Did anyone know that males are just modified versions of females genetically?
597715
ya anyone who pays attention in science class should know that, which is why i don't understand why males think they are better than females, they aren't, we are essentially equal
26335
Personally, I think it's a very strange statement.  Both sexes have had enormous impact on humanity down through history.  We can learn much from both men and women.
902693
The answer is an unequivocal "NO"!  For starters, lets look at the rationale against such a proposition.  \n\nEvolutionarily speaking, sexual reproduction is important in that it has the advantage over asexual reproduction of mixing genetic combinations available to the offspring.  In the human species, this sexual reproduction requires both a male and a female.  What accompanies these facts is that the female is genetically prepared to carry a child once pregnant.  Such features which are vital to this are a uterus, the hormones estrogen and progesterone which prepare the uterus for implantation, ovaries to supply eggs, and a vaginal canal for birthing.  All of these features are primary sex characteristics that can only develop in the ABSENCE of a "Y" chromosome.  Evolutionarily, then, it is to the advantage of the species that phenotypic distinctions between males and females exist, and these physical differences preclude the possibility of the male of the species to be capable of pregnancy.  On this logic alone, men can not become pregnant.  But there is more evidence.\n\nSecondly, think about this:  humans and our ancestors have had millions of years to develop such features, if it were in fact possible, but it has NOT happened.  Why not?  Because there is no SELECTIVE ADVANTAGE for the human species of men acquiring these features and abilities. \n\nThird, there ARE cases of individuals that receive extra SEX chromosomes (look up Klinefelters and Turner' syndrome, for example) where individuals are born with XXY and XYY.  XXY individuals, as a rule, are infertile and can not produce children.  XYY individuals are fertile but are phenotypically male and do not develop uteruses and other features necessary to become impregnated.  So even in the cases of chromosal conditions that might perhaps favor male pregnancy, we do not observe males with the ability to be so.\n\nSo, IF a male had eggs they could not be fertilized because there is no way that the design of a male can receive semen into the genetalia.  But even if this were possible, there would be no place for the fertilized eggs to implant.  And if even they could implant, they couldnt grow because estrogen and progesterone are not present in high enough quantities in males to prepare the uterus (high levels of these hormones would have produced a female during development of the fetus).  This all boils down to the simple and obvious reality that males can not become pregnant.\n\nSomeone might perhaps argue, well it would be possible if certain mutations occurred.  This also is false.  Why?  Because evolution is a process that moves down a one-way street.  While such capability is present in lower organisms, higher animals are too specialized to be capable of such a transformation.  Even if all the proper sets of supposed mutations had amassed in one organism, that organism would either (one) not survive and be spontaneously aborted in utero, or (two) be born as an infertile individual.  Again, only lower animals with less well specialized sexual reproductive organs are capable of self-fertilization and "pregnancy" (flowering plants, for example, are capable of this).\n\nFinally, a genotypic male could undergo gender reassignment and become female, but a uterus and other "equipment" would have to be transplanted and various hormones taken.  I imagine, in theory, that this individual would be capable of becoming pregnant but in this scenario "he" is no longer "male".  \n\nGood question, but the answer is NO!
427268
They exist but the surgery isn't as easy to do as going the other way and has not been as fully explored.  FTM (Female to male) requires building up something that doesn't exit while MTF (male to female) they get rid of tissue and make an opening.  \n\nThe reproductive part can't really cause reproduction because that's more of a genetic thing.  Mostly, and don't quote me on this, I think its some sort of tube where they put in some type of impotence thingy to make it useful.
1030685
None. Males and females are essentially the same during development until a hormonal event causes males to develop male genitalia. Because of this, we have some of the same physical characteristics and thus males have nipples.
119957
I a way, no.  The genetic structure of y nose hair is a bit different than that of the x nose hair.  It is like the difference between a cow nose hair and a lizard nose hair, the lizard being the dude.  You see, it is like the man and woman are a whole different species altogether.  I believe this is the largest difference that helps seperate man from woman, and I for one believe it almost makes us a whole different species from our opposites.  If I were to get into too much genetical stuffs you would get mind scramblied, but thank you, syd--i mean fawn...\nDR. KENAMAMORE, P.H.D.F.D.
366608
I dont believe that Ming is genetically modified. I just thought that his parents were more or less chosen to reproduce with one another in order to produce the very tall offspring that is Yao Ming. I'm pretty sure they didnt modify his body genetically. (mixing your information up could be the reason nobody had answered your question yet.)
103370
I think you mean hermaphrodite. That is an organism (even human, but rarely) that has both male and female sex organs.
272720
yes there are all types my fav is the hermaphrodite this person has both penis and vagina from birth there are sex change operation as well need more look up hermaphrodite or sex change on yahoo
128418
Every animal comes from a "generic" base model.. the "Y" chromosome chooses to make that base model male.  All body parts translate into some part or another between the two sexes.  So, men AND women therefore have nipples.
