The left's rejection of science

[Cecilie1200]

Ask yourself why a cell turns into a heart muscle cell while another turns into a brain cell?

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 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.

 

[Rigby5]

Ask yourself why a cell turns into a heart muscle cell while another turns into a brain cell?

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 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.

You obviously are willfully ignorant.
Clearly there are XX chromosome animals and humans with penises due to pesticides and illnesses. And there are YX chromosome animals and humans with vaginas due to pesticides and illnesses. I have documented it.
Chromosomes do not directly assure gender, but only indirectly influence gender through hormones. Anything disrupting or over riding hormones can easily cause a mismatch between DNA gender and actual physical gender.
Anyone who knows biology knows this.
Probably even every farmer knows this.

And by the way, Cro-Magnons were the early hominids who were smarter than we are now. They had larger brains, flatter faces, pointier chins, etc. It was Neanderthals who were likely more primitive. What we are currently is likely from the cross breeding between them.

{...
As for Cro-Magnons, they're pretty much just like us. They take their name from a cave in France where Louis Lartet found them in 1868. (Well, he found their skeletons. They had died a while before.) Unlike Neanderthals, Cro-Magnons are not a separate species from Homo sapiens. In fact, they're the earliest known European example of our species—living between 35,000 and 10,000 years ago—and are actually modern in every anatomical respect. They did, however, have somewhat broader faces, a bit more muscle, and a slightly larger brain.
...}

 

[Rigby5]

Just to add some more reading material for those who have never learned the fact DNA and fetal gender development do not have to match.

A Woman... With Male Chromosomes?

{...
Women With Male DNA All Female

• By MARY HANAN

Aug. 11, 2008
...
Atwood is not a freak -- nor is she half-man, half-woman. But her DNA says she's a man. That's because she has male chromosomes, an X and a Y, instead of two Xs, like most females. It's a disorder of sexual development in the womb called Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome, or AIS. It can be passed down through the mother or occur as a spontaneous mutation.

"There are probably about seven-and-a-half thousand people, women, in the U.S. with the condition," said Dr. Charmian Quigley, a pediatric endocrinologist.

Despite the male chromosomes, Quigley said, women with AIS are just that -- women.

"They have a vagina, like anybody else's," she said, "but it's basically just a pouch, it's not connected to a uterus. There is no uterus. But what they have internally is testes that you would typically find in a male."

It turns out the doctors had lied to Atwood about having twisted ovaries. She really had internal testicles.

Androgen Insensitivity Syndrome
All of us, men and women, have a mix of male and female hormones running through our systems. And as you might expect, the testes of women with AIS produce huge amounts of the typically male hormone testosterone. But here's the hitch: their bodies can't process any of it. And amazingly, they turn it into the typically female hormone estrogen, giving them much more estrogen than the average woman.

These women don't get acne, and have no body odor and minimal sweating. In essence, they are the furthest thing from a male that there could be.

...}

 

[Rigby5]

http://discovermagazine.com/1992/jun/turningaman62

{...
The vast majority of us are born unmistakably male or female and remain that way throughout life. We have all the sexual parts appropriate to a single gender, with no discordant pieces. It is very rare indeed that you find among humans true hermaphrodites--individuals possessing both male and female gonads.

However, there are some unfortunate individuals called pseudohermaphrodites, whose sex presents an ambiguous appearance. At the births of thousands of babies each year in the United States, the obstetrician can’t pronounce, It’s a girl! or It’s a boy! but must confess, I’m not sure what it is. Like Barbara, some appear to be born as girls but develop as boys at puberty. Some have a vagina and female external organs but lack such internal organs as ovaries and fallopian tubes; instead, they have certain male internal organs, like seminal vesicles, as well as testes hidden up in the body.

