on average 13.6
    years longer than unmodified men. Similarly, in feral Soay sheep (Ovis sp.), wether lambs
    (castrated males) significantly outlive both ewe and ram lambs. In contrast, mortality in normal
    males due to (aggressive, combative) masculine behaviours

    Quoted message said:

    normal rams 5:1.

    Therefore, according to the selection arguments in the thead that I cited in my earlier post:

    tinyurl.com2s8gm

    if a mutation came along that increased the number of male sheep at birth, this mutation should be
    strongly selected because the males would have a much better chance to spread their genes to future
    generations than the females due to the severe undersupply (1:5) of breeding rams. This selection
    pressure would last until the number of adult ewes balances the number of adult rams.

    originally developed by Fisher, is wrong, or the statistics cited are in error.

    [email hidden]

  13. In species where XY is male and XX is female, has there been a case of "larger Y

    that the explanation given relies on the fact that Y is always smaller and hence achieve more
    ceonception.

    [moderator's suggestion: One might look at birds, where males are homogametic and females
    heterogametic, but I have no idea what the

    know? - JAH]

    Rick said:
    Quoted message said:


    It is not that sperm are lighter than eggs that I was referring to. It is that XY sperm swim
    faster than XX sperm possibly because they are lighter.

    [moderator's gentle chiding: Of course you are aware that gametes are haploid, and so cannot be
    "XY", but must be, simply, "X" or "Y" in the case of males (and, in mammals, solely "X" in
    females). So the sperm are Y or X, and the DNA load in a Y sperm is noticeably less. - JAH]

    It's a fair cop. Actually, I realised my mistake after posting it. Too much time thinking of males
    as XY and females as XX (I am aware that XX can be male).

    If the nuts and bolts explanation of the conception ratio is that Y sperm are more successful
    because they swim faster because they are lighter then doesn't that mean that ratio has not
    evolved, i.e. it is just a natural side-effect of producing 50:50 Y and X sperm and that Ys are
    quicker?

  14. On Mon, 16 Feb 2004 23:45:19 +0000 (UTC), dkomo <[email hidden]>

    Quoted message said:
    Wirt Atmar said:


    Male excess mortality in some mammals appears to be directly and programmatically derived from
    androgenic hormonal levels, especially testosterone. Castrated human males live on average 13.6
    years longer than unmodified men. Similarly, in feral Soay sheep (Ovis sp.), wether lambs
    (castrated males) significantly outlive both ewe and ram lambs. In contrast, mortality in normal
    males due to (aggressive, combative) masculine behaviours

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    normal rams 5:1.

    Therefore, according to the selection arguments in the thead that I cited in my earlier post:

    tinyurl.com2s8gm

    if a mutation came along that increased the number of male sheep at birth, this mutation should be
    strongly selected because the males would have a much better chance to spread their genes to future
    generations than the females due to the severe undersupply (1:5) of breeding rams. This selection
    pressure would last until the number of adult ewes balances the number of adult rams.

    Quoted message said:

    originally developed by Fisher, is wrong, or the statistics cited are in error.


    You have a misunderstanding of Fisher. Fisher predicts there will be equal or balancing
    "investment" in females and males. In sheep the mother bears all these costs of birth through
    weaning and the "cost" is nearly the same for producing a son or daughter, so a Fisher prediction
    is a 1:1 ratio at this point in time shortly after birth

    from 1:1 when the investment cost for a son or daughter were the same

    sorting system.
    William L Hunt

    Quoted message said:


    [email hidden]

  15. William L Hunt said:


    dkomo said:
    Wirt Atmar said:


    Male excess mortality in some mammals appears to be directly and programmatically derived from
    androgenic hormonal levels, especially testosterone. Castrated human males live on average 13.6
    years longer than unmodified men. Similarly, in feral Soay sheep (Ovis sp.), wether lambs
    (castrated males) significantly outlive both ewe and ram lambs. In contrast, mortality in
    normal males due to (aggressive, combative) masculine behaviours

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    normal rams 5:1.

    Therefore, according to the selection arguments in the thead that I cited in my earlier post:

    tinyurl.com2s8gm

    if a mutation came along that increased the number of male sheep at birth, this mutation should
    be strongly selected because the males would have a much better chance to spread their genes to
    future generations than the females due to the severe undersupply (1:5) of breeding rams. This
    selection pressure would last until the number of adult ewes balances the number of adult rams.

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    originally developed by Fisher, is wrong, or the statistics cited are in error.


