51–60 of 126 posts
Relevant Wikipedia quote [1] about New Mexico whiptail lizards: An interesting aspect to reproduction in these asexual lizards is that mating behaviors are still seen, although the populations are all female. One female plays the role played by the male in closely related species, and mounts the female that is about to lay eggs. This behaviour is due to the hormonal cycles of the females, which cause them to behave l…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
FWIW, the Quran does not include eyewitness testimony in the sense you are speaking of. It is taken literally as the word of God. Although some parts in it ascribe certain quotes to certain people (e.g. Jesus said so and so, Mary said so and so, etc.), but the witness here is God Himself.
Regardless, eyewitness testimony is not reliable[0]. Many people have claimed to seen UFO's, Aliens, and crimes that people did not commit. 0. http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/do-the-eyes-have-i...
In this case; however, we're talking events like person X gave a speech and said Y. This is much more likely to have been heard by many people, so the likelihood of it have happened in the way it was relayed is much higher.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There's quite a bit of evidence that virginity only became a "thing" after lines traced paternally—i.e. a mother is pretty damn sure a kid is hers, but the father wants stronger guarantees because even in appearance there's a lot of room for cuckolding. So, given that some early germanic culture was matrilineal (e.g. the Suebi, attested by IIRC Suetonius), it's ALSO not surprising that the word for "virgin" is actual…
I would have expected that to be a "thing" long before humans were writing books. Given that males provided protection and resources during child rearing, I suspect there would have been strong selective pressure for males that tried to ensure that the children they supported were their own.
I agree whole-heartedly; however, books are far from the only thing that drive language. Most of the world didn't have access to books until very recently, and language is driven by that most of the world (to some extent, it's difficult to say how much).
> Given that males provided protection and resources during child rearing, I suspect there would have been strong selective pressure for males that tried to ensure that the children they supported were their own.
Careful, you're treading into "let's speculate about how genetics and society interact" territory, which is basically impossible to do correctly without many generations of evidence. Males do provide protection in many cultures, but women provide many forms of protection and resources as well. Among other things (which vary from culture to culture), they provide men. Matrilineal societies are attested many times over, as are matriarchal societies. Given that there are no reliable signals for virginity, it's quite easy to see how men might lust after young women instead of "the first sex". Furthermore, I would (again) argue that "the first sex" is by far most valuable in patrilineal societies. In societies where resources are scarce, for instance, polyandrous societies are more common, because it's more important that individual children are given the appropriate nutrition and protection than it is to ensure that the birth rate is maximized. In these situations, who the real father is is not important, because it's one of the child's caretakers (de-facto). Furthermore, male status is tied to children, so there is more impetus to protect existing children than there is to ascertain paternity.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The new testament was written in Greek, not in Hebrew. And yes, back then, the word virgin could actually have allegoric meaning(young/innocent/beautiful/... girl). Imagine if she was actually the first ever mammal to asexually reproduce..
It would be pretty fantastic to generate an Y chromosome. It think it's more likely she was cheating on Joseph.
Speaking of which, it's striking that James "the Just", brother-of-Jesus, first-patriarch-of-the-Jerusalem-Church never mentioned the virgin birth. Ever.
Source: Zeolot, a fascinating read.
As a non-bio person, I wonder what's the evolutionary reason for this not happening in more species. Sure, sexual reproduction is the way to go if you have the option, but wouldn't a wouldn't a mother capable of both asexual and sexual reproduction have higher chances of propagating her genes than a mother who is only capable of sexual reproduction. (I know I shouldn't be playing these mind games with zero knowledge…
There's rarely an "evolutionary reason" for a trait not developing. Wings would certainly be a net benefit to mice survival-wise; but unless there's a strong evolutionary pressure for such a trait to develop, it's unlikely to appear.
It's the same for asexual reproduction: unless there's a strong advantage for a species to reproduce asexually, it's likely not going to appear.
