Prośba o sprawdzenie artykułu 'Ludzkość pozbawiona mężczyzn' (;

Mam na zadanie artykuł do napisania do 275 słów, a robię często bardzo głupie błędy, których zwyczajnie nie widzę. Czy mógłby ktoś mi je wytknąć? Oto co stworzyłam:

MANKIND DEPRIVED OF MEN

30 years ago nobody thought that world without men could exist. Nowadays, technology is much more advanced. Do women really need men?

Everybody knows the movie "Seksmisja" from 1984, that initiated a huge upheaval in local thinking. Women were not as independed as they are now. It seemed to be certain that mankind won't survive without males. The traditional model of family was deeply put (?) in everyone's mind: woman + man = next generations, in human and animals' world. "Mankind consisting of women" sounded creepy, not like a real opportunity – ask your parents. Nevertheless, the childish question from the first paragraph moved scientists.

Firstly, we know a few classes of organisms, that are able to reproduce by parthenogenesis – e.g. rotifers "bdelloidea" for 40 billion years exist without any male representant. It is unquestionable that women are needful in reproduction, men, with progress of technology, are becoming just donors of spermatozoon and farther they are problem - due to the fact that it's necessary to sacrifice women's time to find a partner.

Nevertheless, there is the "Red Queen Hypothesis" - organisms need to reproduce by males and females to protect us: At least 80% of organisms are parasites, so we are manufacturing antigens thanks to stem cells. Second counter-argument that the traditional model of family from before the "Seksmisja" is a better opportunity - "Hill-Robertson Hypothesis": sexual intercourse mixes gens and eliminate useless mutations.

Is the population of women able to survive? Technically - yes, but mankind without men would be undifferentiated and at enormous risk of mutations, so the family model from 1984 is by far more profitable from biology's point of view.

(Lepiej nie zaczynz zdan z 30, tutaj mozna Some) 30 years ago nobody thought that (przedimek) world without men could exist.
'Everybody' (nie mozesz tak mowic, jest duzo ludzi ktorzy tego filmu nigdy nie widzieli i niw wiedza o co chodzi) knows the movie "Seksmisja" from 1984, that initiated a huge upheaval in 'local' (nie rozumiem tego slowa tutaj) thinking. Women (napisz kiedy) were not as independed as they are now. It seemed to be certain that mankind 'won't'(tuytaj ja mysle, ze 'would not' lepiej pasuje) survive without males. The traditional model of (przedimek) family was deeply 'put' ('put' to jest zle slowo, mozna 'embedded' - sprawdz w slowniku) in everyone's mind: woman + man = next generations, in human and 'animals'' (tutaj wystarczy 'animal') world. "Mankind consisting of women" sounded creepy, not like a real opportunity (ale na co? po co?) – ask your parents. Nevertheless, the 'childish' (nie, to jest bardzo dobre pytanie) question 'from the first paragraph' (niepotr) 'moved' (wg mnie zle slowo, tutaj moze 'puzzled,') scientists.

Firstly, we 'know' (nie, nie mozna tak pisac, niektorzy o niczym nie wiedza) a few classes of organisms, that are able to reproduce (tutaj brakuje 'themselves') by parthenogenesis – e.g. rotifers "bdelloidea" for 40 billion years 'exist' (zly czas) without any male 'representant' (cos mi sie to slowo nie podaoba). It is unquestionable that women are 'needful' (nie za bardzo trafnbe slowo, moze 'necessary') in reproduction, (dodaj cos tu, to zdanie musi miec 2 czesci, np 'but') men, with (przedimek) progress of technology, are becoming just donors of 'spermatozoon' (ciekawe slowo ale chyba ortog) and 'farther' (jest tez 'further) 'they' (to znaczy kto? men? sperm?) are (przedimek) problem - due to the fact that it's necessary to sacrifice women's time to find a partner. (zdanie wydaje mi sie troche za dlugie - gubi sie sens)

Nevertheless, there 'is' ('is' to jest za ciezkiw slowo tutaj, moze 'exists) the "Red Queen Hypothesis" - THAT 'organisms need to reproduce by males and females to protect us' (cos tu nie takj, zrob to inaczej) : At least 80% of organisms are parasites, so 'we' (to znaczy kto?) are manufacturing antigens thanks to (przedimek) stem cells. (przedimek) second counter-argument that the traditional model of family from before the "Seksmisja" 'is a better opportunity' (nie rozumiem tego pojecia) - IS THE "Hill-Robertson Hypothesis": THAT sexual intercourse mixes gens and 'eliminate' (3os.l.poj - hypothesis-it) useless mutations.

Is the 'population of women able to survive' (cos tu nie tak - nie za bardzo rozumiem)? Technically - yes, but mankind without men would be undifferentiated and at enormous risk of mutations, so the family model from 1984 is by far more 'profitable' (to jest zle slowo) from 'biology's' (nie, napisz 'a biological') point of view.

OK ale sie troche gubie, zdania sa za dlugie, i nie jest jasno o co chodzi. No i przedimki (a, an, the)

Bardzo dziękuję za tak dogłębne sprawdzenie. O tym deficycie przedimków zawsze zapominam, nie dostrzegam ich.
'"Mankind consisting of women" sounded creepy, not like a real possibility' - mogłoby być tak zamiast tego 'opportunity'? Chodziło mi o to, że życie w świecie bez mężczyzn byłoby taką jedną z możliwości przetrwania naszego gatunku, czysto hipotetycznie. ;)