Re: evolution (Re: Disproving theory)

[Guest guest]

Doug wrote:

>I don't think this is true. The first sexual reproduction

>consisted of cells sharing DNA with each other before

>dividing. In that case, it didn't matter which gave and

>which received (or perhaps, each did both). Eventually

>some species developed a system where some individuals were

>always donors (male) and other always receivers (female).

Now we're back to language (and how it can affect/disrupt

communication) again. Science language has codified our

perceptions in language to such an extent that we automatically

see male as active, female as passive.

Jane

[Guest guest]

Doug O'Neal wrote:

> >

> > The female representation makes more sense, given that female is

> > the primary gender (male is a mutated version of female),

>

> I don't think this is true.

....

I wish I could remember more of the biology of embryonic development. I

know that in many species, a female embryo will develop as a female

unless it is exposed to testosterone. Not to mention that the " y "

chromosome is a mutated (truncated) X chromosome.