"What was Aeschylus's view of the Trojan war?"
The way that Aeschylus describes the remains of Troy, and the Greek's victory was very interesting indeed!
First of all, we see that the war is said to have been started because a woman named Helen was captured. The war would last ten long years.
Once the men returned to their families, we are told that the women are angry because they know that their husbands have most-likely had affairs with the captured women of Troy.
I think that this shows that Aeschylus's view of the Trojan war was not a "blind view" so to speak. He noticed the negative qualities that resulted from them and made sure to note of them. I think that although I'm sure that he saw some good things as a result of the Trojan war, he also noticed the bad.
Thank you so much for reading, and please let me know what you think!
Wednesday, November 27, 2013
Tuesday, November 26, 2013
Tiberius Gracchus and the Struggle of the Orders
"Why did Tiberius Gracchus attract so much suspicion from the Roman Senate?"
To some, Tiberius Gracchus was a visionary. To others, he was a poisonous spider that must be stomped on before it bites. Needles to say, the people who looked down at him with a negative reaction would in the end, cause some disastrous consequences.
He was a politician that did things that simply weren't done. This is why I believe that he received so much suspicion from the Roman Senate. For instance, he ran for re-election as tribune which was not customary. He also wanted to give back land to those who had fought by using tax revenues from one of the new kingdoms of Rome. This was also not a customary practice.
In the future, Tiberius is brutally killed over what we are told, was a misunderstanding.
Later on, his idea of land commission ends up having some success. This makes you wonder if perhaps the Roman Senate was more afraid of Tiberius' leaving of tradition, rather than his ideas.
"What specific changes occurred in Roman society as a result of the Struggle of the Orders?"
First of all, let me give you some background information on what exactly the Struggle of the Orders was.
The Struggle of the Orders was just that, a Struggle of the Orders. These two orders, the Plebeians and the Patricians, were in a dispute over weather or not the Plebeians should have as much freedom as the Patricians did.
In Roman society, if you were born a Plebeian, then you stayed a Plebeian no matter what. Likewise, if you were born a Patrician, then you stayed a Patrician. In this case, it did not matter how hard a Plebeian would try to gain as much freedom as a Patrician. It was all about what class you were born into.
After awhile, the Plebeians got sick and tired of being treated like second-class citizens, and rebelled. They did this by leaving. Since they greatly outnumbered the Patricians, this worked out rather well.
Gradually, they started coming back. Once they were back, they began to increase in freedom, but the Patricians did still have certain benefits that the Plebeians didn't.
The Plebeians were getting the freedom that they had hoped for. Intermarriage between the two classes was made legal, you couldn't be enslaved for debts you owed, and by 342 BC, one consul actually had to be a Plebeian!
These were some of the changes that occurred in Roman Society as a result of the Struggle of the Orders.
I hope that you have enjoyed this essay, and please let me know what you think!
To some, Tiberius Gracchus was a visionary. To others, he was a poisonous spider that must be stomped on before it bites. Needles to say, the people who looked down at him with a negative reaction would in the end, cause some disastrous consequences.
He was a politician that did things that simply weren't done. This is why I believe that he received so much suspicion from the Roman Senate. For instance, he ran for re-election as tribune which was not customary. He also wanted to give back land to those who had fought by using tax revenues from one of the new kingdoms of Rome. This was also not a customary practice.
In the future, Tiberius is brutally killed over what we are told, was a misunderstanding.
Later on, his idea of land commission ends up having some success. This makes you wonder if perhaps the Roman Senate was more afraid of Tiberius' leaving of tradition, rather than his ideas.
"What specific changes occurred in Roman society as a result of the Struggle of the Orders?"
First of all, let me give you some background information on what exactly the Struggle of the Orders was.
The Struggle of the Orders was just that, a Struggle of the Orders. These two orders, the Plebeians and the Patricians, were in a dispute over weather or not the Plebeians should have as much freedom as the Patricians did.
In Roman society, if you were born a Plebeian, then you stayed a Plebeian no matter what. Likewise, if you were born a Patrician, then you stayed a Patrician. In this case, it did not matter how hard a Plebeian would try to gain as much freedom as a Patrician. It was all about what class you were born into.
After awhile, the Plebeians got sick and tired of being treated like second-class citizens, and rebelled. They did this by leaving. Since they greatly outnumbered the Patricians, this worked out rather well.
Gradually, they started coming back. Once they were back, they began to increase in freedom, but the Patricians did still have certain benefits that the Plebeians didn't.