Most of these walking mosaics of sex manage to survive this adversity: indeed, their stories are moving testimony to humans’ ability to cope with the injustice that can be dealt out by nature. But their stories are also instructive, for they shed light on a number of basic questions that concern all of us. Foremost among them are the questions: What actually determines our gender? How could the mechanisms that determine something so fundamental go so wrong?
...
But there’s more to a man than testes alone. A penis is among the many other obvious necessities, just as women need more than ovaries--for example, it helps to have a vagina. To form the penis, vagina, and other sex organs, the embryo is endowed with other all-purpose sexual structures besides the primordial gonad. However, unlike the case of the testes, the development of these structures is not directly specified by the Y chromosome. Instead, these structures are channeled toward male organs by secretions of the testes themselves, while a lack of testicular secretions channels them toward female organs.

For example, in the eighth week of gestation the testes begin producing the hormone testosterone, some of which gets converted into the closely related substance dihydrotestosterone, or DHT. Such hormones are called androgens. DHT goes on to convert some all-purpose embryonic structures into the glans penis, penis shaft, and scrotum. Those same structures would otherwise develop into their female equivalents: the clitoris, labia minora, and labia majora.

Barbara grew up as an apparently normal girl enjoying a happy childhood. As her teenage years approached, she looked forward to experiencing the same sexual development she saw in older girls. Gradually, however, she began to have a vague sense that the expected changes weren’t happening in her. By the age of 14 she was really worried: she had not yet menstruated and her breasts showed no signs of growth. What she did have was a pain in her left groin that eventually subsided, only to be replaced by the appearance of a mass in the left side of her labia. With growing shock, she felt her voice dropping, her facial hair growing, and her clitoris enlarging to become more and more like a penis.

After Barbara’s sixteenth birthday, her penis developed erections, she produced ejaculations, and she found herself feeling a sexual interest in girls. By now she had become convinced that she was really a boy and that the mysteriously shifting mass within her was in actuality a testis. But Barbara still struggled with the problem of how to present herself to her parents and friends, before whom she avoided being caught naked. She knew they had to suspect something. When they found out, would they ridicule her--or him--as a freak?
...}

 

[Rigby5]

Woman with 95% MALE DNA gives birth to twins in what doctors describe as a 'medical miracle' | Daily Mail Online

{...
Woman with 95% MALE DNA gives birth to twins in what doctors describe as a 'medical miracle'

• Indian woman sought fertility treatment and discovered she was 95% male
• Had never gone through puberty, menstruated and had no ovaries
• Had an undeveloped uterus which doctors treated for 12 months
• Donor egg fertilised with her husband's sperm was implanted in her womb
• Gave birth to twins, becoming the sixth case of such a pregnancy globally

...
The 32-year-old had an intersex condition, in which she had the physical appearance of a woman, but more than 95 per cent male chromosomes.

In humans, gender is determined by chromosomes. Women have XX chromosomes, while men have XY chromosomes.
The woman, whose chromosomes were almost entirely XY, did not undergo puberty and had never menstruated.

It was discovered she had an intersex condition when she went to seek fertility treatment in order to become pregnant.

'When we investigated further we found that she had a very small vagina and an infantile uterus,' fertility specialist Dr Sunil Jindal said.
An infantile uterus is an undeveloped womb.

Doctors diagnosed her with XY gonadal dysgenesis, in which a person has external female characteristics but ovaries that don't function, the Times of India reports

Ovaries are usually necessary for reproduction, as they create and release the eggs from which babies grow.

The lady underwent more than 12 months of hormonal and other medical treatment to develop her 'infantile uterus' and allow her to eventually conceive.

Her husband's sperm was used to fertilise a donor egg which was then implanted in the woman's uterus, which had been developed by the fertility treatment.

Once she became pregnant, doctors had to overcome another problem.

'Our biggest challenge was how to administer this pregnancy for nine months in a body not designed for it,' said Dr Anshu Jindal, medical director at Jindal Hospital, where the babies were delivered, told the Times of India.

On Friday she gave birth to a boy and girl.

'This is akin to a male delivering twins,' said Dr Jindal from the hospital in Meerut city, some 70 kilometres (43 miles) northeast of New Delhi.

Dr Jindal said his team of doctors discovered during their research that there had only ever been five reported cases of such pregnancies in the world.

'It's nothing short of a medical miracle. We are really happy that we could pull it off.'

He said the woman was startled to learn she had the condition, but was determined to undergo the treatment to get pregnant.

