Understanding through Discussion


Welcome! You are not logged in. [ Login ]
EvC Forum active members: 78 (8905 total)
Current session began: 
Page Loaded: 04-24-2019 1:48 AM
25 online now:
Dr Adequate, Dredge, PaulK, Pressie (4 members, 21 visitors)
Chatting now:  Chat room empty
Newest Member: WookieeB
Post Volume:
Total: 850,134 Year: 5,171/19,786 Month: 1,293/873 Week: 189/460 Day: 5/29 Hour: 5/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Prev1234
5
Author Topic:   Nipples
Rrhain
Member
Posts: 6349
From: San Diego, CA, USA
Joined: 05-03-2003


Message 61 of 64 (513015)
06-23-2009 11:48 PM
Reply to: Message 59 by caffeine
06-23-2009 3:31 AM


caffeine writes:

quote:
I've been unable to find out if this is true, but I remember reading somewhere that all human embryos begin to develop vans deferens. If it is, then I don't think it makes sense to describe early embryos as females - they're undifferentiated.

Close, but not quite.

All human embryos are hermaphrodites up until about the 53rd day of gestation. A human embryo has complete structures for both a uterus and Fallopian tubes as well as for the vas deferens and epididymis along with a single set of undifferentiated gonads.

The vas deferens is not just rejiggered Fallopian tubes. Instead, the embryo has both Mullerian ducts which will become Fallopian tubes if the fetus develops along female lines and Wolffian ducts which will become the vas deferens if the fetus develops along male lines.

This is what allows hermaphrodites to exist in the first place: You need to have both sets of structures in order to have both develop.

Again, I highly recommend Hormones: Messengers of Life for more details.


Rrhain

Thank you for your submission to Science. Your paper was reviewed by a jury of seventh graders so that they could look for balance and to allow them to make up their own minds. We are sorry to say that they found your paper "bogus," specifically describing the section on the laboratory work "boring." We regret that we will be unable to publish your work at this time.
This message is a reply to:
 Message 59 by caffeine, posted 06-23-2009 3:31 AM caffeine has not yet responded

Replies to this message:
 Message 62 by Coyote, posted 06-24-2009 12:20 AM Rrhain has not yet responded

    
Coyote
Member (Idle past 215 days)
Posts: 6117
Joined: 01-12-2008


Message 62 of 64 (513016)
06-24-2009 12:20 AM
Reply to: Message 61 by Rrhain
06-23-2009 11:48 PM


So what you are saying is that there is a vas deferens between males and females, eh?
This message is a reply to:
 Message 61 by Rrhain, posted 06-23-2009 11:48 PM Rrhain has not yet responded

  
themasterdebator
Inactive Member


Message 63 of 64 (514192)
07-04-2009 4:09 PM
Reply to: Message 33 by Peg
03-25-2009 5:58 AM


"it makes sense because animals live by instinct but humans live by law

whats the difference between the two?

animals are subject to instict but humans are submissive to law

If evolution was the answer, then humans would be subject to instinct like every other animal on the planet... but we are not. We choose to live by laws and therein lies evidence of design rather then randomness. "

False, virtually every social animal in the world is subject to law. Dogs have a set of rules required in a pack, including leadership and laws against murder and such. If 1 dog were to kill a fellow pack member, the other dogs would likely turn against him. If a dog wants to become a leader of the pack, it must become the alpha male as the alpha male is the one in charge. They have a set order in place as with any social creature.

Humans are subject to instinct also. Survival and mating form the core of any society on earth. We have strong instincts toward these two behaviors(are brains are wired to care significantly more for family members and those around us than for strangers). This is shown true in the similarity of basic legal tenants in societies. IE Don't murder or Don't force yourself upon anothers mate. The only difference is humans have more complex legal systems, but that does not mean we dont have them.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 33 by Peg, posted 03-25-2009 5:58 AM Peg has not yet responded

  
themasterdebator
Inactive Member


Message 64 of 64 (514193)
07-04-2009 4:18 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by Peg
03-30-2009 2:22 AM


"Yes we have an instinct to eat, But some people will choose not to eat when hungry...anorexics are one example...people on hunger strikes are another. This shows that humans are not BOUND by instinct in the way other animals are."

Animals have been shown to go into depression and not eat and anorexia is simply the expression of another instinct, the drive to look attractive to the opposite sex.

"The instinct to care for offspring is very strong amongst all animals...except for humans who readily will kill their offspring ie abortion. Or they will neglect them and not care for them properly."

This is complete BS. Pandas for instance have been known to kill their off spring if they believe they cant care for them. Other species have also been known to kill offspring if they view it as weak.


This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by Peg, posted 03-30-2009 2:22 AM Peg has not yet responded

  
Prev1234
5
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2018 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.0 Beta
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2019