Posted 27 August 2012 - 12:02 PM
(Taken from Jang and Emmerich, PLoS ONE, 2012).
Who would like to explain this declaration to me as if I were a (very smart) eight-year-old?
Posted 27 August 2012 - 12:37 PM
Think in terms of X-linked diseases being abundant in males. Males have one X and one Y; if the X chromosome is screwed, he doesn't have a spare one so disease occurs; while in females: easy peasy, just activate the other X chromosome and deactivate the sick one. In females, to get a x-linked disease, both X's must be affected, which is unlikely.
Posted 28 August 2012 - 01:03 AM
I would've figured it out myself if it weren't for the rather confusing phrasing, in my humble opinion, "high efficacy of natural selection". I've been reading lately several opinions by elderly, senior scientists, who publicly complain about the increasing "unreadability" of articles published nowadays. I wonder if this is what they meant. Or maybe I'm just dumb.
Posted 31 August 2012 - 09:42 AM
-- Bernard M. Baruch