My eyes have been opened. All this time, I've simply been taking for granted a common biological theory, and now that I've been alerted to the controversy, I've had to rethink the evidence. I've merely assumed that sexual reproductionism is valid. This fellow has completely ripped the idea apart.
Despite the assertion that the Theory of Sexual Reproduction is "settled" and "well-accepted," it still remains just one theory. And beneath the veneer of acceptance, controversies abound. Take for instance, the key idea of the conjecture, namely that a "sperm" fuses with an "egg." No one has actually seen this take place (sperm is supposedly microscopic and invisible to the naked eye, which makes things rather convenient). The only supporting evidence is the fact that one has sex and shoots several milliliters of white-ish liquid into a female partner and nine months later one finds a very young individual where previously there was none. But this is merely correlative evidence and not necessarily a causative one. Not only that, it is a weak correlation. There have been reports of many instances where the production of the white emenation (commonly referred to as "jizz" or "jizzm") clearly did NOT result in a baby nine months later. Of course, no Sexual Reproductionist has bothered quantifying the correlation by determining its R value. One should also mention that nine months is a very long latency period - and many important factors may be initiated during this time which are themselves the real causative agents or integral supporting events.This is just the beginning. There are other, deeper, problems which are more fundamental to the aforementioned theory. Why, for instance, are there so many sperm (millions, according to the currently accepted hypothesis) when there is only one egg to fertilize? Does this not betray the notion of parsimony which is a central tenet of biological systems?
Problems range far beyond the "sperm-egg fusion" conjecture. Indeed, when it comes to the post-fusion phase - the so-called field of "embryology" - the plethora of questions, issues, contradictions, and plain ignorance is too numerous to state in a short paper such as this. For example, what accounts for the totipotent-pluripotent transition that occurs prior to the blastocyst stage? Why do cells clump together suddenly at the 8-cell stage? What accounts for the trophoblast/ICM differentiation in the 16-cell morula? How can one explain the event known as gastrulation which allegedly occurs at Day 14 - the process which results in the formation of germ cells, and 3 distinct germ layers - a monumental event of "individuation" which even sexual reproductionists have referred to as "miraculous"! These are events that have completely and utterly baffled sexual reproductionists, and have left them stumped. No complete, satisfying, absolutely coherent theory has been proposed to answer these questions - and the best offered are small, qualified conditional theories based on excruciatingly-detailed, molecular-level experiments (possibly overkill, in our scientific opinion) which seem tepid, tentative and inadequate to say the least. Given the fact that such fundamental questions remain unanswered within the current paradigm, one can only question the very foundations upon which this crumbling edifice known as "Sexual Reproduction" is built. In fact, one must wonder how this "theory" became accepted at all.
Whoa. When you put it all that way…
I also realized something else. By a conservative estimate, my wife (she's the only one who counts) has had sex roughly 3000 times so far, yet she's only been pregnant 3 times. I can't even be sure the sexual act was directly responsible for the pregnancies, since it's not as if we only had sex for procreative reasons, and to be honest, we spend far more time not having sex than we do having it (yes, that does seem a waste! This new theory is ripe with revelations like that.) There does seem to be a disjunct between the action and the consequences. For all I know, there could have been some other completely ordinary, common activity that my wife engaged in that led to reproduction. Maybe housework induces it—which would also explain why men very rarely get pregnant, and which would be an extremely handy excuse I could use.
The author of this learned, scholarly hypothesis actually provides several other much more likely explanations, though—theories that have the weight of tradition and experience behind them.
It's too bad we're in the last few weeks of my developmental biology course. I could have presented this at the beginning, and it would have put the whole subject in a radically different light. It would also have simplified the class a great deal to skip over those darned "excruciatingly-detailed, molecular-level experiments".
- Log in to post comments
More like this
There are some fellows who will go to any lengths to explain their chronic virginity.
Well, I guess that answers the classic femminist question 'Are Men Necessary?' Nope.
You forget the biggest implausibility of all - getting a watermelon-sized fetus out thru a hole that small.
I mean, come on! Who are those Sexual Reproductionists trying to kid?
Absolutely,
Look here
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&li…
This is clear evidence that dogmatic sexual reproductionists have infiltrated our schools and censored our textbooks! I say teach the controversy!
