Thursday, 11 July 2013

PARTHENOGENESIS as Spontaneous Pregnancy


Baboushkas and Matryoshkas

When the whole world shut them up,
steal their paradise and innocence,
walked over them as if they are nothing
they have found the way.



Ratio Goddesses vs Gods is 98% vs 2% even without all of the hidden and unearthed material.

X vs Y

X have 2000 chr.  while Y is 1/3 size of XY have 87 chr. 
Y is a MUTATION of an X and more specific it is the 23rd chromosome.
Key trigger is testosterone that is activated around second month in fetus fase of a child that is girl primarily.
Also one can not clone nor create full human only from Y, only X can do that.
Women have the Skene's glands that produces its own sperm.
In case X gets Ill and cells get damaged other X will repair that damage meaning that it behaves as a back up of a hard disc
while male XY can't repair neither X nor Y.

While MEN wrote His-Story earthly excavations say that if FE existed 100 minutes on earth ,
MALE exist only last minute.
And in that last minute he managed to make a mess on Earth in every sense of the word.
None of todays "progress" keeps Nature in mind and that is roughly said suicidal.
All of the technology in existance starting from electricity is damaging you and all around you, cars, oil, fracking, everything is polluted....

Off course men is able to create both usefull and in correlation with Nature but this never suits to the "big guns" that worry only about having more so these men gets removed.
And men knows that, he is aware 
but HYERARCHY is so deep ingrained in their being because it is in their sperm to begin with!
They need and accept the leader, brute force and commanding.
Men are not like us-we are eggs-independent and selfsustainable 
and we exist in egality even before we become beings.

Men doesn't have to be perfect at all but when faced with facts of life that biologicaly they MUST follow her they start moralising, judging and violating as result of their own fear of women,
loosing sight of past happenings, extreme humiliation of female person
not to mention femicide that is going on so bad in land like China which have now 10 milion more men then women and India, Pakistan where femicide is regular thing.
Arabians still OWN her and her babies-girls, paedophilia is in huge rise and it in rise in all of America, Europe, Australia and is being legalised. 
Just check what Pope said, it was a norm then illness, today it is "sexual orientation"
I, personally, am sick and tired to have my world evolving around dick and muscles and fear of violence.

When it comes to the underscore of it all
Woman is a powerfull being
infact so powerfull that she have a POWER that beats
ALL other powers on earth combined!
And that is decision of life and death.

Gift of creation and life belongs SOLELY to her.

yours truly, ECHO





During sex Hymen (HIIII MEN irony) must be broken.
(ever wonder what was that about?)
During sex female body produces massive amount of acids to kill off sperm.
Once pregnant your entire body tries to kill the embrio while embrio in return produces tranquilisers in form of hormons.
First 9 weeks ALL are a she.
Testosteron kicks in and start mutation into a boy.
Ovaries falls out, Klit grows and forms penis, Womb deteriorates
and forms prostate and NO EGGS are produced.
Woman have two sets of sperm inside her already.
Once pregnant SOUL enters trough her body
and FLESH is made out of SHE.
Each baby FEED on HER BLOOD.
Our only blood relative is a Woman.
There is no such thing as male blood relative.
Same goes for each and every animal on this planet.
Everything you eat is made by female while all mael animals get killed because they are disposable!
Ever think of this fact?
It is paralel to male disposability in wars where you get someone only more rich!
I know that somewhere inside you must be aware of this!
It is YOU, MEN that gives them that power over you.
When do you think you will get it trough your thick skull that this can't go on no more?
and tell me now who the hell is FE-MALE here?
I'll tell you, I am FE, you are FEMALE.
Mother gives you life and Earth supports your life.
And that is is all there is.
You are an aftertaught of nature.

yours, Echo



Virgin Mary
Queen of Heavens
Godess Mother
Mary = sea, water, wave, flower of life, Vesica Piscis, frequency, sound, matter, emotions, life
13


