A few years ago a noted physicist equated popular science books and elementary science education with telling lies to children. Since most people don’t know the specialized mathematics, arcane measurements and abstruse tests behind most advanced scientific theories they after reading a book or taking a couple of science courses are under the sad impression that they know far, far more than they do.
Take this:
To create a male, a copy of the Female template, the Mother’s body must recognise the broken chromosome present within the male’s sperm which has entered Her body. A Woman’s chromosomes are XX. Two perfectly formed shapes which convey Her characteristics to the fetus. The male’s chromosomes can either be XX (thus ensuring a Female birth) or XY (conferring his damage to the fetus and causing a male). An X chromosome has all four “limbs” stemming form the central nexus. The Y has three limbs stemming form the center, the fourth one having been sheared off. A Y is nothing more than a broken or damaged, mutated X. It is the male of the species which confers sex to the offspring because damage results from damage, not from Perfection. Once the damaged chromosome is identified, the Female body bathes the developing fetus in hormones which halt the development of Female characteristics and force the formation of the inferior male structures.
“You *are* the Weakest Link! Goodbye!” and the baby is consigned to the role Nature designed for it. Observe the human body and you will see that the male form contains within it the structures of the Female, but mutated, withered and/or altered.
Many people repeat this weird balderdash and variations because it – in their minds – justifies zany theories of female supremacy.
One can only imagine what a gifted geneticist like Richard Dawkins would think of he encountered this.
Originally posted 2008-11-08 21:38:43. Republished by Blog Post Promoter
Related posts:
FLR’s ultimately have to, as the name implies, relationships if they are to last. The specifics that strengthen and energize any particular such relationship would seem to be very personal. So, I guess if any particular act heightens the emotional charge between the partners,it’s good and it’s hot. I it doesn’t do something for both,it is unlikely to.
I am sorry to say I have seen this in many gender feminist circles including Elise Sutton’s. Even New York Times Columnist Maureen Dowd mentioned such pseudo science stating that men are going extinct in her politically correct book “Are Men Necessary”. Denigration of men, boys, marriage, husbands, fathers and masculinity in general seem to be in vogue. Just turn on the T.V. to see the constant stream of inept males. I don’t really understand how we have gotten so far away from harmony between the sexes. We are further apart than ever before that is for sure. 40% single woman birth rate and cohabitation taking the place of marriage. The gender war is on and we are seeing the casualties mount, and it is not just men and boys as feminists hoped it would be…
The text is scientifically wrong to start with! Without starting a biology lesson I can only say my biology trained mind boggles at this kind of rubbish. I can only assume they have never ever read anything about the basics of genetics.
Female body is more perfect than male body. Female have more capabilities for pleassure than male.
And you know this from your previous life as a female I assume?