THE TEMPLATE OF MANKINDNovember 18, 2017
(The following guest blog was submitted by Ms. K.M., and I think it's very fitting to begin this week's blogs with it.)
Drummed into our little heads over the last 70 years is the mantra that all embyos are "female" and specific action en utero is necessary to create a male. Something about this assertion never sat well, but I could never specifically identify why it was so, just an intuition, that this particular story was yet to be told.
In that light we can thank our friends at the American Association for the Advancement of Science for bringing us a new "wrinkle" in the folds of embryonic development and the culture war. In a September article, the Journal Science published a paper describing some curious new developments in the fantastically complex symphonies required to provide differentiation of the sexes.
A protein called COUP-TFII is necessary to eliminate male reproductive tissue from female mouse embryos, researchers report in the Aug. 18 Science. For decades, females have been considered the “default” sex in mammals. The new research overturns that idea, showing that making female reproductive organs is an active process that involves dismantling a primitive male tissue called the Wolffian duct.
In males, the Wolffian duct develops into the parts needed to ejaculate sperm, including the epididymis, vas deferens and seminal vesicles. In females, a similar embryonic tissue called the Müllerian duct develops into the fallopian tubes, uterus and vagina. Both duct tissues are present in early embryos. (Science: Vol. 192 No. 4, September 16, 2017, p. 10)
Most of us can perceive that a vast cultural push is underway to "back seat" and perhaps ultimately neutralize traditional masculinity. Don't get me wrong. There is a serious need for reformation of traditional masculinity, and it is this need that perhaps drives the agenda of shaping that process, perhaps for other ends. The technocrats use the need for reform to enact an agenda of replacing masculinity with something else, call it "transhumanist neo-semi-masculinity." In a paranoid moment, one could wonder why the urgency to suppress masculinity and maleness? That's a subject for another time.
The point of bringing this to your attention is found in the ancient texts, which describes our immediately preceding branch of Genus Homo as possessing both masculine and feminine, male and female characteristics. Taking a deeper look at the work just published in Science, it becomes clear that both the male and female zygotes contain the prototypical tissues for development into either physical sex.
Some seventy years ago, Alfred Jost discovered and published a study that male zygotes produce hormones that suppress the development of primary female sexual characteristics. As patriarchal science presumed that all medical research, using males, would apply equally to females; and it follows of course that no one bothered to check out how female zygote development functioned. It was just presumed that the process would be similar. And it turns out that it is not similar. It is however, highly analogous. Let me explain.
It turns out that regardless of which X or Y chromosome is present in the fetus, mutual methods of curtailing development of primary sex characteristics are present in embryos of either sex. So the template of mankind is nearly identical in males and females, and it is specific coding that is necessary to run the "female program" or the "male program." Interestingly, this reality can easily explain XY persons with female sex characteristics, and vice versa.
In other words, the information in Genesis Chapter 2 or the verses of other cultures are correct at a level deeper than just what religionists might expect. Some Talmudic and Patristic glosses of Genesis describes the first Adam as being an androgyne. And of course, the developing human is now shown to be an androgyne whose development is 'stunted' by programs that mirror one another to produce a desired outcome.
So, we have another scientific verification of the correctness of ancient knowledge. What was formerly just a kooky story is now a notion with scientific prescience. After the fall of mankind, dissemination of knowledge ceased, and like Irish monks preserving civilization in the form of a library during the dark ages, we have merely snippets of information today in irreplaceable narratives of the distant past that we call "sacred" because if they are lost, then the notions of High Antiquity are lost with them. One is reminded of the novel, "A Canticle for Leibowitz."
The more we learn, the more like science fiction ancient texts are perceived.