Parthenogenesis in Humans - A Hypothetical Query

[MineralMan]

Let's say, for now, that parthenogenesis is possible in human beings. Let's just say, OK? If it were possible, all infants born in that way would be female. That's because female humans have two X chromosomes in all of their cells, including the ovum. If an ovum could somehow begin dividing to form an embryo that turned into a fetus and was born, it would have to be female, because male humans have one X and one Y chromosome. (And yes, I know there are exceptions to this with some rare genetic disorders.)

How does this relate to religion? Well, the man/god, Jesus, is supposed by the writers of the Gospels to be born without the assistance of a human male. And yet, Jesus is described as male in all accounts written about him. So, a question is where that Y chromosome came from. Did the Holy Spirit contribute it somehow? Did a deity speak it into being? Clearly, the Jesus recorded in the Bible must have had both an X and Y chromosome, but his birth mother clearly could not contribute it.

I suppose that "With God, all things are possible," but that's one of the little mysteries that has always puzzled me. When I asked that question of my Sunday School teacher at age 13, I was immediately shushed by her. Still, I have never gotten an answer to my question: "Where did Jesus's Y chromosome come from?" If Jesus was, indeed, fully human, he must have gotten it from somewhere.

[PJMcK]

1. There you go again with that science-y stuff!

(wink)

[MineralMan]

2. I know. I was a science nerd all through school.

So many questions...ain't life interesting?

[AtheistCrusader]

3. I see little profit in analyzing a myth from this angle.

If he existed as a real person at all, his origin/birth was fully mundane, just like all the other dozen's of 'virgin births' in various mythos.

To answer your last question, a xitian would say 'god did it'.
As easily as an early greek would have claimed Athena sprang fully grown and armed for war from Zeus's brow. Just because. Done. Magic. Next question. Equally as credible.

[MineralMan]

5. Well, of course. It's interesting, though.

At the time that stuff was written, nobody even knew what a sperm cell looked like. Now, we do. We know lots of things that weren't known back then. It's just interesting.

[trotsky]

6. Precisely right.

Anyone not convinced by the Jesus story sees this point as obvious.

Anyone convinced by it will come up with some kind of reason why it doesn't matter.

[DetlefK]

4. I loosely remember something from Aristotle...

At least I think it was Aristotle...

There was an ancient greek philosopher who postulated that it indeed takes a man and a woman to create a child, however it's only the attributes of the man who determine what the child will be like.

In this patriarchal mindset, it was the man who was giving and determining life.

Oh, and Ancient Greece also had a religious festivity with a symbolical ritual where the men give birth to a stone.





We shouldn't even bother to reconcile such contradictions. It's pointless. They were Bronze-Age people who didn't know anything about medicine.

The Old Testament was written and codified IIRC 500BC. The New Testament IIRC 300 AD.

Anatomy was basically invented by medieval Muslims. The materialistic concept of organisms "procreating" was invented in late 18th century in France. IIRC genetics was invented by the austrian botanist Gregor Mendel in the 19th century.

That's 1700-2500 years of difference in knowledge...