Virgin Birth Confirmed

Status
Not open for further replies.
O

OilIsMastery

Banned
Banned
Well apparently the thought police don't want this scientific observation discussed either in the religion forum (where it belongs) or in the biology forum (where the thought police told me to put it before it was deleted).

So I'm going to try here where there is less segregation and censorship of scientific thought.

ScienceDaily (Oct. 11, 2008) — Scientists have confirmed the second-ever case of a “virgin birth” in a shark, indicating once again that female sharks can reproduce without mating and raising the possibility that many female sharks have this incredible capacity.

Lead author Dr. Demian Chapman, shark scientist with the Institute for Ocean Conservation Science at Stony Brook University, Beth Firchau, Curator of Fishes for the Virginia Aquarium & Marine Science Center, and Dr. Mahmood Shivji, Director of the Guy Harvey Research Institute and Professor at Nova Southeastern University in Florida, have proven through DNA testing that the offspring of a female blacktip shark named “Tidbit” contained no genetic material from a father.
Click to expand...

Link

I wonder what lies atheists will come up with to deny this scientific fact.
 
Last edited:
The very existence of the thought police proves that they know that they can't support their ideas in any fair or reasonable manner.
 
MetaKron said:
The very existence of the thought police proves that they know that they can't support their ideas in any fair or reasonable manner.
Click to expand...
Exactly. If I were a fundamentalist and my religion were as weak and unscientific as theirs, I would feel threatened by scientific observation as well.
 
What this have to do with human virgin birth, many animals are known to be capable of asexual reproduction, even optional asexual reproduction when mates can't be found. Evidence of a human virgin birth of a male child has not be studied scinetifically nor is a mechanism for such an event considered possible with the nature of the human reproduction system, it is hypothetically possible for a human to give birth to an asexual baby but it would be a clone of the mother, how a y-chromosome and other genetic material would get in to make a boy other than sperm is simply beyond nature.
 
I don't think it is impossible, but highly unlikely that a human female could asexually produce a male. The child would be female XX or XO. In order for a female to give birth to a male she would have to be male. The fact that its happening in other animals, possibly other people just devalues the miracle that was Jesus' birth. I could easily say that since people are capable of having children without having sex just makes Jesus's birth commonplace, not special. But I digress. I think it's pretty common for some animals to reproduce asexually, I believe honey bees do, whenever their queen dies.
 
Parthenogenesis is common in turkeys, lizards (whole species lack males), and several other egg-laying vertebrates.

Why anyone would be astounded to find it in amphibians or fish or sharks I have no idea. It's interesting, but hardly mind-boggling.

It is unknown in placental mammals, AFAIK. And they have been studied pretty well - a self-cloning sheep or cow variety would be a valuable animal.
 
iceaura said:
Why anyone would be astounded to find it in amphibians or fish or sharks I have no idea. It's interesting, but hardly mind-boggling.
Click to expand...
The same can be said of the Virgin Mary. Why anyone would be astounded to find it in mammals or humans I have no idea.

It is unknown in placental mammals, AFAIK. And they have been studied pretty well - a self-cloning sheep or cow variety would be a valuable animal.
Click to expand...
Wrong. First observation you are forgetting is the Virgin Mary. Second observation is the rabbits: http://www.archive.org/stream/eggsofmammals00pinc/eggsofmammals00pinc_djvu.txt
 
CutsieMarie89 said:
I don't think it is impossible, but highly unlikely that a human female could asexually produce a male. The child would be female XX or XO. In order for a female to give birth to a male she would have to be male. The fact that its happening in other animals, possibly other people just devalues the miracle that was Jesus' birth. I could easily say that since people are capable of having children without having sex just makes Jesus's birth commonplace, not special. But I digress. I think it's pretty common for some animals to reproduce asexually, I believe honey bees do, whenever their queen dies.
Click to expand...

Some females, when born, and an extra y cromosome, (they would have the chromosome xxy instead of the normal xx), and they are not left mentally retarded.
This actually happened in the olympics one year, they have the females checked to make sure they are really females, and this one girl had the chromosomes xxy

put this combination with the rareity of an asexual reproduction taking place, and you get a very slim chance... but isnt that what we see???? it only happens VERY RARELY, in humans or any other animal that doesnt normally reproduce by itself
 
goose said:
Some females, when born, and an extra y cromosome, (they would have the chromosome xxy instead of the normal xx), and they are not left mentally retarded.
This actually happened in the olympics one year, they have the females checked to make sure they are really females, and this one girl had the chromosomes xxy

put this combination with the rareity of an asexual reproduction taking place, and you get a very slim chance... but isnt that what we see???? it only happens VERY RARELY, in humans or any other animal that doesnt normally reproduce by itself
Click to expand...

people with Klinefelter's syndrome (XXY) have male like genitalia, no ovaries or uterus, and are usually sterile on the male side anyways!
 
OilIsMastery said:
Well apparently the thought police don't want this scientific observation discussed either in the religion forum (where it belongs) or in the biology forum (where the thought police told me to put it before it was deleted).
I wonder what lies atheists will come up with to deny this scientific fact.
Click to expand...
1. Disingenuous as ever, I see. Might it be the 'thought police' were objecting to your twisting of a simple, though interesting example, into an argument supporting the notion that Jesus was born of a virgin?
2. If virgin births in humans are possible, does that not rather remove the miraculous character of Jesus' birth? Which would tend to suggest he wasn't the Son of God at all. Was that what you wanted to prove?
3. Since the scientists who made this discovery are more likely to be atheists than theists, what's your point?
 
There is nothing in the substance, intent, or implication of my post that is at odds with phlogistician's statements.

You need to try harder, or preferably give up trying at all.
 
Last edited:
OilIsMastery said:
Try reading Ophiolite's post.
Click to expand...

I did, and he did not deny that a shark underwent parthenogenesis.

He does however have some problems with the wild and speculative conclusions you come to from this event. As do I.

Now, why don't you try and rebut his three points, if you can.
 
I think this should be moved to philosophy forum!

Lets look at the logic of it:
1. Sharks are capable of asexual reproduction
thus
2. Jesus's birth by virgin is possible

This makes as much sense as
1. Banks around the world are failing
thus
2. One of the 5 Jewish bankers that rule the world has died.

There a name for this horrific logic that OilIsMastery is displaying, but I forgot the name.
 
OilIsMastery said:
I wonder what lies atheists will come up with to deny this scientific fact.
Click to expand...
Why would an atheist want to deny this? If it's true and you want to think that it's somehow also applicable to humans, it makes the story of Jesus even less remarkable because it provides a scientific explanation for something that was supposed to be magical.

Or were you wanting to argue that this shark's virgin birth is also magical, and that this baby shark is a messiah of sharks?
 
It almost sounds like this thread is just trying to prove Jesus was the result of a virgin birth, or at least open the possibility.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top