View Full Version : Virgin Birth?
12-20-2006, 02:50 PM
Virgin Komodo dragon is expecting
POSTED: 4:04 p.m. EST, December 20, 2006
LONDON, England (Reuters) -- Flora, a pregnant Komodo dragon living in a British zoo, is expecting eight babies in what scientists said on Wednesday could be a Christmas virgin birth.
Flora has never mated, or even mixed, with a male dragon, and fertilized all the eggs herself, a process culminating in parthenogenesis, or virgin birth. Other lizards do this, but scientists only recently found that Komodo dragons do too.
"Nobody in their wildest dreams expected this. But you have a female dragon on her own. She produces a clutch of eggs and those eggs turn out to be fertile. It is nature finding a way," Kevin Buley of Chester Zoo in England said in an interview.
He said the incubating eggs could hatch around Christmas.
Parthenogenesis has occurred in other lizard species, but Buley and his team said this was the first time it has been shown in Komodo dragons -- the world's largest lizards.
Scientists at Liverpool University in northern England discovered Flora had had no male help after doing genetic tests on three eggs that collapsed after being put in an incubator.
The tests on the embryos and on Flora, her sister and other dragons confirmed that Komodo dragons can reproduce through self-fertilization.
"Those genetic tests confirmed absolutely that Flora was both the mother and the father of the embryos. It completely blew us away because it [parthenogenesis] has never been seen in such a large species," Buley explained.
A Komodo dragon at London Zoo gave birth earlier this year after being separated from males for more than two years.
Scientists thought she had been able to store sperm from her earlier encounter with a male, but after hearing about Flora's eggs researchers conducted tests which showed her eggs were also produced without male help.
"You have two institutions within a few short months of each other having a previously unheard of event. It is really quite unprecedented," said Buley.
The scientists, reporting the discovery in the science journal Nature, said it could help them understand how reptiles colonize new areas.
A female dragon could, for instance, swim to another island and establish a new colony on her own.
"The genetics of self-fertilization in lizards means that all her hatchlings would have to be male. These would grow up to mate with their own mother and therefore, within one generation, there would potentially be a population able to reproduce normally on the new island," Buley said.
web page (http://www.cnn.com/2006/WORLD/europe/12/20/uk.komodo.reut/index.html)
12-20-2006, 02:53 PM
"Those genetic tests confirmed absolutely that Flora was both the mother and the father of the embryos."
Batteries not included???
12-20-2006, 02:57 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote wolfdancer:</font><hr>
"Those genetic tests confirmed absolutely that Flora was both the mother and the father of the embryos."
Batteries not included??? <hr /></blockquote>
<font color="blue"> This has got to be great news for the men haters association, no testerone needed. </font color>
12-20-2006, 02:59 PM
yep, they not only don't need the "gasoline", they don't need the pump.
12-20-2006, 03:00 PM
No fuel injection either.
[ QUOTE ]
Flora has never mated, or even mixed, with a male dragon, and fertilized all the eggs herself, a process culminating in parthenogenesis, or virgin birth. <hr /></blockquote>
Is that HER story? /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif
If you buy that...................
Q /ccboard/images/graemlins/laugh.gif /ccboard/images/graemlins/grin.gif
12-20-2006, 10:25 PM
Nice photo of Flora -- if u put a golden disc behind her head, she would look a lot like the paintings of Mary -- holy and serene. But there will be 2 big differences.....
1. Mary had a virgin-conception plus a virgin-birth. Despite what the scientists say, Flora will no longer be a virgin after the births -- not like Mary, Mary remained whole and intact.
2. Mary couldnt swim.
12-21-2006, 11:21 AM
I didn't realize such small details of Mary's life were common knowledge. I seriously suspect it's all speculation and hearsay anyway. I can't imagine there were too many people who were in a position to "know" these things, let alone record them for posterity.
12-21-2006, 12:03 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote cushioncrawler:</font><hr> -- not like Mary, Mary remained whole and intact.
<hr /></blockquote> <font color="blue"> It is believed that the eternal virginity of Mary was a 4th century invention of the Catholic Church to support their view of Mary as a saint. While the Bible does not identify the brother's and sisters of Jesus as being of Mary, most biblical scholars think they were the offspring of Joseph and Mary. </font color>
12-21-2006, 12:31 PM
Not one hundred percent sure about his 'facts' but a friend of mine responded to the question this way:
[ QUOTE ]
Mark, the first Gospel, never mentions the Virgin Birth.
Paul, who wrote earlier than Mark, never mentions the Virgin Birth.
The reason is simple: The Virgin Birth story was invented LATER, by the writer of Matthew; copied by Luke and eventually included in the Bible. <hr /></blockquote>
Someone with greater familiarity with the Bible than I have might be able to rebut or confirm this. In the meantime, I do hope that none of the Catholics who post in the forum find themselves to be offended by this post.
