Are women more evolved biologically than men?

Are human females more evolved than human males?

Human females have:

-prominent breast while not lactating

-ability to orgasm

-hidden ovulation

There's no biological need for prominent breast (at any other time besides as a side effect of lactation) or female orgasm. The clitoris is the only organ that serves solely for pleasure.

As for hidden ovulation...is it a biological trick that helps women keep a male around? As he would not know when she is fertile (the opposite is true with all other animals, it's clear when the females are "ready"), causing him to hang around longer. It may also be a trick against the woman so she wouldn't know when to abstain from sex to avoid pregnancy. I have some doubt about the latter theory as historically women often didn't have the choice to abstain.

The male body is very straightforward and utilitarian while the female body
is full of tricks and treats!

What do you think?

women are more evolved biologically. 30
women are not more evolved biologically. 70
i don't agree with evolution. 8
Help us keep this site organized and clean. Thanks!
[ Report Post ]
Comments ( 99 )
  • EccentricWeird

    1. There is no such thing as any living organism alive today being "more evolved" than any other.
    2. The very term "more evolved" is faulty.
    3. Males and females of a species are not ecotypes, they are almost completely genetically identical.

    Comment Hidden ( show )
      -
    • Yep. I'm not a scientist, don't claim to be. I think you know what I am asking here even though I am not wording things to scientific perfection, but in correcting my choice of words you neglected to address any of the observations I listed. Read some of my responses below where I clarify some points, if you wish.

      Comment Hidden ( show )
        -
      • EccentricWeird

        No, I have no idea what you're asking. Your question is logically faulty and is unanswerable. I politely ask you, if you really want to get a satisfying understanding of evolution in general, to read a few chapters of an online textbook, or watch a few university lecture videos, and that will help immensely.

        Comment Hidden ( show )
          -
        • Essentially, why do human females have these traits (outlined in OP)? They are either EXTREMELY rare or non-existant in any other animals and serve no biological purpose. Human males however do not possess any mysterious or biologically insignificant traits. Everything about the male body is logically explained and/or biologically relevant but the same is not true for the human female. Human females have less in common with other animals than males do, in terms of simple biology (reproduction, appearance), that are non-essential or unexplained. And why haven't human males developed a defense for hidden ovulation yet?

          Comment Hidden ( show )
            -
          • EccentricWeird

            I'm not talking to you until you read up.

            Comment Hidden ( show )
          • "Human males however do not possess any mysterious or biologically insignificant traits..."

            Why do males have nipples? They do not breastfeed or have any use of them. While the reason is not so mysterious, man nipples do happen to be pretty insignificant.

            Comment Hidden ( show )
      • RomeoDeMontague

        No! Now please no one call me sexist for this but we are made for different purposes. Men are made to protect, kill, and as they say "Bring home the bacon" while women are made to carry, raise and take care of children and defend the man.

        Sometimes these roles are reversed depending on the species. In seahorses the boys carry the babies. Also if you look at biology it would probably be quicker making a female since you do not have to add a penis.

        So we probably all start as females and than become men after. That would explain why men have nipples as well as females. However I feel you might be suffering from a superiority complex that is why you would so quickly ignore the biology of most creatures on this planet.

        Now while women are meant to carry kids I do not believe society should force them to remain in the kitchen. I also believe that women like men should have a right to do what men do such as work, fight for their country and anything else they can keep up with.

        I also find it very uncivilized for men to belittle a female and treat them like rubbish since they have a big dick complex. Simply being male does not mean you have to act like a cave man. We do not need more cavemen in our society. People like that should not be allowed to live on this earth.

        Also you ask why women have breasts. They have them to produce milk for babies. Now if you look at female dogs, and even cows they have nipples and have parts of their bodies which become swollen with milk WHEN THEY HAVE BABIES. You sound like you are very uneducated and need to learn biology. Who the fuck doesn't understand what cow utters are for? Are you fucking four? Why do you think we get milk from them? That milk is not meant for us its meant for the cows babies.

        Comment Hidden ( show )
          -
        • PROMINENT BREAST, you fool! Human females are the only mammal that stores fat around the mammary gland, giving them full-time prominent breasts. Other mammals breasts are only prominent when lactating as they are full of milk. Their mammaries are not surrounded by fat. When other mammals wean their young the breast goes back to pre-pregnancy state.

