U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality > Atheism and Agnosticism
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 1.5 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Jump to a detailed profile or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Business Search - 14 Million verified businesses
Search for:  near: 
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 12-03-2008, 02:35 PM
 
Location: Nowhere'sville
2,345 posts, read 2,495,302 times
Reputation: 671
Default All babies start out female....soooo....

The thread about the belly buttons got me thinking....All embyos start out with female features, that's why men have nips! So wouldn't seem like women may have came first? I mean I have no real deep thoughts on this. It just popped in my head one day.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 12-03-2008, 03:29 PM
 
8,745 posts, read 6,488,476 times
Reputation: 3332
sooo...those men in Christianity and Islam who think they are better than women better realize they were those worthless females to begin with.

Not saying females are worthless but just saying that those men better rethink what they think about women.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-03-2008, 06:44 PM
 
Location: Boise
1,889 posts, read 1,925,576 times
Reputation: 641
Quote:
Originally Posted by Theliberalvoice View Post
sooo...those men in Christianity and Islam who think they are better than women better realize they were those worthless females to begin with.

Not saying females are worthless but just saying that those men better rethink what they think about women.
But those men wouldn't care about such scientific poppycock - It's all wrong - ALL OF IT!

This is a good point, I have thought this for years.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-03-2008, 08:58 PM
 
Location: Chicago- Lawrence and Kedzie/Maywood
2,242 posts, read 3,971,320 times
Reputation: 722
This is a man's world.
Males and females simply start developing the same, and then after that point, they start developing differently.
So if it was all magically males, they would still have nipples. It's just part of your biology, like having nails.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-04-2008, 05:40 AM
 
428 posts, read 1,118,452 times
Reputation: 271
Read Stephen Jay Gould's excellent essay "Male Nipples and Clitoral Ripples" (I had to quote that essay just so I could write the title ).

Anyway, babies do not exactly all start out female, males have the sex chromosome combo XY and females XX. They all look female in early embryonic development until the male hormones from the developing testes in the male begin to cause development of male sex organs. The absence of these hormones (because of no Y chromosome) results in female sex organ development.

Because we all evolved from a common ancestor, the way our anatomy has developed is that more primitive structures have been adapted for certain uses. For example, testes and ovaries derive from the same embryonic structures; male and female nipples do too, but because of constraints in how structures can form, when female mammals evolved the ability to suckle their offspring from these structures, the only way this could come about was that the breasts evolved from structures possessed by both male and females. So males have nips, but without the female hormone combo, they do not ever develop into usable suckling devices! (no hoots here, this is science...)
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-04-2008, 09:45 AM
 
Location: DC Area, for now
3,517 posts, read 8,411,740 times
Reputation: 1988
Default It's more fun that just that!

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mozart271 View Post
Read Stephen Jay Gould's excellent essay "Male Nipples and Clitoral Ripples" (I had to quote that essay just so I could write the title ).

Anyway, babies do not exactly all start out female, males have the sex chromosome combo XY and females XX. They all look female in early embryonic development until the male hormones from the developing testes in the male begin to cause development of male sex organs. The absence of these hormones (because of no Y chromosome) results in female sex organ development.

Because we all evolved from a common ancestor, the way our anatomy has developed is that more primitive structures have been adapted for certain uses. For example, testes and ovaries derive from the same embryonic structures; male and female nipples do too, but because of constraints in how structures can form, when female mammals evolved the ability to suckle their offspring from these structures, the only way this could come about was that the breasts evolved from structures possessed by both male and females. So males have nips, but without the female hormone combo, they do not ever develop into usable suckling devices! (no hoots here, this is science...)
Not exactly. While it does take a y chromosome to make a male and that is the fundamental definition of being a male, there are some interesting details. An xy fetus needs about 4 shots of testosterone delivered by the mother during it's development. These shots are triggered by the y chromozone fetus and must be in precise amounts at just the right time. In cases where this development doesn't happen correctly, the baby does not develop the male anatomy correctly. Most babies who don't get these shots of testosterone or are deficient in them develop as a girl and are thought to be girls until they grow up and find out they are sterile or have other problems that lead to genetic testing and the y chromozone is found. Some will be true hermaphrodites and develop both sexual characteristics.

