Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

First confirmed hatchings of two California condor chicks from unfertilized eggs

stories.sandiegozoo.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 104 posts

Re: First confirmed hatchings of two California condor chicks from unfertilized eggs

#91

Post by danans »

dragonwriter wrote: post #79
the_af wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Most Christians that have spent the time to consider what it means for God to manifest a miracle fairly explicitly accept that that necessarily involves some physical sequence of events That hasn't been my experience. I don't know about "most" Christians -- I wouldn't dare presume to speak for anyone in the US, for example -- but every Catholic I've spoken with (I live in a majorly Catholic country) believes in the…

> but every Catholic I've spoken with (I live in a majorly Catholic country) believes in the entirely miraculous virgin birth of Jesus. Sure. I’m a Catholic and I believe that. It’s also a non-explanation that doesn't actually rule out any particular physical process occurring as part of the manifestation of the miracle. Other than things like the routine transubstantiation of the elements of the eucharist, where a d…

> Why doesn't the bread and wine that miraculously becomes the body and blood of Christ taste like flesh and blood? Well, because it miraculously also retains all the physical properties of bread and wine...

I'm not a Catholic, but I figured that most people interpreted the bread and wine as symbolic.

Re: First confirmed hatchings of two California condor chicks from unfertilized eggs

#92

Post by dvsfish »

thaumasiotes wrote: post #87
jaqalopes wrote: post #13

Apologies for the low-effort comment, but this really freaks me out. I had no idea birds could reproduce asexually! That's crazy! Feels like an unanswerable question, but: could we ever see something like this in mammals? A virgin birth, for lack of a better phrase?

> Feels like an unanswerable question, but: could we ever see something like this in mammals? A virgin birth, for lack of a better phrase? The question is easy to answer. Yes, this is a development that shows up from time to time. Species displaying only asexual reproduction all tend to be evolutionarily young, which implies that adopting the strategy rapidly leads to extinction, but it has short-term benefits which…

Wow! Do you know what the lizard species is called? I would love to read more on that.

Re: First confirmed hatchings of two California condor chicks from unfertilized eggs

#94

Post by dang »

inside65 wrote: post #32

Many would argue this already occurred with Jesus, born from the virgin Mary.

Please don't take HN threads on religious tangents. It's off topic and just leads to religious flamewars.

We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=29068477.

Re: First confirmed hatchings of two California condor chicks from unfertilized eggs

#96

Post by sp332 »

InvaderFizz wrote: post #89
simiones wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

ZW is less likely because normally parthenogenesis starts with a haploid egg cell (Z or W) that undergoes meiosis alone, copying its own chromosomes - becoming ZZ if it started as Z and WW if it started as W. WW is normally not viable, just like YY in mammals, so the most likely case of parthenogenesis by far is ZZ, male.

So in this case, the ZZ offspring is a genetic clone of its grandfather? That's the only sense I can make of it. No, wait, half clone. Yup, I'm fully confused by this turn of events.

It's a "clone" of half of the mother's DNA. The mother had random inheritance from its parents. So it's not a clone of the grandparents, but it's a copy of (half of the) mix that the mother had.

Re: First confirmed hatchings of two California condor chicks from unfertilized eggs

#97

Post by fortran77 »

bencollier49 wrote: post #6

So in birds, sex chromosome arrangement is a reverse of what we have in humans. Their males are ZZ and the female is ZW. Which is why only males appear from this parthenogenesis.

Was Jurassic park wrong then?

Re: First confirmed hatchings of two California condor chicks from unfertilized eggs

#98

Post by seryoiupfurds »

dvsfish wrote: post #92
thaumasiotes wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Feels like an unanswerable question, but: could we ever see something like this in mammals? A virgin birth, for lack of a better phrase? The question is easy to answer. Yes, this is a development that shows up from time to time. Species displaying only asexual reproduction all tend to be evolutionarily young, which implies that adopting the strategy rapidly leads to extinction, but it has short-term benefits which…

Wow! Do you know what the lizard species is called? I would love to read more on that.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Mexico_whiptail

Re: First confirmed hatchings of two California condor chicks from unfertilized eggs

#99

Post by tsimionescu »

InvaderFizz wrote: post #89
simiones wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

ZW is less likely because normally parthenogenesis starts with a haploid egg cell (Z or W) that undergoes meiosis alone, copying its own chromosomes - becoming ZZ if it started as Z and WW if it started as W. WW is normally not viable, just like YY in mammals, so the most likely case of parthenogenesis by far is ZZ, male.

So in this case, the ZZ offspring is a genetic clone of its grandfather? That's the only sense I can make of it. No, wait, half clone. Yup, I'm fully confused by this turn of events.

No, it's more like an extreme case of in-breeding.

On the other hand, if a mammal were to produce a viable fertile offspring through parthenogenesis, then that offspring would be a clone of it's mother.

Re: First confirmed hatchings of two California condor chicks from unfertilized eggs

#100

Post by Maursault »

the_af wrote: post #30
adolph wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[Condorman] did poorly at the box office. Disney reportedly lost $9.5 million on the picture. The disappointing financial returns from Condorman, along with three other flop films, contributed to Disney's poor financial performance in 1981. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Condorman

Aside for the title "Condorman", how is this movie relevant for the article we are discussing?

Incorrect film reference. Below is a correct film reference quote for this article.

Mr. Liggett: Now there seems to be a lot of confusion on this next question: asexual reproduction. Could someone tell me please who first suggested the idea of reproduction without sex? [1]

David Lightman: Ah-heh. [whispers something to a classmate]

Jennifer: [overhearing, Jennifer starts to laugh]

Mr. Liggett: [turns around and sees Jennifer giggling] Miss Mack! What is so amusing?

Jennifer: I... [Jennifer breaks up into laughter again and turns to look at David, who puts on a show of mock innocence]

Mr. Liggett: Alright, Lightman. Maybe you could tell us who first suggested the idea of reproduction without sex.

David Lightman: Umm... Your wife? [the class erupts into laughter]

Mr. Liggett: [pointing to the door] Get out, Lightman. Get out.

[0] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LwDbgE54QYE&t=1m18s

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Charles_Bonnet

Post reply on HN