In other words, evolutionary selection is really about the strict minimum needed for a species' population to thrive; evolution selects, but it doesn't optimize.
You also have to account for things that are hard to predict: even though on paper it seems like asexual reproduction would lead to a higher chance of propagating genes, perhaps in reality the lack of diversity in the resulting offspring would be negative to the species' survival (or while it sounds like mice developing wings would be an advantage, in reality the energy needed to develop wings would make it a survival disadvantage).
An interesting case were these rules are "suspended" are in closed ecosystems where certain species have no predators and plenty of sustenance; e.g. paradise birds in pacific islands, which can develop completely superfluous feather patterns and attributes at no evolutionary "cost".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
That's a very common argument, indeed. See here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Virgin_birth_of_Jesus >The word "virgin" in Christian translations is disputed. The Hebrew word is "עלמה" (almah), which scholars agree means a young woman of child-bearing age, "but has nothing to do with whether she is a virgin", and the context of the passage makes it clear that Isaiah has in mind events in his and Ahaz's near future. Th…
I am actually not sure that the author of Matthew wrote in Greek. While we may not know the original language in which the gospel of Matthew is written, it is written for a Jewish audience and seems to be one of the most colorful, with e.g. many dead saints coming back to life, begging the question of why no one else bothered to write about this stuff. In any event, if this did indeed happen then it's another example…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It would be pretty fantastic to generate an Y chromosome. It think it's more likely she was cheating on Joseph.
It's actually more likely that Jesus as an out of wedlock child that pre-dates Joseph. Jesus was referred to as "Jesus son of Mary" not Joseph, which was the custom at the time for illegitimate children. It particularly contrasts with how his brothers were referred to (yes, he had brothers, and probably sisters). Speaking of which, it's striking that James "the Just", brother-of-Jesus, first-patriarch-of-the-Jerusale…
I'm not sure they would have drawn a line between the two at that point (hence why I as too lazy to look up when they wed). Shotgun weddings were not considered having children out of wedlock for western europe, and further back you see it's more of an economic agreement to father all the woman's children. In fact, it's entirely possible marriages would have been more of de-facto arrangements based around paternity for non-arranged marriages (which are economic transactions).
EDIT: it's insinuated he's upset because she's pregnant and they haven't had sex, but they had already been married. Again, at this point, it's more of a question of semantics of the time as to whether it counts as adultery or pre-marriage pregnancy. Historically, there may be other evidence to point one way or the other, but I don't think it matters much to joseph (or to christians).
18 Now the birth of Jesus Christ was on this wise: When as his mother Mary was espoused to Joseph, before they came together, she was found with child of the Holy Ghost.
19 Then Joseph her husband, being a just man, and not willing to make her a public example, was minded to put her away privily.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Disagree all you like. You are still, most likely, wrong.
And similarly, with all due respect to you, I am convinced that you are definitely wrong. (I'm not being snarky, here. The "with all due respect" phrase in entirely sincere).
I think what surprises me most about this is that the Boa produced only female offspring. Per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/ZW_sex-determination_system - humans have XY chromosomes, with XX female and XY male. Boas have ZW chromosomes, with ZZ male and ZW female. I'd expect parthogenesis to produce unviable WW offspring, and viable ZZ ones. But WW turns out to be viable, and ZZ either doesn't happen, or isn't viable.…
If the female is ZW, then I'd expect three possible choices -- unviable WW, female ZW, and male ZZ -- because both Z and W are present in the female.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The new testament was written in Greek, not in Hebrew. And yes, back then, the word virgin could actually have allegoric meaning(young/innocent/beautiful/... girl). Imagine if she was actually the first ever mammal to asexually reproduce..
Yes, but the prophecy that Jesus fulfilled by being born of a virgin was from the Old Testament (Isaiah 7:14), not the New Testament . (the Old Testament was written in Hebrew) https://www.biblegateway.com/passage/?search=isaiah+7%3A14&v...