There's something not quite right about it, though. Isn't that Corey Strobeski, the student quoted, a bit too intelligent and articulate to be a real student?
Are you sure that this person is serious and not just trying to paint ID in the light it should be seen?
I mean - come on. We do not know absolutely everything about the early reproductive cycle (despite being able to produce it in vitro). So therefore the hypothesis that sexual intercourse causes pregnancy is wrong! And therefore *insert woo here* is correct!
PZ, shame on you for not properly crediting the author of this theory: John Pelembell, the "Associate Professor for Biology, Euphoric State University". You also neglect the alternatives: the Stork Theory, the Cabbage Patch Theory, and the (admittedly lightly regarded) Found Beneath a Bridge Hypothesis.
I like the author's name.
Reproductive Biology - A New Synthesis
by M. A. Charlatan, M.S., Ph.D., D.Phil, M. Div
This is comic genius!
And, of course, the Bible's ag'in it...
Best part of all, at the end:
You also neglect the alternatives: the Stork Theory, the Cabbage Patch Theory, and the (admittedly lightly regarded) Found Beneath a Bridge Hypothesis.
No, no, no. Indescribable Production has nothing to do with any of those. And it's not the same as Toilet Seatism, either. The manner of how babies are produced are hardly a matter for science. It makes the simple scientific argument that babies are produced indescribably.
3000 times, 30 years, 365 days a year...
once every 4 days. Hmmmm....
...
...
In fact, there is ample Biblical evidence for a second theory of reproduction:
Admittedly, there's some stuff just previous to this which mentions the baby's "mother" becoming "pregnant" and "giving birth to a son." But this may be just metaphorical.
Could be we're all found among the bullrushes.
...
...
What about Irreproductive Complexity. It has clearly proven beyond reasonable doubt that sexual reproduction is impossible whithout the guiding of an Inteligent Agent of supernatural nature. This is a great blow to the evil atheistic sexual reproductionists and just another proof for Incubusism.
Its all very well talking about the 4 cell stage, the 8 cell stage and the 16 cell stage but where are the transitional stages ? Shouldn't there be 5, 6 and 7 cell stages ?
The lack of evidence of these forms I think clearly suggests that the materialistic theory of reproduction is crumbling !
Storktelligent design theory shall overcome your objections - once it gets past that pesky peer review thingy.
And if "Sexual Reproduction" is true, how is it there are POTTIES + STORKS??
"...my wife (she's the only one who counts) has had sex roughly 3000 times so far..."
This is what's commonly known as "Too Much Information," PZ! You're going to be ducking flying dishes later on.
No one has actually seen this take place (sperm is supposedly microscopic and invisible to the naked eye, which makes things rather convenient).
Hm, if only there were some kind of device that could make small things appear bigger. You know, something that could magnify those tiny sperm. Maybe it could even make it big enough to see a sperm enter an egg? Nah, its not possible.
Mmmm...Satire is tasty.
From the footnotes:
1) The author has nothing to declare. He is currently unfunded, but has three grants pending - one at the NIH, one at the NSF and one at Toys R Us. Questions about employment, postdoctoral fellowships etc should be directed to the Indescribable Institute.
Got to love it!
Ahem. PZ, since YOU brought it up ...
If N is the number of times a husband has been intimate with his wife, there is nothing in nature demanding that the wife may not have had sex N+1 times. Or more.
Sometimes women have better senses of humor than we men give them credit for.
If children come from parents, why are there still parents?
wow... you made my day
According to
This Modern World, it was "secular reproductionists" - why do they hate the stork so much?
This is all fine and good but how does it answer the most pressing questions of the day? Questions such as "how many angels can dance on the point of a collapsed quantum wave."
I mean come on people, we're trying to save a culture here! Buck up! No, this is not a reference to deer boinking. Sheesh, ya try n have an adult conversation..........
"...my wife (she's the only one who counts) has had sex roughly 3000 times so far..."
....and how many times were you gentle?
Boy, I can't wait to read Skatje's comment on this post.
And, Ross: (chuckle).
There were reportedly tribes in Indonesia that apparently didn't believe in the link between mating and reproduction. But I think the consensus among anthropologists is now that these tribes were, to use the technical term, "taking the piss".
Mmmm...Satire is tasty.
Are you implying that I didn't realize the article was satire?
"3000 times, 30 years, 365 days a year...
once every 4 days. Hmmmm...."