This indicates that the basic animal - the default, if you will - is female. Anything goes wrong, and you get the female. It all has to go just right to get a male.

I know that interferes with some male egos, but that is the biology. And really, for the purposes of procreation, it makes sense that the female would be the basic default animal. She is the one who makes and grows babies. The male is only fundamentally needed to provide additional genetic material so we don't have the weaknesses of cloning. In some species, the male barely exists at all - just enough to provide his semin.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-04-2008, 10:28 AM
 
428 posts, read 1,118,452 times
Reputation: 271
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tesaje View Post
Not exactly. While it does take a y chromosome to make a male and that is the fundamental definition of being a male, there are some interesting details. An xy fetus needs about 4 shots of testosterone delivered by the mother during it's development. These shots are triggered by the y chromozone fetus and must be in precise amounts at just the right time. In cases where this development doesn't happen correctly, the baby does not develop the male anatomy correctly. Most babies who don't get these shots of testosterone or are deficient in them develop as a girl and are thought to be girls until they grow up and find out they are sterile or have other problems that lead to genetic testing and the y chromozone is found. Some will be true hermaphrodites and develop both sexual characteristics.
Not exactly. There are no "4 shots" of testosterone from the mother. The testosterone is produced by the male fetus's testes, which have differentiated into testes under the influence of the Y chromosome. This testosterone causes the formation of male genitalia. (Without the Y, the structures that become testes would become ovaries.) There are rare XY babies who are born with female-looking external genitalia, or ambiguous genitalia, and this is due to an abnormal non-responsiveness of the tissues to the fetal testosterone, not to any lack of "testosterone shots" from the mother. (Think about it: if the mother produced high enough levels of testosterone to cause male fetal genital development, what would happen to her own secondary sex characteristics?)
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-04-2008, 10:54 AM
 
Location: DC Area, for now
3,517 posts, read 8,411,740 times
Reputation: 1988
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mozart271 View Post
Not exactly. There are no "4 shots" of testosterone from the mother. The testosterone is produced by the male fetus's testes, which have differentiated into testes under the influence of the Y chromosome. This testosterone causes the formation of male genitalia. (Without the Y, the structures that become testes would become ovaries.) There are rare XY babies who are born with female-looking external genitalia, or ambiguous genitalia, and this is due to an abnormal non-responsiveness of the tissues to the fetal testosterone, not to any lack of "testosterone shots" from the mother. (Think about it: if the mother produced high enough levels of testosterone to cause male fetal genital development, what would happen to her own secondary sex characteristics?)
That isn't exactly what I learned, but the basic lesson remains. Regardless of how, without the deliverance of the testosterone at the proper time, a girl results with an xy chromosome or somewhere in between. Any xy fetus that develops without the testosterone does not develop into a male - it retains the default female features, tho it won't be fertile. That is the true he/she.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-04-2008, 06:06 PM
 
1,003 posts, read 1,348,808 times
Reputation: 669
Come on now! This is blasphemous! Don't you believe in Adam and Eve?? You know, Eve was created from one of Adams ribs. If you don't believe it..you won't go to heaven.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 12-05-2008, 01:50 PM
 
Location: Maryland
3,540 posts, read 4,099,510 times
Reputation: 941
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaniMae1 View Post
The thread about the belly buttons got me thinking....All embyos start out with female features, that's why men have nips! So wouldn't seem like women may have came first? I mean I have no real deep thoughts on this. It just popped in my head one day.
As a theist, who is not a biblical literalist, I'm not sure if the
first homo-sapien was male or female.

The book of genesis is vague about gender anyway.

Come to think of it though, I have an easier time of it imagining a woman bossing around a bunch of monkeys
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $79,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Religion and Spirituality > Atheism and Agnosticism
Similar Threads

All times are GMT -6.

2005-2014, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25 - Top