Snake/wave is primal energy wave
12 constellations + 1 makes her 13th, sacrificed and hidden one cause Earth does have 13 constellations and 13 perfect Lunar months
She was first and only long ago and life on Earth was virginal, there was no man at all, oldest excavations shows no male bones or sculptures. In some others there was few men but scarcely. Also here is this little piece of the puzzle called scene-gland, ladies actualy produce sperm...
Ancient woman were following the 13 month cycles of the Moon, menstruating in the dark Moon, and at the most fertile in the full Moon.These women would produce female clones of themselves using parthenogenesis. Special ceremonies would be carried out to achieve this under the full Moon. The women knew that they were the most fertile during the full Moon and so called it - being impregnated by the Moon Goddess.
FATHER - one that makes HER-FAT!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skene's_gland
First boy was surely welcomed and celebrated as he should be but we were here first,
truth to be told.
I checked stuff back and forth, all I found was thousands of pages of proof that we were Virgins, this is why we have hymen and this is why our bodies treat babies as parasites, oldest RH- is purest blood of prime virgin.

Virgin Mary with cross of 
Baphomet on the top of her crown
Munchen

INTRO
It is very difficult to explain something when lies from HIS-STORY have described milions of years in a sentence that goes like "First there was matriarchy". 

It is also very difficult to say when men occured first.
In Europe it was about 4000BC.
I knew from before that femals are primal sex, I studied that in school even but I wasn't aware that it was so recent and so violent.

I have been shocked when I discovered this by accident.
I study symbolism and letters in all ancient languages so I had to search cave drawings and carvings. After some time, few months later it just hit me with a question; "Where are men?"
So rare and few just before 4000bc that it wasn't phisicly possible to have one men on thousand woman, huge portions of land had no males at all.
SACRIFICE

There are many sites that whitness sacrifice in prahistory and in peticular male sacrifice...

My idea on it goes like this; to me it was unimaginable that a mother would kill her baby boy because he is a boy but imagine this...at those times men was rare, so rare that a women giving birth to something very different then girl was probably scared to death thinking it is anomaly, baby is not healthy or  maybe it was heavily deformed at first? It would be similar if your wife give birth to a child with 4 arms! 

There is also a question was that first boy deformed or could he function? 
Even later scriptures say that male was often deformed and agressive thus dangerous.
Saxo Gramaticus called them dogheads.
Some cultures would let them grow up to a certain age
used for sex and then killed.
Amazons for example and some of them like Liburnian amazon would sometimes mate outside their borders but if they had a boy he would be killed.
In best case scenario he would be castrated and brought back to the father.



EVOLUTION?

There are evidence of 4 ways of reproduction that changed over time.

First is identical to what we call cloning, when one cell inside body starts dividing.
But it is not cloning because cloning have a definition that is based on science that commands identical everything and in reality it is not so.
Nature is Mother of invention.

Second is egg that is parting or making embrio on its own. (pure parthenogenesis)

Third is self insemination or maybe even from other girl...! (we do have semen)
There were rituals including onnania at Full Moon in the group of girls.

And fourth is a male, todays version.

I have been thinking about this a lot and maybe I am wrong, all this looks to me like stages of evolution and it is very possible that one way was coming after other because fertility would drop down and it is a fact that reproduction was very slow and low.
One thing is for sure, male pushed his way trough with rape and violence.
Evidence for that is so painfully abundant.

Or maybe he was “made” to be healthy?
Or maybe our parameters changed?
What do you think of a word Normal as in Norm-Mal?
Mal as in maladie, sickness...

Curious thing is that on one side you have dead baby boys
and little later in time you have a Goddess with a boy celebrating his "RESSURECTION" exactly at Easter....!!!

Did boy existed before? 

Or was boy making his way trough?

Just last week I discovered Maria Gimbutas, she was archaeologist and she spoked of parthenogenesis and the way women made men!!!
Did you know that ancient women made clay phalluses that is looking identical to penis there where he didn't existed at all?

Other thing is for sure and that is parthenogenetic son,
or son of a Virgin is a term more used in literature.
You will find that in all of ancient and antic lines in biography's of kings, rulers etc, up to the Romans.

