Cecilie1200
Diamond Member
Ask yourself why you continue to reject science. Ask yourself while every single living scientist, PhD, and high school dropout understands that XX or XY chromosomes determines gender, while you deny it.Ask yourself why a cell turns into a heart muscle cell while another turns into a brain cell?
Ask yourself why you insist on embarrassing yourself.
You really do not know any science and have not asked any one who does know science.
Here is an example that proves you wrong once again.
Pesticide atrazine can turn male frogs into females
{...
Pesticide atrazine can turn male frogs into females
By Robert Sanders, Media relations | MARCH 1, 2010
Atrazine, one of the world’s most widely used pesticides, wreaks havoc with the sex lives of adult male frogs, emasculating three-quarters of them and turning one in 10 into females, according to a new study by University of California, Berkeley, biologists.
The 75 percent that are chemically castrated are essentially “dead” because of their inability to reproduce in the wild, reports UC Berkeley’s Tyrone B. Hayes, professor of integrative biology.
“These male frogs are missing testosterone and all the things that testosterone controls, including sperm. So their fertility is as low as 10 percent in some cases, and that is only if we isolate those animals and pair them with females,” he said. “In an environment where they are competing with unexposed animals, they have zero chance of reproducing.”
The 10 percent or more that turn from males into females – something not known to occur under natural conditions in amphibians – can successfully mate with male frogs but, because these females are genetically male, all their offspring are male.
“When we grow these guys up, depending on the family, we will get anywhere from 10 to 50 percent females,” Hayes said. “In a population, the genetically male females can decrease or wipe out a population just because they skew sex ratios so badly.”
Though the experiments were performed on a common laboratory frog, the African clawed frog (Xenopus laevis), field studies indicate that atrazine, a potent endocrine disruptor, similarly affects frogs in the wild, and could possibly be one of the causes of amphibian declines around the globe, Hayes said.
Hayes and his UC Berkeley colleagues report their results in this week’s online early edition of the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences. In last week’s issue of the Journal of Experimental Biology, Hayes and colleagues published a review of the possible causes of a worldwide decline in amphibian populations, concluding that atrazine and other hormone-disrupting pollutants are a likely contributor because they affect recruitment of new individuals and make amphibians more susceptible to disease.
“These kinds of problems, like sex-reversing animals skewing sex ratios, are much more dangerous than any chemical that would kill off a population of frogs,” he said. “In exposed populations, it looks like there are frogs breeding but, in fact, the population is being very slowly degraded by the introduction of these altered animals.”
Some 80 million pounds of the herbicide atrazine are applied annually in the United States on corn and sorghum to control weeds and increase crop yield, but such widespread use also makes atrazine the most common pesticide contaminant of ground and surface water, according to various studies.
...}
This also happens to higher order organisms, including humans.
DNA is NOT at all final. All DNA does is transcribe certain hormones, but if other contrary hormones are present in sufficient quantity, then the fetal development will be contrary to what the DNA itself would have caused.
P@triot, take a moment to really absorb the irony of being told that you "do not know any science" by a person who then goes on to explain at length why DNA has nothing to do with an individual's characteristics or development. Rather breathtaking, no?
The problem is you are not reading well and clearly do not understand what I wrote.
I never said that "DNA has nothing to do with" sexual development.
My POINT has always been that DNA can't do it directly, and instead has to remotely control sexual development through hormones, and the problem with that is externally applied hormones, such as from pesticides can over ride the DNA hormones.
So a mismatch between DNA and actual sexual organ development is possible.
Which means you can't look at fetal development, such as penis or vagina, and know whether the DNA is XY or XX.
There is NOT a one to one correspondence.
And that confusion is even more complicated by the fact the mismatch can end or begin also in the 13 year interval between conception and puberty.
So anyone saying that DNA is absolutely definitive, and is claiming XY is male and XX is female, is just totally and completely wrong.
DNA normally and commonly controls, but does not have absolute control, so in SOME percentage of the population there WILL be a mismatch between DNA and actual gender.
And this is not just from pesticides.
There are dozens of illnesses, nutritional causes, etc. that can cause this mismatch.
And the fact these gender problems exist is also easily proven by simply remembering that hermaphrodites exist, with the physical genitalia of both genders. There is no way DNA can do that. But yet it happens, so there has to be the potential for the DNA to be over ridden and something else happening, contrary to the DNA. But we also know there are DNA combinations such as XYY, and XXY, that you have not even begun to take into account. It is just totally and completely wrong to believe there is ONLY XX and XY, or that DNA is absolutely definitive. It clearly can NOT be.
The problem is that you neither read NOR write well, and are now trying to backpedal because you belatedly realized what a complete ass napkin you sound like.
Let's review, shall we?
"Your DNA can't directly make anyone male, female, or anything."
"And you forget that chromosomes do not actually dictate anything,"
Just to digress a moment, I wish I had seen THIS gem when you initially said it, because I can always use a good laugh.
"If different concentrations of estrogen/testosterone are present for some other reason, (such as pesticides or illness), and at the right time, you can have XX with a penis and XY with a vagina, and a decade later when puberty hits, by then things can be totally switched around once again."
Now, back to the topic of whether or not you "never said DNA has nothing to do with sexual development":
"Chromosomes dictate nothing.
Hormones dictate everything, "
"DNA transcribes RNA, that then produces hormones.
And then it is the hormones that determine everything about how the body grows, including gender.
Gender is outside of any cell, and is a group organization of cells.
Which can ONLY be done by hormones.
DNA can't do anything outside of its single cell.
All body growth, positioning, shape, and anything multicellular, is hormones, ALL hormones." - This was an absolute masterpiece of "DNA creates hormones, but DNA isn't in charge, hormones are!" Hilarious.
"How is the DNA inside one cell going to go to other cells and make them differentiate to become part of a penis or part of vagina.
DNA can't and does not do that." - Amazing straw man there.
"And how do you propose for DNA to coordinate multiple cells to make up a colony organ?" - Also a creative straw man
"It is important to know that because there are also many other things that produce competing hormones, and that the DNA can and is ignored in those circumstances."
But here's the serious prize of a post:
"Anyone who knows any biology at all, knows that DNA can't possibly control gender directly.
Gender has to do with how cell differentiation and specialization are controlled, between different cells.
The DNA inside a single cell is identical to the DNA inside every other cell, and can not possibly directly effect anything outside of the cell. The only thing that can interact between cells are hormones. So it is hormones that cause cells to differentiate into either penis or vagina cells.
And once you learn that, is should be obvious that although ideally DNA should control the production of hormones that then control gender, any external addition of different hormones can easily over ride the hormones made by the DNA.
It is obvious that DNA can not control gender directly. Gender is outside of any one cell. So forget the simplistic false impression you memorized in the past. It is wrong."
I wish to God I had not missed your earlier posts. If I had realized that you actually believe there are people walking around with XX chromosomes and penises (and vice versa) NOT because of medical alteration but because of exposure to pesticides, I would have been mocking your Cro-Magnon ignorant ass SOOOO much harder than I have been up to now.