Parthenogenesis

[Trinity]

Scientists: Virginia shark's pup a 'virgin birth'

RICHMOND, Va. - Scientists have confirmed the second case of a "virgin birth" in a shark. In a study reported Friday in the Journal of Fish Biology, scientists said DNA testing proved that a pup carried by a female Atlantic blacktip shark in the Virginia Aquarium & Marine Science Center contained no genetic material from a male.

The first documented case of asexual reproduction, or parthenogenesis, among sharks involved a pup born to a hammerhead at an Omaha, Neb., zoo.

"This first case was no fluke," Demian Chapman, a shark scientist and lead author of the second study, said in a statement. "It is quite possible that this is something female sharks of many species can do on occasion."

http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20081010/...TiFcpxNaWs0NUE

Those who are doubting about Jesus birth should reconsider. Sharks have umbilical cords, just like mammalian babies.

Trinity

[Leslie]

Were the baby sharks males or females?

[Trinity]

Originally Posted by Leslie

Were the baby sharks males or females?

I do not know.

This phenomenon is not unique to sharks only but to other species also. The phenomenon has nothing to do with reproduction modes in hermaphroditic species. Species that contain reproductive organs of both sexes.

The mechanisms of evolution (nature) will always find a way to do their things, even if that could seem bizarre, to us all. There is nothing that can be much more surrealist than the diversity of lives. I saw some creatures that are more thrilling than those in the Alien movies, and into the bottoms of the oceans. Just think about this era of the dinosaurs. That was something.

Trinity

[Leslie]

I was just curious if the pup was a female like it's mother or a male. I know some creatures can reproduce asexually but the child is usually female like the mother. There is a species of lizard that does this in fact.

[Columcille]

Originally Posted by Leslie

I was just curious if the pup was a female like it's mother or a male. I know some creatures can reproduce asexually but the child is usually female like the mother. There is a species of lizard that does this in fact.

http://www.livescience.com/animals/0...rk-virgin.html

Tidbit's offspring is female. The above article discusses it in more detail. Komodo dragon is one of those lizards you are referring to. According to the article, there are about 70 vertibrate species, and all of the virgin births produce females. It also suggests problems in the newborn, since the pairing of the chromosomes are from the same genetic source. I should say the complications would be just as bad as inbreeding brother and sisters, but that would be better than what happens in the virgin born since a brother and sister would at least differ in the sex chromosome.

The fact that it is possible may be something to grasp in reference to the virgin birth of our Lord, but when it comes right down to it... it was a miracle. There is never going to be another one like it. As far as I am concerned, I still wonder if a paternal mitochondrial DNA could have been p***ed on to Mary and that an extraction or reproduction copy was made from the mtDNA converted for the necessary DNA sex gene at the time Christ was conceived. At any rate, whether the miracle is a rare natural reaction or if it is supplied miraculously by God's knowing the genetic make-up in order to create a legitimate DNA copy of David's lineage when Mary had no Y chromosome makes no difference. Science is based on observance of natural events, not miracles; it is religion that adds meaning where science falls short. While there may be scientific evidence of attraction based on our chemicals, this is not how everyone sees true love. True love in an eros mindframe sets up for itself promises and visitions of an eternal or life-long commitment from which we perceive and know by examples of those rare couples who have stayed together long past their golden anniversary until death do us part. In some circumstances, it seems science's ultimate goal is to manipulate the circumstances... but would you call manipulation "love?" Love is an act by the will toward another seeking the other's best interest; so God's act of love was to send his son in the flesh for our sakes.

[Leslie]

Well, Mary was herself of the lineage of David, so that's not an issue.

[Columcille]

Originally Posted by Leslie

Well, Mary was herself of the lineage of David, so that's not an issue.

Since all the lineages are in that society based on a paternal and not a maternal lineage, it seems to me that Mary's lineage is a jump--it skips one paternal generation. But you are right in a sense that it does not matter. The crux seems to be based on a need to explain to unbelievers a plausable rationale. Hence, the scientific conjecture by pointing to virgin sharks and other species. You are really not the intended audience from which we are making such a case, since you already believe. If the case we make is somewhat reasonable, then the conflicts that an unbeliever may face in accepting the whole of the Gospel may be reduced in his/her mind. If Paul quoted and connected with a pagan audience using their own sources or even by philosophical dialogue by the power of the Holy Spirit, then it really is good for us to do the same.

