Author Topic: Virgin Birth?  (Read 1501 times)

loco

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 20443
  • loco like a fox
Virgin Birth?
« on: May 24, 2007, 09:57:29 AM »
Scientists report virgin shark birth
POSTED: 9:14 p.m. EDT, May 23, 2007
http://www.cnn.com/2007/TECH/science/05/23/virgin.sharks.ap/index.html

DUBLIN, Ireland (AP) -- Female sharks can fertilize their own eggs and give birth without sperm from males, according to a new study of the asexual reproduction of a hammerhead in a U.S. zoo.

The joint Northern Ireland-U.S. research, being published Wednesday in the Royal Society's peer-reviewed Biology Letter journal, analyzed the DNA of a shark born in 2001 in the Henry Doorly Zoo in Omaha, Nebraska.

The shark was born in a tank with three potential mothers, none of whom had contact with a male hammerhead for at least three years. (Watch why researchers say this is not a good sign )

The baby was killed within hours of its birth by a stingray in the same tank. Analysis of its DNA found no trace of any chromosomal contribution from a male partner.

Shark experts said this was the first confirmed case in a shark of parthenogenesis, which is derived from Greek and means "virgin birth."

Asexual reproduction is common in some insect species, rarer in reptiles and fish, and has never been documented in mammals. The list of animals documented as capable of the feat has grown along with the numbers being raised in captivity -- but until now, sharks were not considered a likely candidate.

"The findings were really surprising because as far as anyone knew, all sharks reproduced only sexually by a male and female mating, requiring the embryo to get DNA from both parents for full development, just like in mammals," said marine biologist Paulo Prodohl of Queen's University of Belfast, Northern Ireland, a co-author of the report.

"As is typical with scientists, we doubted our own results and so we did it again, and then a third time using a new technique with new genetic approaches. This confirmed there was no DNA of any male," said Prodohl, an expert in fish genetics with specific knowledge of hammerhead DNA.

Before the study, many shark experts had presumed that the Nebraska birth involved a female shark's well-documented ability to store sperm for months. This seemed the most plausible scenario even though the sharks had arrived at the Nebraska zoo as immature pups.

The lack of any paternal DNA in the baby shark ruled out this possibility.

"This phenomenon has now been demonstrated in all major vertebrate groups except for mammals. Birds do it, reptiles do it, amphibians do it, fishes do it, and now sharks are known to do it," said Bob Hueter, director of the Center for Shark Research at the Mote Marine Laboratory in Sarasota, Florida, who was not involved in the project.

The report's other co-author, Mahmood Shivji of the Guy Harvey Research Institute in Dania Beach, Flordia, said the finding explained growing numbers of anecdotal reports of male-free shark births in captivity.

Shivji said the research "may have solved a general mystery about shark reproduction," because it suggests that sharks can "switch from a sexual to a non-sexual mode of reproduction." But he said this was not necessarily a positive ability because baby sharks produced only by the mother suffer from reduced genetic diversity.

Genetic diversity makes living creatures better able to adapt to threats, such as disease and climate change.

Prodohl said if self-impregnation was occurring in the wild because female sharks cannot find male partners amid rapidly declining shark populations, it would represent "an evolutionary dead end that compromises the survival of the species."

He said he suspected this was "already a problem in the real world," and noted the population of blue sharks off the west coast of Ireland had fallen by 90 percent in the past 12 years.

But Hueter said he doubted it was happening anywhere besides in captivity. He also argued that the power to self-impregnate represents "an evolutionary strategy to keep the population and species going when all else fails. Genetically, it's a last resort tactic because it leads to genetic uniformity, and eventually that will catch up with the population and make it less fit.

"But as a short-term alternative to extinction, it has its benefits," he said.

OzmO

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 22846
  • Drink enough Kool-aid and you'll think its healthy
Re: Virgin Birth?
« Reply #1 on: May 24, 2007, 10:03:04 AM »
I heard that on the radio yesterday.