The Plebeians were getting the freedom that they had hoped for. Intermarriage between the two classes was made legal, you couldn't be enslaved for debts you owed, and by 342 BC, one consul actually had to be a Plebeian!
These were some of the changes that occurred in Roman Society as a result of the Struggle of the Orders.
I hope that you have enjoyed this essay, and please let me know what you think!
Thursday, November 21, 2013
Epicureanism and Ancient Liberty
Ancient Liberty Compared to Today
As you can probably guess, the liberty of the ancient world (specifically Greece, which is what I will be focusing on today) was very different than today's world. For instance, the ancient's idea of freedom was more focused on the whole community, whereas we are focused on mainly the individual. The ancients seem to have thought more along the lines of, "If I can participate in politics, then I am free." Whereas, we think along the lines of, "If I can own a business, have a family, participate in whatever religion I see fit, go to and from where I live, etc., I have liberty."
Let's take Sparta for instance. In Sparta, people had very little freedom. Spartan boys were taken away from their homes and went through military training up until they reached the age of twenty. That's when they were entered into the citizen army and were finally allowed to marry. They were not allowed to live with their families until they reached the age of thirty. Once they were thirty years old, they could live with their families but they still had to eat at a public mess hall.
Now we get to the part where they participate somewhat in politics. Every Spartan male over the age of thirty was a part of an assembly of citizens.
In Athens, we do not see such a strict military district, but we do see Athens focusing mainly on the community as a whole rather than on the individual.
For instance, if there was a certain number of votes regarding to the banishment of a person from Athens, he would be banished. The person may have not even done anything! The people may have just seen him as a threat to their future.
Needless to say, we find many things lacking in the liberty of the ancients, but then again, I'm sure that they would find things lacking in our liberty. It's funny to me how every point in history finds it so easy to see the things wrong with the other point, but not of itself. I hope that we will not forget the things lacking in our liberty as I find it wrong to criticize other times in history without noting that we also face difficulties in our own time regarding our liberty.
Epicureanism
Epicureanism is based on the teachings of Epicurus. The "mystery religion" was founded about 307 BC, and taught that pleasure is the ultimate good. But not just being a pig about what you indulge in. Epicurus thought that a simple life and no pain was the greatest pleasure. They believe that to much of a good thing is a bad thing because it results in displeasure, but that you should not deprive yourself of pleasure.
Let's use drinking and eating as two examples. If you have only a little wine, you will have pleasure, but if you have a lot of wine, you don't feel good the next day. The same thing goes for eating to much. You shouldn't eat to much because that results in displeasure, but you should not deprive yourself of eating.
Epicurus believed that everything was made of atoms but we still have free will. This is a challenge to the atomists who believed that everything is just made of atoms bouncing around and that no one really has free will. They believed this because if everything is the result of atoms bouncing around, then our thoughts and actions are also just the result of this.
Epicureanism teaches that gods do not interfere in human matters. It also says that gods are made up of atoms.
I hope that you have enjoyed this essay, and please let me know what you think!
As you can probably guess, the liberty of the ancient world (specifically Greece, which is what I will be focusing on today) was very different than today's world. For instance, the ancient's idea of freedom was more focused on the whole community, whereas we are focused on mainly the individual. The ancients seem to have thought more along the lines of, "If I can participate in politics, then I am free." Whereas, we think along the lines of, "If I can own a business, have a family, participate in whatever religion I see fit, go to and from where I live, etc., I have liberty."
Let's take Sparta for instance. In Sparta, people had very little freedom. Spartan boys were taken away from their homes and went through military training up until they reached the age of twenty. That's when they were entered into the citizen army and were finally allowed to marry. They were not allowed to live with their families until they reached the age of thirty. Once they were thirty years old, they could live with their families but they still had to eat at a public mess hall.
Now we get to the part where they participate somewhat in politics. Every Spartan male over the age of thirty was a part of an assembly of citizens.
In Athens, we do not see such a strict military district, but we do see Athens focusing mainly on the community as a whole rather than on the individual.
For instance, if there was a certain number of votes regarding to the banishment of a person from Athens, he would be banished. The person may have not even done anything! The people may have just seen him as a threat to their future.
Needless to say, we find many things lacking in the liberty of the ancients, but then again, I'm sure that they would find things lacking in our liberty. It's funny to me how every point in history finds it so easy to see the things wrong with the other point, but not of itself. I hope that we will not forget the things lacking in our liberty as I find it wrong to criticize other times in history without noting that we also face difficulties in our own time regarding our liberty.
