Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Path: utzoo!mnetor!seismo!brl-adm!rutgers!mit-eddie!genrad!panda!husc6!husc2!chiaraviglio
From: chiaraviglio@husc2.UUCP (lucius)
Newsgroups: sci.bio,talk.origins
Subject: Re: Evolution vs.(?) Creationism
Message-ID: <1075@husc2.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 14-Dec-86 20:51:07 EST
Article-I.D.: husc2.1075
Posted: Sun Dec 14 20:51:07 1986
Date-Received: Tue, 16-Dec-86 18:38:32 EST
References: <2849@bu-cs.BU.EDU> <1261@cybvax0.UUCP> <9@bcsaic.UUCP> <889@husc6.UUCP>
Organization: Harvard Univ. Science Ctr., Cambridge, MA
Lines: 23
Summary: Experiments in parthogenesis with mammalian eggs have not succeeded for a reason not currently understood.
Xref: mnetor sci.bio:60 talk.origins:219

In article <889@husc6.UUCP>, gallagher@husc4.harvard.edu (paul gallagher)
writes:
> 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.

	This seems very unlikely, because artificial stimulation of a
mammalian egg causes development to occur only up to a certain point
(gastrulation I think), after which it always becomes abnormal, and cannot
proceed further.  As far as I know, the reason for this is not known; it works
fine in many other organisms, and even occurs naturally in some (such as some
lizards, which are near the same evolutionary path as mammals, although not as
advanced (mammals evolved from reptiles)).

	The more likely explanation is too obvious to be worth mentioning.

-- 
	-- 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.