Pretty remarkable.

I wonder.................. ......  j/k  ;)

24KT

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 24454
  • Gold Savings Account Rep +1 (310) 409-2244
Re: Virgin Birth?
« Reply #2 on: June 23, 2007, 09:57:18 AM »
Nothing new or surprising about that. When I said so on these boards months ago I was laughed at and ridiculed. The fact is, there are many births that do not include a contribution from the male. Now to take this phenomena, and posit it as proof that the "ultimate virgin" did  the same is ridiculous and flies in the face of scientific fact. All offspring from such a birth would be female, who do not carry the Y chromosome.

In addition look up the Conference of _____________ . (name escapes me at the moment.) It took place years after Jesus' death, and was the first mention of his mother being a virgin. I know this is where you're going... considering which board you posted it to.
w

loco

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 20443
  • loco like a fox
Re: Virgin Birth?
« Reply #3 on: June 25, 2007, 06:52:56 AM »
Nothing new or surprising about that. When I said so on these boards months ago I was laughed at and ridiculed.

jaguarenterprises,  I'm sorry that I missed the post where you said so months ago!  I'm sorry that you were laughed at and ridiculed.  I know how it feels.  Christians get laughed at and ridiculed all the time for their convictions.

However, this is new.  This is the first time that virgin birth has been seen in sharks.
 
The fact is, there are many births that do not include a contribution from the male.

Did you actually read the article?  The reason that I doubt you read it is because the article agrees with you that there have been many virgin births among some species.  What is new here is that this is the first time that it has been seen in sharks. 

Quote
Asexual reproduction is common in some insect species, rarer in reptiles and fish, and has never been documented in mammals. The list of animals documented as capable of the feat has grown along with the numbers being raised in captivity -- but until now, sharks were not considered a likely candidate.

Now to take this phenomena, and posit it as proof that the "ultimate virgin" did  the same is ridiculous and flies in the face of scientific fact. All offspring from such a birth would be female, who do not carry the Y chromosome.

jaguarenterprises,
I posted this article simply because I find it very interesting and I thought I'd share it.  I agree with you, this article is not proof of the virgin birth of Jesus and I did not post it for that reason.

The virgin birth of this shark is a phenomena of nature.  The virgin birth of Jesus, on the other hand, defies nature.  The virgin birth of Jesus is a miracle from God that took place many years ago and it takes faith to believe it, a faith that comes from God.  I have no proof, but I have faith.
 
In addition look up the Conference of _____________ . (name escapes me at the moment.) It took place years after Jesus' death, and was the first mention of his mother being a virgin. I know this is where you're going... considering which board you posted it to.

Sorry, look up what?  A unnamed conference?  How can I look up something when you haven't even given me the name?

Either way, you are mistaken or somebody lied to you. The first mention of the virgin birth of Jesus was somewhere between 701-681 BC, over 500 years before it happened.  It was foretold by the prophet Isaiah and it is recorded in Isaiah 7:14, in the Old Testament of the Bible.

The virgin birth of Jesus is then mentioned again somewhere between 33-60 AD, shortly after the crucifixion of Jesus.  It was recorded in Luke 1:26-38; Matthew 1:18-25, in the New Testament of the Bible.

So, to say that the virgin birth of Jesus was mentioned for the first time at some conference, many years after his death, is false.
 
jaguarenterprises,
if you have any questions about Christianity, the Bible, and the history of either or both, please let me know.  I'll be happy to answer your questions.

Colossus_500

  • Getbig IV
  • ****
  • Posts: 3993
  • Psalm 139
Re: Virgin Birth?
« Reply #4 on: June 25, 2007, 08:22:47 AM »

jaguarenterprises,  I'm sorry that I missed the post where you said so months ago!  I'm sorry that you were laughed at and ridiculed.  I know how it feels.  Christians get laughed at and ridiculed all the time for their convictions.