          There is NO biological purpose for prominent breast in human females. The scientific community has not reached a conclusion as to why women have prominent breasts.

          I think you need to pick up a biology book. And cows have udders, not utters. So get yourself a dictionary too.

          Comment Hidden ( show )
            -
          • RomeoDeMontague

            Again I will say COW! That is basically a big boob. It just does not exist in the same spot. Same concept and those are only there to feed the babies. We just take the milk for ourselves. Also when women have babies thier breasts become swollen even after they stop nursing they remain swollen for a bit after. http://youtu.be/SYJPbrxdn8w

            Comment Hidden ( show )
              -
            • Listen, NO OTHER MAMMAL STORES FAT AROUND THE MAMMARY! Yes some dairy cows have sagging udders after their milk dries up (stop lactating) but these cows are basically mutants created by many decades of selective breeding for high milk yeilds. But they still DO NOT STORE FAT AROUND THE UDDER. ONLY HUMANS DO. The udder is visible in these cows when not lactating because they have been selectively bred to have huge capacity udders. Cows not specifically bred for dairy will have very small udders, having only the capacity enough to feed her calf. Once again though, no matter the size of yhe udder

              Comment Hidden ( show )
      • thegypsysailor

        I guess you don't know what they call women who use the rhythm method (when to abstain from sex to avoid pregnancy) of birth control? They are called "mothers"!
        Otherwise, I'd have to agree with EccentricWeird; I don't believe one sex, of a single species, can be more evolved than the other.

        Comment Hidden ( show )
    • Lonely2

      Wrong....single cell organism...to multi cellular...to advanced systems ...to advanced brains...certain beings are in fact more evolved than other

      Comment Hidden ( show )
  • handsignals

    There is a need for boobs besides lactation...getting my dick hard.

    Comment Hidden ( show )
      -
    • Haha!!

      Comment Hidden ( show )
  • anti-hero

    Idiot.

    Comment Hidden ( show )
      -
    • Ok. Why? Don't call me an idiot and not address a single point.

      Comment Hidden ( show )
        -
      • anti-hero

        I don't have 6 hours to explain all of the flaws in this post.

        Comment Hidden ( show )
  • Mr.Dr.Prof.Patrick

    Women are definitely more advanced. Why else would us guys be so hell-bent on trying to get our penises into them? To harvest their powers of course!

    Comment Hidden ( show )
  • Freedom_

    There is nothing simple about the female form... It is certainly more interesting, visually, and more physically elusive. But more evolved? I don't know... anything is possible, I guess. If one thing is more complex than the other, it probably did take more work to perfect it.

    Comment Hidden ( show )
  • Couman

    I heard an interesting explanation proposed for breasts. That walking upright gave butts (the original sexual display of choice) a less ideal placement, so women evolved something shaped like a butt closer to eye level.

    Silly as that sounds, it make a little bit of sense I think.

    Comment Hidden ( show )
      -
    • RoseIsabella

      I heard the same thing and it makes sense to me.

      Comment Hidden ( show )
  • SuperBenzid

    "(the opposite is true with all other animals, it's clear when the females are "ready")"

    Nope not all other animals.

    "The male body is very straightforward and utilitarian while the female body is full of tricks and treats!"

    That is an entirely subjective statement. There are interesting things about both genders. The female gender has the ability to support life while males have their own production of anabolic steroids internally, producing about twenty times as much testosterone as a female. Leading to on average a higher physical strength, desire to take risks, stronger ligament, stronger tendons and stronger skeletons. Really both gender's physiology is pretty interesting to me.

    Comment Hidden ( show )
      -
    • Which female animals do not signal, in ANY way, that they are fertile?

      To refine that subjective statement: everything about the male body is biologically "logical" (and generally mirrors male mammals of all other species), but there are some things about the female body that are not. These things are also not found in virtually any other animal nor serve a biological purpose.

      Comment Hidden ( show )
        -
      • SuperBenzid

        "Which female animals do not signal, in ANY way, that they are fertile?"

        Well rabbits don't. That is just off the top of my head. No physical symbol of being ready to mate as they are induced ovulators.

        Vervet monkeys have concealed ovulation like human females. Quite a few primates other than humans do.

        Also you get amphibian species where the male just lays the sperm on the ground to be picked up by the female. So no need for female mating signals there.

