C-c-c-combo breaker. . File: -( 64 KB, 495x384, jpg) Cil " Considerings: ifa woman has only male children, she is the first woman in an unbroken line going back

C-c-c-combo breaker

File: -( 64 KB, 495x384, ************** jpg)
Cil " Considerings: ifa woman has only male children, she is the first woman in an unbroken line going
back to the origin of humans to not have a daughter. The reverse is true with fathers having only daughters.
I I Anonymousity: ) () 21: 03: 05 E co
File: 13320_ KB, 410x623, impressiveness)
rune "
Cl Anonymous (ID: Ril. Minsk) (WI TPI 2{ Sat} 2' l :06: 20 E co
mind blown
File: ( 325 KB, 382x417, )
I turned off my music to think bout this. Serious ******* **** .
  • Recommend tagsx
Views: 14665
Favorited: 83
Submitted: 03/18/2012
Share On Facebook
submit to reddit +Favorite Subscribe to evilfederation Subscribe to 4chan


Anonymous comments allowed.
User avatar #12 - fogschmog (03/18/2012) [-]
A family could have just boys for generations and generations, as long as you can reproduce outside of the family ( of which I know, OP isnt used to) all the other families your family ***** with had girls....and if you wanna go back all the ******* way, we are probably all related about 500 times interbreeding of the big family called human species, so NOPE not the first one, neither the last.
User avatar #20 to #12 - Welshhobo (03/19/2012) [-]
Yes thats true. BUT. This scenario would be true to the sons' wives and daughters, because they would all of had to have mothers. The line breaks and stops when they have only sons.

A mother has a son, and only one son. That line is now broken. The son marries some woman and they have a daughter. The daughter and woman both come from unbroken lines of having a mother.

You have to have to a mother to exist.
#24 to #20 - anon (03/19/2012) [-]
^would all *have* had
User avatar #37 to #12 - cjklefty (03/19/2012) [-]
So...What happens when she has a son and that son has only daughters....???
#13 to #12 - anon (03/18/2012) [-]
"In an unbroken line of women". If your son is a woman, I have bad news for you.
Those sons would breed with women from other families, thus, continuing their lineage.
User avatar #16 to #13 - fogschmog (03/18/2012) [-]
But seeing it as a strict linear happening (and thats the point that is ******* my mind) is just wrong. Its more of a wibbly woobly breedy wreemy stuff.
User avatar #19 to #16 - stubop (03/19/2012) [-]
I would consider it as keeping the family name on the man's side. Once you have a daughter, they'll lose their name at marriage. But if they don't marry, then the blood line would stop anyways. Same thing for women, but in the sense of keeping the "family genes" alive
#29 - beardedtoads (03/19/2012) [-]
#30 to #29 - BOOOGAH **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
#41 - mtandy (03/19/2012) [-]
Not sure if I'm stupid.
Or this really isn't that mind-blowing...
#48 - linklime (03/19/2012) [-]
Kinda like this?
User avatar #50 - lemonademonday (03/19/2012) [-]
Eitther im ******* retarded, or this is really hard to understand
#57 to #50 - anon (03/19/2012) [-]
Too lazy to log in.
It's like this. Your mom has a mom, who has a mom, who has a mom, who has a mom... which means that there is at least one line of women in her family who have had at least one daughter since the beginning of our species. Now if you are/were born male, and had no sisters, this means that this line of women that has been going on forever has finally come to and end because there is no daughter to carry on.

User avatar #68 to #57 - lemonademonday (03/26/2012) [-]
******** ......
#69 to #57 - nigglettt (04/02/2012) [-]
Thank you, I could not comprehend what it was saying for the life of me.
User avatar #65 to #57 - obliquezombie (03/20/2012) [-]
Great explanation, I finally got this.

