Dinger #fundie

Dinger #fundie answers.yahoo.com

[Question on Yahoo Answers]

Can evolutionists answer this?

When and why did evolution decide to punish women for having multiple partners?

Within the last few years (I don't know exactly when) scientists found a link between a womans reproduction system and her immune system.

The first time she has intercourse, the DNA is imprinted. after this when a mans DNA is injected, it is checked against the imprint. If it is the same, everything is ok. If it is different, the imprint is removed and the knew DNA is imprinted. This can only happen 2 times. Even if the 3 DNA is the same as the first, it still is the 3rd imprint. After this the immune system will attack the next 3 mens DNA, even if one is from a previous man. then the immune system will step down a level. I do not know what that means exactly, but I do know it means the woman can get sick easier, and recovers slower.

This link serves no purpose if evolution is true, and would in fact hinder a womans ability to have babies from different fathers if anything happened to the first one.

88 comments

old comment by

"Can evolutionists answer this?"

Probably.

"When and why did evolution decide to punish women for having multiple partners?"

Excuse me? Seems it society that does such a thing, not evolution. Evolution tends to promote the exact opposite in damn near every species.

"Within the last few years (I don't know exactly when) scientists found a link between a womans reproduction system and her immune system.

What the holy fuck are you talking about?

"This link serves no purpose if evolution is true, and would in fact hinder a womans ability to have babies from different fathers if anything happened to the first one."

Possibly it would. If any of it were even remotely true, which I seriously doubt. I'm willing to be wrong though so cite your source.

old comment by JESUS PLEASE CUM SOON!

1) You're completely wrong, and a moron.
2) Even if that were true, wouldn't that support evolution over intelligent design? Useless functions and organs are evidence FOR evolution, not AGAINST it, you retards. Why would an intelligent creator give men nipples, everyone several organs that are no longer needed (e.g., appendix), and whales/dolphins pelvic bones? The human body is only efficient by evolutionary standards -- by design standards, it's a messed up piece of shit. An intelligent creator would allow me to pee out period blood in one quick go instead of letting it drip uncontrollably for five days, for starters.
3) The female body has a minor immune response to all foreign bodies, including sperm. Doesn't matter if it's the first, second, or 600th donor (s'up Paris Hilton), the response is always there.

old comment by zazugrey

Actually, I read about this. It's the theme of a story called, "The Moral Virologist" by Greg Egan. It's fiction. Look up the word. Fiction, as in not factual or real, much like some of your other favorite reading. You really should learn the difference.

Like the Bible, much can be read into this story, but it is not literal truth. Unlike the Bible, this story was coherently written, is scientifically plausible, and regards the mass slaughter of human beings as a bad thing.

In the story, a crazed virologist designs a disease that will cause people to die if they have more than one sex partner in their lifetime, by creating a DNA imprint of a partner and using the immune system to compare them later. Seriously, this ramble sounds so much like the Egan story that it might have originated there. One fundie reads it. Fundie number two thinks it sounds like a good idea, tells his friend, and by the time it gets halfway around the church it's become a scientific fact. Hell, they believe weirder things in churches!

old comment by Dallen

Being in total agreement with everyone here on CITATION NEEDED, I must express the irony that even if this were true, it is unlikely to result in a great deal of selective pressure any way since the women in question have already reached sexual maturity and passed on their genes. It is quite common to find stupid failings in the human body that come about after reproduction and therefore offer little selection against their presence. For example, age-related heart conditions, cancers and general immune system function, particularly the thymus gland which fails spectacularly later in life. Yet we still carry all these afflictions because they tend not to eliminate the carrier before reproduction.

old comment by Not a Fish2

Actually the OP is misinterpreting and twisting a real effect to fit his misogynistic stupidity.

Google preeclampsia and semen’
a woman’s immune system will sometimes treat semen as foreign DNA and attack it
Causing a miscarriage and risk to her health.

But exposure to the man’s semen over a year or so can give her immune system time to identify it as beneficial and then a pregnancy is less likely to cause preeclampsia.

But the immune system will not recognise as beneficial the different DNA of another man, it needs exposure of about a year to give immunity.

Women who start a sexual relationship without contraception, like virgin newly married fundies, are more likely to have miscarriages and preeclampsia.

Another benefit of contraception.

old comment by Swede

Evolution didn't decide anything, any more than photosynthesis did.

If you took the time to get to understand "what that means exactly", then you'd probably learn that your grasp of this is veeery feeble.

Human infants are very vulnerable and need the care of two parents (preferably) for at least four years. That might have something to do with this; a woman that has spent about a year with the same man will probably have the help of that same man during the child's first four years. If she later spends about a year with another man, she will probably stick with that one for the child's vulnerable time.

When did you decide that genitives are not for you?

Dinger #fundie answers.yahoo.com

88 comments

Confused?