        "everything about the male body is biologically "logical""

        Like a prostate that does very little but has a high propensity for becoming cancerous and killing you? That doesn't seem logical to me. It could be the worst organ male's have and one of the worst of any animal for that matter. Some logic...

        Comment Hidden ( show )
          -
        • P.S. Rabbits don't go into heat but they do show signs of being receptive.

          Comment Hidden ( show )
        • Thanks for your reply, you have given me some things to consider.

          I think the rabbit example actually intensifies my argument, as not only do human females have concealed ovulation they also do not have induced ovulation. Induced ovulation must be the natural "solution" against not showing signs of fertility. So why do humans have both concealed ovulation AND do not have induced ovulation? That makes no sense biologically.

          I'll have to get back to you on the rest after I think about it.

          Comment Hidden ( show )
            -
          • The prostate...I looked up information on the function of the prostate and I'd hardly say it does very little! It's vital to reproduction!

            Prostate cancer almost exclusively affects elderly men only. I'd conclude that the prostate isn't "bad" in itself but that our longer lifespan is "at fault" here.

            I wasn't aware that many female primates had concealed ovulation. I thought it was semi concealed for some or not at all concealed in others. I'm still looking into this but thanks for bringing it up.

            Comment Hidden ( show )
              -
            • SuperBenzid

              "function of the prostate and I'd hardly say it does very little! It's vital to reproduction!"

              Where do you get this stuff? The prostatic secretion slightly increases the lifespan of sperm by reducing alkalinity in the vagina. I'd take a less than 1% reduction in sperm quality to not have that cancer time bomb. Prostate cancer is the leading cause of cancer death in men in the UK and second in the United States.

              "our longer lifespan is "at fault" here."
              Well that is true of many cancers. The presence of the prostate puts a hard limit on the life span men can have. Since it is almost certain to become cancerous just some men die before that can happen.

              Comment Hidden ( show )
    • SkullsNRoses

      Sex is male/female, gender is masculine/feminine personality.

      Comment Hidden ( show )
  • I second Counterfeir.Circus.

    Comment Hidden ( show )
      -
    • And I'll second my response: prove it.

      Comment Hidden ( show )
        -
      • RomeoDeMontague

        We do not need to prove you are an idiot. You did that yourself. Pick up a biology book.

        Comment Hidden ( show )
  • 6meyou9

    If there's grass on the field then play ball homie!

    Comment Hidden ( show )
  • ScooterNyne

    This is borderline troll stupidity. And I think that's why it's all the more upsetting. Because this person may have actually tried to make a legitimate post.

    Comment Hidden ( show )
  • Couman

    Genetically speaking, men are more evolved. There was a study not too long ago which found the human Y-Chromosome is 30% different from that of chimps. Way more than the rest of the genome.

    Here:
    http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/01/13/are-men-more-evolved-than_n_421919.html

    Comment Hidden ( show )
      -
    • I honestly don't know what to take from that article! Thanks for posting it and I will re-read and try to make sense of it.

      Comment Hidden ( show )
  • Orphan

    All embryos start as female. If the embryo was determined to be male, then the ovaries drop, and the clitoris shapes itself into a penis.
    Thus, males evolve from female, making male more evolved than females.
    A women's body isn't all that complicated, it's quite simple

    Comment Hidden ( show )
  • januarycurse

    I think you might be on to something here.

    Comment Hidden ( show )
  • Lonely2

    You are actually on to something but are talking to too many people who are ignornant about the study of evolution....the answer is that in some ways yes women are more evolved...but I would have to explain sexual dimorphism...with a lot of examples...but males have more pronounced jaws...brow ridges...facial structures in general....this is more reminiscent of the lower apes and mammals..they have more body hair..more muscle and bone...this too is more akin to the lower apes...so yes males are more ape like than females...also the oriental race is more evolved in general than other races for the same reason...also we know that the longer an animal stays a juvenile the more evolved it is...and females are more juvenile...not in the less mature sense...because they are not less mature...but in the softer featues...this too is evidenced of higher evolution....seriously theres books on this

    Comment Hidden ( show )
  • MrSexyJesus

    Well they do have self installed airbags/life-rafts so it is a strong argument. also the ability to win an argument with no logic is astounding

    Comment Hidden ( show )
  • IncludedSos

    We are one in the same species. Two sides of the same coin. I don't know how many times it's been said on this post already, but it's impossible for one gender to be MORE evolved than another. You should've used words more like "superior", but less strong.