Epicureanism
Epicureanism is based on the teachings of Epicurus. The "mystery religion" was founded about 307 BC, and taught that pleasure is the ultimate good. But not just being a pig about what you indulge in. Epicurus thought that a simple life and no pain was the greatest pleasure. They believe that to much of a good thing is a bad thing because it results in displeasure, but that you should not deprive yourself of pleasure.
Let's use drinking and eating as two examples. If you have only a little wine, you will have pleasure, but if you have a lot of wine, you don't feel good the next day. The same thing goes for eating to much. You shouldn't eat to much because that results in displeasure, but you should not deprive yourself of eating.
Epicurus believed that everything was made of atoms but we still have free will. This is a challenge to the atomists who believed that everything is just made of atoms bouncing around and that no one really has free will. They believed this because if everything is the result of atoms bouncing around, then our thoughts and actions are also just the result of this.
Epicureanism teaches that gods do not interfere in human matters. It also says that gods are made up of atoms.
I hope that you have enjoyed this essay, and please let me know what you think!
Wednesday, November 20, 2013
Biotechnology and DNA
Biotechnology
Since Friedrich Miescher discovered DNA in 1869, and Watson and Cricks' discovery of the double-helix stucture in 1953, we have made many advances in the way that we use DNA. From using it to find criminals, the making of insulin, and finding a specific person in mass-war graves, DNA is becoming more and more useful!
It really does make you think about the possibility that science, using DNA, could actually turn some science fiction tales into a reality.
In this section of my essay I will be talking about my thoughts and questions pertaining to biotechnology.
Biotechnology has always been a part of our lives in one way or another. Cheese making, beer brewing, and antibiotics are all examples of things where biotechnology is used.
To make you a little more familiar with this extremely useful tool in life, I will give you the definition of biotechnology.
"1. the exploitation of biological processes for industrial and other purposes, esp. the genetic manipulation of microorganisms for the production of antibiotics, hormones, etc."
For the moment I will talk a bit about it's role in food making.
In about 6000 BCE the Sumerians and Babylonians would use yeast in order to make beer, in 1300 CE the Aztecs discovered that the algae in lakes could be a potential food source, in 1852 cross-fertilization is discovered in corn, and in 2000 Australia created its first cloned cows.
Of course there were other discoveries but I am only going to list these ones right now.
If we have been using biotechnology for this long and it took so many years to discover cross-fertilization in corn of all things; how long will it take to make some of the far more advanced discoveries? That is one question that I ask myself when learning about biotechnology.
DNA
Am I the only one who has wondered if perhaps one day we will be able to bring the dinosaurs into existence again or create a real superhero? I guess that this is something that I have always been fascinated with. It probably sprouts from my love of science fiction. Star Trek, Spider Man, The Avengers, etc., are most likely the culprits.
Since Friedrich Miescher discovered DNA in 1869, and Watson and Cricks' discovery of the double-helix stucture in 1953, we have made many advances in the way that we use DNA. From using it to find criminals, the making of insulin, and finding a specific person in mass-war graves, DNA is becoming more and more useful!
It really does make you think about the possibility that science, using DNA, could actually turn some science fiction tales into a reality.
I wonder how far away these discoveries in DNA are? If they are ever made, I wonder how they will be used?
Perhaps they would be used purely for scientific purposes, but most likely they wouldn't be. Seriously, let's just think about this for a minute. If these discoveries were made, how would governments try to use them? They have created atomic bombs, machine guns, fighter jets, etc., using the discoveries that have been made in science. What would happen if real super heroes were created using DNA? What would happen if human cloning was made successful and legal? Would the government perhaps try and use these things to their advantage? Of course they would! They would be stupid not to.
The idea of these things happening is quite frightening to me, but then again, I don't think that we will have to worry about this for quite a long time. I mean, we cloned Dolly, (the first cloned sheep from an adult somatic cell) in only 1996.
I hope that you have enjoyed this essay, and please let me know what you think!
Tuesday, November 19, 2013
"What Was Hesiod's View of the Mankind's Past and Future?" (Works and Days)
Well, Hesiod worshiped the gods of Olympus, so his view of the past and future revolves mainly around them.
When he talks about the past of mankind, it consists of five races of men.
