"I had a biology teacher in high school say once that there was only one case of parthenogenesis (so-called virgin birth) in humans: Jesus Christ. Parthenogenesis in vertebrates usually involves all-female species where the females lay diploid eggs that develop into diploid females. Because human males have an X and a Y chromosome and females two X's, the parthenogenesis explanation is impossible (unless Jesus was female).

"But, in insects and some other animals, unfertilized (haploid) eggs develop into males--but this is impossible in humans. So Jesus would have to have been diploid (that is if he existed) and we would have to assume that he got the Y chromosome from God (if he exists)."

("If we could DNA-test Jesus, would He be haploid?," at: http://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=1006052713779)


The creationist argument against Jesus emerging as some kind of naturally-spawned parthenogenetic freak is put forth as follows:

"In this week’s feedback Lita Cosner shows correspondent Eirith G. how to rebut the contention that the virgin birth can be explained away as an entirely natural parthenogenetic birth. . . .

"Eirith G.: 'I just recently came across an article on Slate.com ('Can a Virgin Give Birth? Yes—but It's Very, Very, Very, Very Unlikely,' by Melinda Wenner Moyer, updated 21 December 2007. at: http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/explainer/2007/12/can_a_virgin_give_birth.html).

"'It basically states that a virgin birth is possible in humans, just not common. Would this mean that Jesus’ birth was not miraculous/not the only virgin birth?

"'I appreciate the help. Thank you.'

"Dear Eirith,

"As the article points out, there has never been a ‘natural’ (i.e. non-miraculous) parthenogenetic birth in humans, because of all the complex errors which would have to happen to result in a ‘normal’ fetus with no father. And such a baby would probably suffer severe deformity. Note that any baby resulting from a natural parthenogenetic birth would have to be female, because the mother has no Y chromosome to pass to her offspring.

"Any baby resulting from a natural parthenogenetic birth would have to be female, because the mother has no Y chromosome to pass to her offspring.

"Therefore, the fact that Jesus was male is proof that it was not a natural parthenogenetic fertilization.

"Even if that were not the case, it would be an amazing coincidence, to the point of being miraculous in itself, for the world’s only person born of 'natural' parthenogenesis to then have a subsequent life as Jesus did. I.e. such that 2,000 years after his death, billions of people believe that he was the son of God, the Creator of the universe, and that even non-believers acknowledge that he was probably the person with the greatest impact upon history of all time.

"The Bible tells us that Mary was impregnated when the Holy Spirit overshadowed her. This is not like pagan stories where a god has sexual relations with a woman, because Mary was still a virgin when she gave birth to Christ. Rather, God created the required genetic material to fertilize the ovum, which is not hard to believe. If we believe that God created the whole universe, including the genetic material with all of the information in the original biological kinds, how much simpler would a few chromosomes’ worth of DNA be?

"Sincerely,

"Lita Cosner
Information Officer
Creation Ministries International"

("Was the Virgin Birth Non-Miraculous?; and Should Christians Bother with Atheists?," 26 Deember 2009, Creation Ministries International, at: http://creation.com/virgin-birth-parthenogenetic)
_____


If only it were so easy. When creationist can't explain something naturally, they chalk it up to some kind of messianically marvelous miracle.

The whole Jesus DNA thing is problematic for Bible believers, as noted below:

"What would it mean if Jesus did have sex and let his DNA loose into the general population? How special would that make his would-be descendants, such as a character in the fictional 'The Da Vinci Code'?

"And what kind of DNA would Jesus have, considering that his mother was reportedly a virgin?

"I wrote about genetics and the virgin birth last fall and found two surprising conclusions. First, most Catholic and Protestant theologians do not get insulted by this question. Second, they don't agree.

"They concur that Jesus was not supernatural. The doctrine of incarnation says he's fully human, wrote Georgetown University professor of theology John Haught. 'To imply that Jesus is somehow exempt from ordinary natural laws and biological patterns [including having DNA and male chromosomes] would, in my view, be a failure to take the incarnation seriously.'