    Comment Hidden ( show )
  • Mersaphe

    Yes women are more evolved. That's why a woman's sex organs are inside her body not on the outside like a man's. Women don't have anything dangling between their legs (trust me it's uncomfortable). And women are less physical and more emotional because they know that violence is not the answer. Women shave their legs and get rid of body hair to make themselves more appealing to men, which helps in reproduction. Women are also more intelligent compared to men because women constantly make themselves seem dumber than they actually are to get favors or advantages from men. Women carry purses which can be used to transport concealed weapons. Finally, women are more flexible

    Comment Hidden ( show )
  • We women are just so mysterious! There are probably numerous theories raging about many points you mentioned.

    Breasts are made out of mostly fat and glandular tissue. They are handy dandy fat storage devices! You can fill them up, and they just expand outwards. Lets imagine the typical caveman. Perhaps women with bigger breasts were healthier, more well fed individuals. Those were the good women more likely to have good healthy babies. And after many women with big boobs having babies, the trait gradually just gets exaggerated. Just throwing ideas out there.

    Orgasm promotes a want of sex. If sex feels good, really good, women are more likely to have sex, have babies.

    As for your other point...hidden ovulation? I honestly do not know much about the reproductive system and am little help there.

    Perhaps they are tricks and treats to the uneducated, but I am sure an explanation is out there somewhere, or at least some decent speculation. I wouldn't say the female body is more evolved. We are just slightly different. Comparing boobs to other animals is also poor example, because try comparing our thumbs. Very few animals have those either. Or perhaps try our brains? Those are also unique. There are numerous traits humans posses that other species do not, so saying "female humans are one of the few creatures to have prominent boobs" can be responded with a so what? Humans are fairly unique creatures in the animal world.

    I have horribly lost track of my train of thought. Sorry!

    Comment Hidden ( show )
  • ThatCreepyWhiteGuy

    No. Half of a species cannot be more evolved than the other half without them being a seperate species.

    Comment Hidden ( show )
  • Derpinism

    op I hope you become famous some day

    Comment Hidden ( show )
  • ThatCreepyWhiteGuy

    I have a question; WHO GIVES A FUCKING SHIT?

    Comment Hidden ( show )
  • Women are more evolutionary evolved to make sandwiches.

    Comment Hidden ( show )
  • Lonely2

    Yes, they are more evolved...but it is their faces that sets them apart....in mammal species there is a great divergence between the newborn and the adult...not just in size but in facial structures...especially jaws, nasal structures, eye ridges, etc...in other words there is a drastic difference between the newborn and the adult...however in humans ...juvenilization has occured...the adult retains many of the features of the baby....this allows a longer juvenile period which is a sign of intelligence and juvenilization is more pronounced in females than males....also asians are more evolved than any other race for the same reasons...

    Comment Hidden ( show )
      -
    • Interesting!!

      Comment Hidden ( show )
  • DragonQueen

    Were just cuter, But not more evolved Sorry Friend,

    Comment Hidden ( show )
  • dom180

    We're the same species, so clearly we're just as evolved as each other.

    Comment Hidden ( show )
      -
    • Well, I'm not being 100% scientifically "correct" in my wording and I do not purport to be an expert by any means. I am just making an observation that human females have some mysterious and illogical (not biologically necessary nor displayed in other animals) traits. And why is this so? Male humans are logical in the biological sense while females are not 100% explainable. Why do only human females have ALL of those 3 traits I pointed out and no other single mammal does (have ALL 3)?

      Comment Hidden ( show )
        -
      • dom180

        They are positive adaptions, so they are really explainable. For a start, lots of women do have small breasts or completely flat chests. Large breasts exist because they are seen as attractive because they can indicate hormone levels, maturity, ability to breastfeed etc. They also have certain cultural connotations (like motherhood) which some men might find appealing. Orgasm is biologically useful because it creates an intense, positive mental association with sex. The more pleasurable sex is the more people have it the more people reproduce. Men just so happen to have a more all-in-one design for orgasm than women, which is important for men because all their stuff is outside :P Women have more "complicated" genitals because they're safely tucked away inside.

