What Do Theists Say About The Fact That All Human Fetus Begin Originally As Females?
Offline In the past it was thought that the Initial Embryonic Existence of the Human Fetus was a 'undifferentiated' or a 'bisexual' phase. Now we all know that the Fetus is originally formed as female, and it's not until the fifth to sixth week of fetal life that "she" morphologically transforms into a male with the help of Hormones/Genes. Have you ever seen what happens to a female body builder who abuses Male Hormones?
This sure does contradict the "wishful thinkers" claim that a male(Adam) was magically created first, named all the animals, told the sky he was bored and needed some company, then the female was created from the mans rib - Lol. It just makes me want to go jump off of a building to think that most of our population believes with certainty that this is the explination for the origins of our species.
Anyway I was just wondering what would be their response to this fact besides resorting to their "fall-back / safe-guard" statement that their sky daddy works in mysterious ways, lol...
Slimm,
"When one person suffers from a delusion, it is called Insanity. When many people suffer from a delusion, it is called Religion." - Robert M. Pirsig,
- Login to post comments
Offline Note that I said *normal* fertilization.
Oh yes, that you did. Sorry. My bad.
Whether proof or implication is irrelevant. If you try this approach with a fundamentalist, it will fail because, for them, god can do it anyway s(he) sees fit. It doesn't weaken the male dominence factor in any way. It's always back to god said it, I believe it, that settles it. All I am saying is that this tact is useless against a "true believer". In fact, they can turn it around on you and say that this shows that male dominance is ordained since in any normal zygote, the Y chromosone takes over the process and dominates the X.
I've come to the conclusion that no approach works on a fundamentalist. That's why they are called fundamentalists.
This whole atheist vs. theist debate is, anyway, intended at intelligent, quite open-minded people. If one is either stupid or close-minded, it makes no sense anyway.
Inquisition - "The flames are all long gone, but the pain lingers on..."
http://rigoromortis.blogspot.com/
- Login to post comments
Offline Great topic Slimm!
The way that I like to think about this issue is that female is the default position from an embryological standpoint. The presence of the Y chromosome causes a surge of testosterone in the 6-8 week of development that causes the male to develop the customary physical characteristics and also affects other things such as neurological development. The thing is that any hormonal fluctuation or problem in the mother will cause all kinds of issues, from minor to major, and male embryos are more apt to have chromosomal abnormalities and are actually less likely to survive to term. There is also an interesting correlation between the number of male children that a woman has and very odd side effects for her and the baby. It seems over-all that giving birth to males is more stressful on the mother from a purely physical standpoint and that male embryos are much more fragile than female embryos. All in all, just goes to show who the stronger sex really is. 
- Login to post comments
Offline Great topic Slimm!
The way that I like to think about this issue is that female is the default position from an embryological standpoint. The presence of the Y chromosome causes a surge of testosterone in the 6-8 week of development that causes the male to develop the customary physical characteristics and also affects other things such as neurological development. The thing is that any hormonal fluctuation or problem in the mother will cause all kinds of issues, from minor to major, and male embryos are more apt to have chromosomal abnormalities and are actually less likely to survive to term. There is also an interesting correlation between the number of male children that a woman has and very odd side effects for her and the baby. It seems over-all that giving birth to males is more stressful on the mother from a purely physical standpoint and that male embryos are much more fragile than female embryos. All in all, just goes to show who the stronger sex really is.
Is there a correlation between hormonal imbalance and say the lack of the development of the part of the brain that deals with sexual identity. Most trans-sexuals have the wrong part of the brain for their gender, as a result they feel like the opposite sex from an early age, I just want to clarify if this is linked to the release of hormones in the womb?
- Login to post comments
Offline
Actually, a zygote can have X, XX, XY, XXY, XXX, XXXY or XXYY (that, of course, considering only the combinations that will actually live to be born). In all cases except XY, the result is female.
I guess zygotes with XXX chromosomes must grow up to be porn stars.
- Login to post comments
Offline I'd just like to point out that it's ALL mammals, not just humans, that are female by default.
(the same is true of lizards, according to the highly scientific resource known as "Jurassic Park", but I don't know how widespread this this rule is in the animal kingdom)
- Login to post comments
Offline Rigor_OMortis wrote:Actually, a zygote can have X, XX, XY, XXY, XXX, XXXY or XXYY (that, of course, considering only the combinations that will actually live to be born). In all cases except XY, the result is female.
I guess zygotes with XXX chromosomes must grow up to be porn stars.
Haha!!
There is also XYY I believe. Basically extremely angry males. There was a guy in my high school with it, he scared the shit out of me!
- Login to post comments
Offline Is there a correlation between hormonal imbalance and say the lack of the development of the part of the brain that deals with sexual identity. Most trans-sexuals have the wrong part of the brain for their gender, as a result they feel like the opposite sex from an early age, I just want to clarify if this is linked to the release of hormones in the womb?
That is the present thinking on homosexuality. It has less to do with a specific gene and more to do with hormone levels during pregnancy.
Interesting side note Kelly's post made me think of: The more male offspring a woman has, the greater the chances that the younger ones will be homosexual. Natural population control, maybe?
"When you hit your thumb with a hammer it's nice to be able to blaspheme. It takes a special kind of atheist to jump up and down shout, 'Oh, random fluctuations-in-the-space-time-continuum!'"-Terry Pratchett
- Login to post comments
Great post Slimm!
From my knowledge...