    You have a misunderstanding of Fisher. Fisher predicts there will be equal or balancing
    "investment" in females and males. In sheep the mother bears all these costs of birth through
    weaning and the "cost" is nearly the same for producing a son or daughter, so a Fisher prediction
    is a 1:1 ratio at this point in time shortly after birth

    Quoted message said:

    from 1:1 when the investment cost for a son or daughter were the same

    Quoted message said:

    sorting system.
    William L Hunt

    No, in fact my understanding of Fisher is as correct as yours. I refer you to the following link:

    or

    tinyurl.com24d4l

    eventual genetic return. If the eventual genetic return is the number

    most likely to reproduce. In a population with many males and few females, any female will have
    many opportunities to reproduce. Therefore, parents that produce daughters will produce many
    grandchildren. In a population with many females and few males,the opposite is true. Therefore,
    parents that produce sons will produce many grandchildren. That is, there is frequency
    dependent selection

    be made up of equal numbers of males and females. Under these conditions, parents will be selected
    to produce equal numbers of sons

    mating partners."

    This is almost the same as what I wrote in my post, except that I was looking at things from the
    genetic perspective of the newly born lambs rather than that of their parents. But the result of
    selection will be the same: those mutations that tend to increase the number of *male* lambs born
    will be favored. This is Fisher. Later in the reference there is also a discussion of the "costs"
    of producing

    Fisher's theory explains why there are more human male children born than female. It is to balance
    the loss of males due to greater mortality so that there will be no net long term genetic
    advantage or

    mechanism that produces more male children, although interesting, is of secondary importance. This
    mechanism is simply what nature has

    account all factors related to human reproduction and the relative mortality rates of males
    and females.

    [email hidden]

  16. Wirt Atmar <[email hidden]> wrote or quoted:

    Quoted message said:
    Tim said:

    Wirt Atmar <[email hidden]> wrote or quoted:

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    Male excess mortality in some mammals appears to be directly and programmatically derived from
    androgenic hormonal levels, especially testosterone. Castrated human males live on average 13.6
    years longer than unmodified men. [...]

    ...according to one old study on mental patients.

    More recent work has failed to detect any such effect:

    ``Androgens shorten the longevity of women: sopranos last longer''

    Earlier we found that longevity of castrati was identical to that of intact singers. These
    findings were in disagreement with the prevailing concept that testosterone might shorten life
    and might be responsible for the shorter life expectancy of men compared to women. [...]''

    - calorierestriction.orgpmid

    The effect that's generally reported isn't presumed to have much to do with the biochemistry of
    testosterone, as the above report suggests. Rather the effect on shortened lives of males is
    thought to be much more a consequence of the aggressive behaviors that it promotes.

    They looked at the effect of castration on lifespan. Lifespan takes all causes of death into account
    implicitly - *including* violent deaths.

    Quoted message said:

    In humans, male-male combat begins at puberty and lasts throughout the reproductive age. You can
    see that behavior in the chart below, which catalogs excess male mortality relative to human
    females in two groups, those in Chicago and England/Wales. The two curves are astoundingly
    similar, but with the small caveat that the male-male murder rate in Chicago is 30 times higher
    than it is in England:

    aics-research.commaleexcessmortality.html

    The ready availability of guns in the US is generally credited for the difference in murder rates.

    Even if we take the peak killing period of the chicago gangster, it appears that they are killing
    0.08% of their fellows per year. Not enough to have very much impact on the average longevity of
    males compared to females.

    Since castration influences major hormones, there may be other factors associated with castration
    that influence longevity that do not show up in a diagram of death by violence - for example:

    ``Low testosterone is linked to hypertension, obesity, atherosclerosis and increased waist-to-hip
    ratio - all of these being heart attack risk factors. Administration of testosterone to men has been
    reported to decrease the risk factors for heart attack.''

    - diagnose-me.comC15002.html

    So: I don't think the "chicago" diagram tells us very much about the effect of castration on
    longevity.

    Quoted message said:

    Nonetheless, such aggressive behavior in humans is merely only a shadow of the intensity of the
    conflict that exists a great many other large mammals.

    Yes - in some *other* species, intact males don't live for so long - but there are reasons for
    thinking we are *not* like them - due to our relatively low level of death by male-male combat.

    There aren't many studies looking at the effect of castration on longevity. One reported an effect.
    Another found no difference.