        In terms of reproduction women have a lot more biological obligations than men; they have to carry the child and breastfeed. Men have very few biological obligations; they have to have sex and that's all. So their bodies can afford to be simpler, but that doesn't mean women's bodies are illogical. They have different design because they have different specification :P

        It's possible that humans have different adaptations than other animals because human behaviour is controlled less by biological urges and more by social and cultural pressures and our of individual desires. Very few animals are as cultural and social as humans are, which makes human reproductive selection different to most animals.

        Comment Hidden ( show )
          -
        • You're so smart.

          Comment Hidden ( show )
        • Prominent =/= big. Human females, I believe (I have not found contrary evidence) , are the only mammals who store fat around the mammary gland.

          Your argument sounds circular to me. "women have prominent breasts because men are attracted to promiment breasts because women have prominent breasts"

          Orgasms. I can't really get behind the female incentive theory as it goes against biological and historical reality/sense. It assumes that hostorically females had enough choice in having sex to cause the clitoris to stick around or develop but I don't think that's very realistic. I have additional ideas related to this but I'm not quite ready to offer them yet...still in progress!

          You didn't say anything about hidden ovulation!

          Thanks for the reply, by the way!

          Comment Hidden ( show )
      • SuperBenzid

        Of the three you stated only one is particularly odd:
        -prominent breast while not lactating

        There are other female primates enjoy sex and possess what is necessary to achieve orgasm. The only reason we don't know if they orgasm is that we can't ask them.
        Other primates have hidden ovulation.

        I do not believe a consensus explanation on why breasts in humans formed the way they did exists. A lot of our genetics is broken or illogical though so it is likely an accidental mutation. We still have the genes to grow a tail we just have other genes to tell us not to as an example.

        Humans were down to a very small population at one point in time so that led to some abnormalities that could be one of them. Like our terrible jaw structure which is both not large enough for the adult set of teeth but also prone to disease. Could be a byproduct of being bipedal another thing that separates humans from mammals.

        We can't go back in time to see that evolution happen so we may never know.

        Comment Hidden ( show )
          -
        • If prominent breasts are some kind of mutation then males must have developed the attraction over time (adapting to it) yet males haven't developed a defense against hidden ovulation. Odd, isn't it?

          Comment Hidden ( show )
        • I was aware that some primates have the ability (or potential, anyway) to orgasm. I never said human females were the only animals who can. Just the fact that it's completely unnecessary-and the ability is EXTREMELY rare among mammals-is what's puzzling. And that human females are the only animals who have ALL 3 of the traits I listed. So it appears that human females, biologically, have some strange differences from all other animals, these differences having no biological purpose, while human males do NOT have such strangs differences from other male mammals.

          Comment Hidden ( show )
  • spaghettifrier

    there is no need for prominent breasts-- by the same logic you could say there is no need for nipples on men.

    the clitoris is the only organ solely for sexual pleasure--
    not so. the glans of the penis is solely for sexual pleasure. Sure, it's part of the penis, but is irrelevant for the sake of the argument. Point is, BOTH male and female have a part of their genitals that is made of nerves and seems to be just for pleasure. A penis could still function without the glans

    female orgasm is not as crucially needed but is still beneficial toward pregnancy. human (both male and female) orgasm has evolved greatly. sure male orgasm is necessary but it doesn't have to be as pleasurable as it is--our sensory have caught up to our brains to incorporate different elements to sex other than just physical--for both male and female. This helps bonding, both with our mates and with our children, which further helps survival success.

    Comment Hidden ( show )
      -
    • SuperBenzid

      That is incorrect sorry. The glans are necessary to absorb force during intercourse. The structure of the erect penis would be more frequently damaged with their removal. Glans are softer than the engorged structure below for this reason.

      Comment Hidden ( show )
    • No, as male nipples are there because of how we develop in the womb. There's a biological explanation for this while there is NOT an explanation for prominent breast and "full time" prominent breast is only seen in humans, not other mammals.

      I didn't say the clitoris is the only organ for sexual pleasure. I said it's the only organ whose sole purpose is pleasure. There's no biological need for female orgasm. It is a myth that it aids in conception. This was a theory that has been disproven.

      Comment Hidden ( show )
        -
      • Couman

        It could also be argued that male nipples serve solely for pleasure. And conversely, there is at least a little truth in the claim that the clitoris is just a "leftover" from penis development. Also, I know you didn't explicitly say they were, but humans are not the only species to have them.