I suspect the rate function over time is not constant, and probably not linear. I suspect an exponential decay, but hopefully one with a non-zero assymtote.
That's kind of ambiguous. Do you mean this in the sense, "she's the only one who matters", or do you mean that she's the one who is actually keeping count? I'm picturing, like, Excel bar charts up on your bedroom walls or something.
People are neglecting Protestant sex, as explicated in Monty Python's The Meaning of Life:
Are you implying that I didn't realize the article was satire?
How could anyone not realize it was satire after the first line and the lack of Gumbies in the background?
"Ya mean...I had the vasectomy...fa nothin"?!
Of course, there's at least one *well documented* (cough cough) case of birth which was preceded by absolutely no sexual intercourse whatsoever (commonly refered to as the virgin birth). See Luke 1:34, Matthew 1:18, The Bible, 43-168 AD.
Then again, there is only the one documented case. I've also noticed that there does seem to be a requirement for both males and females to be present. I base this empirical observation on repeated viewing of "Lesbian Lust Warriors of Mars" wherein no females become pregnant and no males are present. Likewise, no males became pregnant during during the Shackleton - Scott polar expedition of 1901-1904, and there where no females present in that case, despite there being adequate time.
3000? Is that all?
I suspect the rate function over time is not constant, and probably not linear. I suspect an exponential decay
...specific data for frequency of sexual intercourse by age include:
20-somethings: tri-weekly
40-somethings: try weekly
60-somethings: try, weakly
This paper reminds me (vaguely) of an old theoretical ecology discussion: Why Are Juveniles Smaller Than Their Parents? . So many parameters of organismal life histories, including their size at various ages, are evolutionarily responsive to the species' ecology, but it seems parents are *always* larger than their offspring. An inquiring mind took up the challenge...
The Straight Dope:
http://www.straightdope.com/classics/a3_210.html
This calls the very idea that we were all the product of Maculate Conceptions into question. It always seemed funny to me that Sin would be involved.
Author: M. A. Charlatan, M.S., Ph.D., D.Phil, M. Div
HAH!
Took the words right out of my mouth, raincoaster. 'Nuff said.
Also notice the author's assumption that the reader is a male and women are passive recipients.
Well, he has explained the Virgin Birth of Jesus. Mary got pregnant washing dishes.
Some anthropologists have pinned the fall of neolithic matriarchy on men learning that the girls didn't get pregnant by waving their asses into the air or by moistening their privates down at the water hole.
Boy, am I glad I'm such a slob.
Boy, am I glad I'm such a slob.
` Of course. It is traditional knowledge that sex = babies. Nowadays we know better, yet it is a mark of civilization to adhere to these ancient beliefs. In fact, many people don't even believe it is true. They say spirits hiding in food and things like that make babies! There are many alternate explanations! Foolish beasts of the field, we think we are so civilized!
` As for me... I figure as long as I watch what I eat, I'll be fine.
` ...Y'know, this article reminds me of that website that challenges the theory of gravity and stuff!
` Also, I once wrote a screenplay of that stork theory comic strip on my blog once. Doesn't work so well, though.
ROFLROFL! There goes the miracle of Immaculate Ejaculation.
"my wife (she's the only one who counts)"
So your are saying a girl from (ie with :-) the student body doesn't count? I hope your wife doesn't see this.
"has had sex roughly 3000 times"
If you don't count, how do we know for sure? I ask for a more rigorous study.
3000.
That's it?
And you're how old?
My sympathies.... :P
Not all the time, eg they can get bigger before getting smaller again:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pseudis_paradoxa
http://www.kidsbiology.com/animals-for-children.php?animal=Paradoxical%…
By a conservative estimate, my wife (she's the only one who counts) has had sex roughly 3000 times so far
I know you didn't mean "count" in a transitive sense, but I have this image of your wife wearily reaching up to the bedroom wall and chalking off her 3000th mark....
Hee, thanks SEF. Another beautiful generalization ruined by a nasty brutish factoid.
I suppose I should have specified "always larger than their offspring at birth". It's not clear that these infants are longer at birth ... and anyway, it's just not fair when the life-history includes several distinct morphologies like tadpole/frog.
The sad thing is I know this lady (she got pregnant very young) that still SWEARS that she got pregnant by sitting in a toilet... I'm not kidding!! So there's even proof for a new theory: babies come from toilets.
