• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Male is not necessary for reproduction

Storm

Storm

ThrUU the Looking Glass
Well, maybe, if you consider artificial insemination to not involve the man.

Kind of a shaky position, though.
 
Draka

Draka

Wonder Woman
If you mean natural parthenogenesis, no. However, through technological means of cloning, it is conceivably possible, if not thoroughly tested and currently used.
 
paarsurrey

paarsurrey

Veteran Member
Draka said:
If you mean natural parthenogenesis, no. However, through technological means of cloning, it is conceivably possible, if not thoroughly tested and currently used.
Click to expand...

"According to the latest experimental research, however, the
possibility of virgin birth has been shown to be scientifically
feasible. A report in the Nature Genetics of Oct. 1995 discusses the
remarkable case of a three year old boy whose body is derived in
part from an unfertilised egg."

http://www.alislam.org/library/books/Christianity-A-Journey.pdf
 
K

Krok

Active Member
paarsurrey said:
"According to the latest experimental research, however, the possibility of virgin birth has been shown to be scientifically
feasible. A report in the Nature Genetics of Oct. 1995 discusses the
remarkable case of a three year old boy whose body is derived in
part from an unfertilised egg."
http://www.alislam.org/library/books/Christianity-A-Journey.pdf
Click to expand...
Err, actually, no. That boy still had a father. The mother certainly wasn't a virgin.

The abstract from the original article is to be found at : A human parthenogenetic chimaera - Nature Genetics.

Why don't creationists ever refer to the original research, itself, but always refer to a creationist lay person to "interperate" the original research?

Obviously the creationist author of the article you referred to doesn't even know the basics of parthenogenetics; neither what it actually means. I guess that's why you didn't refer to the original article.

Your reference also has no idea what the word "chimaera" means in genetics, either.

PS: I love it when you refer to research published in 1995 as "the latest experimental research". Lots of research on that subject's been done since then, too, you know...
 
Last edited:
O

OCPJP6

New Member
all human reproduction, be it insemination or cloning, they still need the original material which is ovum and sperm. and guess where they're coming from? from boys and girls. tech only managed to change the location of fertilization (outside human body). but then again, why waste so must effort and money to make womb-like environment to breed a human when human females are already given wombs for free? and what's godzilla doing here? godzilla is obviously not human. bacteria reproduce by splitting themselves. surely you don't expect humans to begin splitting themselves right? that's just not right.
 
S

Straw Dog

Well-Known Member
Even if men were unnecessary for reproduction, would most women really want to restrain from sexual intercourse across the board? Methinks not, so what's the issue?
 
MysticSang'ha

MysticSang'ha

Big Squishy Hugger
Premium Member
IMO, males are necessary for biological variability, not merely for reproduction. We can find ways to utilize our knowledge of cloning to create the means to reproduce without insemination, but it would create populations of the same genetic code for generations.

Males offer genetic variety. The spice of life. ;)
 
MD

MD

qualiaphile
Older men are also responsible for germline point mutations which can be beneficial.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top