another case of parthenogenesis
From MSNBC (hat tip: Jeff/NA News-Tribune)...
Two Komodo dragons have hatched at the Sedgwick County Zoo in Kansas, apparently without the fertilization of a male.
Two other known cases in which Komodo dragons hatched by parthenogenesis were at the London and Chester zoos in England in 2006.
The new-born dragons, both males, are believed to be the first in North America known to have hatched by parthenogenesis, which occurs naturally in some species, including invertebrates and lower plants. It happens more rarely in some vertebrates.Apparently, it happens even more rarely among humans-- once-in-an-eternity...
posted by Eric Schansberg @ 8:45 PM
6 Comments
6 Comments:
Human parthenogenesis might be even rarer than you suggest. There are only two accounts of the Virgin Birth, markedly dissimilar to each other (the Nativity stories of Matthew and Luke); and St. Paul never mentions or discusses the Virgin Birth. (This is odd, considering how significant the Virgin Birth is supposed to be, theologically.) More troubling: The prophecy of the Virgin Birth is found in Isaiah 7:14: Therefore, the Lord himself will give you a sign. Look, the young woman is with child and shall bear a son, and shall name him Immanuel. This is how this is translated in the New Revised Standard Version. But the NIV translates the Hebrew 'young woman' as 'virgin,' but with a footnote: "Greek: virgin." What's going on here is that the original Hebrew uses a word usually translated as 'young woman' (Hebrew has a different word for 'virgin') but the Septuagint (the Greek translation of the Old Testament in common use at the time of Christ) translates it as 'virgin.' So there is a credible argument that the expectation of a Virgin Birth is the result of a mistranslation. Regardless of the correct translation of the Hebrew, the fantastic nature and dissimilarity of the two Nativity stories, and the absence of any mention by St. Paul of this event (in the earliest writings in the NT), strongly imply that the Virgin Birth is a legend not known to the Church in the first three decades. It is worth pointing out that this is in sharp contrast to the Resurrection, which is known to St. Paul; it is clear that belief in the Resurrection was present from the beginning—and indeed was the founding belief of the new faith of Christianity.
Thanks for the thoughtful response! A few things to say in reply...
The relative lack of emphasis on the Virgin Birth is interesting and perhaps noteworthy. But an interesting corollary of concern about the lack of emphasis is that one must then be relatively impressed by the bulk of emphasis on the resurrection.
Note also that a number of OT prophecies are fulfilled by the birth, life, death, and resurrection of Christ. So trouble with any one prophecy should not be prohibitively troublesome.
Beyond direct references to a Virgin Birth, other theological realities about Jesus Christ point to a God-inspired Virgin Birth as the means to those ends. For example, if Jesus Christ was the perfect God-Man, then being born of both God and "man" is unsurprising-- if not to be expected.
Using the logic and story-telling of the Evolutionist, one should find the natural evidence for parthenogenesis at least somewhat compelling. If we observe it in other species, it would be difficult to rule it out in another-- especially if it's inspired by a Creator God.
Finally, a few thoughts on the key passage in Isaiah.
First, one could say that Matthew was interpreting the prophecy in Isaiah 7:14 to fit contemporary events. Off the top of my head, I can think of examples in Hebrews and Galatians where this is done. (Of course, this possibility will be troubling or unrealistic to those-- whether Christian or secular-- who see a need to read the Scriptures most literally.)
Second, there is no need to go there. As you noted, Isaiah uses the Hebrew term "almah", meaning an unmarried girl of a marriageable age: not a direct reference to virginity, but certainly an indirect reference-- at least in those days! (See: Gen 24:43, Ex 2:8, Ps 68:25, Pr 30:19, SoS 1:3, 6:8 for examples). Moreover, Alec Motyer notes that there is no recorded use of "almah" for a married woman outside of Scripture either. So, the use of "almah" to allude to virginity is certainly reasonable.
It might also be that the entire story is made up or passed down incorrectly - ever play the game "telephone"?
Another possibility is that there have been multiple human virgin births. The virgin birth myth is not exclusively Christian. Why should we reject the claims of some religions while accepting the others? None have yet produced DNA evidence.
Made up or passed down incorrectly? Possible-- that's why one should go to other evidences for corroboration (or not).
A good point about the scientific possibility of multiple virgin births.
As for DNA evidence, I'm not sure that works well to explain many historical events. Perhaps more to the point, I don't see materialists and Evolutionists holding out for anything close to complete DNA evidence or "explanations" of that data.
I guess the DNA proof would be to find a person with but one set of chromosomes.
Of course, from what I understand about genetics (and it is limited), that person would be a female not the male of various religious stories.
There are many men with XX and female with XY chromosomes
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home