Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Could men have all female or all male offspring for a reason? Could this be so that the genes have a better chance for survival? Could there be even be a gay gene in the dna that would help more x sperm move to the egg to insure a female so that the genes have a better chance?
I suppose this is possible...but I think any correlation you find between a type of man and his liklihood of fathering mostly girls or mostly boys is not a causal relationship. For instance, I have no idea who was the last President to have any sons, so there could be some type of correlation between alpha males/leaders and having daughters but I think its more likely that somehow having daughters causes the advantage.
Be interesting if we could analyze this genetically and see if the theory you posted has any merit. Most likely there is no correlation-we just tend to notice families with all-male or all-female children so they seem more common.
I suppose this is possible...but I think any correlation you find between a type of man and his liklihood of fathering mostly girls or mostly boys is not a causal relationship. For instance, I have no idea who was the last President to have any sons, so there could be some type of correlation between alpha males/leaders and having daughters but I think its more likely that somehow having daughters causes the advantage.
Be interesting if we could analyze this genetically and see if the theory you posted has any merit. Most likely there is no correlation-we just tend to notice families with all-male or all-female children so they seem more common.
I suppose this is possible...but I think any correlation you find between a type of man and his liklihood of fathering mostly girls or mostly boys is not a causal relationship. For instance, I have no idea who was the last President to have any sons, so there could be some type of correlation between alpha males/leaders and having daughters but I think its more likely that somehow having daughters causes the advantage.
Be interesting if we could analyze this genetically and see if the theory you posted has any merit. Most likely there is no correlation-we just tend to notice families with all-male or all-female children so they seem more common.
I was thinking this one myself after watching the inauguration. I remember joking to a friend of mine that it could be saying something about having boys and how crazy they can make your household.
I later tried to figure out who the last president was to have a young enough son that he lived in the White House. I think it was JFK, though I believe Ford had a fairly young son when he became president.
Haha good point I forgot about that...but I was talking about having a son still at home. Although that is good proof against any sort of genetic influence. Still, we'd need to see many more examples.
Could men have all female or all male offspring for a reason? Could this be so that the genes have a better chance for survival? Could there be even be a gay gene in the dna that would help more x sperm move to the egg to insure a female so that the genes have a better chance?
I read don't have the site right now but they say as afar as determining the sex of a baby depends on the egg more then on the sperm itself now adays. So it depends on when the egg is fertilized. I forget all the details but it is when a woman is ovulating the sooner a man fertilizes the egg makes for a female if the egg is fertilized 3 or 2 days before her ovilation stops makes for a male.
As far as a Gay Gene I'm still not sold on this throry.
Could men have all female or all male offspring for a reason? Could this be so that the genes have a better chance for survival? Could there be even be a gay gene in the dna that would help more x sperm move to the egg to insure a female so that the genes have a better chance?
X sperm?
It would be purely by chance that a man would have all male or all female offspring.
Particular genes themselves survive just fine on their own, but that is delving into another topic that I am sure you were not alluding to. If by genes you mean the human species, than no, there would be no advantage to having all male or all female offspring, which is why it is roughly 50/50 for either sex being born.
If I am reading this right you are suggesting that there is a Terminator Gay gene that, if present, will stop the expression of this 'gay' gene ensuing that a female will be born? Ludicrist! Besides, who is not to say that the female will be a lesbian?
There is no correlation between homosexuality and proclivity of any particular gender in a couple. No "gay gene". AAMOF, Homosexuality may be from many different gene combinations that happen to produce different results based on the specific combination (thus making it hard to map to one or another).
But calling a sperm a lesbian sperm? That is just silly.
Also, people saying it depends on the egg are also misinformed, and this misinformation is what got a lot of women hurt or killed in "the old times", and it still happens today in areas that are not informed about the whole process.
There are rumors that the woman can influence the probability of one gender or another by what she eats, increasing or decreasing the alkalinity of the.....pipeline that the sperm are traveling in, but nobody has been able to produce any significant and regrettable data on that. At best you may swing it a few % one way or another, but nothing that would seriously guaranteed any sex of your child.
The only thing you have to realize is that people are winning things like the Lottery, whose lucks are much higher than any possibility than the chances of having 2 kids as one sex (25%), 3 (12.5%), 4 (6.25%) or 5 (3.125%). The chances for you having 5 girls is small, but ~3/100 is better than your choice of winning the lottery!!!
But calling a sperm a lesbian sperm? That is just silly.
If this is aimed at my comment...I was suggesting that if the OP was talking about a gay terminator gene existing to help further the human race by producing a female, which I suppose is to mean that a female would continue on with reproductive activities, is just as silly because there is a possibility that this female would be a lesbian.
I am not in anyway suggesting that lesbian have no desire to bear children, it was just my attempt to show the glaring hole in this gay terminator gene idea.
Could there be even be a gay gene in the dna that would help more x sperm move to the egg to insure a female
The ONLY thing I can see a "gay gene" being responsible for getting too X chromasomes together is some misunderstanding about homosexuality, genetics and procreation in general.
Whay would a "gay gene" mak a X go for an egg more? This was implied lesbianism on a cellular level (X on X action maybe?)
Just plain silly!
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
