Well, call it all off. Forget the whole Virgin birth thing. Totally didn’t happen. Science says so.
Pop Sci reports:
Virgin birth, known to scientists as parthenogenesis, appears to be rather common in the animal kingdom. Many insects and other invertebrates are capable of switching between sexual and clonal reproduction. Among the vertebrates, virgin births have been documented in at least 80 taxonomic groups, including fish, amphibians, and reptiles. But humans and our fellow mammals provide a notable exception. So far as anyone can say—and there are a few gaps in the data, notably the platypus—no mammalian species is capable of giving birth without a father.
So what stands in the way? First, a mammal’s egg cell usually won’t divide until it receives a signal from the sperm. Second, most mammalian eggs have only half the number of chromosomes necessary for development. If there isn’t any sperm, the embryo will end up with only half the DNA it needs to survive.
Both of those barriers could potentially be overcome in the lab or through random mutation, but there is a third obstacle that probably can’t be. Under normal conditions, the DNA in both egg and sperm cells is altered such that some genes will be more active while others are suppressed. When the egg and sperm join to form an embryo, these imprints work in tandem, ensuring that all the necessary proteins are produced in the right amounts. If an egg cell starts reproducing on its own, without the sperm-cell imprint, the offspring won’t survive for very long.
Scientists estimate that imprinting affects about 200 different genes. For parthenogenesis to occur, many of these changes would have to occur through random mutation. “I just think it’s too complex and you’d need too many things to happen accidentally,” says Marisa Bartolomei, a molecular geneticist at the University of Pennsylvania
You’ve got to love the fact that Pop Sci is just saying the Virgin birth is just too complex to happen. Say, isn’t that irreducible complexity the same argument some make for the existence of God which you mock them for?
I love this kind of thing because it’s just so condescending. As if we didn’t understand that a virgin birth would be a pretty rare event. Because us dopey Christians needed to be told that a virgin birth is highly unlikely.
hey geniuses, that’s kind of the point guys.
Hey look, they’re science geeks. It’s understandable that virginity is a major topic of conversation.
November 22, 2013 at 3:30 am
Nobody ever refers to parthenogenesis as virgin birth; it's less common than referring to hermaphrodites as "freemartins" or nictitating membranes as "haws". Mostly because "virgin birth" does not mean parthenogenesis, but the Incarnation and Nativity of Jesus Christ—and indeed "parthenogenesis" does not actually mean virgin birth, it means "coming into being (genesis) in the manner of Athena", AKA Parthenos ("the Maiden", cf. her chief temple, the Parthenon, "(Temple) of the Maiden"), who sprang fully-formed from the mind of Zeus, with no mother being involved.
"Virgin birth" is simply not used interchangeably with "parthenogenesis", and pretty much can't be. Catholics are not supposed to assume good intentions to the point of making flatly counter-factual assertions. When assuming good intentions requires you to contradict known facts about English usage, then it is not possible to assume those good intentions.
There are ways to determine what is or isn't common usage; as I don't have a convenient corpus of modern English prose to conduct frequency analysis upon, I'll just suggest that you look up "virgin birth" in any dictionary you care to consult. You won't find "(Biology, infml), see parthenogenesis" listed as a definition for it anywhere. Neither will you find "virgin birth" listed as a synonym for "parthenogenesis".
Understand, I am not concerned to argue against this post in the name of religion; my objection to the article is precisely that it is unscientific bafflegab garbage, exactly as legitimate as Young Earth Creationism. I know more about science than probably any layman you will ever meet; you will find my blog discussing the reasons we need to continue work on String Theory and wondering why space-time curvature is experienced as motion toward the center of a mass. There may be Catholics who need to be told that science is good but I ain't one of them.
Indeed, I find your defense of that article problematic as a scientist, albeit an autodidact amateur one. The science I have the most extensive background in is linguistics, and you are saying flat-out nonsense about words and their usage.
November 23, 2013 at 1:44 am
I understand and accept your argument. I think some others aren't understanding it. Perhaps, too much emphasis on the linguistics, but then it is clear even from Mr Seldon's dictionary below that meanings 1. and 2. ascribed to the term are very different, almost unrelated. I would also contend that it would not be conventionally correct to use the term in respect of the Dogma of the Virgin Birth. However, with the diminution in logic and precision in academic and public discourse, language has become more vague (and ideological) and some dictionary publishers are producing editions that adopt common or ideological uses of terms as definitions. Thus, some dictionary publishers are involving themselves in determining the meaning(s) of certain words, rather than simply stating the formal pre-defined meaning. Dictionaries used to be much more reliable and objective than has been the case in many editions of recent decades. The tyranny of relativism.
November 22, 2013 at 4:42 pm
You fail so hard. Consult current dictionaries. Here's an online one:
parthenogenesis [ˌpɑːθɪnəʊˈdʒɛnɪsɪs]
n
1. (Life Sciences & Allied Applications / Biology) a type of reproduction, occurring in some insects and flowers, in which the unfertilized ovum develops directly into a new individual
2. (Christian Religious Writings / Theology) human conception without fertilization by a male; virgin birth
[from Greek parthenos virgin + genesis birth]
parthenogenetic [ˌpɑːθɪˌnəʊdʒɪˈnɛtɪk] adj
parthenogenetically adv
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/parthenogenesis
Fail fail fail. And failing in an unhinged, crazy, and dramatic fashion. So, I'd suggest stuffing a sock in your own bafflegab.
November 23, 2013 at 2:45 pm
"Who should 'get a grip', exactly…and about what? " About our human soul and the free will therein. Atheism cheats the atheist out of knowledge about his human soul with free will (and the will to live eternally).God too, has a free will, as Jesus Christ has a human, rational soul. God can do anything He wills to do except contradict Himself. Outside of time, God is changeless, and therefore cannot change his mind about TRUTH.
Get a grip on your human soul for the evil one wants to sift you like sand and destroy your freedom and your destiny as well as your identity. Get a grip.