    I would hesitate to draw much of a conclusion from the information currently available.
    --
    __________
    |im |yler timtyler.orgtimtyler.org [email hidden] Remove lock to reply.

  17. On Tue, 17 Feb 2004 18:05:03 +0000 (UTC), dkomo <[email hidden]>

    Quoted message said:
    William L Hunt said:


    dkomo said:

    Wirt Atmar wrote:
    >
    > Male excess mortality in some mammals appears to be directly and programmatically derived from
    > androgenic hormonal levels, especially testosterone. Castrated human males live on average
    > 13.6 years longer than unmodified men. Similarly, in feral Soay sheep (Ovis sp.), wether lambs
    > (castrated males) significantly outlive both ewe and ram lambs. In contrast, mortality in
    > normal males due to (aggressive, combative) masculine behaviours

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    > normal rams 5:1.

    Therefore, according to the selection arguments in the thead that I cited in my earlier post:

    tinyurl.com2s8gm

    if a mutation came along that increased the number of male sheep at birth, this mutation should
    be strongly selected because the males would have a much better chance to spread their genes to
    future generations than the females due to the severe undersupply (1:5) of breeding rams. This
    selection pressure would last until the number of adult ewes balances the number of adult rams.

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    originally developed by Fisher, is wrong, or the statistics cited are in error.


    You have a misunderstanding of Fisher. Fisher predicts there will be equal or balancing
    "investment" in females and males. In sheep the mother bears all these costs of birth through
    weaning and the "cost" is nearly the same for producing a son or daughter, so a Fisher
    prediction is a 1:1 ratio at this point in time shortly after birth

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    from 1:1 when the investment cost for a son or daughter were the same

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    sorting system.
    William L Hunt

    No, in fact my understanding of Fisher is as correct as yours. I refer you to the following link:

    Quoted message said:

    or

    tinyurl.com24d4l


    At the very beginning of this paper they say:

    may be making the same mistake (Fisher logic) with humans as you were with sheep. William L Hunt

    [moderator's note: I have a vague memory of arguing about this in a grad course on evolutionary
    genetics (or some similar pair of buzzwords), and there seemed to be no consensus on the issue --
    that is, it may be that the selection operates, yes, on the mechanism

    primary (conception) ratio (secondary = birth ratio, tertiary = breeding ratio). Discuss; show your
    work. 20 pts. - JAH]

    ... [snip] ...

    Quoted message said:


    [email hidden]

  18. dkomo <[email hidden]> wrote or quoted:

    Quoted message said:
    William L Hunt said:

    On Mon, 16 Feb 2004 23:45:19 +0000 (UTC), dkomo <[email hidden]>

    Quoted message said:

    Wirt Atmar wrote:

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    > normal rams 5:1.

    Therefore, according to the selection arguments in the thead that I cited in my earlier post:

    tinyurl.com2s8gm

    if a mutation came along that increased the number of male sheep at birth, this mutation should
    be strongly selected because the males would have a much better chance to spread their genes to
    future generations than the females due to the severe undersupply (1:5) of breeding rams. This
    selection pressure would last until the number of adult ewes balances the number of adult rams.

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    originally developed by Fisher, is wrong, or the statistics cited are in error.

    You have a misunderstanding of Fisher. Fisher predicts there will be equal or balancing
    "investment" in females and males. In sheep the mother bears all these costs of birth through
    weaning and the "cost" is nearly the same for producing a son or daughter, so a Fisher
    prediction is a 1:1 ratio at this point in time shortly after birth

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    from 1:1 when the investment cost for a son or daughter were the same

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    sorting system.

    No, in fact my understanding of Fisher is as correct as yours. I refer you to the following link:

    Quoted message said:

    or

    tinyurl.com24d4l

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    eventual genetic return. If the eventual genetic return is the number

    Quoted message said:

    most likely to reproduce. In a population with many males and few females, any female will have
    many opportunities to reproduce. Therefore, parents that produce daughters will produce many
    grandchildren. In a population with many females and few males,the opposite is true. Therefore,
    parents that produce sons will produce many grandchildren. That is, there is frequency dependent
    selection

    Quoted message said:

    be made up of equal numbers of males and females. Under these conditions, parents will be selected
    to produce equal numbers of sons

    Quoted message said:

    mating partners."

    This is almost the same as what I wrote in my post [...]

    Web pages of unknown origin are not necessarily good resources.

    This one is not correct.

    The correct prediction (due to Fisher) is that parents will invest

    web page says:

    ``Eventually, the population will be made up of equal numbers of males and females.''