1. gold: the first race
2. silver: the second race
3. bronze: the third race
4. the demi-gods: the fourth race
5. iron: the fifth race (our race)
The past races of men were all destroyed by Zeus, and according to Hesiod, our race will be destroyed in the future as well.
Another thing to keep in mind is that each one of these races are supposed to be worse than the one before them. Taking this into consideration, I believe that his view of Mankind's past was both good and bad, because although he notes the negative qualities in "Works and Days", he also states the good. And as far as the future goes, it can only be negative if each race gets worse than the other.
Thanks for reading, and please let me know what you think!
When he talks about the past of mankind, it consists of five races of men.
1. gold: the first race
2. silver: the second race
3. bronze: the third race
4. the demi-gods: the fourth race
5. iron: the fifth race (our race)
The past races of men were all destroyed by Zeus, and according to Hesiod, our race will be destroyed in the future as well.
Another thing to keep in mind is that each one of these races are supposed to be worse than the one before them. Taking this into consideration, I believe that his view of Mankind's past was both good and bad, because although he notes the negative qualities in "Works and Days", he also states the good. And as far as the future goes, it can only be negative if each race gets worse than the other.
Thanks for reading, and please let me know what you think!
Tuesday, November 12, 2013
Theogony and Genesis 1
"What are the main differences between Genesis 1 and Theogony?"
The main differences between these two pieces of literature are very drastic indeed!
In Genesis we see that God creates things and they are good. In the Theogony we see a lot of chaos. Unlike the Bible, in the Theogony many things were created out of trickery or wrong doing.
Here is another main difference between the two. God is said to be all powerful but the Greek gods in the Theogony are not. The Greek gods rely on one another to do certain things, whereas God does not need anyone's help or permission in order to preform tasks.
Another one is that the gods are all born but God just always was. He had no beginning and no end but the Greek gods, although undying, did not always exist.
It is also worth stating the similarities between the Theogony and Genesis.
Both in the Bible and the Theogony, men were created before women.
Another similarity is that they both have a head honcho (God and Zeus).
We also see that they both have that which is supernatural (God in the Bible and the Greek gods in the Theogony).
We can see many similarities and differences between these two amazing pieces of written art! Thanks for reading!
The main differences between these two pieces of literature are very drastic indeed!
In Genesis we see that God creates things and they are good. In the Theogony we see a lot of chaos. Unlike the Bible, in the Theogony many things were created out of trickery or wrong doing.
Here is another main difference between the two. God is said to be all powerful but the Greek gods in the Theogony are not. The Greek gods rely on one another to do certain things, whereas God does not need anyone's help or permission in order to preform tasks.
Another one is that the gods are all born but God just always was. He had no beginning and no end but the Greek gods, although undying, did not always exist.
It is also worth stating the similarities between the Theogony and Genesis.
Both in the Bible and the Theogony, men were created before women.
Another similarity is that they both have a head honcho (God and Zeus).
We also see that they both have that which is supernatural (God in the Bible and the Greek gods in the Theogony).
We can see many similarities and differences between these two amazing pieces of written art! Thanks for reading!
Medea (Thoughts)
"What does the fate of Medea and those who mistreat her and oppress her say about it's own time?"
The play Medea is about a woman who has been left by her husband for a princess. Obviously, she is upset about this. (Wouldn't you be too?) She was in despair and she decided to commit a series of brutal murders in order to avenge the misfortune that her husband had brought upon her.
In her doing this, we can see very clearly the affects that the Peloponessian War had caused. (the play and the war were about the same time)
This work of Greek drama has a mix of grief, anger, and love all wrapped up into one. This being the case, I can see the same thing in war.
War is typically brought on by grief (and or) anger just as the murders that Medea committed were brought on by these.
In war we also see love. Men leaving their friends and families can be tragic. It tears the people affected apart. It can be the making or unmaking of a person, and in Medea's case, it was her unmaking.
It was tragic, just as the time of the Peloponessian War was tragic. These are the things that I see reflected in the play Medea.
"Can we learn anything from Medea about the Greek's attitude towards foreigners and women?"
Yes, I believe that we can. In Medea we see both a mix of those that don't care what your gender is or about where you come from, and then again, we see those who do. (Sounds a bit like society today don't you think?)
We see some, (her husband, Jason for example) that can be sexist. He seems to see Medea as no more than a play thing. Something that he can leave and not reap the consequences of doing so. And then we see others such as the king. He seems less opposed to the opposite gender than did Jason. We see this when his daughter is killed by Medea. He is heart-broken by the loss of his dear daughter. In this seen, we can tell that he really did care for his daughter. It certainly didn't seem like he thought of her as no more than a play thing.
