Scientific Evidence for a Virgin Birth

www.news.com.au...

Read that and be amazed, if its true then I think the evolutionist's need to massively rethink their fable.

Mazzroth,
I'm not an evolutionist but I have to ask the question: do you know of any mammals that have had "immaculate conceptions" through parthogenesis? There are about 70 types of reptiles that are capable of this type of self-replication but I've never heard of any mammals. Have you?

Originally posted by whitewave
Mazzroth,
I'm not an evolutionist but I have to ask the question: do you know of any mammals that have had "immaculate conceptions" through parthogenesis? There are about 70 types of reptiles that are capable of this type of self-replication but I've never heard of any mammals. Have you?

Only the story about some women back 2000 or so years back who gave birth to a child not concieved of man .

Parthenogenesis is definitely not a new thing, and many scientists even thought it could happen on a rare occurrence in nature with animals that are not naturally parthenogenic. Many Christian "evolutionists" even believe that this rare occurrence is what explains the virgin birth of Jesus (although, that raises the question of why Jesus is male with no male contributing a y-chromosome, unless Jesus was a deformed female, a woman that tried to pass as a man, or someone fudged the history books).

Also, a lot of reptiles are capable of both sexual and asexual reproduction. Only recently has it been learned that geckos are capable of both of these feats. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if almost all reptilian species are capable of this, although some might be more capable than others. It certainly makes them more adaptable since only a single female is needed to populate a new area viable for the species to inhabit.

There's nothing to be rethought here. There's no evidence here contrary to evolution. It is interesting, but not completely unexpected. It does help to solve some mysteries about the history of Komodo dragons, but that's about it.

Originally posted by whitewave
Mazzroth,
I'm not an evolutionist but I have to ask the question: do you know of any mammals that have had "immaculate conceptions" through parthogenesis? There are about 70 types of reptiles that are capable of this type of self-replication but I've never heard of any mammals. Have you?

I agree with you on this point.

The virgin birth is not a matter of science, but of faith. We believe that the Lord, our God, impregnated/gave mary jesus. For those of us whop believe, scientific proof is not necessary.

BTW, none of the bible stories have ever been refuted scientifically. In fact they often find that the stories tend to be true.

So... the theory put forward by the original poster is that Mary was a mutant freak of nature?
Somehow I doubt most Christians would be pleased with that line of thought.

If anything, that would support Evolutionary theory.

[edit on 20-12-2006 by emjoi]

The story of Mary is not one of parthenogenesis. As stated before, many reptiles (komodo dragons included) are capable of parthenogenesis. When a female reptile replicates in this rare way, her offspring are all male with whom she interbreeds in the normal way to repopulate an area. Currently, the population of komodos is around 4 thousand with only 1 thousand being female. It's entirely probable that parthenogenesis has occurred more often in this species than the 2 of which we are aware (Florida and Paris). With over 70 species of reptiles known to be capable of parthenogenesis, my question remains: Know of any mammals capable of this feat? I do not subscribe to evolution (in man) for a variety of reasons but this komodo dragon story is a weak argument against it.

Originally posted by mazzroth

Read that and be amazed, if its true then I think the evolutionist's need to massively rethink their fable.

What does evolution have to do with the birth of Christ?

Just because some reptiles can give virgin births does not mean Humans can too, unless that human is a reptile....lol.

Amoeba can split into two and creat another one. But that does not mean that humans can do that too.

Nothing to see here....move along.

Pardon me for saying so but I believe the OP is based on a skewed premise. Parthenogenesis has nothing to do with 1) Christ, 2) virgin births, 3) evolution.
Would you like to start over?

I find it preposterous that a lizard is being held up as justification for the virgin birth myth.

Let me guess, this lizard is proof that Jesus could walk on water.



And this lizard is proof that statues of Mary can cry blood.



Believe what you will, but I suggest you either a.) appreciate the bible as it was meant to be appreciated (in the context of a parable), or b.) worship lizards since they're obviously capable of performing divine miracles.

Has a basilisk ever been beatified?

Really though, the burning question in my mind is whether a horny lizard could be sainted, or whether he would have to be a chaste lizard to qualify.

WyrdeOne,
LMAO! The picture you posted of the lizard walking on water is also known as a Jesus lizard BECAUSE it walks on water! (pardon me while I guffaw)
Mazzroth, please don't slink away. Nothin' but love for ya, really, but ya might want to rethink the logic on that OP.

Originally posted by whitewave
WyrdeOne,
LMAO! The picture you posted of the lizard walking on water is also known as a Jesus lizard BECAUSE it walks on water! (pardon me while I guffaw)

Mazzroth, please don't slink away. Nothin' but love for ya, really, but ya might want to rethink the logic on that OP.

Thanks for your comments but I must point out that the virgin birth topic was skewed toward Darwinism and the passing on dominant genes with mating, through the acclaimed survival of the fittest AKA natural selection.

I never meant to throw the baby out with the bath water actually the point I made ( although unclear to some ) was that if complex organism's can reproduce independent of a mate then perhaps it needs to be tied into this thesis of evolution.

To say the least if this lizards offspring also possesses this ability then perhaps we are look at devolution as its imperfections passed onto offspring wouldn't be able to be corrected.

The fable being that animalkind improves its chances of survival over successive generations through this natural selection concept. I have to add that if this were true then why are large numbers of animals dying off and no new ones taking their place ?.

[edit on 22-12-2006 by mazzroth]

The offspring of parthenogenic births are always males making their ability to inherit parthenogenic capability exactly nil.

Originally posted by whitewave
The offspring of parthenogenic births are always males making their ability to inherit parthenogenic capability exactly nil.