While I have speculated that Jesus' male Y chromosome is produced or extracted and formed from a paternal mtDNA inheritance in Mary, it is simply a speculation. It does not add or take away from the doctrine that Jesus was both fully human and fully God in all both those natures possess. I think the speculation that Jesus' human nature, which contains the XY chromosome, must be from Mary so that all his human nature must preceed from a direct lineage to David. Otherwise, God would have to create the Y-gene from nothing... and that would mean that Christ's human nature is not from a direct lineage back to David, but rather Christ would be only 45/46 human traceable to David's loins because our DNA is made up of 23 pairs; this would mean that Christ would only have 22 1/2 chromosomes direct from David's lineage making the Y chromosome to have been a copy not directly decended. In some manner, Mary must have carried the Y chromosome in her body that was recessive and not carried in her own DNA pattern. I think a paternal mtDNA inheritance in Mary to carry the pattern resolves this issue, but perhaps there are other ways to resolve it.

[sayso]

Trying to figure out how God was able to create life without man's help is useless. In the beginning He spoke and it was. God is God and we are not. His ways are not our ways.

[Columcille]

Originally Posted by sayso

Trying to figure out how God was able to create life without man's help is useless. In the beginning He spoke and it was. God is God and we are not. His ways are not our ways.

When God makes a promise, he fulfills it. Now if Jesus is the son of David, then the Y gene must come from David's loins in order for it to be fulfilled. It is God's promise, not man's promise.

Whether you take Luke's account of Mary's lineage or that of Joseph's lineage in Matthew, both of their fathers are directly tied to a son of David either Nathan in Luke or Solomon in Matthew. So biologically we see Jesus coming from Mary, but raised up by Joseph; a nice combination of nature and nurture completely of David, but if Mary had no Y chromosome, not even in her mtDNA or elsewhere stored in her when she was a zygote, then the biological aspects of Christ are 45 out of 46 chromosome's directly human from David's loins, the last chromosome would have been an immitation borrowed and copied from outside the lineage. Just as much if you broke a vase into 46 parts and lost the only one of those parts and went to the same region you got the clay, molded it and heated it to fit perfectly the reconstructed vase. The 45 parts of it are from the original, but it would still not be the original vase due to that last piece being only an imitation and exact replica of the original.

[MacG]

[QUOTE=Columcille;1650]Since all the lineages are in that society based on a paternal and not a maternal lineage, it seems to me that Mary's lineage is a jump...QUOTE]

Today among mixed marriages if your mother is a Jew then you are a Jew. If your mother is Gentile then you are Gentile. I think this is because you always know who the mama is

There is a bit of controversy about this among the liberal side of Judaism today but if what you say is true then when did it change?

MacG

[Columcille]

[QUOTE=MacG;1658]

Originally Posted by Columcille

Since all the lineages are in that society based on a paternal and not a maternal lineage, it seems to me that Mary's lineage is a jump...QUOTE]

Today among mixed marriages if your mother is a Jew then you are a Jew. If your mother is Gentile then you are Gentile. I think this is because you always know who the mama is

There is a bit of controversy about this among the liberal side of Judaism today but if what you say is true then when did it change?

MacG

Perhaps I did not make that point clear. What I mean by that Mary's lineage is a jump is that on both lineages in Matthew and in Luke, as well as any other long list of geneologies in the O.T. all the names are of the paternal side, i.e. David begat Solomon, and et al.. What is a jump is that Jesus has in his uniqueness no physical father, except Joseph who is more of an adopted father. It is only logical that a virgin birth is going to list the mother in that paternal lineage, but what I keep drawing at is that the Y-Chromosome, if you don't adapt my theory that it is repressed in the mtDNA or anywhere within Mary at the time of her being a zygote, is missing otherwise and so Christ's biological lineage is not completely from David's loins (it is only 45/46th parts from David's loins).

[alanmolstad]

this ...is perhaps the most worthless topic I have run into here......


talking about a shark, and comparing it to the lord?.....


I mean, really?