Parthogenesis: How do creationists explain this?

by Crumpet 27 Replies latest watchtower beliefs

  • Crumpet
    Crumpet

    I read this article in the paper on the train to work this morning (helped to keep me eyes of ladies feet and ankles) and was amazed as I never knew this before.

    http://www.metro.co.uk/news/article.html?in_article_id=50123&in_page_id=34

    Certain species can actually get pregnant and give birth without any make interaction. If this doesnt support evolution as the most scientifically accountable theory of our existence what does?!

    Shark virgin birth mystery is solved by Oliver Stallwood

    Tuesday, May 22, 2007

    Shark
    Hammerhead shark

    It was the 'virgin birth' that baffled scientists for years.

    But now the mystery of a hammerhead shark born at a zoo where there were no male sharks has been solved – it seems females of the species can reproduce without having sex.

    The shark was born at the Henry Doorly Zoo in Nebraska in 2001 and there were three potential mothers in the same tank.

    RELATED ITEMS

    All had been in captivity for at least three years. Scientists thought one of them might have mated before being captured and stored the sperm for fertilisation.

    But when they analysed the baby shark's DNA, it matched up only with its mother's.

    Dr Paulo Prodohl, of the School of Biological Sciences at Queen's University in Belfast, said: 'The findings were really surprising. As far as anyone knew, all sharks reproduced only sexually by a male and female mating – requiring the embryo to get DNA from both parents for full development, just like in mammals.'

    Females of a small number of vertebrate species can give birth to fully formed young without requiring eggs to be first fertilised by a male's sperm.

    This ability, known as parthenogenesis, is seen in some birds, reptiles and amphibians.

    However, it has never been seen before in sharks.

    Research co-author Dr Mahmood Shivji said: 'It now appears that at least some female sharks can switch from a sexual to a non-sexual mode of Discovery: Researchers found a female hammerhead shark conceived asexually reproduction in the absence of males.'

  • Sirona
    Sirona

    Interesting article.

    I knew of asexual procreation but not "parthogenesis".

    Cool. We don't need men after all LOL

    Now I might be being really stupid, but how are you directly relating this to proof of evolution?

    Sirona (my brain appears to be not working too well today)

  • AlmostAtheist
    AlmostAtheist

    If only Noah had known, he could've made his ark half as big!

    Seriously, this is very cool, but how does it impact the question of evolution versus creation?

    Dave

  • Marcel
    Marcel

    i dont see it either. in fact its almost cloning and it hinders evolution, because no new genes are combined and individuals can also reproduce when they cant find a mate who is able/willing to couple.
    it could also be a tool of evolution to ensure the species surivival in bad conditions.

    but that is just guessing. i dont see any real proof which isnt discussable.

  • Crumpet
    Crumpet
    it could also be a tool of evolution to ensure the species surivival in bad conditions.

    This is what I was thinking in particular.

    Good questions and I'll tell you what I was thinking in relation to this story and you can tell me if I am misleading myself.

    The creation theory is based upon a Divine Creator, who decreed procreation between the two sexes. That he structured and organised the planet based on this reproductive system. It certain creatures can develop ways to reproduce, or clone as you say, then this diminishes the concept of a creator and designer and gives credence to the theory that we are constantly evolving in order to achieve survival.

    It is also attached to the moral aspects of what is natural. Peopel worry about the moral issue of us cloning genetically other humans, but if there is no moral authority except the intrinsic one of survival of the species and other species are "naturally" responding to environmental change by developing the ability to clone themselves - then why should we not? Is it perhaps the only moral imperative that humans survive?

    (See not just an airhead who thinks about sex all the time - oh wait a minute - reproduction is sex! LOL!)

    Does any of this make sense? Where's Terry when I need him!

  • Sirona
    Sirona

    Hmmm

    It certain creatures can develop ways to reproduce, or clone as you say, then this diminishes the concept of a creator and designer and gives credence to the theory that we are constantly evolving in order to achieve survival.

    I don't agree. Creationists would simply say that God is so clever that he created creatures who don't need any sexual intercourse to procreate. Some creatures need to have sex, some don't (I'm in the former category, LOL)

    I do agree however that it gives credence to the theory of evolution in order to survive - I presume there is some evolutionary reason why it is important for this creature to parthogenesise, perhaps males are less likely to live as long or something and therefore they were eliminated from the reproductive process.

    If I could parthogenesise, I don't think I would. Who would want another person walking around who is genetically equal to me?

    Sirona

  • Terry
    Terry
    Does any of this make sense? Where's Terry when I need him!

    Terry was eating a blueberry muffin and contemplating his own partheno-situation.

    The problem Creationists and Intelligent Design people have is that they've determined in advance what they want their conclusions to be and shape any facts or arguments toward that end.

    A Honey Bee can be developed without the male fertilization in a kind of virgin-"birth".

    The addition of certain hormones determines what the sex role will be.

    Creationists look at unexplainable phenomenon simply as miracles.

    You may as well try and convince a Fundamentalist that clouds aren't really alligators. After all, they LOOK like alligators.

  • Crumpet
    Crumpet

    Thanks Terry - clearly the blueberry muffin assisted your thinking abilities! You and Sirona are saying the same thing really - in that they would use this as an example of a miracle rather than see it is a living evidence of the existence of evolution.

    I don't agree. Creationists would simply say that God is so clever that he created creatures who don't need any sexual intercourse to procreate. Some creatures need to have sex, some don't (I'm in the former category, LOL)

    How simple it is to be a creationist. One doesnt need any facts, evidence, statistics, to evaluate anything - or even think because the staple answer is its "An Example of A Divine Miracle".

    Had to chuckle at the alligator clouds too Terry!

  • Sad emo
    Sad emo

    Really good article Crumpet, I wish I'd picked the paper up on the bus now! I'll throw a spanner in here with a very ambiguous thought which will possibly result in me being flame-grilled on both sides! Darn I love this board for being able to air my more unconventional ideas which wouldn't go down too well in church!!

    The creation theory is based upon a Divine Creator, who decreed procreation between the two sexes

    Not necessarily. It was possibly only decreed for humans - the special emphasis of 'male and female' in the creation account and backed up throughout Scripture. The other land animals, flying animals and sea creatures were merely told 'be fruitful and multiply' in Genesis. So for them at least, the male-female system of reproduction might only have been the main system but not the solely decreed one.

    Back to more conventional thoughts, I didn't see in the article any suggestion that the shark might be a hermaphrodite (? having both male and female reproductive organs - I got laughed at when I was younger because I thought the word was bisexual). I don't suppose they'd be able to check that until the shark dies?

  • Paralipomenon
    Paralipomenon

    My question would be, what was the sex of the baby?

    Would the asexual reproduction ensure the birth of a male shark?

    While incredible, can you imagine all the poor horny shark's disappointment if another female was born?

Share this

Google+
Pinterest
Reddit