Who Came First? - Female or Male?
- Thread starter Dryson
- Start date
- Status
http://www.zo.utexas.edu/faculty/antisense/papers/AsexualSpecies.pdf
Its rather obvious once again the females came first based on the fact that females carry the child and then give birth to the child.
During cellular division the cell reproduces itself exactly each time as an exact copy would create the most efficient offspring.
Having a male present would not be efficient for the reproduction of offspring at the beginning because of the consumption of energy needed to sustain the male when the males only would be to impregnate the female.
Having an A-sexual human however would be more efficient because the sexual organs would be contained within the female body allowing the female to be able to move around the environment allot easier then having to deal with her male counterpart dragging her down while she was in the gestation period.
The question is though : what would have caused the mutation in the female's DNA to cause the male chromosome to come into existence?
Here is a perfect example -
Baby boy born with four arms and four legs recovering well after surgery to remove his 'parasitic twin'
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...recovering-surgery-remove-parasitic-twin.html
Something caused this child to be born in the manner that he was. Something happened within the womb. The same thing could have happened regarding the male where all of the sexual organs that relate to the male side of the fertilization process developed on the outside of the female that when the female was born it was considered a male. With the introduction of the new species where the male carried half of the chromosome necessary to create life would now be carried in the male body.
The main determining factor for this theory is that most male genders of most species do not have nipples or develop breasts like the female do.
Why do men have nipples?
Nipples in male mammals illustrate a constrained evolutionary result.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/why-do-men-have-nipples/
Just like the article discusses something had to happen to influence the traits of the female genes to produce a male species.
Its rather obvious once again the females came first based on the fact that females carry the child and then give birth to the child.
During cellular division the cell reproduces itself exactly each time as an exact copy would create the most efficient offspring.
Having a male present would not be efficient for the reproduction of offspring at the beginning because of the consumption of energy needed to sustain the male when the males only would be to impregnate the female.
Having an A-sexual human however would be more efficient because the sexual organs would be contained within the female body allowing the female to be able to move around the environment allot easier then having to deal with her male counterpart dragging her down while she was in the gestation period.
The question is though : what would have caused the mutation in the female's DNA to cause the male chromosome to come into existence?
Here is a perfect example -
Baby boy born with four arms and four legs recovering well after surgery to remove his 'parasitic twin'
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...recovering-surgery-remove-parasitic-twin.html
Something caused this child to be born in the manner that he was. Something happened within the womb. The same thing could have happened regarding the male where all of the sexual organs that relate to the male side of the fertilization process developed on the outside of the female that when the female was born it was considered a male. With the introduction of the new species where the male carried half of the chromosome necessary to create life would now be carried in the male body.
The main determining factor for this theory is that most male genders of most species do not have nipples or develop breasts like the female do.
Why do men have nipples?
Nipples in male mammals illustrate a constrained evolutionary result.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/why-do-men-have-nipples/
Just like the article discusses something had to happen to influence the traits of the female genes to produce a male species.
Dryson, you realize that genders evolved looooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooooong before humans, apes, monkeys, mammals, vertebrates came onto the scene, right?
Nope, that was pointed out earlier in the thread and he hasn't figured it out yet. It was also pointed out on the very first page that other mammalian males have nipples, and he hasn't figured that out yet either.
On top of that:
Sorry, you need to sign up for a remedial logic course.
On top of that:
Sooo... you think it's more efficient for the female to impregnate herself with no male (it isn't), so therefore that must be the way it was originally, so therefore something must have changed along the way?
Sorry, you need to sign up for a remedial logic course.
Sexual reproduction has a pretty complicated history that Dryson is either ignorant of or doesn't really appreciate.
Why should one appreciate sexual reproduction? The act is merely a method of creating offspring. The sensual enjoyment that you speak of not being appreciated is really nothing more than a religious term of someone "making or molding" the thoughts of another to make one feel as if they have a connection to God and therefore God making the other feel like they do in fact created the one more superior than the other.
Did anyone even read the Scientific American Article?
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/why-do-men-have-nipples/
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/why-do-men-have-nipples/
Not a surprise but an event that caused the genes of the female to change and evolve into the male species.
Read the Scientific American Article for more information.
Seems like in addition to a basic scientific education, you also need a dictionary.
ap·pre·ci·ate
/əˈprēSHēˌāt/
verb
1. recognize the full worth of; be grateful for (something).
2. understand (a situation) fully; recognize the full implications of.
Dryson, he's talking about appreciating the history, not appreciating the act.
Given your lack of knowledge of history, I have to admit this makes some sense.
Given your lack of knowledge of history, I have to admit this makes some sense.
