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

101–104 of 104 posts

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

#101

Post by Maursault »

inside65 wrote: post #32

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

No one argues that the Immaculate Conception is parthenogenesis. It could not possibly have been, because if it had, either Jesus would have been Jesusa, or Mary was hermaphroditic and Jesus her genetic clone. Since we know neither of these explanations is credible, it had to be miracle birth. When you have eliminated all which is impossible, then whatever remains, however improbable, must be the truth.

Now with Horace and Isis it's quite different. Isis was a virgin and Horace was a falcon, so I'm really not sure how that worked.

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

#102

Post by tsimionescu »

tsimionescu wrote: post #99
InvaderFizz wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Meant to say: mammal mother produces a viable offspring through parthenogenesis, which in mammals would be XX, a daughter, an in-bred individual. Now, if that daughter produces another daughter through parthenogenesis, then this second generation of parthenogenesis individual would be a clone of the first generation daughter.

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

#103

Post by Falling3 »

Apocryphon wrote: post #71
Falling3 wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Anecdotal, but I've never met or even heard of a Christian who believed in the virgin birth but thought it was the result of a natural process. Are there any examples of that you're aware of?

There was a Discovery channel documentary in the 2000s that tried to give "scientific" explanations for the miracles in Christ's life. Parthenogenesis was the theory they advanced instead of divine conception.

Sure, that sounds interesting and unsurprising. But was any of it believed by Christians?

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

#104

Post by hadlock »

freeflight wrote: post #81
hadlock wrote: post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Most Christians believe that Do you have any sort of statistics to back this up? A survey of some kind? From my own experience, most people who are Christian subscribe to the lifestyle and teachings, but do not accept 100% of the bible as truth.

How about the fact that over a billion people are members of the Catholic Church? The membership of which requires believing quite a bit of Biblical literalism. Tbh that whole argument is always kinda weird: If those people don't believe in the whole thing, why are they members in a church about it? That's pretty much the only statistic you need. [0] https://www.bbc.com/news/world-21443313

A lot of people are religious/affiliated with a specific religion due to inertia. Church attendance was compulsory for a lot of history. There are not a whole lot of people converting to catholicism/protestantism/judaism from other religions. I only very recently found out the technical differences between lutheranism and methodism, largely details around how/why baptism and taking sacrament from what I can tell, but growing up, we always went to one church and not the other even though nobody could tell me why.
Post reply on HN