Chemical Reaction not Evolution, of Fishes and Men
According to Discovery News, ‘Around the world, increasing numbers of male fish are developing female traits -- growing new sexual organs and sometimes even producing eggs.’
As I began to read the article, I must admit I fully expected to see some type of promotion of a proof for evolution. I mean, clearly a fish mutating from its normality would give some type of credence to an eyewitness account of it, would it not? To my dismay, there was no attempt to tie in the discovery with evolution (whether macro or micro), but ‘the phenomenon has been blamed mostly on chemicals that get into the water and mimic the female hormone estrogen.’
With this, I can’t help but ponder the possible similar affect within humans. For a moment, if we consider the article as written, we see the science/research community noticing a change in the fish genetically producing the mutation of male fish becoming female (whether in part or in addition). They reveal their belief of such actions is due to the fish coming in contact with a chemical which blocks male hormones, in conjunction with a chemical which mimics female hormones. But, with this study, it appears that they also realize the affect such could have on humanity, given the thought, ‘the new research found that there are far more of these chemicals in our lakes and streams than anyone realized.’
It must be noted that these researchers see the chemicals as harmful, to fish, mammals, and humans, along with acknowledging the mutation of male-female hormones within the fish is not normal. So, since this blog is Christian in nature, this brings us once again to the thought of homosexuality, transsexual, and possibly hermaphrodites in light of the Scriptures.
Regarding hermaphrodites, I would admit I don’t recall Scripture mentioning such, but all would have to admit that such mutation during birth is clearly out of the control of the individual. I do not believe there would be any stretch of the imagination to assume they do not choose to be born with both male and female organs, but will have to adjust and determine where they stand as individuals as they mature and live in society. Though their physical body may lend struggles in life, I would venture to say they have both the ability of choosing the heterosexual or homosexual lifestyle.
Now, concerning homosexuality (which would include the hermaphrodite who chooses such) and the transsexual (which I suppose is merely homosexual in nature), we have previously cited Scriptural references regarding God’s displeasure with such. Here, we now see the researchers’ claim that a male fish taking upon itself the character and possibly even the physical appearance of a female fish is not normal, but rather a mutation and corruption of nature by way of chemicals, etc.
With this said, my conclusionary thought is: If researchers see the mutation of male fish taking upon themselves the characteristics and physical properties of female fish as abnormal and something to try and fix, why is it that we are told that homosexuality and transsexuality is normal and something to be embraced? ‘After all, people and fish have similar hormonal systems.’
As I began to read the article, I must admit I fully expected to see some type of promotion of a proof for evolution. I mean, clearly a fish mutating from its normality would give some type of credence to an eyewitness account of it, would it not? To my dismay, there was no attempt to tie in the discovery with evolution (whether macro or micro), but ‘the phenomenon has been blamed mostly on chemicals that get into the water and mimic the female hormone estrogen.’
With this, I can’t help but ponder the possible similar affect within humans. For a moment, if we consider the article as written, we see the science/research community noticing a change in the fish genetically producing the mutation of male fish becoming female (whether in part or in addition). They reveal their belief of such actions is due to the fish coming in contact with a chemical which blocks male hormones, in conjunction with a chemical which mimics female hormones. But, with this study, it appears that they also realize the affect such could have on humanity, given the thought, ‘the new research found that there are far more of these chemicals in our lakes and streams than anyone realized.’
It must be noted that these researchers see the chemicals as harmful, to fish, mammals, and humans, along with acknowledging the mutation of male-female hormones within the fish is not normal. So, since this blog is Christian in nature, this brings us once again to the thought of homosexuality, transsexual, and possibly hermaphrodites in light of the Scriptures.
Regarding hermaphrodites, I would admit I don’t recall Scripture mentioning such, but all would have to admit that such mutation during birth is clearly out of the control of the individual. I do not believe there would be any stretch of the imagination to assume they do not choose to be born with both male and female organs, but will have to adjust and determine where they stand as individuals as they mature and live in society. Though their physical body may lend struggles in life, I would venture to say they have both the ability of choosing the heterosexual or homosexual lifestyle.
Now, concerning homosexuality (which would include the hermaphrodite who chooses such) and the transsexual (which I suppose is merely homosexual in nature), we have previously cited Scriptural references regarding God’s displeasure with such. Here, we now see the researchers’ claim that a male fish taking upon itself the character and possibly even the physical appearance of a female fish is not normal, but rather a mutation and corruption of nature by way of chemicals, etc.
With this said, my conclusionary thought is: If researchers see the mutation of male fish taking upon themselves the characteristics and physical properties of female fish as abnormal and something to try and fix, why is it that we are told that homosexuality and transsexuality is normal and something to be embraced? ‘After all, people and fish have similar hormonal systems.’
12 comments:
???
What are you trying to say? I am confused.