That men also lived in Troja and he is exterminated, killed and crucified.
Sometimes it is described as battle with second sons. (Alexander Macedonian)





Recent article on partenogenesis concerning Neandertals;
http://uk.businessinsider.com/why-human-neanderthal-babies-were-rare-2016-6?r=US&IR=T


Here's why human women probably struggled to have babies with Neanderthal men
Tech Insider
Rafi Letzter, Tech Insider
Jun. 6, 2016, 5:03 PM


Imagine a couple living between 39,000 and 45,000 years ago. She's a human. He's a Neanderthal. Their families aren't thrilled with the union, but they've learned to deal with it.

Their union isn't all that unusual after all — enough humans and Neanderthals made babies together in the 5,000-plus years that the two species coexisted that modern humans now owe about 4% of our DNA to our extinct nonhuman kin.

As this human-Neanderthal couple moves through life, like many couples, they have children. A daughter, and then another daughter, and then another. And they notice something funny: All their Neanderthal man/human woman couple friends keep having daughters as well.

That mystery may have puzzled them, and its genetic legacy has puzzled modern scientists as well. While traces of all sorts of Neanderthal DNA show up in the human genome, scientists haven't found any Neanderthal Y-chromosomesthe chromosomes fathers pass to biologically male children. That doesn't necessarily mean the Neanderthal Y-chromosome is extinct, but it makes it likely.

(the truth is there wasn't any male Neandertals)


There are a number of theories as to why the Neanderthal Y has vanished, the most popular until recently being the vagaries of random chance. That is, that male children were born to Neanderthal-human couples, but their genes were rare enough not to survive through the ages.

But a study published recently in the American Journal of Human Genetics suggests an alternate explanation: Human women may have been unable, or at least struggled, to carry male half-Neanderthal fetuses to term. That's because of three genes found on the Neanderthal Y-chromosome that are known to trigger immune responses in human beings. Those genes could have caused human mothers' immune systems to attack male half-Neanderthal fetuses, triggering miscarriages.

Even if half-Neanderthal baby boys with human mothers were born occasionally, that genetic incompatibility could have weeded out enough of them to eventually remove their traces from the gene pool.

The paper's authors caution that their results are not conclusive — they've identified a possible cause, not shown it to be the case. But for bemused parents at ancient play groups full of little half-Neanderthal girls (as well as modern scientists) this result might have sated some curiosity.

Virgin Mary with stigmata

Virgin Mary as Jesus
painting available only to some



On the Origin of the World from The Nag Hammadi Library
In all my readings of ancient texts nothing have explained current situation 
better then this single sentence!





SOME LITERATURE:


Female prostate
See also: G-Spot#Female prostate
The Skene's glands are homologous with the prostate gland in males.[7] The fluid that emerges during sex, female ejaculation, has a composition somewhat similar to the fluid generated in males by the prostate gland,[8][9] containing biochemical markers of sexual function like human urinary protein 1[10] and the enzyme PDE5 where women without the gland had lower concentrations.[11] When examined with electron microscopy, both glands show similar secretory structures,[12] and both act similarly in terms of prostate-specific antigen and prostatic acid phosphatase studies.[13][14][15][16] Because they are increasingly perceived as merely different versions of the same gland, some researchers are moving away from the name Skene's gland and are referring to it instead as the female prostate.[17]
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skene's_gland

Virginal reproduction

In cases of parthenogenesis (virgin birth), an ovum starts to divide by itself without fertilization, producing an embryo in which the paternal chromosomes may be replaced by a duplication of maternal ones. This asexual reproductive method is rare among warm-blooded vertebrates but more common among invertebrates. Pathological parthenogenesis has been observed in higher animals, such as the frog, fowl, and certain mammals. Parthenogenesis usually gives rise to female offspring or sometimes an abnormal male.

http://davidpratt.info/sex2.htm#s4

male is mutation of 23rd chromosome
http://biology.about.com/od/basicgenetics/p/chromosgender.htm

 Fetal Development
Testosterone plays a role in determining the gender of developing fetuses.


Read more: What Are the Functions of Testosterone? | eHow.comhttp://www.ehow.com/facts_5460323_functions-testosterone.html#ixzz2SNoxuusW

What Sex did to the X - and Why
http://www.sanger.ac.uk/about/press/2005/050316-additional.html#t_sex

What happens when chromosomes get involved in sex

Birds do it using the letters Z and W. Bees - and people - do it using the letters X and Y (although sometimes bees don't bother). Platypus, for reasons best known to themselves, do it using five Xs and five Ys. The human X chromosome is about many things - including sex and how it evolved.