"This is hard to square with the virgin birth in light of modern biology. It's true that asexual reproduction, called parthenogenesis, happens in some fish, insects, and even a lizard species, and artificially in a few mammals, through cloning.

"But if cloning or parthenogenesis were involved, Jesus would look a lot more like Mary. He'd be a woman, for one thing, since females always beget females.

"In humans, females package some of their DNA in two matched X chromosomes, males in a single X and Y. So if you're a male, there's only one way you could have gotten your Y chromosome, and that's from your biological father.

"Where would Jesus have gotten his Y? Some, such as Protestant theologian Wesley Wildman of Boston University, say Jesus got his Y chromosome and half his DNA from a human father, most likely Joseph. What he got from God was something more spiritual.

"Others, however, say that God must have fashioned at least part of Jesus' DNA himself, through a miracle. 'It's not God's sperm . . . but God creates something like a sperm and caused it to fertilize Mary's egg,' said Ron Cole-Turner, a professor and ordained minister at the Presbyterian Pittsburgh Theological Seminary. That was also the majority view expressed by those who wrote in after my initial column.

"If that's the case, maybe there's reason to feel uneasy about 'The Da Vinci Code's' premise that this DNA was disseminated. Evolution tells us the 3 billion-character genetic code we carry in our cells was shaped by several billion years of evolution. The Jesus DNA would, by contrast, be specially created just 2,000 years ago.

"That said, even miraculous DNA wouldn't render those in Jesus' bloodline all that special. Historically, bloodlines were restricted by rules about firstborn, legitimate sons, but true biological inheritance tends to fan out.

"A few years ago, Joseph Chang, a mathematician at Yale, created a computer model designed to mimic the dynamics of the human population over the last 40,000 years. He concluded that all members of today's population share common ancestors if you go back just a few thousand years. Geographic and social boundaries keep us from all sharing the same ancestors 1,000 years back.

"Working from the other direction, he said, those people alive 2,000 years ago almost certainly left either no descendants or millions. "It's called a branching process," he said. If your line of descendants doesn't peter out quickly and gets up to 20 or so, it will approximately double each subsequent generation and become quite numerous.

"If the 'Da Vinci Code' character were descended from Jesus, it's almost certain that millions of other people would be too, Chang said.

"Not only that, the character might not have gotten a trace of Jesus' DNA. After so many generations, his genetic code would have been diluted by a factor of more than a trillion. There are only three billion chemical "letters" in the human genetic code, and it gets passed down in chunks.

"Whether any genes get passed down, Chang said, is up to chance. So in the unlikely event that Jesus' DNA got out, it would have scattered much too far for anyone to find it."

("Carnal Knowledge: What Would Jesus' DNA Do?," by Faye Flam, Knight Ridder Newspapers, 31 May 2006, at: http://seattletimes.nwsource.com/html/health/2003028953_carnalknowledge31.html)


Quick! Someone call in one of those convenient miracles!



Edited 8 time(s). Last edit at 04/09/2012 09:51PM by steve benson.

Lies are photo-sensitive; they dissolve in sunlight.

Riddle me this:

How, then, can men reproduce without women?

Or, perhaps, women are only subhuman receptacles?

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/09/2012 09:28PM by me.

The sex of some lizards is determined by the temperature of their egg.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=experts-temperature-sex-determination-reptiles

"Home » Ask the Experts »
Ask the Experts | Energy & Sustainability
How is the gender of some reptiles determined by temperature?

June 25, 2007

In temperature-dependent sex determination, however, it is the environmental temperature during a critical period of embryonic development that determines whether an egg develops as male or female. This thermosensitive period occurs after the egg has been laid, so sex determination in these reptiles is at the mercy of the ambient conditions affecting egg clutches in nests. For example, in many turtle species, eggs from cooler nests hatch as all males, and eggs from warmer nests hatch as all females. In crocodilian species—the most studied of which is the American alligator—both low and high temperatures result in females and intermediate temperatures select for males."

