Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Why Sex? Biologists Find New Explanations

quantamagazine.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 102 posts

Re: Why Sex? Biologists Find New Explanations

#51

Post by vikramkr »

daemonk wrote: post #47
throwaway6575 wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

HN is notoriously bad at anything related to biology, evolution, and genetics. It's a combination of this ( https://xkcd.com/1831/ ) and this ( https://xkcd.com/793/ ) comic. People there are also fond of finding a bunch of psychology papers that confirms existing biases. There's also a misleading phenomenon where many of the fields whose "experts" chime in on these questions are called evolutionary psychology or beh…

There is definitely a trend of tech bros 1831'ing biology. While it is very annoying, I do think we should try to be more charitable in how we respond to them. It's ultimately a good thing that other people are interested in what we are doing.

I agree. Maybe I've just gotten jaded from the usual responses I get when trying to talk about biology with tech people (where they just assume it's over their head and want painful analogies to "simplify" it for them) that it's a bit of a breath of fresh air to see people try to engage with it. Even if they're wrong, well, so was I about basically everything when I took bio 101. It's a way to have those assumptions challenged and learn more. If they arent open to it and are operating in bad faith, c'est la vie, peoplle gonna be like that, but if people are approaching fields they dont know in good faith, then it's a first step.

Re: Why Sex? Biologists Find New Explanations

#52

Post by matheusmoreira »

throwaway6575 wrote: post #44
vikramkr wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are at least a few of us on here that are actual biologists- and with the increasing overlap of biotech and hacking, maybe we'll see more of us on here soon? Especially with how much HN seems to enjoy bio related threads, it's nice to see people at least engaging with the subject. And it looks like with time some of the poorer faith comments do get buried, however plentiful they may be.

Yeah there are a few bioinformaticians around - but they're few and far between and are often graduate students or candidates. Contrast with the diversity of tech profiles you find on here, from 60 year old COBOL veterans to ex-Googlers or the creators of frameworks, and all the founders. I think there's a difficulty in that you can't just do biology from your garage, even bioinformatics. The standards have shifted,…

> I think there's a difficulty in that you can't just do biology from your garage, even bioinformatics.

Yes. Studying biology is like reverse-engineering extremely complex, constantly changing microscopic systems which developed over thousands of years. Molecular biology in particular is prohibitively expensive. It's just not something people can play with the same way we play with computer programming. A fully equipped laboratory is required to perform even the most basic experiments. Even more resources are required in order to produce original work.

This also causes difficulty in reproducing published results. It's easy to verify that the laws of physics hold true. It's not so easy to reproduce an expensive 10 year long double blind clinical trial.

Re: Why Sex? Biologists Find New Explanations

#53

Post by SamReidHughes »

microcolonel wrote: post #13
nootropicat wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The Y chromosome only codes for 55 genes, while the X chromosome codes for 900 genes [1]. The Y chromosome self-evidently doesn't contain genes necessary for basic survival, because females don't have it. Males have only one X chromosome. Each cell in a human female has one X chromosome fully active and another one partially active [2], which means their phenotype, as far at it depends on the X chromosome, has lower…

Colour vision being the classic example of something preserved or enhanced in females due to coding on the X chromosome. This helps women, for the most part, completely avoid red-green colourblindness. Coincidentally when searching to make sure I wasn't saying this the wrong way around, I was presented with this weird sexist propaganda[0] that only works because of the weird way people tend to think about these facts…

Greater male variance in humans has nothing to do with the article, or general discussion about the evolutionary benefits of sexual reproduction, because what's true of some categories of animal, like mammals, is not true of birds and other animals (whose sex chromosomes work differently -- female birds have greater variance, last I checked).

Re: Why Sex? Biologists Find New Explanations

#54

Post by Koshkin »

JoeAltmaier wrote: post #22
itchyjunk wrote: post #20

I like how the article starts but I think it got lost a bit in hypothetical and anecdotes towards the end. Not holding it against the article though. As the article rightly points out, anything involving sex drags in biases as well. I wonder how convergent evolution [0] fits into this? Maybe one form of reproduction leaves a large niche open for another type of reproduction to fill in. Could it be that there was sexu…

Viruses

Sexual reproduction is not about injecting a DNA (or RNA) into a host cell for one's own sake.

Re: Why Sex? Biologists Find New Explanations

#55

Post by vikramkr »

hammock wrote: post #36
Zaak wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> is meiosis and mitosis the only two way to reproduce? Well, from a high-level view the only way a cell can make more cells is to divide, and if it divides it either makes a copy of its genetic material first, or gives half of it to each daughter cell. So in that sense, they're the only two ways possible. From a more detailed view, I wonder if the machinery of meiosis is evolutionarily the same in every sexually-rep…

>Well, from a high-level view the only way a cell can make more cells is to divide, and if it divides it either makes a copy of its genetic material first, or gives half of it to each daughter cell. So in that sense, they're the only two ways possible. Ignoring the idea of three-way (or more) genetic swaps, which would be like another type of meiosis, what if there were other ways? What if there was a "carbon copy" o…

Interesting thought. Theres no way for that to work with DNA really, since information is included there in a chemical sequence rather than a shape necessarily. Though there are epigenetic aspects that could maybe work that way, but that's not in the spirit of what you proposed. Maybe an alien form of life with a different information storage mechanism.