Now I will do my best to answer the question concerning the view of foreigners.
Medea was a foreigner and it appears that although she was respected by some, she was also mistreated by others. (Again, I am using Jason as an example). He left her for a woman of his own city. Not that of another which Medea was. And then again, we see the man who agreed to offer Medea safety in his land if she could get there. It doesn't seem like he was very opposed to foreigners.
Yes, I think that there where certain wide-held views of women and foreigners, but also that there were some who didn't have those views. I believe that just like with anything in the world, it was a mixed lot.
Thank you so much for reading, and please let me know what you think!
The play Medea is about a woman who has been left by her husband for a princess. Obviously, she is upset about this. (Wouldn't you be too?) She was in despair and she decided to commit a series of brutal murders in order to avenge the misfortune that her husband had brought upon her.
In her doing this, we can see very clearly the affects that the Peloponessian War had caused. (the play and the war were about the same time)
This work of Greek drama has a mix of grief, anger, and love all wrapped up into one. This being the case, I can see the same thing in war.
War is typically brought on by grief (and or) anger just as the murders that Medea committed were brought on by these.
In war we also see love. Men leaving their friends and families can be tragic. It tears the people affected apart. It can be the making or unmaking of a person, and in Medea's case, it was her unmaking.
It was tragic, just as the time of the Peloponessian War was tragic. These are the things that I see reflected in the play Medea.
"Can we learn anything from Medea about the Greek's attitude towards foreigners and women?"
Yes, I believe that we can. In Medea we see both a mix of those that don't care what your gender is or about where you come from, and then again, we see those who do. (Sounds a bit like society today don't you think?)
We see some, (her husband, Jason for example) that can be sexist. He seems to see Medea as no more than a play thing. Something that he can leave and not reap the consequences of doing so. And then we see others such as the king. He seems less opposed to the opposite gender than did Jason. We see this when his daughter is killed by Medea. He is heart-broken by the loss of his dear daughter. In this seen, we can tell that he really did care for his daughter. It certainly didn't seem like he thought of her as no more than a play thing.
Now I will do my best to answer the question concerning the view of foreigners.
Medea was a foreigner and it appears that although she was respected by some, she was also mistreated by others. (Again, I am using Jason as an example). He left her for a woman of his own city. Not that of another which Medea was. And then again, we see the man who agreed to offer Medea safety in his land if she could get there. It doesn't seem like he was very opposed to foreigners.
Yes, I think that there where certain wide-held views of women and foreigners, but also that there were some who didn't have those views. I believe that just like with anything in the world, it was a mixed lot.
Thank you so much for reading, and please let me know what you think!
Friday, November 1, 2013
The Peloponnesian War and Pericles' Funeral Oration
"What points is Pericles trying to make about Athens in his Funeral Oration?"
Pericles was trying to get across how wonderful Athens was, praise the people, and honor the dead at the same time.
He talked about all the advantages that Athenian citizens had, he tried to motivate the living during a time of war, and as stated earlier, honor the dead.
He wanted to help the people to keep going by telling them about what they had to live up to (The dead soldiers). He also tried to give them a reason(s)to keep fighting by telling them about all that they had to lose. He told them about all of the amazing advantages that Athens had to offer like its freedom in government and ordinary life.
These were the points that Pericles was trying to make in his Funeral Oration.
"Why was the Peloponnesian War fought? What was its long-term significance?"
The Peloponnesian War was fought for these reasons.
1. Athens appeared to be using the Delian League's ship-building funds to help beautify itself instead of to build ships for the protection of those in the Delian League.
2. Sparta was afraid that Athens was becoming too powerful.
Here is the war's long-term significance.
1. Athens would lose its dominance of the other members of the Delian League.
2. Sparta would take control of things.
3. In the end, this war between the Greeks would ultimately weaken them and spell out some serious consequences.
Well, That's all for this week. I hope that you have enjoyed this essay on "The Peloponnesian War and Pericles' Funeral Oration". See you next Friday, and please let me know what you think!
Pericles was trying to get across how wonderful Athens was, praise the people, and honor the dead at the same time.
He talked about all the advantages that Athenian citizens had, he tried to motivate the living during a time of war, and as stated earlier, honor the dead.
He wanted to help the people to keep going by telling them about what they had to live up to (The dead soldiers). He also tried to give them a reason(s)to keep fighting by telling them about all that they had to lose. He told them about all of the amazing advantages that Athens had to offer like its freedom in government and ordinary life.
