Science is close-minded

[Moontanman]

Originally Posted by Biochemist

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.

I don't mean to post out of turn here but i saw the other day that Komodo Dragons use parthenognesis and the result is all male! I was amazed, I thought they had to be female!

[HydrogenBond]

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.

The virgin birth of Jesus may indeed have a biological explanation, as was described above. There is a different way to spin this. Say we assume the virgin birth happened by Turner's mosaic, since it is plausible. For centuries, Christianity has insisted on an event that science said was impossible for hundreds of years, until science finally evolved enough.

[Moontanman]

Originally Posted by HydrogenBond

The virgin birth of Jesus may indeed have a biological explanation, as was described above. There is a different way to spin this. Say we assume the virgin birth happened by Turner's mosaic, since it is plausible. For centuries, Christianity has insisted on an event that science said was impossible for hundreds of years, until science finally evolved enough.

Is this really a possibility or are we just spinning our wheels? Science just follows the evidence, if it changes then it changes, no loss of face unless you refuse to see the truth.

[CraigD]

Originally Posted by Biochemist

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.

To refocus on the thread’s topic, scientific investigation of the possibility of parthenogenesis in humans, regardless of its outcome and distinct form any religious connotations, is, I think, a strong example that science is not close-minded, but the opposite.

This is in contrast to the pre/non-scientific assumptions of the storytellers and authors of the various world religions in which “miraculous births” feature prominently, in which it is assumed that such an occurrence can only result from supernatural causes, such as impregnation by a god (eg: the story of Zeus and Danaë)

For the past century of so, especially in the US, there has been a tendency, I believe, to perceive scientific and religious thinking as innately incompatible, despite compelling evidence that for at least the preceding three centuries, many or most all professional scientists were also some form or professional clergy, and apparently sincerely religious. This perception is due, I think, to confusing close-mindedness with theism and religiousness.

A characteristic of open-minded theists and deists, which include many pre-twentieth Century scientists and present day professional clergy/scientists, is both scientific and theological open-mindedness. Acknowledging the possibility of parthenogenesis in humans is an example of scientific open-mindedness. An example of theological open-mindedness is the attitude that the character of God may be very different than that described in religious scripture, and is revealed by science. In contrast, the belief that scientific results that contradict religious scripture must be incorrect and be rejected is an example of theological close-mindedness.

[CraigD]

Originally Posted by HydrogenBond

Say we assume the virgin birth happened by Turner's mosaic, since it is plausible.

I’ve never before encountered the suggestion that Turner’s syndrome can cause parthenogenesis. Do you have a source for your claim that it is plausible, HydrogenBond?

All of the literature I’ve seen about the syndrome (which can afflict only women) and pregnancy refers only to the rarity of women with it being able to conceive (very few of whom can even menstruate without hormone replacement drug therapy), and the high risk of birth defects and death of child or mother (women with Turner’s syndrome commonly have dangerous heart defects).

Genetic mosaicism, which is suspected but not conclusively known to cause Turner’s syndrome, is a single individual with multiple complete somatic genomes. Though very rare, it’s been observed in humans. It can result in a mother and child who’s genome, when compared using common techniques such as cheek swab, blood, and hair sampling, appear to be genetically unrelated to one another. (see Human Chimeras: These Fused Fraternal Twins Can Confuse DNA Tests).

Chimerism, a form of mosaicism, can cause a human to be a hermaphrodite, an individual who may, but does not always, have functional reproductive organs of both sexes. Though I’m unaware of an actual, documented case of it, in principle, such a person could impregnate him/her self. However, this would not be a true case of parthenogenesis (“virgin birth”).

[Turtle]

Originally Posted by CraigD

...Chimerism, a form of mosaicism, can cause a human to be a hermaphrodite, an individual who may, but does not always, have functional reproductive organs of both sexes. Though I’m unaware of an actual, documented case of it, in principle, such a person could impregnate him/her self. However, this would not be a true case of parthenogenesis (“virgin birth”).

In other words, science is open-minded to the possibility that Jesus was a hermaphrodite?

[Moontanman]

Originally Posted by Turtle

In other words, science is open-minded to the possibility that Jesus was a hermaphrodite?

No, I think it means the Virgin Mary was a hermaphrodite

[Turtle]

"I did not have sexual relations with that woman."

Is science open to the idea that both Mary and Jesus were hermaphrodites? "I don' know nuthin' 'bout birthin' no babies Miss Scarlet!" That way we can explain Jesus showing up in America is that he was full term pregnant by himself/from himself when he/she was crucified and Mary Magdalene got the baby out of the tomb and took it too France to grow up & wait for a boat to Boston where other Moronic stuff happened and got written on gold 78's. Science is open-minded to that, right?

[freeztar]

I'm not too familiar with hermaphrodism, but wouldn't "autoimpregnation" be the ultimate form of inbreeding?

Perhaps we need a separate thread to discuss this subject? Something like "Possible scientific explanations of the virgin birth of Jesus", or something similar.

[Turtle]

Originally Posted by freeztar

I'm not too familiar with hermaphrodism, but wouldn't "autoimpregnation" be the ultimate form of inbreeding?

It's probably a sin too, and may account for the hairy hands seen on the shroud of Turin.

Originally Posted by Frrezenator

Perhaps we need a separate thread to discuss this subject? Something like "Possible scientific explanations of the virgin birth of Jesus", or something similar.

Oh...oh yes...well then, straighten up here...gather my wits...so...yes of course. That is an excellent suggestion. As luck has it, we have that in stock down on isle 5. >> Jesus's DNA