12-21-2006, 01:07 PM
I Googled "Virgin Birth" yesterday, and did some reading on that
"There are explicit references to the virgin birth in only two places in the New Testament: the Gospels of Matthew and Luke, which are believed by many scholars to be amongst the later written parts of the New Testament (see Markan priority). The apparently older Gospel of Mark, on which Matthew and Luke are believed to be partly based, does not mention the virgin birth, and some scholars also argue from grammar and style that the first two chapters of Luke, describing the virgin birth, were a later addition to the Gospel, which may originally have begun at 3:1:
2:51 And he went down with them, and came to Nazareth, and was subject unto them: but his mother kept all these sayings in her heart.
52 And Jesus increased in wisdom and stature, and in favour with God and man.
3:1 Now in the fifteenth year of the reign of Tiberius Caesar, Pontius Pilate being governor of Judaea, and Herod being tetrarch of Galilee, and his brother Philip tetrarch of Ituraea and of the region of Trachonitis, and Lysanias the tetrarch of Abilene,
2 Annas and Caiaphas being the high priests, the word of God came unto John the son of Zacharias in the wilderness.
At 3:1 there is an abrupt change of subject and the story begins again. Nevertheless, this is characteristic of many stories in the Gospels and the author of Luke may simply be beginning a new segment of his narrative. Arguments regarding the addition of material to a narrative (Redaction and Form criticism), especially when the material in question is present in the earliest manuscripts, have received significant criticism in the last 20 years and are now regarded as dubious by some textual critics.
The Virgin conception and birth is a tradition that fits within the criterion of multiple attestation, that is, the same event appears in two independent traditions (most scholars argue that the authors of Matthew and Luke worked independent of one another). For many historians, independent testimony is a significant evidence for the historical validity of a said event. Matthew and Luke are testifying to an event, the birth, about which there was a tradition, namely, that it resulted from a miraculous conception. That the conception itself was indeed miraculous appears to rest on a "single attestation", that of the Virgin Mary. The attestation of the angel to St Joseph on the miraculous nature of the conception would not be accepted by many scholars as historiographically valid.
Critics of the "double attestation" argument cite many "inconsistencies" between the accounts of Matthew and Luke regarding Jesus' birth. According to Matthew, Joseph was forewarned of the virgin birth by an unnamed angel; in Luke it is Mary who is notified of this by the angel Gabriel. Matthew tells us that Joseph and Mary were residents of Bethlehem who moved to Nazareth after Jesus' birth in order to avoid living under Archelaus: according to the better-known story in Luke the couple lived in Nazareth and only traveled to Bethlehem in order to comply with a Roman census. Luke mentions that Mary was the sister of Elizabeth, mother of John the Baptist, has the new-born Jesus visited by shepherds, and mentions several long hymns uttered by various characters, such as Mary's Magnificat. None of this is mentioned by Matthew, who instead tells us of the visit of the Magi, the massacre of the innocents by Herod, and the flight into Egypt.
There are thus two rival explanations for the "double attestation" of Matthew and Luke regarding the virgin birth of Jesus:
1. The virgin birth was a historical event, and the stories of Matthew and Luke are based on different aspects and witnesses' accounts of it.
2. Matthew and Luke both wanted to make Jesus fit prophecies from Hebrew scripture. Both authors were aware of the prophecies concerning virgin birth and Bethlehem, and therefore these elements of their stories match. But each author wove these prophecies into the overall narrative in a different way. For example, both authors had to explain how Jesus was born in Bethlehem when he was known to be from Nazareth (as mentioned in Mark's gospel) -- and each came up with a totally different explanation.
Paul of Tarsus
Many of the letters of Paul are considered older than Matthew and Luke, and Paul does not take a clear opportunity to refer to Mary as a virgin when he describes the birth of Jesus:
Galatians 4:4 But when the fulness of the time was come, God sent forth his Son, made of a woman, made under the law...
genomenon ek parthenou, "having-become of a-virgin". Christian apologists reply that Mary's virginity was not relevant to Paul's reasoning at this point, and point out that he uses a special verb to describe Jesus' birth, which he plainly regarded as a special event. However, Jesus' birth would have been special to Paul whether or not it had taken place by parthenogenesis, and if Paul had not known of the virgin birth, it could never have been relevant to any of his reasoning and so could never have appeared in his writing. This argumentum ex silentio, or "argument from silence", cannot be conclusive, but skeptics of the virignal conception argue that it does increase the probability Paul was unaware of the virgin birth.
Seems like it is open to interpretation, accepted by the faithful, and questioned by the skeptics. I think the "seed of David" reference is something to consider in any discussion."
BUT, if politics caused such hard feelings here,when we were discussing the anti-Christ....I'll stay off any discussions regarding the birth of Christ..besides,I retired my cassock and surplus about 50 lbs and 50 yrs ago.
12-21-2006, 02:19 PM
I have a very good book by an ozzy (lady) professor that makes sense of most of the seemingly ridiculous writings in the bible -- the book iz packed away (we are in the middle of shifting), but i will try to recount.