'Even she did not know she had this condition and was flabbergasted when we told her about it. But the husband was very supportive and told her "no matter what you continue to be my wife",' he said.

The babies were born through Caesarean section, weighing 2.25 kilos (4.9lb) 2.50 kilos (5.5 pounds) each.

...}

 

[Wyatt earp]

Uh...yes (dumb ass). Acne. Pubic hair. Underarm hair. Hips widen.
The ignorance of the left in all of its glory. Hormones do not dictate gender, dumb ass. Chromosomes dictate gender. And chromosomes don’t change. Ever.

Wrong, things like acne, underarm hair, and pubic hair are not gender specific.
We were talking about being able to tell which gender when puberty starts.
And hip widening is not universal or gender specific.

Chromosomes dictate nothing.
Hormones dictate everything, and hormones can change due to environmental things like pesticides, illness, or other sources of hormones.

What a scientific genius. "Chromosomes dictate nothing, HORMONES dictate it." And what, Gregor Mendel, dictates the hormones? Yes, they can be affected by pesticides and illness and such, but are you suggesting that every human who has ever lived to adulthood on this planet went through puberty because pesticides or illness triggered their hormones?

In the immortal words of Bugs Bunny, "What a maroon."

And how do you propose for DNA to coordinate multiple cells to make up a colony organ?

Just . . . wow. I can't even . . . wow.

How DNA Works

I just . . . no. I can't. Wow.

From your own link:

{...
In cells that do not constantly divide, the cues for DNA replication/cell division come in the form of chemicals. These chemicals can come from other parts of the body (hormones) or from the environment.
...}

DNA can not possibly directly control the formation and growth of anything multi celluar, like sexual organs.
So that has to be remotely controlled by the DNA production of hormones.
And the whole point is that hormones from the environment, such as pesticides can and do easily over ride the hormones the DNA produces.
So anyone who does not understand that an XY male fetus can grow a vagina and an XX female fetus can grow a penis, does not understand biology.

Pesticide's are artificial/man made...try try try again....

 

[Rigby5]

Wrong, things like acne, underarm hair, and pubic hair are not gender specific.
We were talking about being able to tell which gender when puberty starts.
And hip widening is not universal or gender specific.

Chromosomes dictate nothing.
Hormones dictate everything, and hormones can change due to environmental things like pesticides, illness, or other sources of hormones.

What a scientific genius. "Chromosomes dictate nothing, HORMONES dictate it." And what, Gregor Mendel, dictates the hormones? Yes, they can be affected by pesticides and illness and such, but are you suggesting that every human who has ever lived to adulthood on this planet went through puberty because pesticides or illness triggered their hormones?

In the immortal words of Bugs Bunny, "What a maroon."

And how do you propose for DNA to coordinate multiple cells to make up a colony organ?

Just . . . wow. I can't even . . . wow.

How DNA Works

I just . . . no. I can't. Wow.

From your own link:

{...
In cells that do not constantly divide, the cues for DNA replication/cell division come in the form of chemicals. These chemicals can come from other parts of the body (hormones) or from the environment.
...}

DNA can not possibly directly control the formation and growth of anything multi celluar, like sexual organs.
So that has to be remotely controlled by the DNA production of hormones.
And the whole point is that hormones from the environment, such as pesticides can and do easily over ride the hormones the DNA produces.
So anyone who does not understand that an XY male fetus can grow a vagina and an XX female fetus can grow a penis, does not understand biology.

Pesticide's are artificial/man made...try try try again....

First of all, there are lots of illnesses and medical conditions that can cause a mismatch between DNA and physical gender as well as pesticides, but who cares if pesticides are artificial?
The point is that there are humans with XX DNA but still have a penis that was grown as a fetus and not made surgically.
And there are humans with XY DNA that have a vagina that was grown as a fetus and not made surgically.
The point is the mismatch is not intentional and done as an adult.

 

[hadit]

Wrong, things like acne, underarm hair, and pubic hair are not gender specific.
We were talking about being able to tell which gender when puberty starts.
And hip widening is not universal or gender specific.

Chromosomes dictate nothing.
Hormones dictate everything, and hormones can change due to environmental things like pesticides, illness, or other sources of hormones.

