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.