Why bother with sex?

There are many advantages, some of them genetic. We and many other organisms are diploid - we carry two copies of each chromosome. Sex brings mixing of chromosomes and the chance to produce the new variation that is one of the driving forces of evolution.

In order to have sex, we need to have two sexes. But how is sex determined? In some cases, such as crocodiles and turtles, temperature determines sex. In other cases, like ourselves, the determining factor is genetic, and it is in these cases that sex chromosomes are observed.

It is thought that our sex chromosomes evolved from 'ordinary' chromosomes when, far in our evolutionary past, one gene on one chromosome was recruited as the key switch in determining sex. We now know that this is the Y chromosome. Since that process began, the Y chromosome has degenerated.

"Genome sequence information has provided compelling evidence for this model," says Dr Mark Ross. "The X chromosome, which is the original partner of the Y, has remained largely intact. Our X chromosome is related ancestrally to chromosomes 1 and 4 of chicken and not to the chicken sex chromosomes Z and W. Sex chromosomes of birds and mammals have evolved independently from ordinary chromosomes."

"Sequence comparison between the X and Y shows how extensive degeneration of the Y chromosome has been, with only a handful of shared genes remaining," continues Dr Ross. "Even these few look very different on the two chromosomes and have different roles."

The consequences of this chromosomal divergence are profound for our health and our biology. In males, there is a single copy of most of the genes on the X chromosome, and, therefore, damage to any of these genes will often result in disease. In females, there are two copies of each X chromosome gene and so a mechanism is needed to prevent overproduction of protein from these genes.

Our lives are dependent on carefully controlled levels of genetic activity. Just as a musical piece is arranged for certain instruments at certain times playing at certain volumes, so our cells require the activity of our genes to be orchestrated, their levels to be set.

So how do humans and other mammals cope with the dramatic difference of the sex chromosomes - two 'doses' of each gene in females and only one in males?

The leap of inspiration came in 1961 from a British mouse geneticist, Mary Lyon, who noticed that a mutation in a coat-colour gene on one X chromosome sometimes resulted in female animals with spotted or mottled coats. Because these females had one normal X chromosome, no effect should have been seen. Something very unusual was going on.

In a remarkable synthesis, Lyon reasoned that one of the X chromosomes was inactivated in normal female mice during early development. She argued that this occurred at random, leading to patches of cells in which one or other of the two X chromosomes had been 'switched off', resulting in normal coat colour or mutant coat colour. The same phenomenon explained some familiar observations such as why tortoiseshell cats are always female.

This X chromosome inactivation (XCI) explains how females avoid overproducing protein. But, decades on, we are still trying to understand its mechanism.

"In the early 1960s I had no idea that XCI would be of such importance in human clinical genetics," said Dr Lyon, who has worked for the UK's Medical Research Council for most of her career. "At that time knowledge of gene action was so limited that one could not begin to imagine what the mechanism might be."

It would take 30 years before a key gene in the process was identified.

"In both mouse and human, X inactivation is controlled by a gene in the inactivation control centre on the X chromosome called Xist," continues Dr Lyon. "Much more is known about XCI in the mouse because extensive experimental work has been possible. The availability of the human X-chromosome sequence will enable much more detailed knowledge of human XCI."

We still don't know how the signal spreads out from the control centre along the chromosome, but Dr Lyon has suggested that repetitive sequences, often referred to as 'junk' DNA, play a role in this process. The analysis of the X chromosome sequence provides additional support for this proposal.

"In humans XCI has important clinical implications," says Dr Lyon. "It enables understanding of the defects seen in patients with abnormal numbers of X chromosomes or with structurally abnormal X chromosomes."

With the completion of the X chromosome project, we have the sequences of a sex chromosome pair for the first time. Analysis of these sequences is beginning to give us a much greater insight into the unique behaviour of these chromosomes.

