Why Do Men Have Nipples?

[flowperson]

Q :

Think of it as a template to create human beings. The great programmer in the sky made us all in His/Her image. Looking at the history of modern humans, it is a generally accepted scientific fact determined through analysis of mitochondrial DNA, which is only passed down in a matrilineal mode, that modern women preceeded modern men by several thousands of years. The embryological sequence in early human development is only reflective of that historical fact, Genesis stories notwithstanding.

In mathematical parlance, one of the most symmetrical and balanced forms is known as a rhomboid homotopy. It eerily resembles a female torso and suggests the form of those little venus statues dating back 20,000-30,000 years which were also some of the first works of art found in ancient habitation sites in caves across Europe.

It seems many stories in the good book were thinly veiled attempts to provide men with priority in the creation saga, even though it doesn't seem to be true based upon current findings.

And Ms. Becky...I sure like the way that you think. Welcome to CR.

flow....

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by flowperson

Q :

Think of it as a template to create human beings. The great programmer in the sky made us all in His/Her image. Looking at the history of modern humans, it is a generally accepted scientific fact determined through analysis of mitochondrial DNA, which is only passed down in a matrilineal mode, that modern women preceeded modern men by several thousands of years. The embryological sequence in early human development is only reflective of that historical fact, Genesis stories notwithstanding.

In mathematical parlance, one of the most symmetrical and balanced forms is known as a rhomboid homotopy. It eerily resembles a female torso and suggests the form of those little venus statues dating back 20,000-30,000 years which were also some of the first works of art found in ancient habitation sites in caves across Europe.

It seems many stories in the good book were thinly veiled attempts to provide men with priority in the creation saga, even though it doesn't seem to be true based upon current findings.

And Ms. Becky...I sure like the way that you think. Welcome to CR.

flow....

Ah, flow, couldn't it simply be said that the human fetus is androgenous in the womb, until the dna switches start flipping on and off, in order to customize the new model about to come out of the shop's body bay?

[wil]

Originally Posted by Quahom1

Ah, flow, couldn't it simply be said that the human fetus is androgenous in the womb, until the dna switches start flipping on and off, in order to customize the new model about to come out of the shop's body bay?

What is the issue here Q? I'm not understanding. This is akin to denying the earth is not the center of the universe....once new information is on the table we must move forward unless of course we have counter information which overshadows it.

My Uncle who had three daughters says it is easier to make a girl, you got the pattern right in front of you. Unscientifically, we have a pattern that is started with and then some modifications are made in the process.

Hmmm I've got to read the stories, is it possible that G-d started with Lillith?

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by wil

What is the issue here Q? I'm not understanding. This is akin to denying the earth is not the center of the universe....once new information is on the table we must move forward unless of course we have counter information which overshadows it.

My Uncle who had three daughters says it is easier to make a girl, you got the pattern right in front of you. Unscientifically, we have a pattern that is started with and then some modifications are made in the process.

Hmmm I've got to read the stories, is it possible that G-d started with Lillith?

I was trying to keep it simple...

[flowperson]

Hi Guys:

I would like nothing better than to keep things simple. but science keeps screwing up the plan. Yes. I think it would make more sense philosophically if the androgyne approach were embraced, since that correlates with the beliefs of the ancients with regard to the nature of the Great Spirit, but then we have what science tells us. Let's just blame the hormones and enzymes... huh ?

flow....

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by flowperson

Hi Guys:

I would like nothing better than to keep things simple. but science keeps screwing up the plan. Yes. I think it would make more sense philosophically if the androgyne approach were embraced, since that correlates with the beliefs of the ancients with regard to the nature of the Great Spirit, but then we have what science tells us. Let's just blame the hormones and enzymes... huh ?

flow....

Actually I was being serious. DNA determines who will be what, and "switches are actually thrown" in accordance with what the DNA (blueprint), determines. Horomones are after the fact. Once the zygote and spermatizoa combine, the sex is determined. The DNA is formed and the rest is history. I just like keeping the picture simple. I'm fully aware of how bodies and physical genders are formed, but then this isn't a biology lab either...

[flowperson]

Actually Q, DNA and RNA together determine final outcomes. Then there's a lot of repetitive copies of what is called junk DNA in the genome that seems to perform duplicative programming functions, kind of like a conductor in front of the musicians in an orchestra, and they seem to enable the timing, release, and flow of hormones and enzymes in order to execute the master plan determined at conception. Sort of "if , then " mechanisms.

Lots of research has shown that environmental factors outside of the zygote can and do profoundly affect its development, even at the very early stage. It was just shown this week that if a mother smokes regularly prior to conception, the chances of the baby that eventually is born will smoke are increased three fold. Just think of what the 60,000 unnatural chemicals present in our environment these days might be doing to our children before they are born over time, and these defects and/or enhancements through environmental exposure are becoming more intrusive each year.

Even though you would like there to be a simple answer to this, there really can't be one. Perhaps G-d made it more simple at the beginning, but we've sure made it more complicated and risky over the past 200 years or so. And it is my opinion that we are changing into something quite different than we have been and are used to fairly rapidly now because of the environmental factors that we have created and brought to bear on the reproductive process.

flow....

