You're looking at Less Wrong's discussion board. This includes all posts, including those that haven't been promoted to the front page yet. For more information, see About Less Wrong.

Unknowns comments on Open Thread, Jul. 13 - Jul. 19, 2015 - Less Wrong Discussion

5 Post author: MrMind 13 July 2015 06:55AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (297)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: Unknowns 13 July 2015 07:57:18AM 22 points [-]

It actually is not very odd for there to be a difference like this. Given that there are only two sexes, there only needs to be one hormone which is sex determining in that way. Having two in fact could have strange effects of its own.

Comment author: fubarobfusco 13 July 2015 06:38:50PM 3 points [-]

Sex determination in placental mammals turns out to be really complicated, which is probably why there are so many intersex conditions. It's much simpler in marsupials, which is why male kangaroos don't have nipples. (Where would they keep them?)

Comment author: CellBioGuy 13 July 2015 09:39:58PM *  5 points [-]

If you think it's complicated in placental mammals, it's REALLY fun in zebrafish... all embryos start off building an ovary and dozens of loci all over the genome on autosomes rather than sex chromosomes alter the probability of the ovary spontaneously regressing then transforming into a testis. Immature egg cells are vital to both the process by which it becomes an ovary and by which it becomes a testis. Every breeding pair of zebrafish will produce a unique sex ratio of offspring depending on their genotypes at many loci and what they pass on to their offspring.