Adam’s Curse: A Future without Men.
Bryan Sykes

http://www.galtoninstitute.org.uk/Newsletters/GINL0403/Adam.htm

Galton Institute Home Page March 2004 Newsletter Contents

Some one hundred years ago, scientists, doctors and intellectuals of diverse kinds grew deeply concerned about the significance of sexual difference. The sex wars, not to mention the male preoccupation with enigmatic Eve, are obviously much older than the fin de siècle. In the late nineteenth century, however, these enduring questions acquired new relevance from the emergence of feminism, and the biological sciences had, by then, grown sufficiently mature and confident to analyse the nature and broader significance of sex in scientific or, at least, scientific-sounding terms. As women demanded higher education, the vote and equality and some of them threatened, like Ibsen’s Nora, to slam the door on domesticity, the new science of gender sought to establish that women’s domestic role was ordained by biology rather than social injustice. Those women who wanted to march into the outer world were contravening laws far more profound than they realised. Nature had designed woman to perpetuate the species, not to conjugate Latin verbs, practise medicine or run empires.


Disobeying Nature’s decree would bring disaster to individuals as well as humanity itself. Education would deplete the nervous energy women needed for menstruation and pregnancy and cause a range of disorders from madness to sterility, warned the British psychiatrist Henry Maudsley in 1874. It was femininity itself, with its profoundly sexual and reproductive obligations, that was the greatest opponent of woman’s emancipation, observed the Viennese philosopher Otto Weininger in 1903. Comparing the static ovum with the agile and restless spermatozoon, Patrick Geddes and J Arthur Thomson explained that females – ‘passive, conservative, sluggish, and stable’ – preserved ‘the constancy and integrity of the species’ whilst males, on the other hand, were ‘more active, energetic, eager, passionate, and variable’ and therefore, ‘very frequently the leaders in evolutionary progress’. These differences were primordial: they could be reduced but not obliterated without restarting the entire evolutionary process. ‘What was decided among the prehistoric Protozoa cannot be annulled by Act of Parliament’, they harrumphed in their influential 1889 treatise, The Evolution of Sex. One could multiply such examples at will. The point is that ever since the late nineteenth century, biologically-inclined thinkers have been reiterating that females were biologically conservative and passive, whilst males were aggressive, outgoing and all-conquering. The details of those older theories may seem quaint today, but the overall approach remains highly popular. If you doubt that, just take a look at Bryan Sykes’s new book.


Sykes, of course, is neither an amateur nor a woman-hater. (We shall see later that he is the prophet of a resurgent femininity.) What unites him with often repulsive fin-de-siècle theorists is his unquestioning assumption that the fundamental truth about gender relations is to be found in biology rather than society. Being a geneticist, he reduces the manifold differences between the sexes to the difference between the Y chromosome, the locus of masculinity, and the mitochondria, which carry those bits of DNA that are quintessentially female and never transmitted through the male. The tale begins with a revealing anecdote. On being asked whether he was related to another man called Sykes, our hero promptly decides to compare his Y chromosome with that of his namesake. On finding to his amazement that their genetic fingerprints were identical, he follows the trail to a Yorkshire village, where the Sykes originated. Since he has previously shown through the study of mitochondria that all the women of Europe are descended from seven primordial women (see his previous book The Seven Daughters of Eve), Sykes is delighted that the Y chromosome might be used to chart the genealogy of men. He provides us with a potted history of the discovery of the sex chromosomes and instructs us lucidly on the basis of sexual genetics. (Despite a weakness for Boy’s Own Paper-type chapter titles – ‘Blood of the Vikings’, ‘The Sperm of Tara’, ‘Gaia’s Revenge’ – Sykes writes far better than the average scientist.)


But that is just the beginning: it quickly dawns on him that in the Y chromosome and in the mitochondria, he has discovered the key to sex and, indeed, to human history. Mankind has evolved in the way it has because of the ruthless competition between Y and the mitochondria and the process of sexual selection, whereby carriers of mitochondria (i.e. women) have bred with the richest and most (socially and economically) powerful possessors of Y chromosomes (i.e. men). Sexual selection operates throughout the animal kingdom, of course, but in animals, it could reach a point where the finery of the male might go so over the top as to prevent breeding. In humans, however, there is no natural limit to riches and power. Human sexual selection need never stop. Sykes deplores this unreservedly, blaming all the woes of our planet on it. ‘Without labouring the point’, he laments,