Beast FCD
"I do not believe there would be any stretch of the imagination to assume they do not choose to be born with both male and female organs, but will have to adjust and determine where they stand as individuals as they mature and live in society. Though their physical body may lend struggles in life, I would venture to say they have both the ability of choosing the heterosexual or homosexual lifestyle."
Are you saying that hermaphrodites are the only ones who can choose their sexual orientation? Please quote the exact bible verse that says that.
Beast FCD
Beast,
Although hermaphrodites may possess male and female organs, they are still male or female; thus, they must decide to follow the natural (heterosexual) or the unnatural (homosexual).
Choice simply means one can decide to do right or do wrong, to live moral or immoral. This is all through the Bible.
Tim
So I would conclude that normal guys can also choose to be gay or homosexuals.
Beast FCD
"...and the transsexual (which I suppose is merely homosexual in nature)"
Not true. Transvestites are essentially males who have female identities, and wish to be sexually converted to females, or vice versa. Homosexuals are males who have a sexual preference towards other males.
Beast FCD
Beast,
Perhaps I should have used the term transgender or transsexual, but your definition of transvestite (essentially males who have female identities, and wish to be sexually converted to females, or vice versa) still makes my point.
Pointing out, ‘Many transsexual people have a wish to alter their bodies. These physical changes are collectively known as sex reassignment therapy and often include hormone replacement therapy and sex reassignment surgery.’
If one is a male, they are identified as male, thus having a desire and action of converting themselves by use of hormonal chemicals (and surgery) causes them to become unnatural just as the researchers concluded the fish are in the article. And a male who thus converts himself to take part in a relationship with another male is still by definition a homosexual, for though his body changed by chemicals and surgery he remains yet a male. Same would be true regarding a female.
Tim
By your definition, all transexuals are essentially gays. I think the transexuals will have something to say about that.
Actually, if you read the article more carefully, its about a hormonal chemical imbalance that causes the fish to change its gender. It has got nothing to do with fishes becoming gay, and definitely has nothing to do with morality.
What the scientists fear is that chemical imbalance here will actually affect the breeding health of fishes: If too many male fishes are being affected by anti androgens then it will affect the overall health of the general population.
You basically make two mistakes here: Transvestites are not gays, and the scientists are not talking about anti-gay literature here.
Beast FCD
Basically, nature is not too moralistic about sexuality: What is "natural" is simply a survival tool for animals in the animal kingdom.
transsexual
(also transexual)
• noun a person born with the physical characteristics of one sex who emotionally and psychologically feels that they belong to the opposite sex.
homosexual
• adjective feeling or involving sexual attraction to people of one’s own sex.
Oh Beast,
By all means, transsexuals are free to speak for themselves, but actions speak louder than words.
I do think you are beginning to understand though. You admit there is, ‘a hormonal chemical imbalance that causes the fish to change its gender’ and ‘that chemical imbalance here will actually affect the breeding health of fishes,’ which ‘will affect the overall health of the general population.’ Yet you are refusing to believe (or should I say acknowledge) the abnormal use of hormonal chemicals (and surgery) imbalance which causes a person to change or mimic a change in their gender, also affects the ‘breeding health of’ people which ‘will affect the overall health of the general population.’
I acknowledge the article is not ‘anti-gay literature,’ nor did I ever claim as much, but your conclusion regarding transvestites is incorrect. You previously defined transvestites as ‘essentially males who have female identities, and wish to be sexually converted to females, or vice versa.’ Even if a male converts his body by use of hormonal chemicals or surgery, they yet remain male; and any attempt at a relationship with another male defines them by your definition (feeling or involving sexual attraction to people of one’s own sex) as homosexual.
Please notice your definition of transsexual declares, ‘a person born with the physical characteristics of one sex who emotionally and psychologically feels that they belong to the opposite sex.’ This definition does not declare the person is the opposite sex, but that they *feel* like the opposite sex. One can feel like a cat, and even have surgery to hold the appearance thereof, but that doesn’t make them a cat. It merely makes them an abnormality.
Tim
Lol, Tim, your need to oversimplify sexual orientation baffles me.
The difference between a gay and a transsexual goes beyond mere appearance. A transsexual is a person who can no longer relate to his own sexual orientation, while a homosexual is completely at ease with his own sexual orientation.
I know this to be true because unlike you, I am pretty much liberal, and I have come into acquaintance with gays and trannies over the years. They know that I don't judge them, even if I do tease them sometimes (as they do to me, friendly teasing). So, I have to say categorically here that transsexuality and homosexuality are two distinctly different sexual orientations.
Yes, a transsexual who undergoes a sex change is not an actual female, but technically, if a guy has undergone a sex change, he cannot be classified as a male either. A transsexual who undergoes a sex change can always go and have his identity changed legally.
Beast FCD
"I do think you are beginning to understand though."
I have long understood human sexuality in nature's terms, not religions'. It is you who love to construe science into your own stupid religious worldview.
Beast FCD
Post a Comment