Talk:Adam's Curse

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Molecular Biology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Molecular Biology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Molecular BiologyWikipedia:WikiProject Molecular BiologyTemplate:WikiProject Molecular BiologyMolecular Biology articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Genetics task force.

Books Start‑class

	Books portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Books. To participate in the project, please visit its page, where you can join the project and discuss matters related to book articles. To use this banner, please refer to the documentation. To improve this article, please refer to the relevant guideline for the type of work.BooksWikipedia:WikiProject BooksTemplate:WikiProject BooksBook articles
Start	This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
	It is requested that a picture or pictures be included in this article to improve its quality.

Untitled

what the heck does this have to do with the curse on the earth from god because adam sinned thats mentioned in the bible?

It's based on Yeats's perhaps most amazing poem (IMHO), you should read it - it's good education...

Recently I read something contradicting this. It might have been in Scientific American, but not sure. It was about a recently discovered "self repair" mechanism that may prevent the fall of the chromasome. I am in the middle of studying and don't have the time to look it up but if someone is interested in looking for it, go right ahead.

Actually there's something in the book about this self-repair mechanism. It's in the final chapters. Scattered islands of immensly long palindromes, where the sequence reads the same forwards as it does backwards. It was then argued that even with this mechnism, the Y-chromosome is not 100% saved, not even close. These palindromes were originally reported by David Page in Nature (journal). --LogiPhi 06:04, 8 September 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I removed the following line from the article, because 1) Unless there is some survey of scientists and their views on the future of mankind to back up the statement, then it is the POV of the editor, and 2) It is irrelevant to the content of the article.

In any case, only the most optimistic of scientists would even consider the possibility of human civilisation and science still existing 125,000 years from now.

kenj0418 04:44, 15 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

?

So is Sykes theory true or not? I don't know much about genetics but I find it hard to believe that what he claims will happen. If anyone could answer my question or give me information on the topic that would be great.--Moosh88 22:32, 4 February 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What?

This concept makes no sense. Biologically, both genders are required to exist in order to reproduce naturally. That nature should kill off the male gender in humans is unthinkable, for within a generation (not taking into account any technological advances in this area) the remaining human species would go extinct. As far as I'm aware, species aren't supposed to kill themselves off from the inside. So much for natural selection.

--Lucius1316 19:18, 23 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Unintentional errors in the book

In this change, Benmor78 added the following paragraph which I removed from the article, because it belongs to the discussion page, not the article itself. The quote is shown out of context. Sykes was talking about similarity between the so-called gay gene and sex-linked genes. He neglected to mention what Benmor78 pointed out, but this does not invalidate his theory. Thus I don't see how pointing out such an error constitutes an 'opposing view'. Fred Hsu 16:04, 17 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

More troubling is Bryan Sykes' contention in Chapter 23, "The Gay Gene Revisited," to wit:

Only men get haemophilia and only men are color blind. Because the genes for both hemophilia and color blindness are carried on the X-chromosome, and recalling that men have only one X-chromosome while women have two, it is only men who are affected because the mutated gene on their X chromosome cannot be masked by a normal copy of the gene. In women, on the other hand, even if one of their X chromosomes carries the mutation, they have another X chromosome which carries a normal gene and which will over-ride the mutated copy. The mother of a hemophiliac or color blind son is a carrier with one normal and one mutant copy of the gene. The son who gets her mutated X chromosome will get hemophilia or color blindness as the case may be.

In fact, Sex linked recessive traits such as hemophilia and color blindness can be and are expressed in women, but at a much lower rate than men, who will express the trait if they receive one copy of the affected gene.

I thought that an error as elementary as that one would constitute a credibility issue with the entire book. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Benmor78 (talk • contribs) 06:34, 19 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

It is clearly an oversight. Negleting to mention the obligatory "... and even though less common, if a woman happens to inherit two copies of faulty X chromosome, she will also be color blid..." does not invalidate his theory. Given his credentials, Bryan Sykes should know what he is talking about. But now that I check his page, I see that you have added the same paragraph to that article as well. Fred Hsu 02:38, 20 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Expansion needed

It seems strange that more lines are devoted to the "opposing view" than to the book itself! Please could someone add more information. Robina Fox (talk) 01:42, 13 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]