Quote:
Originally Posted by timb
It's an unrealistic example: real selection is not so extreme.
|
I agree, but that's the purpose-- to examine the implications of an exaggerated case. Or another example would be dog breeding-- I wonder if there are any gender-unspecific attributes (like intelligence or coat markings) that can be bred in only male dogs-- without showing up in both males and females. Dog breeders might know more about that.
Quote:
|
Therefore male-specific gene alleles to increase intelligence would be favoured over sex neutral ones
|
Assuming there are such things-- that's very much the question.
Quote:
|
Unless such variation already existed in the population the short-term effect would be a general increase in the prevalence of "high IQ" genes.
|
Yes, that's just what I'm suggesting-- it might only increase the math acuity of the population as a whole, even though the situation was engineered to exert the survival pressure only on males.
Quote:
|
The expression of many genes is dependent on the sex chromosomes. The Y chromosome codes for very little. It just flips a switch that says "turn on male-type development" that is picked up by autosomal genes.
|
I'm glad you are bringing more detailed knowledge to the table. How much do we know about the intersection of male-type development and specific flavors of human intelligence like math skills? I'd say the OP is pretty clear evidence that there isn't much, though it could also be that males and females are really not subject to significantly different survival pressures in that regard (hunting versus caregiving activities notwithstanding).