    It doesn't follow that:

    originally developed by Fisher, is wrong, or the statistics cited are in error.''

    ...since Fisher's theory is not in conflict with a biased adult

    --
    __________
    |im |yler timtyler.orgtimtyler.org [email hidden] Remove lock to reply.

  19. Tim Tyler said:


    dkomo <[email hidden]> wrote or quoted:

    Quoted message said:
    William L Hunt said:

    On Mon, 16 Feb 2004 23:45:19 +0000 (UTC), dkomo <[email hidden]>
    >Wirt Atmar wrote:


    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    >> normal rams 5:1.
    >
    >Therefore, according to the selection arguments in the thead that I cited in my earlier post:
    >
    >tinyurl.com2s8gm
    >
    >if a mutation came along that increased the number of male sheep at birth, this mutation
    >should be strongly selected because the males would have a much better chance to spread their
    >genes to future generations than the females due to the severe undersupply (1:5) of breeding
    >rams. This selection pressure would last until the number of adult ewes balances the number
    >of adult rams.
    >

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    >originally developed by Fisher, is wrong, or the statistics cited are in error.

    You have a misunderstanding of Fisher. Fisher predicts there will be equal or balancing
    "investment" in females and males. In sheep the mother bears all these costs of birth through
    weaning and the "cost" is nearly the same for producing a son or daughter, so a Fisher
    prediction is a 1:1 ratio at this point in time shortly after birth

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    from 1:1 when the investment cost for a son or daughter were the same

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    sorting system.

    No, in fact my understanding of Fisher is as correct as yours. I refer you to the
    following link:

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    or

    tinyurl.com24d4l

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    eventual genetic return. If the eventual genetic return is the number

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    most likely to reproduce. In a population with many males and few females, any female will have
    many opportunities to reproduce. Therefore, parents that produce daughters will produce many
    grandchildren. In a population with many females and few males,the opposite is true. Therefore,
    parents that produce sons will produce many grandchildren. That is, there is frequency dependent
    selection

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    be made up of equal numbers of males and females. Under these conditions, parents will be
    selected to produce equal numbers of sons

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    mating partners."

    This is almost the same as what I wrote in my post [...]

    Web pages of unknown origin are not necessarily good resources.

    This was a set of lecture notes from a course at University College London:

    ucl.ac.ukucl.ac.uk

    ucl.ac.ukc339

    Quoted message said:

    This one is not correct.

    The correct prediction (due to Fisher) is that parents will invest

    Quoted message said:

    web page says:

    ``Eventually, the population will be made up of equal numbers of males and females.''

    It doesn't follow that:

    Quoted message said:

    originally developed by Fisher, is wrong, or the statistics cited are in error.''

    ...since Fisher's theory is not in conflict with a biased adult

    Quoted message said:

    --
    __________
    |im |yler timtyler.orgtimtyler.org [email hidden] Remove lock to reply.

  20. On Wed, 18 Feb 2004 22:57:56 +0000 (UTC), dkomo <[email hidden]>

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    Tim Tyler wrote:


    dkomo <[email hidden]> wrote or quoted:

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    Web pages of unknown origin are not necessarily good resources.

    This was a set of lecture notes from a course at University College London:

    ucl.ac.ukucl.ac.uk

    Quoted message said:


    ucl.ac.ukc339


    I'll just point out that Tim is being a little harsh because the
    website makes clear they "assume" equal investment cost for male and

    ratio of 1:1.

    humans and I will just point out that to do a Fisher type calculation you need to know the
    investment cost of female and male offspring. That can be extraordinarily difficult to calculate for
    humans because it can vary from culture to culture. I give you the extreme example of India where
    there is a very high "dowry cost" for females. If you

    ratio seen in India.
    William L Hunt

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    This one is not correct.

    The correct prediction (due to Fisher) is that parents will invest

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    web page says:

    ``Eventually, the population will be made up of equal numbers of males and females.''

    It doesn't follow that:

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    originally developed by Fisher, is wrong, or the statistics cited are in error.''

    ...since Fisher's theory is not in conflict with a biased adult

    Quoted message said:
    Quoted message said:

    --
    __________
    |im |yler timtyler.orgtimtyler.org [email hidden] Remove lock to reply.

Active in the last 60 minutes

Active in this thread

0 users · 0 guests ·0 bots ·0 total

No signed-in users are active right now.

No known search crawlers active right now.