... now I'm ******* weirded out, man.
User avatar #35 - runici (03/19/2012) [-]
User avatar #28 - masterbob (03/19/2012) [-]
okay, someone ******* explain this **** right now. spell this **** out.
User avatar #31 to #28 - jlyoung (03/19/2012) [-]
So you have a girl, who has a mother, who has a mother, who has a mother, and it goes on like that to the first woman. You have an unbroken line of women who had at least one daughter, and the woman we're looking at has only boys.She is the first woman in the genetic line she got from her mother to not have a daughter.
User avatar #36 to #31 - onkii (03/19/2012) [-]
but... the sperms decide the sex of the child
User avatar #38 to #36 - jlyoung (03/19/2012) [-]
One X comes from the mother.
User avatar #39 to #38 - onkii (03/19/2012) [-]
and the X or the Y comes from the father, so regardless of the X of the egg, the sperm still decides..
User avatar #47 to #39 - twinklyturtles (03/19/2012) [-]
it doesnt matter. all of the previous women didn't have a break in the chain
User avatar #56 to #47 - wolvesbrickwall (03/19/2012) [-]
and this is mind blowing how?
User avatar #60 to #56 - rachaelturtle (03/19/2012) [-]
Yeah, I don't find it mind blowing either. You've (normally) got a 50/50 chance of being male or female so its bound to happen like, what, half of the time? Waht.
#9 - gizmobox **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
#43 - jacobdl (03/19/2012) [-]
Holy **** read it and think really hard it takes a minute but its mind blowing because everyone has a mother your mother if she has a boy and no daughters break that change of women leading back to the beginning of time
#44 to #43 - lordoflore (03/19/2012) [-]
if you are an only son, your mom had a mom, she had a mom, and so on and if you have a kid they will have a mom so the chain continues, because you dad might not have a sister
#25 - tippytiptip (03/19/2012) [-]
it sounds like it makes sense but then again it doesnt, waaaaaat

<------ My thinking face
#46 - nosebird (03/19/2012) [-]
the only reason why this is somewhat difficult to understand is because the grammar of almost every person who tries to explain it is awful. use commas, whores.

User avatar #21 - everyoneandnoone (03/19/2012) [-]
i almost get it, but then i dont. my brain hurts and my mind is full of **** .
User avatar #8 - beanfuckingfarrell (03/18/2012) [-]
I paused Cat in the Hat to think about this. ******* CAT IN THE HAT. This **** is serious.
#4 - usernameerror (03/18/2012) [-]
This theory cannot work though. Because for instance if a mother had all sons and then those sons had all daughters there would be a break in the lineage because then they would be continuing from the DNA of the partner. So technically yes there is a constant line of mothers or sons but there is no son of a son or daughter of a daughter.

The reason why I know this is that my family has the tradition of having an eldest son that dates back to pre-records in Sparta. And if the wife has daughters, they keep having children until there is a son. That would be a true lineage
User avatar #5 to #4 - usernameerror (03/18/2012) [-]
and I know that this is a 'cool story bro' but i'm just trying to help give an explanation to why. I'll take it down if I people give me **** for it
#6 to #4 - anon (03/18/2012) [-]
What you say makes sense, but I'm fairly sure this is more about the mother being the first in her direct family lineage to not have another daughter because just to get to her someone somewhere in her lineage in every generation had to have at least one daughter.

My family, simply for instance and ease of my imagination:

Me > Mother > Grandmother > Great Grandmother > Great great grandmother > et cetera.

If my mother would've had another son besides me instead of a daughter, the unbroken chain of women in my lineage would've been broken.

Really hope I didn't just make a fool out of myself. I'd like to hear your thoughts, sincerely. This is an interesting topic.
User avatar #7 to #6 - usernameerror (03/18/2012) [-]
Actually, when you only look at the females and not the males, this makes total sense. I was thinking both men and women. Since I don't have any sisters, my mother's lineage of women would stop and if i had a daughter it would be traced back to my wife, then her mother, then her mother. That... That is giving me a headache. There has to be a flaw in this
#61 - holyshizzle **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
#55 - McGoogle (03/19/2012) [-]
MFW thinking about this..
#58 - anon (03/19/2012) [-]
This premise is rather unremarkable when one realizes that a male ancestor would have to copulate with an unrelated female who is now your ancestor in order to reproduce. This seemingly mind-boggling notion only underlines the fact that a female is required for reproduction in terms of the human species. If your mother only produces male children before she dies, she is just another twig in the tree of ancestry of human beings, there are many twigs, but branches continue on simply because of the continued reproduction of our species. And branches can split when a mother has two children who both reproduce, so there isn't a limit to how many branches there can be.
#52 - vipersixtyfour (03/19/2012) [-]
Once you realize it, holy **** .
#67 to #52 - ilikebigdick (03/23/2012) [-]
Took me a minute to figure out. My reaction was same
Took me a minute to figure out. My reaction was same
Leave a comment
 Friends (0)