Yes, a woman does quite fine with two X's but we may consider that her own DNA has already been mutated by the Y chromosome of her father.
The father's Y chromosome contributes a part to a female even though she does not have a Y chromosome of her own.
The Y chromosome contributes a nearly invisible part, the life that is within the daughter female.
X being a body (shell/egg) type thing and Y being a living (sperm) type thing.
This saying, a female would not be "alive" if it were not for the Y influence in reproduction.
Body X and Soul Y
59 comments
Have your heard of parthenogenesis? BTW, the father could very well be passing his MOTHERS X chromosome along, so there goes that asinine theory of yours.
And just a quick fact: chromosomes have only been known for a few decades.
I could equally say the reason men are deficient is because of not having XX, but XY, missing that extra leg on the Y is what makes you stupid.
if i remember my BASIC biology, the graph went something like
x y
x xx xy
The father's Y chromosome contributes a part to a female even though she does not have a Y chromosome of her own. SEX DOES NOT WORK THAT WAY!
The fathers Y chromosome is not involved if he has a daughter.
Body X and Soul Y
X being a body (shell/egg) type thing and Y being a living (sperm) type thing.
First thing I thought of was the album Sex Type Thing by Stone Temple Pilots.
Second thing I thought of is this guy doesn't know what he's talking about. Does his reasoning also imply that a male would not be "alive" if it were not for the X influence in reproduction, from his mother?
"Then, a sex-determining gene on the male's Y chromosome called SRY, comes into play. The product of the SRY gene converts the gonad cells of the early human embryo into testes, which in turn triggers development of male sexual organs. If the SRY is blocked, the embryo's gonald cells go onto become ovaries and the female sex organs develop. In other words, all human embryos will develop into females unless they are masculinized by the product of the SRY gene.
George B. John, Professor of Biology at Washington University, St. Louis
The rest of the article written by John Armstrong, then asks "Why do men have nipples?" He feels that males are alterations on the female design, not the other way around.
If women are the default sex it makes sense, 10 women, 1 man = 10 babies/yr. (one lucky guy, I guess). The other way around 1 baby/yr (and one big cock fight I would think)
YOU FAIL AT CHROMOSOMES.
Get off my internet.
Ozzie: Females are most likely the default template. In the womb, every mammal (I think it's every mammal, anyway) starts off as physically female, which is why men have nipples.
Ok, I liked the daughter female part.
Has anyone ever heard of the daughter male? Why the need to differentiate that?
Yay for continuing to debase women's existence! Well, she doesn't really have a soul, its just the soul of her father; she's just the body, ya know, the part that dies and doesn't really matter in the eternal life?
And occasionally XY are androgen insensitive, there are XXY, XYY, XXX.
Allow me to throw a wrench in RexRed's little idea. Y and YY can happen, but they'll never make it past the zygote stage.
Tell me, FunnyBunny, while you're on the subject, how they knew about chromosomes thousands of years ago.
Very very simply here
A mommies egg has an X chromosome. It does not have a shell and is as much alive as a sperm.
A daddies sperm may have an X chromosome in it or a Y chromosome in it.
When the daddies sperm works its way into mommies egg, if the sperm is an X the baby will be a girl, if the sperm is a Y the baby will be a boy.
For fuck sakes I knew this shit at the age of 6.
No, the sperm that conceives a daughter does not have a Y chromosome in it.
"The father's Y chromosome contributes a part to a female"
No, if she has two Xs, then that's because her parents both gave her one of their Xs. The Y is only involved if she's male.
"The Y chromosome contributes a nearly invisible part,"
No, it actually contributes nothing to females. That's why they're female, in fact.
"X being a body (shell/egg) type thing and Y being a living (sperm) type thing."
You obviously know nothing about biology.
"This has been known for thousands of years..."
Yeah I remember when the ancient Egyptians discovered genes.
Grigadil wrote:
"Tell me, FunnyBunny, while you're on the subject, how they knew about chromosomes thousands of years ago." And how they knew to call them X and Y, for that matter.
(The X and Y chromosomes are named after what they look like under a microscope, when a cell is about to undergo cell division and the chromosomes are most easily distinguishable. The X chromosome really does look like a capital X, and the Y chromosome looks like an X that's missing one of its legs and thus resembles a lowercase y. The microscope was not invented until 1590.)
"This has been known for thousands of years..."
Seriously, where the fuck are you getting this?
You're what's called full of shit. Normal girls do not have Y chromosomes. (Though there are some medical conditions that can cause a XY fetus to develop as female anyway)
And not every person is strictly XX or XY, either, asshole. Some women are simply X, some men are XXY, some men are even XXYY. According to you, women don't have souls, but XXYY men have two souls.
GENETICS DO NOT WORK THAT WAY!
The Y chromosome is NEVER inherited to females, dumbass.
Wow, that's a pretty impressive misunderstanding of GCSE (I'm guessing high school level) Biology right there. Was he in the special class?
I also like the idea that we've known about all this for "thousands of years"
...Retard.
Ugh, I just packed up my texts on chromosomal variation, or I'd break out the citations here...
...but yeah, both RexRed and the chromosomal-essentialists are full of fail. As are the "default is female" partisans -- it's much more complicated than that, and maleness isn't some super-special extra bonus feature, it's just a generalization over a whole range of chromosomal and biochemical combinations.
(No, really, biological "sex" is convoluted, messy, and nowhere near as clear as people think.)
. . . What?
How does the father's Y chromosome contribute to the daughter. The sperm that fertilized the egg would not have had her father's Y chromosome in it. It would have had the X chromosome. And you know where the father would have gotten that X chromosome? Well, since he must have gotten his Y chromosome from his father, his X chromosome would have had to come from his mother. The only thinng the Y chromosome has to with the developement of a female is its absensce.
Well, since the "Y influence" you speak of, RexRed, does not exist, I guess no female is truly alive.
Which leads me, as a female, to the question, what precisely am I then?
There is something truly wrong with the school you went to. (If he's American . . . and he probably is, this is proof that our educational system is deplorable.)How can anyone have learned to type coherent English sentences and know the word chromosome and yet have no idea how reproduction works?
Quote "X being a body (shell/egg) type thing and Y being a living (sperm) type thing".
Quote "Body X and Soul Y
So you're saying that souls are just really large gobs of sperm?
And men wouldn't exist, for that matter, bearing in mind your stupid logic, without the X chromosome anyway. Your point?
The funny thing is that the Chromosome Y exists ONLY in some spermatozoids ejaculated by daddy which determine, guess what?, the sex of the baby. Good way to misunderstand biology at 6th grade(imagine further)
Then how come embryos with "XO" chromosomes can actually live (They grow up to be infertile females) but ANY embryo with an "YO" chromosomes fails to develop completely? If life is in the "Y" chromosome, then it should be the other way around.
Also, female cells have Barr bodies in the nucleus, where one of the X chromosomes is deactivated. Males, with no X chromosome to spare, have no such structure.
You sir, have failed...
Thiiiiis is pretty much just a restatement of Aristotelian reproductive theory, with a bit of jargon thrown in, and that oh so delicious Christian stupidity dribbled on the top. In regards to your assertion that "this has been known for thousands of years," well, there was also a theory, proposed by Galen, that both parties in procreation produced a "seed," and that both were necessary for reproduction. Which is actually closer to reality than your outdated model.
Confused?
So were we! You can find all of this, and more, on Fundies Say the Darndest Things!
To post a comment, you'll need to Sign in or Register . Making an account also allows you to claim credit for submitting quotes, and to vote on quotes and comments. You don't even need to give us your email address.
