Can evolutionists answer this?

Question

When and why did evolution decide to punish women for having multiple partners?

Within the last few years (I don't know exactly when) scientists found a link between a womans reproduction system and her immune system.

The first time she has intercourse, the DNA is imprinted. after this when a mans DNA is injected, it is checked against the imprint. If it is the same, everything is ok. If it is different, the imprint is removed and the knew DNA is imprinted. This can only happen 2 times. Even if the 3 DNA is the same as the first, it still is the 3rd imprint. After this the immune system will attack the next 3 mens DNA, even if one is from a previous man. then the immune system will step down a level. I do not know what that means exactly, but I do know it means the woman can get sick easier, and recovers slower.

This link serves no purpose if evolution is true, and would in fact hinder a womans ability to have babies from different fathers if anything happened to the first one.

Answer 1

It is hard to come up with an evolutionary theory on how or why this is possible with out reading the data you are describing.  I am very interested in this... is there a way that you can send me the link to the data you are using so that I may read it and respond with a more intellegent answer to your question?  I do not like to assume anything... and I like to check that the information came from a reputable, valid source.  Thanks... this is quite interesting and I would love to read more on it!

Answer 2

this is christian nonsense.  there is no science to support that... and no objectively thinking scientist would support that.

Answer 3

Evolution is the cold, cruel reality of nature. Such things have to be _accepted_. There is a massive body of irrefutable evidence that evolution has occured throughout the history of life on Earth and that it continues to occur today (hence, the appearance and proliferation of drug-resistant strains of bacteria such as S. aureus, a new strain of which typically takes less a decade to occur in response to the development of a new drug).

Fundamentalist Christians often claim that God put all that "evidence" there to test our faith. However, they fail to see that this contradicts completely their belief that God loves us and cares for us. Such a God would not "test" us in order to have an excuse to throw us into h**l.

Therefore, unless you believe that all of this evidence is completely fabricated and that scientists are part of a global conspiracy to lead us astray (but what would they gain from this?) you have to accept evolution.

That being said, evolution is cruel. It is impersonal. But without it, you couldn't exist.

Now to your question. First of all, I do _not_ believe that what you said was true, or, rather, I am unwilling to take it at face value. I am genuinely interested and if you can find the article, I would be glad to read it. However, if this is an argument for creationism, then I have to talk again about the concept of the loving, caring God.

If God is loving and caring, then he won't punish anybody for actions which don't hurt others. And I don't see how having sexual relations with multiple partners is really "immoral". Or, rather, you may call it immoral because it conflicts with your religious beliefs. In that case, I would have to ask you why morals should be any different from _ethics_. And nobody has ever come up with, or, as far as I am concerned, will ever come up with an ethical argument that general restrictions should be placed on sexual activity between consenting adults.

If God does not love us, or care for us, or if God's "morals" are not "ethics", then that should be sufficient to cause one to lose all faith in God. I am not a believer, but in my opinion, if God is perfect, as Christians would like to believe, then he deserves our respect; if he is not, but pretends to be, then why bother worshipping him? Out of fear of going to h**l? Or desire to enter the Kingdom of Heaven? These are both illusions. No matter how badly you are tortured in "h**l", or how well you are treated in "Heaven", you'll get used to it. As a matter of fact, the ultimate agony of h**l, if it existed, would be not the eternal torture, but the eternal boredom. And those who went to Heaven would suffer the same. The only way to live is to die; you must lose your memory, preferably your entire consciousness and personality, and start over, in order to enjoy eternal life.

So, I may say to you, when and why did God decide to punish women for having multiple partners? If he is so good, he wouldn't. Ergo, "God" is not an explanation of this phenomenon, if it is even real. On the other hand, we don't understand everything about science. I can't answer your question as it is directly posed, but I can say that an intelligent consciousness conforming to the widespread image of God cannot be the cause of such a thing, whereas the mysterious intricacies and complexities of nature, can.

Answer 4

Hey,

That's a Hum Dinger!...... Dinger!  Let's see what the cat drags in on this Q.

Whatever they claim it will evolutionize your think'n... I'm sure!

But you have a real good point you're trying to make.  Sounds counter productive.... no pun intended.

Answer 5

if this is true, it happened because it worked. thats how evolution works. if the people that this happened to survived to make babies, the trait moved on. just because it doesnt necessarily make things better, doesnt mean thats not how it happened. thats just how evolution works.

make it a good day.

Answer 6

First of all, there is no such thing as an "evolutionist."  Evolution isn't some cult with brainwashed followers.  Evolution is a scientific theory.  We don't call people "gravitationalists" because they accept a theory of gravity.

That aside, there is a mechanism, notably in mammals, called genetic imprinting, but it does not operate at all in the way you have described.  Perhaps the participants in the program you saw misinterpreted the concept or described it poorly.

Genetic imprinting is a mechanism by which chromosomes are marked (or "imprinted") with information about the s*x of the person they came from.  That is, the chromosomes that you received from your father are imprinted differently than those that came from your mother.  In order to develop properly, an embryo must receive chromosomes with imprints from both a mother and a father.  When a person doesn't receive the correct imprints from each parent, certain disorders can arise (two classic examples are Prader-Willi Syndrome and Angelman Syndrome, both of which arise from incorrect imprinting on chromosome 15).

Your parents' imprints are found in all the cells of your body except for those that arise from your germline cells (the cells that go on to produce eggs or sperm).  In your germline cells, the imprints of your parents are erased, and your own imprints are added.  When you have children, you contribute your set of imprints to your offspring.

Genetic imprints have nothing to do with who you can have s*x with and how many times.  All they do is require a mother and a father to produce offspring (as opposed to a single mother giving birth by parthenogenesis as can happen in some other species).  It does not hinder reproductive success in any way, shape, or form.

Answer 7

I don't think this is a real phenomenon.  I've never heard anything about it, and I can't think of a biological mechanism by which it would happen.  The man's sperm, for example, does not have the same genetic information in each cell.  A man's body will recognize sperm as foreign, and his immune system will attack it if found outside of the testes.  Given the variable nature of sperm cells, I don't see how a woman's immune system could recognize and respond to the sperm of a single individual.

If it is true, however, it may not specifically be due to evolution.  Animals (humans included) are incredibly complicated.  It's possible that, if accurate, this sort of response could simply be a side effect of the immune system's reaction to foreign bodies.  Evolution has done a wonderful job of putting together an immune system that attacks invading microbes, but it may be that the immune system reacts to sperm accidentally.  Like I said, life is incredibly complicated.  There are sometimes phenomena that come about by accident, rather than specific evolutionary pressure.  In other words, evolution isn't "punishing" women, it's simply a flaw in the immune system (in both women and men... but for obvious reasons, it isn't a problem in men).

I'm skeptical, though.  This sort of statement smacks of the tried-and-true method of religious groups manipulating "scientific knowlege" for the purposes of coercing people into following *their* beliefs.  In other words, they tend to try to trick people into their faith.

Answer 8

A woman would choose a partner for his genetic traits in order to ensure healthy offspring. The imprinting would help ensure (to some degree) that she would not produce offspring with a less worthy male.