Virgin Birth!

[Sriram]

Hi everyone,

I think this was discussed before...I am not sure.

http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20141219-spectacular-real-virgin-births

********************************************************************

This 6m long (20 ft) python had spent four years alone in Louisville zoo in the US, without ever having met a male of her species. But, somehow, she laid over 61 eggs, producing six healthy babies.

Thelma had become the first reticulated python in the world known to have had a real-life virgin birth.

Scientists are discovering that virgin births occur in many different species; amphibians, reptiles, cartilaginous and bony fish and birds and it happens for reasons we don't quite understand.

Initially, a virgin birth, also known as parthenogenesis, was thought to be triggered by extreme situations; it was only documented among captive animals, for example, perhaps by the stress, or isolation. A way to continue the bloodline when all other options had gone, when there was no other choice.

Not necessarily. It now appears that some virgin females produce offspring even in the presence of males.

What’s more, they do so in the wild, and may have been doing it for hundreds of millions of years.

********************************************************************

Life will find a way. If its not through sexual means...it'll be through 'virgin birth'.  Shows that life is not an incidental or chance result of chemical reactions.  Life  (and reproduction) will happen one way or the other.

Cheers.

Sriram 

[Nearly Sane]

It doesn't show any such thing.

[torridon]

Life will find a way. If its not through sexual means...it'll be through 'virgin birth'.  Shows that life is not an incidental or chance result of chemical reactions...

That's a massive non sequitur.  You're just picking a particular observation and using it to support a world view. A bit like Alan Burns finds his lost contact lens and derives 'God exists' from that.

[Leonard James]

It doesn't show any such thing.

Of course it doesn't, much as Sriram would like to think so.

Non-sexual reproduction was the norm when life began. Sexually reproduction developed and became dominant because the exchange of genes at conception allowed a much greater chance of variant forms for natural selection to work on.

Probably many species retained the ability to reproduce in both ways.

[Shaker]

Not so much an own goal as a smack in own teeth with this one, Sriram.

[floo]

Not so much an own goal as a smack in own teeth with this one, Sriram.

I agree.

[Harrowby Hall]

Life will find a way. If its not through sexual means...it'll be through 'virgin birth'.  Shows that life is not an incidental or chance result of chemical reactions.  Life  (and reproduction) will happen one way or the other.

As others have said, Sriram, this is just not true.

Sexual reproduction was a rather late arrival in evolution.

I think I recall hearing about a marine reptile that lays eggs on beaches. If the eggs have been fertilised the offspring will be female if not, male. My source said that whereas in mammals the default sex is female, with reptiles it is male.

[Sriram]

I am not sure what everyone is refuting here.   I am not questioning any evolutionary process. I know that different kinds of reproduction processes exist.  And that is my point.

I am merely saying that reproduction is not incidental to any one process. Different processes exist by which reproduction can happen. In other words...specific processes do not decide the existence of life forms.  Life will exist and prevail any which way it can. 

Life is primary and the process is secondary.....not the other way around. 

[Leonard James]

I am not sure what everyone is refuting here.   I am not questioning any evolutionary process. I know that different kinds of reproduction processes exist.  And that is my point.

I am merely saying that reproduction is not incidental to any one process. Different processes exist by which reproduction can happen. In other words...specific processes do not decide the existence of life forms.  Life will exist and prevail any which way it can. 

Life is primary and the process is secondary.....not the other way around.

And? What are you trying to address?

[Shaker]

Iam not sure what everyone is refuting here.

Probably your assertion that "... life is not an incidental or chance result of chemical reactions."

[Udayana]

Iam not sure what everyone is refuting here.

Probably your assertion that "... life is not an incidental or chance result of chemical reactions."

and in the latest post: "Life will exist and prevail any which way it can"

That is not what we see, as all the cases where it does not prevail are ignored.

[Sriram]

My point is straight forward enough.  Processes do not decide functions. In that sense functions (reproduction, locomotion, digestive processes, etc.)  are not incidental to processes.

Different processes lead to the same function.....which means functions are more or less fixed as objectives....and processes will evolve depending on the environment.   

[SusanDoris]

But what about the Tribbles? Such dear little things!

[Leonard James]

My point is straight forward enough.  Processes do not decide functions. In that sense functions (reproduction, locomotion, digestive processes, etc.)  are not incidental to processes.

Different processes lead to the same function.....which means functions are more or less fixed as objectives....and processes will evolve depending on the environment.

I'm sorry, Sriram, but I don't understand this. The words are all English and the sentences grammatical, yet I am completely lost as to what you are trying to say. 

[SusanDoris]

My point is straight forward enough.  Processes do not decide functions. In that sense functions (reproduction, locomotion, digestive processes, etc.)  are not incidental to processes.

Different processes lead to the same function.....which means functions are more or less fixed as objectives....and processes will evolve depending on the environment.

I'm sorry, Sriram, but I don't understand this. The words are all English and the sentences grammatical, yet I am completely lost as to what you are trying to say. 

There's a researcher who was on the Science programme (radio 4 yesterday 4:30 p.m.) who is working on how our brains get meaning out of proper sentences which are not sense.

[Shaker]

Noam Chomsky was doing work on this donkey's years ago - his famous example was colourless green ideas sleep furiously: grammatically impeccable, but complete non-sense.

[Nearly Sane]

I'm with Leonard on this. I think Sriram is clear in his own mind, possibly so clear, that it is difficult for him to see what it is we are missing, but nothing seems straightforward in the post.

[Shaker]

I'm reporting the latter part of this thread to the Clear English Campaign. I expect they'll have something to say 

[Leonard James]

There's a researcher who was on the Science programme (radio 4 yesterday 4:30 p.m.) who is working on how our brains get meaning out of proper sentences which are not sense.
[/quote]

Whoopee! When he works it out we'll be able to understand the inscrutable stuff that Sriram and Sassy sometimes throw at us.

[Sriram]

LOL!   And all coming from English men and women. Tut! Tut!

 ........ "If you don't understand what I say...you are stupid. If I don't understand what you say...still YOU are stupid"....   

 Typical isn't it?   

The empire is gone but the nose in the air is still there......what?!

What I have said is plain enough for me ....and I have said this many times on here.  If you don't understand it, its your problem.  Think over it if you can.

Cheers...guys.