<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Last Man Standing</title>
	<atom:link href="http://fullman.com.ph/2008/05/17/ychromosome/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://fullman.com.ph/2008/05/17/ychromosome/</link>
	<description>politics, sexuality, and the gay agenda</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Tue, 09 Feb 2010 20:57:33 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.9.2</generator>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
		<item>
		<title>By: Tsinitoboy</title>
		<link>http://fullman.com.ph/2008/05/17/ychromosome/comment-page-1/#comment-255</link>
		<dc:creator>Tsinitoboy</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 19 May 2008 06:32:23 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://fullman.wordpress.com/?p=200#comment-255</guid>
		<description>I have already read the article about the shrinking/vanishing Y-chromosome a few months ago and the topic is actually old news. Though I can&#039;t remember anything about it stating that the product of the mutation are parthenogetic asexual females. As far as I know the animals involved (I think that they are rats) do still have morphological &amp; sexual males. The only difference is that they no longer possess the y-chromosome but are still functional males. It seems that they had adapted other means of gender differentiation in the absence of the y-chromosome.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I have already read the article about the shrinking/vanishing Y-chromosome a few months ago and the topic is actually old news. Though I can&#8217;t remember anything about it stating that the product of the mutation are parthenogetic asexual females. As far as I know the animals involved (I think that they are rats) do still have morphological &amp; sexual males. The only difference is that they no longer possess the y-chromosome but are still functional males. It seems that they had adapted other means of gender differentiation in the absence of the y-chromosome.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: John</title>
		<link>http://fullman.com.ph/2008/05/17/ychromosome/comment-page-1/#comment-254</link>
		<dc:creator>John</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 18 May 2008 04:05:35 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://fullman.wordpress.com/?p=200#comment-254</guid>
		<description>i just happened by your downelink profile and, after a few clicks, here i am. this was a very well-written entry. thanks and congrats! i&#039;ve always thought that a blog was useless if it did not have substance, style, or humor. your writing--happily--has a bit of everything.

i&#039;m a biologist by profession so my first instinct was to google scholar this and read the primary papers. except that laziness suddenly took over. haha!

i did find out from some recent (?) literature that sperm contributes half the genetic material in a fertilized egg... and then some. apparently, our wiggly friends also hold some very significant, albeit transient, information (in the form of molecules called RNA) that may tell the fertilized egg how to develop. this tells me that nature will not so easily dispose of males. and just parthenogenesis will not contribute to jazzing up the gene pool--evolutionarily undesirable.

but i may be wrong, and the Revelations-esque picture you painted may come true in the end. fire raining down from the skies i can handle; a man-less world i cannot. :-) hopefully, i will be dead by then. if not i&#039;ll be sure to keep a shot of arsenic within easy reach.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>i just happened by your downelink profile and, after a few clicks, here i am. this was a very well-written entry. thanks and congrats! i&#8217;ve always thought that a blog was useless if it did not have substance, style, or humor. your writing&#8211;happily&#8211;has a bit of everything.</p>
<p>i&#8217;m a biologist by profession so my first instinct was to google scholar this and read the primary papers. except that laziness suddenly took over. haha!</p>
<p>i did find out from some recent (?) literature that sperm contributes half the genetic material in a fertilized egg&#8230; and then some. apparently, our wiggly friends also hold some very significant, albeit transient, information (in the form of molecules called RNA) that may tell the fertilized egg how to develop. this tells me that nature will not so easily dispose of males. and just parthenogenesis will not contribute to jazzing up the gene pool&#8211;evolutionarily undesirable.</p>
<p>but i may be wrong, and the Revelations-esque picture you painted may come true in the end. fire raining down from the skies i can handle; a man-less world i cannot. <img src='http://fullman.com.ph/wp-includes/images/smilies/icon_smile.gif' alt=':-)' class='wp-smiley' />  hopefully, i will be dead by then. if not i&#8217;ll be sure to keep a shot of arsenic within easy reach.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: oka</title>
		<link>http://fullman.com.ph/2008/05/17/ychromosome/comment-page-1/#comment-253</link>
		<dc:creator>oka</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sat, 17 May 2008 20:16:02 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://fullman.wordpress.com/?p=200#comment-253</guid>
		<description>ang tarush</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>ang tarush</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