What a scientific genius. "Chromosomes dictate nothing, HORMONES dictate it." And what, Gregor Mendel, dictates the hormones? Yes, they can be affected by pesticides and illness and such, but are you suggesting that every human who has ever lived to adulthood on this planet went through puberty because pesticides or illness triggered their hormones?

In the immortal words of Bugs Bunny, "What a maroon."

And how do you propose for DNA to coordinate multiple cells to make up a colony organ?

Just . . . wow. I can't even . . . wow.

How DNA Works

I just . . . no. I can't. Wow.

From your own link:

{...
In cells that do not constantly divide, the cues for DNA replication/cell division come in the form of chemicals. These chemicals can come from other parts of the body (hormones) or from the environment.
...}

DNA can not possibly directly control the formation and growth of anything multi celluar, like sexual organs.
So that has to be remotely controlled by the DNA production of hormones.
And the whole point is that hormones from the environment, such as pesticides can and do easily over ride the hormones the DNA produces.
So anyone who does not understand that an XY male fetus can grow a vagina and an XX female fetus can grow a penis, does not understand biology.

Pesticide's are artificial/man made...try try try again....

Actually, many plants produce their own pesticides.

 

[Wyatt earp]

What a scientific genius. "Chromosomes dictate nothing, HORMONES dictate it." And what, Gregor Mendel, dictates the hormones? Yes, they can be affected by pesticides and illness and such, but are you suggesting that every human who has ever lived to adulthood on this planet went through puberty because pesticides or illness triggered their hormones?

In the immortal words of Bugs Bunny, "What a maroon."

And how do you propose for DNA to coordinate multiple cells to make up a colony organ?

Just . . . wow. I can't even . . . wow.

How DNA Works

I just . . . no. I can't. Wow.

From your own link:

{...
In cells that do not constantly divide, the cues for DNA replication/cell division come in the form of chemicals. These chemicals can come from other parts of the body (hormones) or from the environment.
...}

DNA can not possibly directly control the formation and growth of anything multi celluar, like sexual organs.
So that has to be remotely controlled by the DNA production of hormones.
And the whole point is that hormones from the environment, such as pesticides can and do easily over ride the hormones the DNA produces.
So anyone who does not understand that an XY male fetus can grow a vagina and an XX female fetus can grow a penis, does not understand biology.

Pesticide's are artificial/man made...try try try again....

First of all, there are lots of illnesses and medical conditions that can cause a mismatch between DNA and physical gender as well as pesticides, but who cares if pesticides are artificial?
The point is that there are humans with XX DNA but still have a penis that was grown as a fetus and not made surgically.
And there are humans with XY DNA that have a vagina that was grown as a fetus and not made surgically.
The point is the mismatch is not intentional and done as an adult.

Because you are trying to justify and go against basic biology to push your agenda .


.

 

[Wyatt earp]

What a scientific genius. "Chromosomes dictate nothing, HORMONES dictate it." And what, Gregor Mendel, dictates the hormones? Yes, they can be affected by pesticides and illness and such, but are you suggesting that every human who has ever lived to adulthood on this planet went through puberty because pesticides or illness triggered their hormones?

In the immortal words of Bugs Bunny, "What a maroon."

And how do you propose for DNA to coordinate multiple cells to make up a colony organ?

Just . . . wow. I can't even . . . wow.

How DNA Works

I just . . . no. I can't. Wow.

From your own link:

{...
In cells that do not constantly divide, the cues for DNA replication/cell division come in the form of chemicals. These chemicals can come from other parts of the body (hormones) or from the environment.
...}

DNA can not possibly directly control the formation and growth of anything multi celluar, like sexual organs.
So that has to be remotely controlled by the DNA production of hormones.
And the whole point is that hormones from the environment, such as pesticides can and do easily over ride the hormones the DNA produces.
So anyone who does not understand that an XY male fetus can grow a vagina and an XX female fetus can grow a penis, does not understand biology.

Pesticide's are artificial/man made...try try try again....

Actually, many plants produce their own pesticides.

Do they cause mutants in humans? BTW I forgot about that, thanks for rwreminding me.