Maybe Mary was too cold during her pregnancy?

If Jesus only had Mary's DNA, then he would not be divine. He would only be highly unique. Seems like he would have to have a little something from Dad to make him a demigod.

"I wrote about genetics and the virgin birth last fall and found two surprising conclusions. First, most Catholic and Protestant theologians do not get insulted by this question. Second, they don't agree.

"They concur that Jesus was not supernatural. The doctrine of incarnation says he's fully human, wrote Georgetown University professor of theology John Haught. 'To imply that Jesus is somehow exempt from ordinary natural laws and biological patterns [including having DNA and male chromosomes] would, in my view, be a failure to take the incarnation seriously."

To me at least, if Jesus didn't have any divine DNA he wasn't divine, he was just a highly unusual birth, at least among mammals.

The church teaches that yes, Jesus was fully human, but simultaneously fully divine. In any event, the question of where Jesus got the other half of his DNA is silly even from a theological point of view. An omnipotent deity who could make a virgin pregnant wouldn't have any difficulty providing the DNA, too. (I'm not advocating these ideas, just clarifying, since the quote misrepresented Catholic thought.)

Let me guess: It was a miracle.

How silly of me. :)



Edited 5 time(s). Last edit at 04/10/2012 04:32PM by steve benson.

"The Bible tells us that Mary was impregnated when the Holy Spirit overshadowed her."

Hahahahaha. Now we know what goes on in the shadows. I hope it felt good at least.


"This is not like pagan stories where a god has sexual relations with a woman, because Mary was still a virgin when she gave birth to Christ."

Hahahahaha. Yeah, this story is WAY more realistic than those pagan stories!


"Rather, God created the required genetic material to fertilize the ovum, which is not hard to believe."

Oh, that's not hard to believe at ALL.


"If we believe that God created the whole universe, including the genetic material with all of the information in the original biological kinds, how much simpler would a few chromosomes’ worth of DNA be?"

Check your premises! Yeah, "God" created some DNA and somehow the Holy Spirit "overshadowed" Mary and she gave birth as a virgin! Yeah, that's the ticket!

So it follows that using this idiotic reasoning, that Jesus did not have a human Y chromosome so he was not a HUMAN male. Like helamon points out he would be a demigod at best.

There's nothing like religious myths to bring out comical explanations. No scientific literacy is required! People buy it. Sigh. Meanwhile our competitive edge in the scientific world suffers.

It is possible to get pregnant the normal way without damaging the hymen. What's the old line about just putting in the tip?

Yeah it's easy for you guys to laugh about it. It just confuses me more. And it also makes me understand more deeply why LDS hang on to the tenets of their faith. I believe things too that others find laughable. It makes me realize I need to let LDS believe what makes them happy without judging them so harshly as I have since I, too, still have faith in some magical things.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/10/2012 06:34AM by suckafoo.

Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 04/10/2012 02:50PM by steve benson.

Write something nice. Like that piece you did on the slice of Americana you met on the road when you locked your keys in your truck. Or when grandpa gave you a hard time for packing up on a Sunday and you ate those tomatoes from the neighbor. I want to read a story. A story about different kinds of people that don't all think alike. You are really, really good at it.



Edited 5 time(s). Last edit at 04/11/2012 12:48AM by suckafoo.

I know. Those are the best kind. The inspired stories. They come to a person in a moment. They are not contrived. I can tell the difference. Just saying I enjoy them too.

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/11/2012 02:11AM by steve benson.

What is the matter with SB? Do you really think you are a scientist? Do you really think you have adequate training and expertise to comment on scientific arguments? Do you get excited to use the words "diploid" and "haploid"? Your "jokes" are in bad taste, so don't try accusing me or anyone else of having 'thin skin'. Your ongoing assault on Christianity continues to use the same, old, tired arguments. We get it. You're not Christian. Your bad taste and infantile arguments only reflect poorly on you. So, by all means, continue the show...

