An answer to a age old question

[jimsenchuk]

Mowed the lawn today, and after doing so I sat down and had a couple of nice cold beers. The day was really quite beautiful, and the brew facilitated some deep thinking on various topics. Finally I thought about an age old question: Is giving birth more painful than getting kicked in the nuts?

Women maintain that giving birth is way more painful than a guy getting kicked in the nuts. Well, after another beer, and some heavy deductive thinking, I have come up with the answer to the question: getting kicked in the nuts is more painful than having a baby; and here is the reason for my conclusion. A year or so after giving birth, a woman will often say, "It might be nice to have another child." On the other hand, you never hear a guy say, "You know, I think I would like another kick in the nuts."

I rest my case.

[Glacier]

20 views and not a single woman has objected. I guess you must have an airtight argument here... either that or they are giving you the silent treatment.






P.S. How is the couch treating you tonight?

[grammafreddy]

I can't argue this one ... have never been kicked in the nuts.

[Christinamlhaagsman]

Do you get any kind of reward for getting kicked in the nuts? You must, otherwise you wouldn't even think to compare the two like that.

Ps. I seen this on Facebook the other day, maybe that's why I don't find it funny.

[metallica]

by Christinamlhaagsman » Yesterday, 5:56 pm

Do you get any kind of reward for getting kicked in the nuts?

Not so much as a reward, however, reminds me of a friend saying he felt sorry for people who don't drink. Every day is the same. However when you wake up with a hangover you know at some point you are going to feel better and have something to look forward to. Kinda like getting kicked in the Nuts. It hurts but at some point it will feel better. Hope this helps

[SmokeOnTheWater]

I came to this thread thinking the question would be " What came first, the chicken or the egg ? "
Anyone has an answer for that one ?

[jimsenchuk]

I came to this thread thinking the question would be " What came first, the chicken or the egg ? "
Anyone has an answer for that one ?

Wonder if this is the answer.

This question appears regularly in the question file, so let's take a shot at it.

In nature, living things evolve through changes in their DNA. In an animal like a chicken, DNA from a male sperm cell and a female ovum meet and combine to form a zygote -- the first cell of a new baby chicken. This first cell divides innumerable times to form all of the cells of the complete animal. In any animal, every cell contains exactly the same DNA, and that DNA comes from the zygote.

Chickens evolved from non-chickens through small changes caused by the mixing of male and female DNA or by mutations to the DNA that produced the zygote. These changes and mutations only have an effect at the point where a new zygote is created. That is, two non-chickens mated and the DNA in their new zygote contained the mutation(s) that produced the first true chicken. That one zygote cell divided to produce the first true chicken.

Prior to that first true chicken zygote, there were only non-chickens. The zygote cell is the only place where DNA mutations could produce a new animal, and the zygote cell is housed in the chicken's egg. So, the egg must have come first.

http://science.howstuffworks.com/enviro ... tion85.htm