Virgin Birth. Some jewish sects only allowed sex for the purpose of having babys, ie to make more members. Members had to marry, but, funny thing, marriage woznt allowed untill the girl (allwayz called a virgin before marriage) woz prooven to be pregnant. And, the first child woz allways called a "virgin birth".
12-21-2006, 02:34 PM
Only in Australia, I'm afraid.
never heard that one...and I've done a little reading about the Jewish Religion. It would be interesting to see the reference.
you sure you ain't had one too many quaffs of "Mountain Goat" Beer?
12-21-2006, 03:45 PM
Google -- Barbar Thiering -- "The riddle of the dead sea scrolls". A great book -- but i am not sure just how much of the book can be found on google. And i think that she has other books.
12-21-2006, 06:06 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote bsmutz:</font><hr> I didn't realize such small details of Mary's life were common knowledge. I seriously suspect it's all speculation and hearsay anyway. I can't imagine there were too many people who were in a position to "know" these things, let alone record them for posterity. <hr /></blockquote>
No,everybody knew at the time -- Mary couldnt swim.
12-21-2006, 06:27 PM
From Uber Site
"..... Most thoroughly investigated virgin birth.
There have been many claims of virgin birth in human history, strong in legend (Greek mythology, the Bible etc.) and weak in the medical literature. In some rare cases a woman has carried part of her twin around inside her and subsequent "delivery" has created the illusion of virgin birth.
In November 1955 the "London Sunday Pictorial" asked women to come forward who thought that there had been no father to their child. Nineteen claims were made to the newspaper and these were investigated. Eleven were negated in the initial enquiry because the mothers thought an intact hymen inevitably indicated a virgin conception. Finally the nineteen cases were reduced to one possible. Mrs. E. Jones and her daughter were subjected to further thorough investigation. Their blood, saliva and tasting powers were all examined, and attempts were made to graft skin from one to the other. Blood, saliva, and tasting powers were almost identical, but the grafts did not take. In June 1956 the Sunday Pictorial was prepared to state that, after six months of detailed medical investigation, the results were consistent with a case of virgin birth. Professor J. B. S. Haldane disagreed and argued that the evidence in fact led to the opposite conclusion - the child had a father....."
12-21-2006, 06:35 PM
From Midwifery Today.
"....Pregnancy With an Intact Hymen
A 19 year old woman pregnant with her first child came to me after having seen a doctor several times. He had done vaginal exams and hadn't found anything unusual. Among the usual things I tell pregnant moms, I recommended perineal massage each night beginning five to seven weeks before the baby is due. She called me after the first time she and her husband tried it saying, "Brenda, I have two vaginas!" I asked her to come the next day and let me check so I could see what might be confusing her.
Upon examination I caught something between my fingers. I got out my speculum and sure enough something in there prevented me from moving freely. I turned to my Tabor's Medical Dictionary and looked up hymen. I didn't really know what they look like, and to my surprise I found there are several kinds of hymens. The kind she had is described as "Buffers--hymen with two parallel openings with a thick septum between." It is hard to explain what it looked like. It is best described as a thick membrane attached to the upper and lower vaginal opening, with an opening on each side and open behind so that you could wrap your finger around it.
I had never seen or heard of this before so I called my good friend who is also the midwife who trained me. I asked her what I should do and if she had heard of this before. She told me to let it be, that in childbirth it would either tear or move to one side or the other and baby would come through.
I did just that. In labor as she was pushing and as the head started to crown I tried to get the hymen to go to one side. It did, but it was too tight for baby to pass through. I tried to get it to break with baby pressing against it, but it was just too thick, so I told her I was going to have to cut it. As soon as I did, baby slid right out. She bled from the bottom part of the hymen, which I assumed was due to pressure against it, because as soon as baby was born the bleeding stopped.
I was told by a doctor the only thing that could be done is cut it short but if it does not bother her to leave it alone. When I checked her nine days after the birth it had almost completely gone away. It still amazes me that the hymen was still there during her pregnancy, but according to Tabor's it is folklore that whether the hymen is broken or not determines whether or not a woman is a virgin, and that women can in fact become pregnant if it is still intact.
My midwife friend said it is possible that during intercourse her husband's penis went through on the one side and maybe again on the other side. After seeing how thick it was, I believe her. Brenda Capps, DEM .
Reprinted from Midwifery Today E-News (Vol 2 Issue 2, Jan 14, 2000)....."
12-21-2006, 06:44 PM
<blockquote><font class="small">Quote cushioncrawler:</font><hr> .....My midwife friend said it is possible that during intercourse her husband's penis went through on the one side and maybe again on the other side. After seeing how thick it was, I believe her. Brenda Capps, DEM ...... <hr /></blockquote>
Hmmmmmm -- this iz what i reckon....
1... She was perhaps a virgin on one side, but not on the other.
2... If Brenda believed that it was the husband, then she will believe anything.
3... It all reminds me about the joke about the girl with 3 vaginas -- all the boys used to screw her left right and center.
12-22-2006, 09:25 AM
You have now ruined sex for most of us for the next three days!
Powered by vBulletin® Version 4.2.0 Copyright © 2013 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.