already within my lifetime we have been on the brink of a nuclear war, in the 1962 Cuban missile crisis, and, even as I write, a war is under way in the Middle East. Forests are being cleared at an alarming rate, oil pollutes the beaches and acid rain falls from the skies … all of this can be traced to the fundamental genetic differences between men and women and the way in which female “choice”, in its many guises, has encouraged the exaggeration of these trends. Of course, it would all be quickly reversed if women preferred to mate with men who held assets that were the antithesis of wealth and power, and if the purposely wasteful displays of Ferrari and Rolex were no longer effective. Then the runaway train of sexual selection would soon slow down. Where Eve chooses to go, Adam is bound to follow’ (p. 276).


None of that, Sykes admits, is likely to happen but there is some cause for optimism. For all is not well with the Y chromosome.


The Y chromosome does not recombine significantly during cell division and does not, therefore, get the opportunity to correct mutation-induced damage. The accumulation of such mutations has now reduced the chromosome into ‘a graveyard of rotting genes’. ‘It is’, in short, ‘a dying chromosome and one day it will become extinct’ (p. 284). Rising figures of male infertility reinforce the hypothesis and within about 125,000 years, Sykes predicts, the Y chromosome and man as we know him might become extinct. Will that be the end of the human species, then? Possibly not – the chromosomes of the Caucasian mole vole Ellobius lutescens tell us that male animals can exist without Y chromosomes, as long as the male-creating genes have been transferred to other chromosomes. Perhaps we could follow the example of Ellobius with genetic engineering and create a New XX Man. Another option is to let men become extinct and keep the species going by fertilising ova with the nuclei, not of sperm as currently happens, but of another ovum. All the children would then be girls (but not clones) and the human species would consist only of women. Turning monosexual would be a boon, Sykes avers, for the species as well as the planet. ‘Sperm no longer fight for access to eggs. There are no sperm to do battle, no Y-chromosomes to enslave the feminine. The destructive spiral of greed and ambition fuelled by sexual selection diminishes, and the sickness of our beautiful planet eases. The world no longer reverberates to the sound of men’s clashing antlers and the grim repercussions of conflict. The great sexual experiment is over. Mitochondria have triumphed and Gaia can go back to sleep’ (p. 303). Sweet dreams!


I am only a historian and not qualified to judge the scientific content of Sykes’s book. What I can say, however, is that the end of masculinity has been one of the intellectual spectres of humanity for the last hundred-odd years, even if no one has scratched man so completely off the planet. Writers have differed, of course, in their attitude toward the theme: some have feared the prospect of a world without virile men, others have accepted it stoically, and yet others have blamed it all on the other sex. Many, perhaps most, of these observers, regardless of their actual training, have tried to make sense of the phenomenon with whatever might be the fashionable science of the age. For the fin-de-siècle figures I mentioned at the beginning, it was usually a combination of evolutionary biology, endocrinology and various kinds of vague hereditarianism, including but not limited to eugenics. Then came a vogue for endocrinology alone, succeeded by the less biological concepts of psychoanalysis and now, obviously, we have the ultimate form of biological reductionism and determinism: genetics. Books like Adam’s Curse have always tended to trace the plight of males and the sorrows of the world to some unitary flaw, whether sexual selection or the glandular secretions of the testicle.


Today, science has reached technical heights undreamed of in the 1900s but in their understanding of society and humanity, biologists may not have advanced very far. To attribute the war in Iraq, for instance, to the ruthless quest of George Bush, Jr’s Y-chromosome (or, for that matter, Tony Blair’s or Donald Rumsfeld’s) to win the sexual selection race, even if correct in biological terms, is merely to supply miscreants, idiots, liars and the simply misguided with an excuse not to change anything for 125,000 years or however long it is going to take the world to become female. ‘It ain’t me, guv – it’s me Y-chromosome’! In the impatience with which Adam’s Curse brushes away the relevance of social, economic, political, cultural and psychological factors to the crimes, follies and misfortunes of mankind, in its single-minded quest for one unchanging, biological cause for a galaxy of complex social problems, and, above all, in its apocalyptic speculations and fantastical prognostications, this book is only the latest exemplar of a venerable and rather tired tradition.

No comments:

Post a Comment