Thank You for that information its very prevalent to the topic, but even if this discounts the offspring reproducing on its own that still doesn't discount it mating with a female and passing on the ability again and again infinitum.

This trait you would expect to be dominant as if a female with it is isolated from breeding males then it would definitely reproduce on its own ensuring that lineage gets another chance to mate like a get out of "jail free card" .

[edit on 23-12-2006 by mazzroth]

Originally posted by mazzroth
Thanks for your comments but I must point out that the virgin birth topic was skewed toward Darwinism and the passing on dominant genes with mating, through the acclaimed survival of the fittest AKA natural selection.

I never meant to throw the baby out with the bath water actually the point I made ( although unclear to some ) was that if complex organism's can reproduce independent of a mate then perhaps it needs to be tied into this thesis of evolution.

To say the least if this lizards offspring also possesses this ability then perhaps we are look at devolution as its imperfections passed onto offspring wouldn't be able to be corrected.

The fable being that animalkind improves its chances of survival over successive generations through this natural selection concept. I have to add that if this were true then why are large numbers of animals dying off and no new ones taking their place ?.

[edit on 22-12-2006 by mazzroth]

A believer in fables stating that a proven scientific concept is a fable, that's funny.

But the imperfections passed on in human reproduction are also not corrected. Natural selection will do its job if need be.

Bees/wasps, reptiles, and very rarely birds can show parthogenesis. It's not anything new really.

Natural selection is what is killing off the species. We are part of the environment, thus when we wiped out Dodos we were environmental natural selection in action - the predator won, the prey lost and became extinct. NS just filters the best survivors, some dodos who were less tame would had survived longer, the ones who could run fast would have survived longer. Eventually they could survive no longer with little time to adapt and a natural disaster such as hungry intelligent humans entering their environment introducing pigs, cats, and rats. Other more successful species took their place.

Natural selection in action

Over time we estimate that 99% of all species that existed have gone extinct over the time of life on earth. If and when we wipe a lot of the other species out, through anthropogenic global warming and habitat destruction, and finally we follow them, life on earth will recover like it always has done after major extinction events.

[edit on 23-12-2006 by melatonin]

Melatonin
Thank you for your response it was inciteful. I would like to point out that your comment on a believer in fables is rather spiteful attack but I will take it on board as I have studied Evolution more than most laymen.

If I could ask you a question though in regards to your comment about Natural Selection and that its killing off species. Where are the new species ? as the evidence appears - this planet was stocked with life forms and they have slowly declined. declining is the ironic part because with evolution it actually promotes the concept of the reverse of this and that life becomes more complex.

I would suggest your storyline ( Evolution ) has a few holes in it.

Originally posted by mazzroth
Melatonin
Thank you for your response it was inciteful. I would like to point out that your comment on a believer in fables is rather spiteful attack but I will take it on board as I have studied Evolution more than most laymen.

If I could ask you a question though in regards to your comment about Natural Selection and that its killing off species. Where are the new species ? as the evidence appears - this planet was stocked with life forms and they have slowly declined. declining is the ironic part because with evolution it actually promotes the concept of the reverse of this and that life becomes more complex.

I would suggest your storyline ( Evolution ) has a few holes in it.

Inciteful, heheh.

Well according to you I accept the scientific validity of a fable. I won't get noughty about it but present the evidence that shows it to be more than a fable. Whereas your fable presents the circular argument of a book supporting a book-based fable.

You seem to have it all rather backwards.

Recovery of life will take time and new species are evolving.

observed new species

We have had 5 major extinction events during the history of life on earth. Extinction events are nothing new, life recovered. Without the KT extinction event it is unlikely that mammals would have evolved beyond little ratty type things - be thankful for extinction

The new human initiated extinction has been called the holocene extinction event and in 100 years we may see 20% of all current life on earth disappear.

Life on this earth evolved, it was not stocked with life on its creation. 3.8 billion years ago all earth had was bacteria (the earliest known evidence of life - cyanobacteria), no plants, no vertebrates, no invertebrates. Then we saw life diversify, more species, some more complex. However, numbers have fell many times during mass extinctions. Only 500 million years ago did plants colonise the land, followed by animals.

It most certainly wasn't - many to few

It was more like - none > few > many > fewer > more > fewer etc etc

[edit on 23-12-2006 by melatonin]

Originally posted by mazzroth
Melatonin
Thank you for your response it was inciteful. I would like to point out that your comment on a believer in fables is rather spiteful attack but I will take it on board as I have studied Evolution more than most laymen.

If I could ask you a question though in regards to your comment about Natural Selection and that its killing off species. Where are the new species ? as the evidence appears - this planet was stocked with life forms and they have slowly declined. declining is the ironic part because with evolution it actually promotes the concept of the reverse of this and that life becomes more complex.

I would suggest your storyline ( Evolution ) has a few holes in it.

The new species are everywhere. We're a relatively new species in the evolutionary time scale. Domesticated cats are a rather new species as well. New species are created in biology labs all the time. In fact, when humans create new species, it's called artificial speciation, and we've been doing that for thousands of years.

Originally posted by mazzroth
I think the evolutionist's need to massively rethink their fable.

Laughable.
First of all, as Whitewave said, Virgin birth has nothing to do with religion, evolutionists, or even humans.

Using your own logic of making connections, you can say just about anything:
Lightning comes from the skies.
Lighting is a type of electricity.
Static is a type of electricity.
Therefore static is a type of lightning.
Some metals are known to emit static.
Therefore some metals emit lightning.
Most hammers are made of metal.
The god Thor has a hammer that produces lightning.
Therefore it must be a fact that the Thor exists!

What? You don't agree? Why not? If what you said is fact, what I have stated must be fact too!
It's ridiculous, I know. So unless you are saying that god was a reptilian, I think we can throw this one out the window.