And since you mentioned an "assault on Christianity," Mormons claim to worship the Christian Christ so the OP relates to Mormonism, and visa versa.

My advice: Take a chill pill and call a doctor in the morning.

In the meantime, please read up on this board's General Guidelines:

"Mormonism is a form of Christianity and religion so, for some people, recovery from mormonism will also include leaving Christianity or religion altogether. This does not mean that Christians or the discussion of Christianity are discouraged here. Far from it! This site is Christian-friendly. It is not, however, Christian-safe. Do not assume that everyone here will share your beliefs; other posters can and will disagree with and challenge what you say. If you decide that you need a site that is Christian-safe as well, we can recommend some places."



Edited 10 time(s). Last edit at 04/10/2012 02:32PM by steve benson.

Jesus could be male through parthenogenesis if Mary had Klinefelter's syndrome- XXY. Highly improbable, but strange things happen.

Ironically, parthenogenesis in an XXY mother would make the offspring, genetically, a sibling. Jesus would genetically be Mary's brother.

Women cannot have Klinefelter's.

True. However, there are women with XXY karyotype. It's been a long time since I was in a biology class... No excuse with google. It's all absurd anyway, yet interesting.

I'm not Jewish and I don't speak Hebrew, but I've heard theories that the translation of the Hebrew word into English is such that the word used in Hebrew doesn't really translate into "virgin." Whatever that Hebrew word is, it really means something closer to "an unmarried woman." I like this theory because it implies that Joseph and Mary weren't really married, or had a shotgun wedding, and that unmarried pregnant woman status may have very well been a really good reason for "no room at the Inn."

I don't think this parthenogenesis discussion is relevant to much of anything. I'm leaning toward Occam's Razor on this one: it's probably just a mistranslation or misinterpretation.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 04/10/2012 10:31AM by dogzilla.

When I was going through my transition phase, between being a believer and a reasonable atheist, I used to always come up with complex theories that explained away bible myths. People with science backgrounds were always amused, helpfully pointed out holes in my theory, and encouraged me to look further, while the religious friends, instead of being happy that I figured out this new thing, would get angry at me for deviating from the official version.

So, I'm thinking it's either Parthenogenesis or the whole JC story is a load of turd, a myth based on some long haired, white guy living in the holy land, rabblerousing...yeah, one of them...Now I'll just flip a coin and see...

I've heard "overshadowed" used as substitute for rape. A nice way to say "rape"?

I'd say the Holy Ghost has some 'splainin' to do.

As an aside, I like jokes about Jesus Haploid Christ, jesus diploid christ, and any other variants thereof.

The answer is simple to me... she wasn't a "virgin" as we use the word today. She got laid, got knocked up before she was married and to save herself from stoning she stole the story of the Egyptian Horus (or Mithra or Buddha or Krishna, whichever story you prefer) and went from there. My opinion only. The baby probably wasn't even Joesphs but his dumb a$$ bought the whole 'virgin' thing. Where's Maury?

Also, the word "virgin" back then was used differently than we do today.

"The Hebrew word alma,from the root alm,does indeed mean a young woman. During the Old Testament days it meant a very young woman,often too young to bear children. An alma would not likely have been of sexual interest to an elem,a boy at that age,and so was always regarded as a virgin. The same root alm also gives us the Hebrew word alum,hidden,secret,unknown. Moreover,the Torah required that a young woman of marriageable age be a virgin. Deut 22:20 “But if … the tokens of virginity were not found in the young woman,then … the men of her city shall stone her to death.” An alma was apt to be a virgin at the time of her marriage! or hadn't had sex. Isaiah could have written that a betula would conceive and bear a son. The Hebrew word betula definitely means a virgin. But a betula is a virgin of any age."

Just like the word 'Inn' ~ in original translation it translated as 'guest room' or 'upper room'. Its likely the house was full so she went to the 'basement' to give birth. This area was often used to store food and goods because of the constant temps year round. Often times they would also keep animals down there thus the reason for the 'manger' aka: feeding trough.