However, this is new.  This is the first time that virgin birth has been seen in sharks.
 
Did you actually read the article?  The reason that I doubt you read it is because the article agrees with you that there have been many virgin births among some species.  What is new here is that this is the first time that it has been seen in sharks. 
 
jaguarenterprises,
I posted this article simply because I find it very interesting and I thought I'd share it.  I agree with you, this article is not proof of the virgin birth of Jesus and I did not post it for that reason.

The virgin birth of this shark is a phenomena of nature.  The virgin birth of Jesus, on the other hand, defies nature.  The virgin birth of Jesus is a miracle from God that took place many years ago and it takes faith to believe it, a faith that comes from God.  I have no proof, but I have faith.
well said, bro.


loco

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 20443
  • loco like a fox
Re: Virgin Birth?
« Reply #5 on: June 25, 2007, 08:40:41 AM »
Thanks, Colossus_500!    ;D

24KT

  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 24454
  • Gold Savings Account Rep +1 (310) 409-2244
Re: Virgin Birth?
« Reply #6 on: July 17, 2007, 05:51:39 AM »
just seeing your response now


jaguarenterprises,  I'm sorry that I missed the post where you said so months ago!  I'm sorry that you were laughed at and ridiculed.  I know how it feels.  Christians get laughed at and ridiculed all the time for their convictions.

Thanks for the concern, ...but it doesn't bother me to be laughed at.
The most troubling aspect of it for me, is having to come face-to-face with the level of ignorance out there.  :o

Quote
However, this is new.  This is the first time that virgin birth has been seen in sharks.

If I recall correctly, I think it's the first time they've been able to document it with certainty.

Quote

Did you actually read the article?  The reason that I doubt you read it is because the article agrees with you that there have been many virgin births among some species.  What is new here is that this is the first time that it has been seen in sharks. 

Yes, I did read the article
 
Quote
jaguarenterprises,
I posted this article simply because I find it very interesting and I thought I'd share it.  I agree with you, this article is not proof of the virgin birth of Jesus and I did not post it for that reason.

fair enough. I thought that was where you were going with it.


Quote
The virgin birth of this shark is a phenomena of nature.  The virgin birth of Jesus, on the other hand, defies nature.  The virgin birth of Jesus is a miracle from God that took place many years ago and it takes faith to believe it, a faith that comes from God.  I have no proof, but I have faith.

That a nice way of putting it. I wish more Christians were capable of the same clarity & perspective.    
  
Quote
Sorry, look up what?  A unnamed conference?  How can I look up something when you haven't even given me the name?

{giggle} come to think of it, ...I suppose that would be pretty hard to do, ...but it would keep you occupied.  :P


Quote
Either way, you are mistaken or somebody lied to you. The first mention of the virgin birth of Jesus was somewhere between 701-681 BC, over 500 years before it happened.  It was foretold by the prophet Isaiah and it is recorded in Isaiah 7:14, in the Old Testament of the Bible.

The virgin birth of Jesus is then mentioned again somewhere between 33-60 AD, shortly after the crucifixion of Jesus.  It was recorded in Luke 1:26-38; Matthew 1:18-25, in the New Testament of the Bible.

So, to say that the virgin birth of Jesus was mentioned for the first time at some conference, many years after his death, is false.

I'll take your word for it. I'm no bible expert.

Quote

jaguarenterprises,
if you have any questions about Christianity, the Bible, and the history of either or both, please let me know.  I'll be happy to answer your questions.

{lol} I'm sure you would.  ;)
w

Tre

  • Expert
  • Getbig V
  • *****
  • Posts: 16548
  • "What you don't have is a career."
Re: Virgin Birth?
« Reply #7 on: July 17, 2007, 11:19:14 PM »
The baby was killed within hours of its birth by a stingray in the same tank. Analysis of its DNA found no trace of any chromosomal contribution from a male partner.

The father could've been the mother's brother, who has the exact same DNA.