Saturday, December 12, 2009

Proof of Evolution. Click here for the story.

24 comments:

  1. That's not evolution, idiot. There is no such thing, and that is DEFINITELY not proof. That is a chick who decided to be a dude... who OBVIOUSLY didn't get all her insides removed. Very possible to have a kid... since it's really a female.

    ReplyDelete
  2. I think its evolution, Look you couldn't have transgeder people having babies back in the Stone Age or during WWII but now you can. Somthing is happening.

    ReplyDelete
  3. Is THIS your proof of evolution?! This is only proof of advances in medical science. This tranny was not born that way, hence did not evolve (root word of 'evolution') that way. It's just a woman that DOCTORS made look like a man showing that she still is technically, in fact, a woman.

    ReplyDelete
  4. This is 4chan material at best.

    ReplyDelete
  5. I don't think this really proves humanity's transition towards transgendered people. I am more than willing to listen to any additional proof you have but until a child is born which is transgendered AND capable of procreating naturally (without medical or scientific assistance) there isn't very much to support your theory. I think we will start seeing test tube babies, possibly making natural human procreation moot, well before any evolutionary transition to transgenderism.

    ReplyDelete
  6. HOW is that evolution, you dumbass cunt? You're a shame for science AND religion. god DAMN.

    ReplyDelete
  7. idiot, that's a girl that went through surgery to look like a man.

    that's not evolution

    If a man mutilates his dick and puts boobs on, he wouldn't be able to give birth to a child.

    and guess why??? because men don't evolve to transgender beings, they just mutilate themselves.

    ReplyDelete
  8. While I respect your right to state your opinions concerning tolerance of sexual diversity in this country (and agree that homophobia needs to come to an end), I disagree with your deliberate disregard for scientific and journalistic honesty. The statements you’re making here are completely false, as I will explain in a moment, but I would like to say this first: by presenting blatant fabrications as scientific fact, you’re detracting from the credit, validity, and integrity of an argument that has biological support. Further, you’re deterring a group of people who use their work and influence to help your own cause. In other words…don’t shit where you eat, lady. Seriously.

    So, first of all, the “pregnant man” story is in no way an example of evolution. Not even close. The pregnant man was born a woman and chose to undergo gender reassignment surgery. During the course of this surgery, his internal female reproductive organs were not fully eliminated, thus, Thomas was still anatomically capable of pregnancy after his surgery. So this pregnancy had absolutely nothing to do with his gender reassignment: to his internal female reproductive organs, there was little difference post-surgery (besides the obvious endocrine changes associated with male hormone therapy and the fact that the outdoor exit became more of a walk down a long hallway rather than pulling open the curtains). Further, evolutionary changes require that traits can be genetically passed on to future generations; that is, there must be DNA sequencing differences that both code for male pregnancy and are present in the male’s sperm. Neither of these
    requirements was met in Thomas’ situation. Because the gender reassignment came about because of an external, artificially-created process (surgery), it is not reflected in any way in his DNA. It would be the same situation as getting your right arm chopped off as a child, directly resulting in your child would be born without a right arm. That’s not how it works. Further, they did not use Thomas’ sperm to fertilize the egg. He is not capable of producing sperm himself, he lacks the genes and anatomical/physiological/morphological structures for that. The sperm that was used to inseminate the egg was in fact donated by an Oregon doctor. Thus, the paternal genetic contribution to the egg is that of the doctor, not Thomas. Thus, even if hypothetical male pregnancy genes were reflected in DNA, the offspring would not possess this trait as they have DNA sequences that existed in Thomas pre-surgery. In fact, they used Thomas’ eggs. Now, every female
    human is born with all the eggs she will ever produce, about 1 – 2 million, dropping to around 400,000 when the female begins puberty due to process called atresia. Since a.) these eggs were presented and had DNA sequences that existed prior to surgery, b.) surgery would not change the genetic information encoded in the eggs regardless, and c.) genetic information such as male pregnancy would likely be encoded in male gametes (which Thomas did not provide), no genetic material pertaining to male pregnancy would be passed on to the offspring.

    You also seem fond of stating that human evolution is moving towards a transgender society. Now, while I will not argue against the fact that homosexuality is supported as a natural biological phenomenon (hell, I’m gonna give you reasons why it is natural), that statement also isn’t true, for analogous reasons to why the pregnant man story doesn’t reflect evolution. The general definition of transgender states "Non-identification with, or non-presentation as, the sex (and assumed gender) one was assigned at birth." So for the same reasons above, the occurrence of characterizing oneself as transgender cannot be genetically passed on and thus cannot be reflected in evolution.

