Science Forums 2

[Biochemist]

Originally Posted by Qfwfq

For some beliefs I can say it's a lack of hermeneutics, but one is also free to believe that divinity is not bound by what we arrogantly call physical "law". It's kinda like Popper's black swan argument. You can say it's just as unplausible as the teapot, but what empirical disproof do you have that the conception occured by means other than meiosis followed by fertilization? Like, the DNA in a cell just re-arranged and the cell just re-differentiated into a zygote. You'll never get it to happen in vitro, no matter how hard you try, but what does that disprove? We can only say it isn't the way the biomolecular process happens, it doesn't occur according to the chemical properties of the molecules involved. If someone wants to believe that God Almighty made it happen in that single case, that's their business.

Interesting post, Q. Incidentally, the process described here is called parthenogenesis. It is common in many "lower species" (e.g., salamanders) but it usually assumes an all-female population. It has never been demonstrated in humans, although I heard there was a search for potential parthenogenetic offspring in the UK a coupke of decades ago. Assuming we are describing the Biblical account and attempting to characterize a plausible (but rare) occurrence, we would probably have to assume that the mother (Mary, in this case) was XXY at least partially (this would be, clinically, Turners mosaic) and this status allowed a Y chromosome to express in the embryo.

That is the kind of thing that would not happen often. To say the least. But it is certainly possible.