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by flowperson

Actually Q, DNA and RNA together determine final outcomes. Then there's a lot of repetitive copies of what is called junk DNA in the genome that seems to perform duplicative programming functions, kind of like a conductor in front of the musicians in an orchestra, and they seem to enable the timing, release, and flow of hormones and enzymes in order to execute the master plan determined at conception. Sort of "if , then " mechanisms.

Lots of research has shown that environmental factors outside of the zygote can and do profoundly affect its development, even at the very early stage. It was just shown this week that if a mother smokes regularly prior to conception, the chances of the baby that eventually is born will smoke are increased three fold. Just think of what the 60,000 unnatural chemicals present in our environment these days might be doing to our children before they are born over time, and these defects and/or enhancements through environmental exposure are becoming more intrusive each year.

Even though you would like there to be a simple answer to this, there really can't be one. Perhaps G-d made it more simple at the beginning, but we've sure made it more complicated and risky over the past 200 years or so. And it is my opinion that we are changing into something quite different than we have been and are used to fairly rapidly now because of the environmental factors that we have created and brought to bear on the reproductive process.

flow....

RNA interprets DNA into proteins (a cousin if you will). The "junk" DNA is yet to be finalized as "junk". (a theory, not yet proven fact). Outside influences have nothing to do with the initial combination of genetic codes that make one male or female.

It is quite simple. Everyone starts out as a block of cells, with their "blueprints" established, once zygote and spermatizoa meld. The rest is simply steps in development. That is where your outside factors may or may not kick in.

Every cell in our bodies contain the entire set of blueprints (DNA) we were originally configured with. The collective result is what one sees in the mirror, albeit more or less damaged from the original due to outside factors, but none the less...

The androgenous form of man is static. The variations (genders) are not. Once the genetic sequences of the double helix are set, the sex is set. If male, then genitalia becomes exposed and outward, fat does not build up in the upper chest area between skin and muscle, glands do not mature and aureali remain dwarfed. Upper body expands and increases, pelvic area remains fixed. Fat layer between skin and muscle overall remains limited. Skeletal structure and musculature above the torso is enhanced, as is height. Brain design is divided between emotion and logic, with logic dominating the thought process. Sensory stimuli capacity is enhanced in the visual and aural sensory, yet diminished in the tactile, and olfactory.

If female, the converse is true.

There are exceptions to the rule, of course, both from within and without, but they are exceptions, not the norm.

Biology 101.

[sara[h]ng]

To be technical, flow's right on this one.

There are a lot of mechanisms of non-directly-genetic inheritance or development. For example, the way a snails shell curls, the arrangement of patches on a calico cat, or even the fact that an organism's head is at one end and it's tail (or lack of, in our case ) is at the other. Some of this is determined by the cytoplasm in the single-celled egg, or the genotype of the mother (as opposed to the organism's OWN genotype) or by chemicals released from the mother which affect which genes are turned on or off.

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by sara[h]ng

To be technical, flow's right on this one.

There are a lot of mechanisms of non-directly-genetic inheritance or development. For example, the way a snails shell curls, the arrangement of patches on a calico cat, or even the fact that an organism's head is at one end and it's tail (or lack of, in our case ) is at the other. Some of this is determined by the cytoplasm in the single-celled egg, or the genotype of the mother (as opposed to the organism's OWN genotype) or by chemicals released from the mother which affect which genes are turned on or off.

you mean flipping switches? (lol)

if so, I win.

[sara[h]ng]

Not in the example of cytoplasmic inheritance or of the maternal effect (HER genotype instead of what you would expect). But sure, some of it's 'switches' and yeah, that is an easy way to think about it, if not accurate enough for study or understanding beyond what the layman needs. The point is that the blueprints of the cell are frequently changed or adjusted by outside forces.

Maybe flow and I have half a win and you have half a win for this one.

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by sara[h]ng

Not in the example of cytoplasmic inheritance or of the maternal effect (HER genotype instead of what you would expect). But sure, some of it's 'switches' and yeah, that is an easy way to think about it, if not accurate enough for study or understanding beyond what the layman needs. The point is that the blueprints of the cell are frequently changed or adjusted by outside forces.

Maybe flow and I have half a win and you have half a win for this one.

not bad for a "sailor"...

[flowperson]

Yeah..I'll take the other half, but we are talking about dynamic and changing situations here. Once conception takes place and a genomic blueprint is made in the first cell it isn't always cast in stone. A whole host of dynamical interactions can and do affect continuing development of the fetus, including cases where sexual ambiguity is perpetuated in form to birth due to environmental influences.

It's getting so bad in the animal kingdom, and remember that we're part of that also, that there are lots of male fish of several species that are laying eggs and doing other sorts of female things. One of the places that this trend is growing is off the west coast of the U.S. around Los Angeles. Maybe it's the bad angels that are doing these changing of gender thingys...huh?

flow....

[flowperson]

Hello All:

I found something today that bears upon the information in this thread.

flow....

www.nytimes.com/2006/12/02/us/02child.html?_r=1&oref=slogin&pagewanted=all

[Quahom1]

Originally Posted by flowperson

Hello All:

I found something today that bears upon the information in this thread.

flow....

www.nytimes.com/2006/12/02/us/02child.html?_r=1&oref=slogin&pagewanted=all

have to be a member to read the rest...