Another instance where females could have at one time of had both sexes is hermaphroditism -
Humans
Main article: Intersex
Aside from having an ambiguous-looking external genitalia, true hermaphroditism in humans differs from pseudohermaphroditism in that the person's karyotype has both XX and XY chromosome pairs (47XXY, 46XX/46XY, 46XX/47XXY or 45X/XY mosaic) and having both testicular and ovarian tissue. One possible pathophysiologic explanation of this rare phenomenon is a parthenogenetic division of a haploid ovum into two haploid ova. Upon fertilization of the two ova by two sperm cells (one carrying an X and the other carrying a Y chromosome), the two fertilized ova are then fused together resulting in a person having dual genitalial, gonadal (ovotestes) and genetic sex.
Another common cause of hermaphroditism is the crossing over of the SRY from the Y chromosome to the X chromosome during meiosis. The SRY is then activated in only certain areas, causing development of testes in some areas by beginning a series of events starting with the upregulation of SOX9, and in other areas not being active (causing the growth of ovarian tissues). Thus, testicular and ovarian tissues will both be present in the same individual.[17]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermaphrodite
It is therefore possible that very early humans did have both reproductive organs combined into a single human and over time that due to the evolution of the planet that would have effected human development and evolution as well the genes of the hermaphrodite human would have become two distinct sexes.
If humans had evolved and been designed so perfectly by a God then there would never be any cellular mutations so as hermaphrodites or children born with four arms and legs. But because there are such mutations recorded throughout history then it is very possible that the first humans that evolved from the cellular mass of the primordial Universe, which can be proven once again as being true because all human life begins as microscopic cells that evolve from the zygote into a human being that is much larger than the initial amount of information present in the zygote.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zygote
It is also once again possible that the early humans were A-sexual where the zygote was fertilized by the second part of the A-sexual humans reproductive organs through sexual reproduction, which by the way is not the same thing as sexual intercourse. Sexual Reproduction is the act of transferring genetic information into the zygote where sexual intercourse is the act of two separate genders engaging in an act of creating an action between two people where the genetic information is then passed from one host to the next.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/intercourse
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_reproduction
This discussion is important because it opens the door to issues relating to life on other planets that if life evolved on Earth based on the environment effecting the zygote of the species like it did on Earth then similar effects would caused mutations in other similar zygotes of life on other planets.
Humans
Main article: Intersex
Aside from having an ambiguous-looking external genitalia, true hermaphroditism in humans differs from pseudohermaphroditism in that the person's karyotype has both XX and XY chromosome pairs (47XXY, 46XX/46XY, 46XX/47XXY or 45X/XY mosaic) and having both testicular and ovarian tissue. One possible pathophysiologic explanation of this rare phenomenon is a parthenogenetic division of a haploid ovum into two haploid ova. Upon fertilization of the two ova by two sperm cells (one carrying an X and the other carrying a Y chromosome), the two fertilized ova are then fused together resulting in a person having dual genitalial, gonadal (ovotestes) and genetic sex.
Another common cause of hermaphroditism is the crossing over of the SRY from the Y chromosome to the X chromosome during meiosis. The SRY is then activated in only certain areas, causing development of testes in some areas by beginning a series of events starting with the upregulation of SOX9, and in other areas not being active (causing the growth of ovarian tissues). Thus, testicular and ovarian tissues will both be present in the same individual.[17]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hermaphrodite
It is therefore possible that very early humans did have both reproductive organs combined into a single human and over time that due to the evolution of the planet that would have effected human development and evolution as well the genes of the hermaphrodite human would have become two distinct sexes.
If humans had evolved and been designed so perfectly by a God then there would never be any cellular mutations so as hermaphrodites or children born with four arms and legs. But because there are such mutations recorded throughout history then it is very possible that the first humans that evolved from the cellular mass of the primordial Universe, which can be proven once again as being true because all human life begins as microscopic cells that evolve from the zygote into a human being that is much larger than the initial amount of information present in the zygote.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zygote
It is also once again possible that the early humans were A-sexual where the zygote was fertilized by the second part of the A-sexual humans reproductive organs through sexual reproduction, which by the way is not the same thing as sexual intercourse. Sexual Reproduction is the act of transferring genetic information into the zygote where sexual intercourse is the act of two separate genders engaging in an act of creating an action between two people where the genetic information is then passed from one host to the next.
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/intercourse
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sexual_reproduction
This discussion is important because it opens the door to issues relating to life on other planets that if life evolved on Earth based on the environment effecting the zygote of the species like it did on Earth then similar effects would caused mutations in other similar zygotes of life on other planets.
This is a contradiction in terms.
You can argue that at one time humans reproduced asexually (you won't win, but you can argue). You cannot argue that they were both hermaphrodites AND females.
Last edited:
Yet, he will. My money's on the Vril-ya manipulating humanity while they were tunnel dwelling Morlocks hunting subterranean dinosaurs, personally.
Last edited:
And I thought this guy had some whacked-out ideas about evolution.
Maybe these help.
[yt]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wxysZmNsyDk[/yt]
[yt]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1w0FiwfyUMM[/yt]
[yt]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wxysZmNsyDk[/yt]
[yt]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1w0FiwfyUMM[/yt]
- Status
Similar threads