These were the points that Pericles was trying to make in his Funeral Oration.
"Why was the Peloponnesian War fought? What was its long-term significance?"
The Peloponnesian War was fought for these reasons.
1. Athens appeared to be using the Delian League's ship-building funds to help beautify itself instead of to build ships for the protection of those in the Delian League.
2. Sparta was afraid that Athens was becoming too powerful.
Here is the war's long-term significance.
1. Athens would lose its dominance of the other members of the Delian League.
2. Sparta would take control of things.
3. In the end, this war between the Greeks would ultimately weaken them and spell out some serious consequences.
Well, That's all for this week. I hope that you have enjoyed this essay on "The Peloponnesian War and Pericles' Funeral Oration". See you next Friday, and please let me know what you think!
Ethics and the Development of History
"What is the view of the biblical materials on the role of ethics in the development of history?"
In the development of history, biblical materials have influenced ethics by a very large degree. We see this when we give money to the poor and needy, help build homes for those who don't have any, etc.
There are lots of people out there who don't believe in God and yet, they do their best to help those in need. Why? The answer is simple. In every society, people have believed in some form of morality that was handed down from one generation to the next. For many, what was handed down to them was biblical ethics. For instance, it is illegal to commit murder. Where else do we find this law? We find it in Exodus chapter 20, verse 13. "Thou shalt not kill." What is another law that we have in the world today? Let's look at Exodus chapter 20, verse 15. "Thou shalt not steale." These are two very well known laws in today's world, as well as the world of the past.
Although some might not agree with everything in the Bible, you have to admit that biblical materials did play a huge part in ethics, and the history of the world in general.
Thank you very much for reading, and please let me know what you think!
In the development of history, biblical materials have influenced ethics by a very large degree. We see this when we give money to the poor and needy, help build homes for those who don't have any, etc.
There are lots of people out there who don't believe in God and yet, they do their best to help those in need. Why? The answer is simple. In every society, people have believed in some form of morality that was handed down from one generation to the next. For many, what was handed down to them was biblical ethics. For instance, it is illegal to commit murder. Where else do we find this law? We find it in Exodus chapter 20, verse 13. "Thou shalt not kill." What is another law that we have in the world today? Let's look at Exodus chapter 20, verse 15. "Thou shalt not steale." These are two very well known laws in today's world, as well as the world of the past.
Although some might not agree with everything in the Bible, you have to admit that biblical materials did play a huge part in ethics, and the history of the world in general.
Thank you very much for reading, and please let me know what you think!
Colorblindness
Why are men more likely than women to be colorblind?
First of all, I would like to tell you a bit about what colorblindness is. It is usually a sex-linked trait that makes it so that some people can't see certain colors. (Rarely, for us humans of Earth, no colors at all!)
Now I will give the answer to why men are more likely than women to be colorblind.
Well, colorblindness is carried by the X chromosome and not the Y chromosome. Women have two X chromosomes (XX) whereas men only have one X chromosome and one Y chromosome (XY). This means that a woman can be a carrier and not actually get colorblindness because the other X chromosome can "mask" the colorblindness from the other X chromosome. Since men have one X and one Y chromosome, they don't have another X chromosome to "mask" the colorblindness.
In order for a woman to inherit colorblindness she would have to get it from both of the two parents. For a man, he would only need to inherit it from one parent.
These are the interesting reasons why men are more likely than women to be colorblind.
Thank you very much for taking the time to read this, and please let me know what you think!
First of all, I would like to tell you a bit about what colorblindness is. It is usually a sex-linked trait that makes it so that some people can't see certain colors. (Rarely, for us humans of Earth, no colors at all!)
Now I will give the answer to why men are more likely than women to be colorblind.
Well, colorblindness is carried by the X chromosome and not the Y chromosome. Women have two X chromosomes (XX) whereas men only have one X chromosome and one Y chromosome (XY). This means that a woman can be a carrier and not actually get colorblindness because the other X chromosome can "mask" the colorblindness from the other X chromosome. Since men have one X and one Y chromosome, they don't have another X chromosome to "mask" the colorblindness.
In order for a woman to inherit colorblindness she would have to get it from both of the two parents. For a man, he would only need to inherit it from one parent.
These are the interesting reasons why men are more likely than women to be colorblind.
Thank you very much for taking the time to read this, and please let me know what you think!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)