Y-chromosome prediction of overarm throwing; homosexuality on the Y-chromosome #154 Rockthrowing theory
Archimedes Plutonium
where I can see myself being thrown (overarm) a lemon meringue pie
into my face, rounding
some corner of a college campus by women, and then
another pie thrown at me by gay activists.
But I am not concerned about sensitivities, I am concerned about
objectivity.
I looked into Wikipedia to see if there is a scientific
difference in the word "stone" versus "rock" as per size
of object. And there does not appear to be. It appears that rock is a
scientifically defined term but that stone
is not such. So I am going to rename this theory from
Stonethrowing to that of Rockthrowing. Maybe, geology
calls rocks that have been rounded by water activity such as on the
shores of rivers are called stones? Anyway, I am using the term Rock
from now on.
So Rockthrowing theory, for those readers that have been with me on
this journey from the start, realize that
this theory or mechanism is the difference between apes and humans.
That Rockthrowing created bipedalism and then eventually our species
in a time period of 8 to 10 million years.
And just today, or yesterday, I posted that Rockthrowing made a
prediction that human females would have a less throwing ability than
human males
and noticeable in the act of throwing but also in the bone structure
itself. So that it is more than just a muscle mass difference. For if
given a muscular female with a equal muscled male, the bone structure
would favor the throw from the male.
And the evolutionary explanation of this is the fact of
the division of labor, in that the males went out to hunt
for food and Natural Selection selected those with the best talents of
throwing. Whereas the female labor was
around the campfire or the "hominid home". So the female bone anatomy
lagged the latest advances in the male bone anatomy for throwing.
And it is obvious in our modern day that we see women
just not able to "throw like a man, overarm." I believe it
is a combination of the brachial index with some elbow
bone structure that the male is the overarm thrower champ. The physics
of this I want to discuss later.
But let me get to the Y-chromosome. It has about 60 million base
pairs, so it has sufficient numbers that the
bone differences of brachial index and elbow can be located on the Y-
chromosome. Or, possibily the activation sequence to develop the arm
bones and arm
muscles is located on the Y-chromosome. Now one way of studying this
conjecture is to study those with
XYY or XYYYY to see if there is some display of bone
abnormalities. From my perusal of websites I noticed
on one site that XYYYY does have bone abnormalities
but gave no specifics.
And while on this subject, it occurred to me that gay
people have this movement of their arms which is indicative of
"throwing like a girl." So it is worth looking
into, whether human homosexuality is on some base-pairs of the Y
chromosome. Obviously of course, lesbianism is not on the Ychromosome
and so would have to be on a base pair of the X chromosome. But I have
never noticed any odd throwing gestures from lesbians.
And another avenue to explore is whether the brachial index of
homosexuals is statistically different from a
sampling of the population at large. Come to think of it,
has there ever been a famous baseball pitcher that was
gay? I cannot remember any.
So, this maybe a fruitful explanation of homosexuality,
in that the Y-chromosome has a genetic disposition to
be gay phenotype.
And it would make sense evolutionary wise in that a proportion of the
population as homosexual confers an
advantage to a small group where inbreeding is a danger. So that you
have gay men members who participate in the throwing teams, but who do
not compete for the females.
I do not think anyone has researched the factors of
inbreeding with homosexuality. And that homosexuality
may arise to large degree in a population that is pressured by low
numbers of individuals and much inbreeding. So that homosexuality is a
function of
inbreeding. Whenever a small group risks facing too
much inbreeding that homosexuality increases.
And in modern society we now have human genome
sequencing. So has anyone sequenced a large enough
group of gays and analyzed whether the Y-chromosome on gays has a
predictable base-pairs not
found on heterosexual males? And if there is such a
genetic base pair marker for gay men, then there should be a homolog
base pair sequence for lesbians
on the X chromosome.
Archimedes Plutonium
www.iw.net/~a_plutonium
whole entire Universe is just one big atom
where dots of the electron-dot-cloud are galaxies
Archimedes Plutonium
Throwing and the
evolution of Homo sapiens. I have enough on my hands (sorry for the
pun) with
Throwing that a topic like homosexuality can fill an entire book
itself.
Recently on NOVA there was a topic on epigenetics and epigenome, so
that
homosexuality can be very much environmental conditions. And that
homosexuality
may not be all "hardwired" but pliable and softwired, induced by
environmental
situations. Take for example the data that most gays come from a
family of multiple
son births. So that if you have 3 sons in a family the chances are
much greater
that one of them is gay than in a family of 1 son.
