MIQ@PSUVMA.BITNET (12/16/86)
In article <889@husc6.UUCP>, gallagher@husc4.harvard.edu (paul gallagher) says: >However, although males need females, females don't neccessarily need >males. Under laboratory conditions, the ovum of the female of some species >can be artificially induced to begin development, without need of sperm. >I read one author who, noting that many women have given birth without >ever apparently having had sex, thinks that virgin birth is possible in >humans. I've heard about these experiments too. The most advanced animal its worked with so far (as far as I know) is rabbits. The stimulation took the form of placing the female in water & applying a small electric current. I don't think it would explain "virgin births" in humans, though. I agree with the poster who suggested that the "apparently" virgin women probably weren't so. One way to test this would be via the sex of the baby. If the baby were male (thus having a Y-chromosome), then it's pretty certain that the mother was impregnated in the standard manner. A female baby would leave the question open. ------- --------------------------- James D. Maloy | THIS SPACE FOR RENT | The Pennsylvania State University | Call 555-2317 | --------------------------- Bitnet: MIQ@PSUECL UUCP : {akgua,allegra,cbosgd,ihnp4}!psuvax1!psuvma.bitnet!miq "I am pleased to see we have differences. May we together become greater than the sum of both of us." -- Surak of Vulcan
chiaraviglio@husc2.UUCP (lucius) (12/18/86)
In article <9088MIQ@PSUVMA>, MIQ@PSUVMA.BITNET writes: [First, quotes stuff about artificially-induced parthogenesis by stimulating unfertilized eggs to divide] > I've heard about these experiments too. The most advanced animal > its worked with so far (as far as I know) is rabbits. The stimulation > took the form of placing the female in water & applying a small electric > current. Did it actually produce live newborns, or did the stimulated eggs degenerate into teratocarcinomas as they have in all the experiments with mammalian eggs that I have read about? Do you have any more details? When was this done (Molecular Biology of the Cell (1983) says that while such procedures work on many things up to and including reptiles, mammalian eggs stimulated to divide without fertilization only form teratocarcinomas). By the way, even in non-parthogenetic species, germ cells (including but not limited to eggs -- this can happen in males also) will attempt to develop an embryo without first being fertilized and without any artificial stimulation. That is why mammals, including humans, occasionally get teratocarcinomas. -- -- Lucius Chiaraviglio lucius@tardis.harvard.edu seismo!tardis!lucius Please do not mail replies to me on husc2 (disk quota problems, and mail out of this system is unreliable). Please send only to the address given above.
bl@hplabsb.UUCP (Bruce T. Lowerre) (12/18/86)
In article <9088MIQ@PSUVMA>, MIQ@PSUVMA.BITNET writes: > ... > > I don't think it would explain "virgin births" in humans, though. > I agree with the poster who suggested that the "apparently" virgin women > probably weren't so. I did read about one woman who was a virgin and got pregnant (and I don't mean Mary). She was gay and had sex with her bi-sexual lover who had just had intercourse with a male. Boy was she surprised!