Here’s your Friday Funny!

Can you guess why this is funny?

Hint: You MUST view the page.

And just so you’ll be reassured to know, it is NOT pornographic.

How birds lost their penises – LATimes.com
http://www.latimes.com/news/science/sciencenow/la-sci-sn-birds-lost-penis-20130606,0,1969528.story

For your convenience, dear reader, here is a screen shot of the page.

And if you’d like, additional commentary follows below the image.

Screen shot of LATimes.com news item

The following comment appears upon the site:

“Tim Engler at 5:26 PM June 06, 2013
“I don’t understand the last statements in the article. If:
“1) Loss of penis was due to a cell-death gene that was switched on before birth
“2) They blocked the expression of the cell-death gene and were able to inhibit the cell death cycle.
“3) Then why did chicks not grow penises (or is it spelled “penii“?)
“Help me understand, this is driving me crazy!”

As Mr. Engler notes, there is a significant discrepancy, for which the researchers neither present nor offer accounting.

For example, if – as is suggested – inhibition of the cell death cycle led to the deterioration of the penis (as a structure), that would then suggest that there was something in an intermediate, or transitional phase, for things ALWAYS go through transition. After all, the predicate is evolution, which means “change.” Things don’t just “magically” appear – POOF! – out of nowhere.

Yes, things can be suddenly changed, and typically, such rapid change is cataclysmically destructive, which would mean that if such change so happened, there would be neither means nor method of accomplishing delivery of reproductive material – that being sperm.

Thus, the specie, having neither means nor method of reproduction would have become extinct.

But apparently, they didn’t.

Why?

Could, for example, the flaw in this item present an even greater flaw in the rationale or reasoning behind the argument?