The reason I brought up homosexuality is because I have noticed
"mannerisms" of
gay of their arms in which those mannerisms suggest throwing, only
throwing like
a girl. So this suggests that sex preference may have some genetic
hardwiring to
bone anatomy.
Homosexuality is a very complex science that may entail very many
factors such as
both genetic and epigenetic causes. And this book just does not have
the time or
ambition to delve into such an enormous topic. But I want to hit
around the surfaces
of homosexuality by pointing out that the evolution of humanity as
Rockthrowing the
key mechanism would have evolutionary advantages for homosexuality as
part of the
tribe where team work is needed to throw rocks on predators or hunting
or intertribal
warfare. And the fact that those tribes would be facing "inbreeding"
and so that some homosexual members would be a advantage for the tribe
in whole.
A proper study of homosexuality would have to be a intense research to
see if genetics
has some "homosexual genes or base-pairs" hardwired. And then for
intense epigenetic
research that turns on or off those genes.
But let me touch on one other aspect of Homosexuality and Rockthrowing
theory. For
it must be something akin to mathematics and science itself of
preferences. What I mean
is that it is no accident that male humans seem to excell in the
sciences and geometry
more so than human females. Rockthrowing theory would enter this topic
in that the
evolutionary Natural Selection of the best throwers in hunting or
protecting from predators
must have had increasing brain structure that would see the geometry
of rocks in motion
to hit a target. In other words, rockthrowing was the first geometry
lessons of our ancient
ancestors. And that the more and more rockthrowing by a individual,
the more the brain
becomes adept at abstract thought that throwing, aiming, force of
throw and future
intent selects for a mind that can do geometry.
In the case of homosexuality, the mind must also have some switch or
preference keys
so that a selection of (i) prefer female (ii) prefer male sex, so that
a preference key
in the genetics is turned on. Just as the case of a preference of food
eating that some
genetic key predisposes one to sour foods more than sweet foods. So
that the explanation
of why I prefer say to eat a cup of sour cherries rather than a cup of
sugary cookies, is similar
to the explanation that I am heterosexual. That my genetics have
established those
preferences, whether hardwired genetics or softwired epigenetics.
So likewise, one can surmise some parallelisms between being able to
do mathematics
of geometry well, and sex preference. That heterosexual preference
sees the geometry
of females in the mind and has a desire for that sex relationship.
Whereas homosexual
has a mind in which they see males as desirable. So that the mind can
be wired so
that preferences were evolved from Natural Selection.
In a post a few days ago, I mentioned the prediction of Rockthrowing
that human
females would have a different brachial index from males and thus
unable to
throw overarm as efficiently or effectively as human males. And that
if human females
were a different species than human males, would have had a similar
fate as
Neanderthal man, and have gone extinct, pommelled to death by the
encroaching
better rockthrowers. As we can see, it did not take much of a
difference in brachial
index of a male human 77.9 versus Neanderthal 79 and versus human
female
at 77.0.
So a second prediction of Rockthrowing theory is that human males
would excell
over females when it comes to geometry, and the sciences that deal
with mathematics.
Because in the hunting and defending by throwing for 8 to 10 million
years of evolution,
the males were selected for the best throwing which requires a mind
that can anticipate
the future flight of a rock hitting a target. And later on with Homo
habilis, the geometry
of tool making of getting a knife edge on a rock.
I am not saying that human females cannot do mathematics or geometry,
for they
do it very well. I am saying that human females who are the best in
geometry
are in an unfair contest with males that are the best in geometry,
just as the best
overarm female throwers are at a disadvantage when in a contest with
the best
male overarm throwers.
Evolutionary Natural Selection did make human females superior to
males in other
facets, such as communication and doctoring/nursing and domestication.
Lee Olsen
<plutonium.archime...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> I looked into Wikipedia to see if there is a scientific
> difference in the word "stone" versus "rock" as per size
> of object.
Well, busy as you are trolling here on sap, I can understand
how you missed these:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gravel
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Boulder
http://tinyurl.com/ydeymk5
etc.
The important thing here is there are no artifacts
before 2.6 mya. This means you have an unacceptable
gap in your evoutionary record.
Trolls don't worry much about multi-million year gaps in
the record, but I can assure you the editors at Current
Anthropolgy or Human Evolution do.