 

[hadit]

And how do you propose for DNA to coordinate multiple cells to make up a colony organ?

Just . . . wow. I can't even . . . wow.

How DNA Works

I just . . . no. I can't. Wow.

From your own link:

{...
In cells that do not constantly divide, the cues for DNA replication/cell division come in the form of chemicals. These chemicals can come from other parts of the body (hormones) or from the environment.
...}

DNA can not possibly directly control the formation and growth of anything multi celluar, like sexual organs.
So that has to be remotely controlled by the DNA production of hormones.
And the whole point is that hormones from the environment, such as pesticides can and do easily over ride the hormones the DNA produces.
So anyone who does not understand that an XY male fetus can grow a vagina and an XX female fetus can grow a penis, does not understand biology.

Pesticide's are artificial/man made...try try try again....

Actually, many plants produce their own pesticides.

Do they cause mutants in humans? BTW I forgot about that, thanks for rwreminding me.

I don't know offhand if they cause mutations, but some are poisonous to humans. Interesting. I'll have to see if any plants are known, for example, to cause birth defects, ie, introduce mutations.

 

[Cecilie1200]

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 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.

You obviously are willfully ignorant.
Clearly there are XX chromosome animals and humans with penises due to pesticides and illnesses. And there are YX chromosome animals and humans with vaginas due to pesticides and illnesses. I have documented it.
Chromosomes do not directly assure gender, but only indirectly influence gender through hormones. Anything disrupting or over riding hormones can easily cause a mismatch between DNA gender and actual physical gender.
Anyone who knows biology knows this.
Probably even every farmer knows this.

And by the way, Cro-Magnons were the early hominids who were smarter than we are now. They had larger brains, flatter faces, pointier chins, etc. It was Neanderthals who were likely more primitive. What we are currently is likely from the cross breeding between them.

{...
As for Cro-Magnons, they're pretty much just like us. They take their name from a cave in France where Louis Lartet found them in 1868. (Well, he found their skeletons. They had died a while before.) Unlike Neanderthals, Cro-Magnons are not a separate species from Homo sapiens. In fact, they're the earliest known European example of our species—living between 35,000 and 10,000 years ago—and are actually modern in every anatomical respect. They did, however, have somewhat broader faces, a bit more muscle, and a slightly larger brain.
...}

We're back to . . . wow. Just wow.

I THINK you're trying to talk about XX male syndrome, but since you keep saying "due to pesticides", so that you can keep claiming it's all about hormones instead of that "useless" DNA, it's really hard to be sure.

For the record, XX male syndrome is incredibly rare, AND it's caused by a genetic defect in the chromosomes passed on by the father. In other words, it's still about DNA. It's about as relevant to this discussion as hermaphroditism is.

 

[Cecilie1200]

Woman with 95% MALE DNA gives birth to twins in what doctors describe as a 'medical miracle' | Daily Mail Online

{...
Woman with 95% MALE DNA gives birth to twins in what doctors describe as a 'medical miracle'

• Indian woman sought fertility treatment and discovered she was 95% male
• Had never gone through puberty, menstruated and had no ovaries
• Had an undeveloped uterus which doctors treated for 12 months
• Donor egg fertilised with her husband's sperm was implanted in her womb
• Gave birth to twins, becoming the sixth case of such a pregnancy globally

...
The 32-year-old had an intersex condition, in which she had the physical appearance of a woman, but more than 95 per cent male chromosomes.

In humans, gender is determined by chromosomes. Women have XX chromosomes, while men have XY chromosomes.
The woman, whose chromosomes were almost entirely XY, did not undergo puberty and had never menstruated.

It was discovered she had an intersex condition when she went to seek fertility treatment in order to become pregnant.

'When we investigated further we found that she had a very small vagina and an infantile uterus,' fertility specialist Dr Sunil Jindal said.
An infantile uterus is an undeveloped womb.

Doctors diagnosed her with XY gonadal dysgenesis, in which a person has external female characteristics but ovaries that don't function, the Times of India reports

Ovaries are usually necessary for reproduction, as they create and release the eggs from which babies grow.