The main chromosomes that dictate the embryonic growth are the X chromosomes. A female of any sexuatly-reproductive species evolves from embryonic to fully-developed (considering the birth moment) through the X chromosomes. Since they are paired up and there's nothing to modify their path, the evolution is linear (this becomes quite obvious when you consider that species with the ability to give birth without the help of a male sexual partner always give birth to other females).
The Y chromosome has two functions: one to inhibit certain "features" of the X chromosome, and the other is to impose, through dominance, the physiological traits that a male must have. And therefore, Slimm's conclusion becomes obvious: it isn't females that have been developed from males, but the other way around.
Religious conceptions of male superiority seem to be based on the fact that males are more hormonally stable, and on the fact that evolution has finally offered males the job of defending the offspring (and therefore superios physical power). Physical power translates in different energetic "policies" for the body, which have been quite obvious for everyone since the dawn of humanity. Therefore, my presumption is that the ancient people thought that the source of an immense power, capable of creation, can only come from an entity which is able to conjure and consume vast ammounts of energy. Since, out of the two sexes, the one that does that best is the male, there you have it.
This, of course, could only appear in more advanced cultures, cultures that have already begun thinking about body energy (having a concept for it, a.k.a. "soul" or "anima"
. In most other cultures, the woman was seen as dominant (since her ability to give birth meant that, while one's male ancestor could be undetermined, the female ancestor was certain, and, therefore, families formed more around females), or at least on equal position with the male (Egyptian goddess Isis, for instance).
Hope my bits proved worthy of one's reading.
Inquisition - "The flames are all long gone, but the pain lingers on..."
http://rigoromortis.blogspot.com/
I guess I fail to see a point. The development of the fetus is governed by the proteins coded into the the DNA. What you are saying is equivalent to saying it's not male until it grows a penis. Maleness is programmed at conception. And I DON"T see the connection to theism. Do you mean creationists?
My Artwork
I thought that parthenogenesis created female offspring if the female sex is determined by like chromosomes, and male if the female sex is determined by unlike chromosomes. I remember reading an article about komodo dragons that said that in cases of parthenogenesis they give birth to males who then mate with the female so she can give birth to other females.
It’s interesting because if jesus was born through parthenogenesis he would have been a girl.
There are twists of time and space, of vision and reality, which only a dreamer can divine
H.P. Lovecraft
I fail to see the point that you didn't see my point. Maleness isn't "programmed" at conception nor at the default stage of the fetus, but rather the 5th or 6th week of development. My point is simply that the female is the Default / Original, and not the other way around.
The connection to theism stems from their projection of male dominance that's also spelled out in their stories about the explination for our origins as a whole. Rigor_OMortis spelled it all out genetically.
If the Fetus is predetermined to be/stay Female, then it just continues to pursue a straight-forward path of devolopment. But in the case of a Male, it's a Deviation from the originally process of the female development...
Slimm,
The point was that Genesis teaches that man is the "normal" pathway, and the woman a "derivation", when it is the opposite way around.
Yes, that is so, Gauche, forgot about that. Anyway, in the case of humans, likeness determines female sex, therefore all possible offspirng of parthenogenesis would be female as well. Therefore, your conclusion...
...is both funny and 100% correct.
Heh, lol!
Inquisition - "The flames are all long gone, but the pain lingers on..."
http://rigoromortis.blogspot.com/
I'll use that info on the next creation/religious discussion I run into. Thanks for the ammo Slimm
First, you are splitting hairs. Take a zygote at the moment of normal fertilization. It will have either XX or XY chromosones. That is not an insignificant difference. On a cellular level, they may be they same. But on the level of DNA they are most certainly already different.
Second, your argument is flawed.
You claim that because the "default" cellular structure is female it proves Adam wasn't created first. This proves nothing. A god capable of creating a world in 7 days would certainly be able to create Adam, grab a rib, and convert it to a female. You go on suggest on the basis of this faulty conclusion that the theology that allows male dominence is incorrect. But since your conclusion is faulty, that connection is a hopeful invention.
FWIW, I don't believe in the biblical account of creation and don't consider males divinely appointed to dominance over females.
My Artwork
Actually, a zygote can have X, XX, XY, XXY, XXX, XXXY or XXYY (that, of course, considering only the combinations that will actually live to be born). In all cases except XY, the result is female.
It doesn't "prove" that, it implies that. Obviously an omnipotent entity would be able to do it the other way around, but it does hit a bit on the "male dominance" factor that is so prevalent in the Bible. The fact that you don't consider it that way, and you don't consider Genesis as literally true only makes you one of the theists more worthy of respect, but it doesn't change the fact that most actually do believe.
Inquisition - "The flames are all long gone, but the pain lingers on..."
http://rigoromortis.blogspot.com/
Note that I said *normal* fertilization.
Whether proof or implication is irrelevant. If you try this approach with a fundamentalist, it will fail because, for them, god can do it anyway s(he) sees fit. It doesn't weaken the male dominence factor in any way. It's always back to god said it, I believe it, that settles it. All I am saying is that this tact is useless against a "true believer". In fact, they can turn it around on you and say that this shows that male dominance is ordained since in any normal zygote, the Y chromosone takes over the process and dominates the X.
I think that trying to discredit theologically based male dominance with a biological argument is not a productive approach.
edited for spelling
My Artwork
Hey this means all us blokes are transexual! Fucking awesome!
To which a fundamentalist would reply, "It only shows the magnitude of the miracle. God over-rode normal biology and created a viable male zygote within Mary. ".
My Artwork