Male Bass Across Region Found to Be Bearing Eggs

Discussion in 'Politics & Law' started by Mecha, Sep 12, 2006.

  1. Mecha

    Mecha Guest

    I think more men would be more enviromentalist if they knew it made their penis smaller. Sad and funny.

    ~Mecha
     

  2. Ant On A Log

    Ant On A Log Guest

    That's probably an evolutionary adaptation in response to different stimuli. There are already fish that are both male and female at the same time, these are just catching on.
     
  3. Gryf

    Gryf Guest

    Well, it's arguable that our oversized frontal lobes are the result of a tragic mutation that never went away, and the same is arguable for many other things that we consider adaptations. Whether or not it is genetic, however, is still up for question.
     
  4. Mare Tranquillity

    Mare Tranquillity Elite Intellectual

    There are a lot of chemicals that masquerade as female hormones inside bodies. Most of them are fat-soluble and are persistent in the environment (don't break down easily). Males during gestation and youth are especially susceptible to these kinds of pollutants because their sex organs have not yet matured and can be damaged by excess estogen or estrogen-like chemicals. As an example, PCB's (polychlorinated biphenyls) have been implicated in the disappearance of polar bears. Most polar bears are radio-collared and a few years ago a survey of the females turned up the startling fact that about half of all the cubs were of indeterminate gender. This has been traced (provisionally) to PCB's which are very long-lived and, being fat-soluble, when they get into the ocean they are absorbed by fish as they filter the water through their gills (fish can bio-accumulate concentrations of toxins in their bodies 1,000,000 times higher than in the water around them). The fish are eaten by seals (high-fat fish consumed by high-fat seals) which bio-accumulate levels 10's to 100's of times the concentration in the fish. Polar bears who eat the seals bio-accumulate even higher concentrations which are passed on to the cubs through the mother's milk which is about 90% fat.

    While male babies bear the brunt of this disaster, females do not excape unscathed. These chemicals behaving like estrogen cause precocious puberty (early on-set of sexual maturity) with girls as young as 5 beginning to develop breasts and starting to menstruate. I have read that the Phillipines have a real problem with this due to (they think) the pollution of the food supply. Hormones fed to beef cattle and dairy cows contribute to this problem as well.

    Transsexuals have existed all down through history but the number appears to be increasing now. I think it would be very ironic if we were to discover that the increase in tranny numbers was caused by the pollutants we are dumping into the air, water, and soil, because while people like IntheNet are shouting "Immorality and degeneracy" at us, it would be them and the folly of this civilization that would actually be at fault.
     
  5. Mecha

    Mecha Guest

    The difference between these two posts is that the first one poses a respectable intellectual response. The second one makes an absurd equation (of evolution and mutation) that is not academic or supported in any real way.

    To Mr. Log: That would be true if it was not coincided by large numbers of other animal species having the same problem, unless you are saying there is a strong selection factor for hermaphroditism/feminized males.
    (Similiar British study) The Potomac shouldn't be that different, except from man-made activity.

    To Gryf: No, it is not. At all.

    ~Mecha
     
  6. Ant On A Log

    Ant On A Log Guest

    There are other species of animals besides fish showing these characteristics? That would be kind of odd, too, and definetly point to some sort of chemical biuldup which replicated female hormones in many types of animals, not just the bass fish spoken of in the article.
     
  7. Gryf

    Gryf Guest

    Mare, you just broke my irony meter. *taps it*

    *SPROING!*

    Hehehehe. I'll have it fixed in a jiff. Anyway, thank you, Mare. That's very interesting to know.



    Mecha: I was joking, dear. For future reference, I have a bit of a running joke about our "overgrown frontal lobes" being "a nasty mutation that hopefully won't take long to disappear from the species, thus returning us to the important and vastly more pleasant business of eating and fucking." Please understand that I don't necessarily consider this a scientific point of view, though it does serve to illustrate the point that evolution is a consequence of observable and relatively mundane phenomena, not some unusual or spectacular occurance. This is important because there seems to be a great deal of misunderstanding among some people about the nature of the thing. Humor is a good teacher.

    In fact, if you had been paying attention, you'd have noticed the gist of my post: if it is a mutation, there are equal chances of it becoming adaptation, whether it is caused by pollutant or by other influences or events. However, there is still question as to whether the fish have been changed genetically, and the occurance still might disappear if the cause of it were removed. Instead of paying attention, however, you jumped to a conclusion about my position on the subject and proceeded with haste to make me out as an imbecile.
     

Share This Page