11875
I would say not necessarily. It is just a genetic anomoly some females are born with. I knew a girl with black hair and a light mustache in 6th grade.  By middle school she had gotten rid of it, and by high school she was the most beautiful girl in the school. And I can assure you she was all woman!
14834
It's because the Y chromosome isn't added until after the nipples are formed on a baby in the mother's womb. So, I guess technically, we're all females at some point in our existence.
770159
Males genetically start out as females believe it or not. Hormones develop the penis, but as humans we share many same characteristics.\n\nThose that do not fully develop into males or females...well thats another story.
387853
A person that is born with both male and female sex organs is called a hermaphrodite.   This is a very rare condition.  Before the discovery of the DNA molecule, surgeons would assign a sex to the person based on which set of organs were most prominent.  So if the penis was most prominent, they were assigned a male gender and all the female sex organs were removed, and vice-versa.  Since the discovery of the DNA molecule, all hermaphrodites tested so far, have tested genetically female.
333066
As far as is known, yes.\n\nParthenogenesis has been the subject of many questions on this board lately, I'm not sure why.  Parthenogenesis is when a female reproduces without the aid of a male, simply creating clones of herself by not splitting chromosomes during egg cell formation.  Parthenogenesis is commonly recorded from fish, amphibians and reptiles.  In fact, some lizards are male-less and reproduce solely by parthenogenesis.\n\nHowever, parthenogenesis has *never* been recorded from mammals.  This doesn't mean it can't happen, of course.
995720
I think you will find this article interesting.  There was a typo in the title; it is about the shrinkage of the Y chromosome over evolution, but was titled "Disappearing X"\n\nSaturday 8 November  2003  \n\nSummary \n\nImagine a world without men. It's entirely possible. According to Professor Brian Sykes, the Y chromosome, which determines maleness, will disappear in 100,000 to 200,000 years - not long, on an evolutionary scale. And, is it possible that men with the same surname could have identical Y chromosomes?\n\nhttp://www.abc.net.au/rn/science/ss/stories/s977072.htm\n________________\n\n\n\neg:\n\n"Bryan Sykes: There’s no doubt that the Y chromosome over many millions of years has been deteriorating, it has lost most of its genes, and that’s for two reasons really. The first is that once the Y chromosome decided sex then it became isolated from its former partner, the X chromosome, and all the other chromosomes really, and was no longer able to take part in sexual recombination ironically, since it decides sex. And that isolation has meant that it’s very bad at repairing any mutations, it doesn’t have any reference points with which to compare and mend mutations that occur on the Y chromosome – so that’s one thing. The second thing, that unlike all the other chromosomes, the Y chromosome is restricted every generation, it spends all its time in the testes and that is a very dangerous place for DNA to be. The very high levels of free radicals and other damaging events, there’s a high rate of duplication of DNA, duplication and cell division, and so the Y chromosome alone is restricted in every generation to this hotbed of mutation and it also can’t repair itself. So those two things together have made it deteriorate to such that there are only 27 genes left. \n\nNow, what will happen in the future? Well, I think it’s inevitable and a lot of other geneticists would agree with me, that it will eventually disappear, but the question is, when? ..."\n\n___________\n\nBTW, if surname matches Y chromosome that well, I suspect that there was not as much marital infidelity as is sometimes said to occur.  After all, it takes just one such lapse (that results in a son), in a long line of descendants, and that Y chromosome is shifted to a different surname, in subsequent generations.\n\nAnyhow, mapping the Y leads back to our last common male ancestor, in a similar way to mapping the mitochondrial DNA leads back to our last common female ancestor.  This sometimes leads to interesting discoveries eg that male adventurers might have collected females from other populations, en route to colonising new territory, as is thought to have happened in the past history of Maoris in New Zealand:\n\n1.  News in Science - Maori men and women from different homelands - 27/03/2003\n\nSummary: ... A New Zealand Warrior and his Wife an engraving from the journal of Captain James Cook's ... s 1784 visit on Endeavour Pic: State Library of NSW\n\nThe male and female ancestors of today s Maori people of New Zealand originated from different parts of the world, molecular biologists ... Whyte has now identified 10 haplotypes in New Zealand Maori. ...\n\nhttp://www.abc.net.au/science/news/stories/s817069.htm - 24k - [ html ] - Cached - 27 Mar 2003
657508
My brother.\nMutations occur every where (in any living organism)\nMutants can exist of course.\nnow gene therapy for humans is being developed, also clinical trials on transgenic animals are crossed in laboratories.\ndo u know that 40% of drugs, and many proteins and active chemical agents are produced in farm animals like cows.\nSo why we cannot inject a man with a gene that develops one of it's male characteristics (skeletal muscles development).\nso maybe it'll be an X-man in Ur opinion.\nMy bro, we don't yet discover a gene that have super activities.. man is not an angel or a God.\nhe can know limited thinks.\nso tell me under the title of biology or human sciences, is there a power for knowing the future.\nnot yet dud.\nmaybe in another world.