    ReplyDelete
  9. Here’s what I think you need to concentrate on if you would like to lend support to a pro-tolerance, pro-diversity, and pro-honesty cause. You need to look into the actual biological bases of homosexuality. For the first few weeks after conception, all fetuses are essentially female unless a gene included in male DNA kicks in which sets off the Wolfian system, in which a hormone known as the anti-Mullerian hormone inhibits female development and causes the synthesis of testosterone and dihydrotestosterone. Now, because these two hormones are involved in the masculinization of a fetus, and because testosterone is a precursor to estradiol (an estrogen), high levels of any of these three hormones are capable of masculinizing the female body or brain. A phenomenon known as X inactivation is also indicated in the development of homosexuality: mothers of homosexual men exhibit a higher frequency of skewing of X inactivation in comparison to mothers of
    heterosexual men. There are a number of sexually dimorphic brain structures (meaning different between men and women), including the suprachiasmatic nucleus, anterior commisure, and a bunch of others I don’t feel like listing, where it has been observed that these parts of the brain in homosexual men resemble analogous female structure rather than heterosexual male structure.
    To sum it up: there’s a bunch of information out there to prove you’re lying, and there’s no reason to lie when you could just use some of the large body of research in favor of your argument. So stop it. It’s even more annoying than reading all of this was for you.

    ReplyDelete
  10. 1) Again, this has nothing to do with the movie Avatar, nor it's supposed heterosexual agenda.

    2) You once again demonstrate your ignorance towards evolution. This is not an example of it. This is a person who was born with functional female genitals who decided to live life as a man. The fact that this man is able to get pregnant is a consequence of how he was born and doesn't demand any extra explaining from science. The only thing this is proof of is that women can carry babies. Congratulations.

    3) Even if men *were* able to evolve to carry a child, such a process would take millions of years and would not happen over night. Evolution is a slow process. It is NOT the process by which Kitty Pryde wakes up one day and finds that she can walk through walls. It is simply the process by which organisms become better suited to survive in a given environment.

    ReplyDelete
  11. But Allison you are admitting that the man is pregnant.

    ReplyDelete
  12. Oh my god zodis. It is a fucking woman that is pregnant. A woman that underwent a cosmetic procedure.

    ReplyDelete
  13. WAS a woman. Now a man who gave birth.

    ReplyDelete
  14. A man with full functioning female genitalia. Evolution is natural without any medical help.

    And looking at it this way.

    A monkey in a business suit. Human? Certainly not. Quite funny, but not human. Still a monkey.

    A woman with a male appearance, whether it's intentional or not, is still a possible child-bearing woman.

    ReplyDelete
  15. Unfortunately, Lara, you are so irritatingly stupid that you have driven me to rant.

    YOU ARE SO MOTHERFUCKING STUPID IF YOU ACTUALLY BELIEVE THAT SELF-MUTILATION DUE TO A MENTAL SYNDROME IS EVOLUTION. A MAN CHOPPING OFF HIS PENIS AND HAVING A TITJOB DOES NOT MAKE HIM A WOMAN. HE CANNOT HAVE CHILDREN. A WOMAN SEWING HER VAGINA CLOSED, ATTACHING A PENIS TO HER GROIN, AND REMOVING HER TITS CANNOT PRODUCE SPERM TO CREATE A CHILD. EVOLUTION IS THE GRADUAL CHANGE OF ORGANISMS THROUGH NATURAL SELECTION. HOMOSEXUALS ARE GENETIC DEAD ENDS. GAYS CANNOT PROCREATE, THUS REMOVING THEMSELVES FROM THE GENE POOL AND INCREASING THE SURVIVAL OF THEIR SPECIES.

    You're still a dude, dude.

    ReplyDelete
  16. All this does is prove that even if you get your genitals mutilated to look like the opposite sex's genitals you are still biologically the same sex you started as.

    In other words...once a chick, always a chick, even if you have a dick. Congratulations on disproving transgenders as something that works.

    ReplyDelete
  17. just to inform you, that's a woman you idiot, and yes, i called you an idiot, not for being homo, but for trying to use this for a lost cause, I'm bisexual and think that this blog is just stupid since you are protesting agains a movie just because it's protagonist is not gay? what's that? you are just nuts, get a life

    ReplyDelete
  18. No it is not evolution, it is intervention. And for all those peple called "Anonymous" who keep saying surgery does not make etc. Funny how the tune changes when it is intersex children being put under the knife, of yes you say it makes a boy or a girl then don't you.

    As for this pregnant man business, is it a publicity stunt or something?

    All of this makes no sense, on both sides of the "debate"

    ReplyDelete
  19. This is not proof at all. That is merely a woman there, who is trying to be a man. Which she can't be because she was born a woman, and thinks more like one than a man.

    I hate to burst someone's bubble, but there are somethings that science simply cannot achieve and a man giving birth is one of them!

    ReplyDelete
  20. This isn't evolution. If it is, it means we are getting thicker since you actually believe this is considered advancement.

    What really happened was the guy used to be a girl, and somebody obviously left a hole open. End of story.

    ReplyDelete
  21. There is nothing amazing about a "man" that has female internal organs because that person was born a female, and still is a female who just wants to look and act like a man.
    That's not evolution, that's mental.

    ReplyDelete
  22. This guy had a sex change, no evolution proof there.

    ReplyDelete
  23. WHERE'S YOUR PROOF, KRAY?

    ReplyDelete