The lady underwent more than 12 months of hormonal and other medical treatment to develop her 'infantile uterus' and allow her to eventually conceive.

Her husband's sperm was used to fertilise a donor egg which was then implanted in the woman's uterus, which had been developed by the fertility treatment.

Once she became pregnant, doctors had to overcome another problem.

'Our biggest challenge was how to administer this pregnancy for nine months in a body not designed for it,' said Dr Anshu Jindal, medical director at Jindal Hospital, where the babies were delivered, told the Times of India.

On Friday she gave birth to a boy and girl.

'This is akin to a male delivering twins,' said Dr Jindal from the hospital in Meerut city, some 70 kilometres (43 miles) northeast of New Delhi.

Dr Jindal said his team of doctors discovered during their research that there had only ever been five reported cases of such pregnancies in the world.

'It's nothing short of a medical miracle. We are really happy that we could pull it off.'

He said the woman was startled to learn she had the condition, but was determined to undergo the treatment to get pregnant.

'Even she did not know she had this condition and was flabbergasted when we told her about it. But the husband was very supportive and told her "no matter what you continue to be my wife",' he said.

The babies were born through Caesarean section, weighing 2.25 kilos (4.9lb) 2.50 kilos (5.5 pounds) each.

...}

Gosh, I'm glad you spammed us with three long posts about irrelevancies to hide the fact that "I'm a man because I 'feelz' like one" is utter horseshit.

Whenever you'd like to quit digressing down tangents and actually address the topic of the vast, overwhelming majority of people who are NOT showing rare genetic birth defects, DO let us know, won't you?

 

[P@triot]

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 best part about this Cecilie1200 is that he is literally proving the premise of this thread. He’s a lefty completely and totally rejecting basic science.

It is indisputable that XX chromosomes produce a girl and XY chromosomes produce a boy. And yet here is a lefty denying it.

 

[P@triot]

Clearly there are XX chromosome animals and humans with penises due to pesticides and illnesses.

Pesticides don’t create penises, snowflake. Chromosomes do.

 

[Votto]

.

My god, you need help...Jesus...

You attack Evolution
You attack the green house effect

You make shit up that doesn't even make sense and fight to defund the research but have the nerve to point fingers at the left? lol

You're anti-science and anti-civilization..Truly a backwards piece of shit on the level of the isis.

The issue for me is that science is politicized.

Yes, there is climate change, always have been. In fact, scientists say that dinosaurs produced more carbon emission because of passing gas than mankind produces today.

Did they fart their way into extinction?

(Shrug)

After all, all we are doing is digging them back up and re-releasing their carbon that once roamed the earth.

Which leads me to the solutions presented to combat carbon emissions. Taxation? Really? How is that helping? I suppose you could argue that people are taxed out of producing a little less carbon, but scientists say that it has next to no effect on the issue today, yet everyone acts as though Trump pulling out of the Paris agreement will destroy the globe. Hilarious! It's just another money making scheme like social security where what is not paid out is taken with a worthless IOU left behind. Sure, some of the money goes where it is suppose to go, like research for other energy sources, but most of it is just scammed off the tax payers.

Then we are led to believe that banning plastic straws will save mother earth? Really?

Are there really 57 sexes?

Does life begin only when the fetus passes from the womb? Does the Birth Fairy, in fact, exist as she waves her magic wand over the unborn fetus as it passes from the womb, thus making it human?

Why is it that the Left is convinced that science is our only hope of salvation regarding fixing issues like the carbon emission problem when it is science that taught us how to exploit fossil fuels that produce carbon emissions in the first place?

In fact, what can destroy us? Is it not WMD's? Who gave us those? Aliens? No, scientists did.

I am become death, the destroyer of worlds.
J Robert Oppenheimer


Knowledge through science is what can destroy the human race, so it is only wisdom that can save us.

What can science tell us about wisdom? Oh, that's right, wisdom sounds like that religious stupid talk, my bad. You know, like the story of the Garden of Eden where Adam and Eve partook of the tree of Knowledge as they disobeyed God bringing death to mankind. Did they not discard with wisdom of God?

Well what do you know? The Bible was right all along.