Right here at home though, if you want a life-approximating thing that actually does reproduce that way, you're in luck. Prions are proteins (a type of biological molecule) that make more of themselves in pretty much that way. They arent alive and they arent cells, but they reproduce by bumping into normally shaped proteins and making them be shaped in the same way. They cause all sorts of terrible diseases like mad cow and tend to be incurable since, well, theres really not much to kill or stop, it's just a protein, making other proteins look the same way, very fascinating and very scary - there are hypothesis that suggest prion like processes could be involved in neurodegenerative diseases like alzheimers.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prion

Re: Why Sex? Biologists Find New Explanations

#56

Post by microcolonel »

SamReidHughes wrote: post #53
microcolonel wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Colour vision being the classic example of something preserved or enhanced in females due to coding on the X chromosome. This helps women, for the most part, completely avoid red-green colourblindness. Coincidentally when searching to make sure I wasn't saying this the wrong way around, I was presented with this weird sexist propaganda[0] that only works because of the weird way people tend to think about these facts…

Greater male variance in humans has nothing to do with the article, or general discussion about the evolutionary benefits of sexual reproduction, because what's true of some categories of animal, like mammals, is not true of birds and other animals (whose sex chromosomes work differently -- female birds have greater variance, last I checked).

> Greater male variance in humans has nothing to do with ... the the evolutionary benefits of sexual reproduction

https://arxiv.org/abs/1703.04184

Re: Why Sex? Biologists Find New Explanations

#57

Post by 52-6F-62 »

aaron-lebo wrote: post #27
rtisdale wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Currently on mobile so won't be able to post much. To focus on one particular subset of this, recent research seems to indicate pretty conclusively that there is greater variability of (certain aspects of) intelligence among men than among women. The reasons for this are poorly understood. Is it genetic differences? Are boys and girls encouraged to investigate different things? Is it a limitation of our testing metho…

Yeah, we should be able to discuss topics like this without pearl clutching and the only way to really do that is with actual facts supported by evidence. I appreciate you providing that information, really.

I don't think it was the subject matter that was the cause for dispute, but the initial approach.

Re: Why Sex? Biologists Find New Explanations

#58

Post by SamReidHughes »

microcolonel wrote: post #56
SamReidHughes wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Greater male variance in humans has nothing to do with the article, or general discussion about the evolutionary benefits of sexual reproduction, because what's true of some categories of animal, like mammals, is not true of birds and other animals (whose sex chromosomes work differently -- female birds have greater variance, last I checked).

> Greater male variance in humans has nothing to do with ... the the evolutionary benefits of sexual reproduction https://arxiv.org/abs/1703.04184

Okay, but it's not male-specific.

Re: Why Sex? Biologists Find New Explanations

#59

Post by throwaway6575 »

globular-toast wrote: post #49
throwaway6575 wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah there are a few bioinformaticians around - but they're few and far between and are often graduate students or candidates. Contrast with the diversity of tech profiles you find on here, from 60 year old COBOL veterans to ex-Googlers or the creators of frameworks, and all the founders. I think there's a difficulty in that you can't just do biology from your garage, even bioinformatics. The standards have shifted,…

I mean, I've actually worked in bioinformatics and with biologists who have studied sexual species their entire life and my top-level comment was one of the ones that got buried. The main thing to learn from this is you can't really talk about this stuff because people don't want certain things to be true. Biologists tended to talk about this stuff openly with me after a few drinks. They dare not speak about it most…

Lol I've heard so many times about the conspiracy of biologists who are afraid to "tell the truth" about sex differences. Everyone is like Damore, cowing in front of the SJW crowd and afraid to be fired4truth. The reality is much more tame.

The crux of the matter (and potential controversy) is not about sex differences in plants or C. elegans. Most biologists I've met who study algae or polar bears usually limit their expert opinion on those species. It's really about transposing such knowledge to humans, where we don't have that level of bottom-up insight for a variety of reasons ranging from "humans are complicated", "most of what works in other species doesn't work in humans" (see: 99% of drug trials) to "you can't just open up people's brains to see what they're made of".

Re: Why Sex? Biologists Find New Explanations

#60

Post by jmeister »

LifeLiverTransp wrote: post #10
aaron-lebo wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You guys mind backing up your facts? > The simple answer comes down to the fact that a species has to find a balance between maintaining genetic diversity, which is important for resilience and adaptation, and maintaining a strong breeding population. > the basic fact that males have more diverse expression Not to be a jerk, but you guys are just throwing out this stuff without backing it up and it's not at all self-…

If i remember, the distribution in men is greater. ( https://www.aei.org/carpe-diem/chart-of-the-day-scottish-iq-... ) Also the expression of neuro-diversity is usually more severe (do not have a linke for that one). While we are at it, can we talk about the loop deformation, too? Aka, evolution as a blind machinery, adapting humanity to the cycle of strife, by allowing neuro-diverse speacilizations to exist, which i…

What is “loop deformation”? Are you referring to a parent comment that has been deleted/flagged? Curious to know..
Post reply on HN