If it wasnt for woman there would be no man and if there wasn't for man there would'nt be no woman right??

Answer 1

At this point, males aren't really necessary for the continuation of the human species.

In vitro fertilization happens all the time.

Answer 2

This is chicken or egg scenario.

Technically we could exist, as asexual beings or beings that are hermaphroditic.

However we're not.

My guess is that females came first, or at least are more important. They choose the genetic material for their offspring, so they choose their men.

If they chose poorly, evolution would stop.

Men tend to not get the same mate selection.

I guess I'm not answering right, either way the egg came first, before the chicken, or the female.

Answer 3

WRONG, WRONG WRONG! If it wasnt for God there would be no woman or man. A man cannot create a woman and a woman cannot create a man. We are simply tools that God uses to perform His will. Yes women have babies, but they are not the ones who created the baby. Even if there werent anything as a woman, God would still be able to create babies because that is where the power lies, with God, not man.

Answer 4

If you are thinking of this in the way of original humans, no. God created man and he saw that his creation was not complete, he then created woman from man.

If you are thinking of this in the way of typical reproduction of the human race, then yes you need to have a man and a woman.

Answer 5

That's the way it was the last time I looked. You have a point?

Answer 6

Asexual creatures?

Answer 7

Yes, that's true. It's also true that without men there would be no men and without women there would be no women. Group effort, see?

Answer 8

That is the way I see it. One is depended upon the other.

Answer 9

As far as reproduction yes, you need both to continue our species.

Answer 10

yes, that sounds right to me