        Comment Hidden ( show )
          -
        • Yeah but male nipples/breast are significantly "underdeveloped" in comparison to females due to it being a leftover but the clitoris isn't really. It's really large and complex.

          Comment Hidden ( show )
  • RoseIsabella

    *stretches then farts and yawns simultaneously and falls back to sleep*

    Comment Hidden ( show )
      -
    • *snurps then blows it in your face**

      Comment Hidden ( show )
        -
      • RoseIsabella

        *sneezes and farts simultaneously*

        Comment Hidden ( show )
    • shuggy-chan

      So u breathed in ur own fart, classy lady

      Comment Hidden ( show )
        -
      • RoseIsabella

        I got mad skills, yo.

        Comment Hidden ( show )
          -
        • ThatCreepyWhiteGuy

          *burp snarts*

          Comment Hidden ( show )
            -
          • RoseIsabella

            *snarts hard*

            Comment Hidden ( show )
              -
            • ThatCreepyWhiteGuy

              *Sneezes out an illithid brain bud*
              What was that doing in there?

              Comment Hidden ( show )
  • Shroot

    You fool.

    Comment Hidden ( show )
  • davesumba

    Sure, in the same way animals are more evolved than humans because of their natural furry clothes. Which brings me to another point, humans didn't evolve from ANYTHING, otherwise we wouldn't have lost the fur that prevents freezing, nuff said.

    Comment Hidden ( show )
      -
    • SuperBenzid

      "otherwise we wouldn't have lost the fur that prevents freezing"

      There are a few reasons we don't have fur but the largest comes down to our evolutionary advantage. A physically fit human can run further than almost every other animal on earth over long distances including the gazelle and cheetah.

      Early humans used to do persistence hunting and run extremely long distances simply tiring out other animals to the point that they could walk up to the animals unconscious form and kill it. Some tribes in Africa still hunt this way. Other creatures have claws, massive teeth, etc, before we had our technology we had running. It was how we were able to compete. Fur is a detriment to long distance running as it interferes with the ability to shed heat.

      Also: humans evolved in Africa where cold was not as big an issue as it is in some other places, our larger brain's than our previous ape ancestors meant we generate more heat, fire is easier to handle without fur, being bipedal changes the heat distribution making fur less useful, etc.

      All these reasons came together to cause a natural selection of ever less hairy humans over time.

      Comment Hidden ( show )
        -
      • davesumba

        hahahahahahaha, you must be gay, because you pulled that out of a huge gaping ass.

        Comment Hidden ( show )
          -
        • SuperBenzid

          I guess ignorance is emotionally important to some people.

          Comment Hidden ( show )
            -
          • davesumba

            What's wrong, no response? Don't have any evidence to back up your outrageous claims? Too bad.

            Comment Hidden ( show )
              -
            • SuperBenzid

              No, it's just that I have friends and family that I would rather spend time with than engage with your abuse.

              You have Google if you want to read through the mountains of evidence confirming evolution then you have that ability.

              Comment Hidden ( show )
          • davesumba

            You tell me Ash Ketchum. I just find it hilarious the things evolutionists make up with zero proof and then try to pass off as fact, just to reassure themselves there is no God.

            Comment Hidden ( show )
              -
            • Lonely2

              Because you believe in evolution does not mean yoy dont believe in God

              Comment Hidden ( show )
    • I actually do not believe in evolution either. Since most on here do, I worded the question that way.

      Comment Hidden ( show )
        -
      • SuperBenzid

        That explains a lot.

        Comment Hidden ( show )
          -
        • Well, hey, I'm very open minded and wanting to discuss this stuff. No need to be condescending or angry. It's been great getting some intelligent responses on my post and I really appreciate everyone who is taking the time to answer with anything other than "you're an idiot".

          Comment Hidden ( show )
            -
          • SuperBenzid

            I think you take that as a criticism when it wasn't intended that way. Concerns of biological logic and the ideas you have make more sense for someone that believes humanity was designed.

            You see it is easy for someone that believes in evolution to put things down to mutation and other processes over time. Whereas people that believe in design don't have that same thought process due to their beliefs.

            Comment Hidden ( show )
      • I am curious, what do you believe? Creationism? I am not trying to sound condescending, I am just curious.

        Comment Hidden ( show )