Are the sex chromosomes (for humans X , Y ) expressed in ALL somatic cells ?

Question

Or just those cells of organs that are related somehow to sexual phenotype (primary , secondary sexual charecteristics) ?
In other words , can some types of cells be normal and viable WITHOUT the sex chromosomes (for example if one is considering producing cells or tissue independent of a complete body, e.g a liver or a piece of skin ) ?

Yes what I meant was : are there cells where the sex chromosomes do not perform ANY function ? Obviously I am familiar with some background on the topic , but I wondered if ALL genes and chromosomes are necessary to ALL cells in ALL tissues , or different cell types may not require the genetic information in some chromosomes at all .

Answer 1

Of the total 46 human chromosomes, 2 pairs are sexual
The two sexual chromosomes are expressed in ALL somatic cells of that particular individual ( they form part of the chromosomal phenotype,)
However, whether you find XX, (female) XY (male) depends on the sex of the bilogical specimen studied (You will never find dor instance XX in one cell and XY in another)
And yes, all somatic cells posess them (the sexual pair of chromosomes)

Answer 2

As someone already said, there are genes on the X and Y that have nothing to do with gender. For example, Amelogenin is the gene for a protein in tooth enamel and it is found on the X and Y.

The chromosome itself is not expressed. The genes on the chromosome are expressed in the cells that require those proteins. All other genes are not expressed. Unless something is wrong.

Answer 3

While every single chromosome is not expressed in every cell they are all present. It is not possible to naturally create a cell in your body without all of the chromosomes the previous cell had.

Answer 4

The problem with evolution is that it is only an "interpretation" of scientific facts, just like creationism is one "interpretation" of scientific facts. You can't debunk an interpretation using the same facts that the other side uses, but you can point out logical fallacies and assumptions that that interpretation makes to debunk it. Evolution, for those who believe in it, is a one-time, unrepeatable event in history that cannot be empirically falsified, which automatically puts it OUTSIDE of the realm of observable science, and therefore it cannot be proven at all using the Scientific Method. It then falls into the realm of "historical" events, which are always open to interpretation - kind of like the assassination of JFK. Let's use this as an analogy. The JFK assassination is a one-time, non-repeatable event in history. There are a set of hard, scientific facts that were gathered concerning it, and yet today, there is still no hard-and-fast explanation for what exactly happened, and multiple interpretations of the evidence abound. Telling people that "evolution is a fact, and you'd better believe it" is akin to telling people "the Warren Commission's version of what happened is a fact, and you'd better believe it"; when a great many people would disagree with that - and their disagreements would be based on the same evidence as the Warren Commission's and would be just as valid, if not more so. Creationists don't deny what evolutionists call "microevolution", which isn't really evolution at all, but just "variation within a kind" - that is, all the different varieties of dogs, bacteria, fruit flies, corn, etc. But this variety doesn't prove "macroevolution" - change "between" kinds - amoeba-to-man evolution. For example, we readily admit that there are over 250 breeds of domestic dogs, including some wild varieties. This is a scientifically verifiable fact. We don't deny this. But for people to take this information and conclude that this proves that the dog and the cat had a common ancestor, you have now moved OUT of the realm of observable science, and into the realm of FAITH. This kind of "evolution" has never been observed, and can never be repeated or falsified in either nature or in the lab. It's pure imagination, and nothing else. Even the fossil record does not support it. Even the very lowest strata (Cambrian) show incredibly complex animals with no transitionals under them to explain how they got that way. They're just THERE. But the fossil record isn't even a record of Biblical Creation; it's a record of a global Flood. The animals found in the sedimentary rock (rock that used to be sediment - FLOOD sediment) were buried instantly in that sediment. This is the only way fossils can form - sudden burial - and they are found in the order they were buried, not the order they "evolved". Fossils cannot be formed by an animal dying, rotting, then waiting millions of years for dirt to gradually cover it. The bones would have long since been scavenged and scattered, or rotted. If that were the case, there would be no fossils to speak of. All the animals in the fossil record were BURIED instantly, which is why we find fossils of fish in the middle of eating or giving birth. It was SUDDEN. I find the evidence for creation, intelligent design and a worldwide Flood is much more compelling, just like I believe that Lee Harvey Oswald did not act alone. Let the evidence speak for itself.

Answer 5

The sex chromosomes have genes for traits other than those relating to the sex of the individual. The X-chromosome is large and has many genes. The Y is much smaller and has very few genes.

Answer 6

X,Y is expressed in all cells, except like hair, then it is only in the root.