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
Home Original Content Funny Pictures Funny GIFs YouTube Funny Text Funny Movies Channels Search

hide menu

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 ******* **** .
Views: 14622
Favorited: 83
Submitted: 03/18/2012
Share On Facebook
Add to favorites Subscribe to evilfederation Subscribe to 4chan E-mail to friend submit to reddit
Share image on facebook Share on StumbleUpon Share on Tumblr Share on Pinterest Share on Google Plus E-mail to friend



Show All Replies Show Shortcuts
Show:   Top Rated Controversial Best Lowest Rated Newest Per page:
What do you think? Give us your opinion. Anonymous comments allowed.
User avatar #12 - fogschmog (03/18/2012) [+] (6 replies)
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.
#29 - beardedtoads (03/19/2012) [+] (1 reply)
#41 - mtandy (03/19/2012) [-]
Not sure if I'm stupid.
Or this really isn't that mind-blowing...
#43 - jacobdl (03/19/2012) [+] (1 reply)
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
#48 - linklime (03/19/2012) [-]
Kinda like this?
User avatar #50 - lemonademonday (03/19/2012) [+] (4 replies)
Eitther im ******* retarded, or this is really hard to understand
User avatar #35 - runici (03/19/2012) [-]
User avatar #28 - masterbob (03/19/2012) [+] (7 replies)
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.
#9 - gizmobox **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
#25 - tippytiptip (03/19/2012) [-]
it sounds like it makes sense but then again it doesnt, waaaaaat

<------ My thinking face
#62 - xxxsonic fanxxx (03/19/2012) [+] (2 replies)
why this person is dumb:

let's assume this is true, that somehow, a family has always had daughters, up until now. Now she only has sons. Take these sons, they have children, and let's say they're all girls. This chain was broken by the sons, but was reestablished by the girls. The thing is, this could happen at any point in history, so they're wrong.
User avatar #64 to #62 - OJxJACKSON (03/19/2012) [-]
No the line is broken. The sons wives line is still intact
#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.

#42 - xxxsonic fanxxx (03/19/2012) [+] (1 reply)
That didn't take very long to figure out. Either I'm a genius or you are all retarded.
User avatar #45 to #42 - theshinypen (03/19/2012) [-]
why so anon?
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) [+] (3 replies)
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
#6 to #4 - xxxsonic fanxxx (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.
#61 - holyshizzle **User deleted account** has deleted their comment [-]
#55 - McGoogle (03/19/2012) [-]
MFW thinking about this..
Leave a comment
 Friends (0)