Science is close-minded

[CraigD]

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? :hyper:

 

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]

...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? :hyper:

[Moontanman]

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

 

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

[Turtle]

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

 

Is science open to the idea that both Mary and Jesus were hermaphrodites? "I don' know nuthin' 'bout birthin' no babies Miss Scarlet!" :hihi: 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? :D

[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]

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. :hyper:

 

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. >> http://hypography.com/forums/theology-forum/5812-jesuss-dna.html

[Biochemist]

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!

That is pretty interesting. I had not heard of that.

[Biochemist]

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.

I agree with that. I have (frankly) always been a little puzzled why people of faith often get irritated when someone attempts to expose "miracles" as rare natural occurrences. I think just about everything we experience is miraculous. I think I have a different view of what a "miracle" is.

 

Bio

[Biochemist]

..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.

Agreed.

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.

I think it is closed minded on both sides. I can't tell you how many posts here overtly assert that theists are a) delusional, B) non-scientific, or c) both.

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.

Agreed again. But (frankly) I don't know of an example where science contradicts scripture (although I am really only talking about the Bible). It just contradicts folks interpretation of the Bible.

 

Great post, CD

[Biochemist]

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? B)

I started this one CD. I suggested that a "virgin birth" could plausibly be generated by parthenogenesis, but the offfspring would have to be female (from a female parent) unless the parent was XXY. This would, essentially, combine two extremely rare events (human parthenogenesis and Turners mosaic). Turners would not "cause" parthenogenesis. It would just be required (I think) to get a male offspring form a female parent by parthenogenesis.

[Biochemist]

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

A Turner's mosaic human is not hermaphroditic. Further, if Turner's mother had a male child, the child would probably be XY, or genetically normal.

[Moontanman]

Ok before this patting each other on the back goes too far i think it should be pointed out that there is no evidence for human parthenogenesis or natural parthenogenesis for any mammal. mammals do not work that way genetically, such an organism would not have a complete set of genes and would not survive. Not going to happen in nature no way no how, there is some evidence it might be done in a lab but even that is unlikely to result in a complete human fetus.

[Moontanman]

Turner's mosaic is not a way to get a male child by parthenogenesis, I looked it up, no way no how.

 

Symptoms of Turner Syndrome

Turner syndrome can cause a wide variety of symptoms, ranging in severity from minor cosmetic issues to major heart defects. Almost all people with Turner syndrome have short stature and loss of ovarian function. Some other symptoms of Turner syndrome can include problems with breast development, infertility, short fingers and toes, and kidney problems.

 

http://genetics.emedtv.com/turner-syndrome/symptoms-of-turner-syndrome.html

[Biochemist]

Ok before this patting each other on the back goes too far i think it should be pointed out that there is no evidence for human parthenogenesis or natural parthenogenesis for any mammal.

I believe you are correct. The problem is that we would not likely know of a parthenogenetic birth if it occurred.

 

I did hear that there was a research project in the UK (sometime between 1960 and 1980) where researchers tried to find daughters and mothers that were genetically identical. I could not find a reference to that work that last time I looked.

 

Bio

[Moontanman]

I believe you are correct. The problem is that we would not likely know of a parthenogenetic birth if it occurred.

 

No, it cannot occur, we haven't been kissing anything it doesn't occur.

 

I did hear that there was a research project in the UK (sometime between 1960 and 1980) where researchers tried to find daughters and mothers that were genetically identical. I could not find a reference to that work that last time I looked.

 

Bio

 

You heard about? You heard about? I heard about a civilization on the moon that had humanoids with wings, would that be good enough to post as evidence for a civilization on the moon? I looked up Turner Syndrome and parthenogenesis and found out your premise is complete nonsense.

[Biochemist]

You heard about? You heard about?

Calm down Moon. This started as a hypothetical discussion.

 

Sheesh.

[Moontanman]

Calm down Moon. This started as a hypothetical discussion.

 

Sheesh.

 

Even a hypothetical discussion should be honest, you assertions about parthenogenesis were totally dishonest.