Is that a paleo-con or a neo-con estimate? From the Brookings Institute, the Heritage Foundation, or the Family Research Council? Has it passed peer review, or could it have been stovepiped?
Unless that figure came from one of the few remaining reliable conservative analysts (say, John Dean or Kevin Phillips), you might be well-advised to disregard the number on grounds of false specificity and continue independent research within your own lab team.
By a conservative estimate, my wife (she's the only one who counts) has had sex roughly 3000 times so far
Amateur.
So there's even proof for a new theory: babies come from toilets.
Then they band together to form conservative Christian think tanks.
Yes, those frogs are clearly cheating. Just like reality must be whenever it dares to contradict something a religious person wants to believe. It therefore has to be time to move a goal-post ... or even two of them, if you are planning on claiming both length at "birth" and possession of more than one shape after birth. :-D
If necessary one can probably get them on some other charges (trumped up ones or technicalities) as per the Not The Nine O'Clock News sketch. Why stick to traditional ones after all, given the call to teach the controversy - however imaginary and contrived.
One could easily make a case for them having the thick rubbery lips. The loud shirt might have to be a loud skin or croak. Or, like the Queensland lungfish, their crime might be that of living in an area soon to be built-up in some fashion. They probably wouldn't live long enough to get through a long court case and appeals process.
Then one can discount the idea of them ever having reproduced at all. It was merely an evolutionist rumour or something.
So ... they hate sex because we, their enemies, reproduce sexually, and they do not?
Explains much.
Speaking of weird things that people believe about reproduction, I know a lady that had a sexual encounter, thought she was pregnant, nothing happened. About a year and a half later she told me that she was sure she would have the baby some time soon. She claimed that she still was pregnant and that the nine months thing was just an average. She had no concept of gestation in humans or animals. She was raised in some very hard core church thing but had broken away.
Supposedly, the reason that so many fairy tales feature a Wicked Uncle, is that when women got pregnant all by themselves (just them and the east wind, so to speak), a child's closest male relatives were the mother's brothers.
(East = yeast = teeming with life, as in Easter, the spring festival)
o.k, please tell me you're all joking. As a woman who has been pregnant twice, I simply cannot grasp this.
It's gonna make me look like an idiot in a minute if you're all taking the piss.
If this is serious then ok, who am I to question your beliefs? I will admit that I have not looked into this subject in much depth, and I can't stand people who bitch about something they know nothing about.
All I want to say is that I dissagree strongly, because I have a right to say that. Like you guys have a right to voice your opinions on this.
There's also evidence against the "9 month" myth that reproductionists continue to ignore. Just a few days ago I was talking to a Navy vet who told me about his (first) wife's pregnancy. He had been at sea for quite some time, and doing the math, he realized that her gestation period period lasted 19 months! Explain that, reproductionists!
You think Reproductionists are wierd, theres this group called "humanists". They think this odd creature--some sort of terminally bald primate they call "humans"--lives on this distant, spherical ball of rock (a "planet"). They move around without using gas bladders, instead balancing on two deformed lobe fins. Instead of communicating using phermones like we Shuggoths do, "humans" make a deafening screeching noise. Positions of power are given to the ones who can make the most annoying screeches. Many humanists think the other humans do this to make the annoying one shut up. Humans are also said to worship gods [i]they make up on the spot[/i], and do not acknowledge the existence of Cthulhlu!
I have seen many insane Shuggoths in my line of work, but humanists have to be the craziest.
Yes Abi, we are all taking the piss. (Well, I'm not sure about the Shuggoths)
...
......
............
Yes.
It's a joke.
(Specifically, it's an application of the sorts of arguments Creationists typically make against evolution to another subject which is more difficult for the average person to regard as dubious in order to illustrate the absurdity of said arguments.)
Ross:
Sex is like pinball: you have to know when to be gentle and when to be rough. And if you're good enough, the next time, you won't have to pay.
ROFLROFL! There goes the miracle of Immaculate Ejaculation.
"my wife (she's the only one who counts)"
So your are saying a girl from (ie with :-) the student body doesn't count? I hope your wife doesn't see this.
"has had sex roughly 3000 times"
If you don't count, how do we know for sure? I ask for a more rigorous study.