Slashdot Mirror
Female Sharks Can Reproduce Alone
mikesd81 writes "The Washington Post has an article about a team of American and Irish researchers that have discovered that some female sharks can reproduce without having sex, the first time that scientists have found the unusual capacity in such an ancient vertebrate species. Their report concludes that sharks can reproduce asexually through the process known as parthenogenesis (the growth and development of an embryo or seed without fertilization by a male). Scientists started investigating after a female hammerhead shark was mysteriously born at Omaha's Henry Doorly Zoo in a tank that housed 3 female sharks. It was originally thought one had stored sperm from a male shark before fertilizing an egg. However, baby shark's genetic makeup perfectly matched one of the females in the tank, with no sign of a male parent."
Just a quick note, if you are ever in the Omaha, Nebraska area definitely stop by Henry Doorly Zoo. It's probably the nation's second best zoo behind San Diego's, and the shark tunnel is fantastic. As are the penguins, and the desert dome, and indoor jungle, and... A few winters ago we went to the Zoo and the place was deserted. Was able to just lay down in the Shark Tunnel and watch the sharks swim overhead for about a half hour with no one coming down. Was fantastic. At any rate, also -- as far as the article goes -- I wish someone would have some more explanation for how this works. Kindof freaky.
I realize that was intended as a joke, and I am not an evolutionary biologist, but wouldn't this type of reproduction completely eliminate the possibility for evolution ?
I don't mean to imply that this is evidence contradicting the occurrence of evolution, just that if animals were to reproduce asexually, and thus essentially be clones of their parent, then evolution is not possible for that particular species ?
So what are the benefits ?
Sharks continually regenerate rows of teeth, and probably many other parts lost in sharky feeding frenzies. Their cartilage is used without immune reaction in reconstructing human tissue. Their fins are prized in Chinese folk remedies as a rejuvenating soup. Now we learn they're flexible enough to clone themselves.
We should closely examine these creatures, in all their varied (and often endangered) species, for secrets to rejuvenation. Most likely we'll learn a lot we can apply to human stemcell therapies, which a lot of these "magic" properties seem likely to be backed by.
--
make install -not war
whos to say science wont evolve to point where we can just grow humans in a lab and females become obsolete.
Do not try to read the dupe, thats impossible. Instead, only try to realize the truth
What truth?
There is no dupe
[SF stories depict men] ... who can't sit still without fighting something over someone. you never read sci-fi stories where an all-women crew spend all the time bitching, backstabbing and gossipping, but I suppose all these stories are written from an insecure male perspective.
Actually, that's fairly realistic. An experiment run several years back by military researchers studying the feasibility of placing women in combat roles* showed something a little surprising.
During ordinary (relaxed) situations, men got along very well while women tended towards a bit infighting and societal jockeying for position. However, when placed into a stressful situation, the male camaraderie came apart (which is well known, most of the military's training is geared specifically to try to override this problem) but the female group actually came together better as a unit the more stress they were placed under.
It also showed women have better stamina, survive extreme environments better, and have a much higher pain threshold. Not that any of this is new, the whole mythological archetype of the amazon is well-grounded in real-world examples, and the vikings, for example, were quite happy to have women fighting alongside them -- called "shield-maidens", they were seen as rare but valuable on the battlefield.
* Of course, while the study found the female unit would perform admirably, political realities still hinder the acceptance of female combat units.
No no no - its all good.
If a chick WANTS to have a kid on their own, they should be able to, without dragging some guy into a long term support commitment by saying 'Guess wot ? Im pregnant'.
If you want a kid together, you still can, and if she wants her own - she can, and no child support liability for a kid that you never asked for. She would only have herself to blame in this case.
For the record, I asked my brother -- who has a degree in linguistics -- about this, and he said the following:
0 0724#mistranslation
1. http://www.geocities.com/paulntobin/virgin.html?2
Parthenos means "virgin" in Greek. The site author says that it's
Hebrew equivalent "almah" means only young woman and not virgin.
Hebrew isn't my specialty so I can't speak with authority, but I have
heard there is debate on this. I will, however, give a cultural
explanation. A young woman (whether almah means explicitly virgin or
not) would almost always be a virgin in Hebrew society, because of the
obvious penalties for promiscuity, i.e. being shamed and then stoned
to death.
His Proverbs 30:18-19 example could be turned against him. Again, in
Hebrew society, young women were usually virgins. So it could easily
be translated "the way of a man with a virgin". As for the harem
example, perhaps the semantic range of this word allows the meaning of
"young woman" and sometimes "virgin". That is beside the point, in my
mind. Women in a harem weren't virgins, but they were sort of
"married" to the king in a way. Again, I think the cultural argument
of the purity of young Hebrew women holds up. The Greek alternative
word "neanis" presented does nothing to uphold his argument in the
face of the cultural argument. Remember, we must consider not only
LINGUISTIC, but also CULTURAL evidence and their combined
implications. So I feel his using this sole vocabulary item attempting
to invalidate the virgin birth is not only misguided but a weak
argument. In archaeology and history one looks at language, culture,
genetics, artifacts, and many other forms of evidence to see if they
all point in a similar direction.
Later in this article he states that this Isaiah passage doesn't
specifically mention or prophesy the virgin birth. It is a fact that
many OT passages with prophecy don't actually directly state what they
are prophesying. There are others such as "I brought my son out of
Egypt" which may have meant something different when they were written
and were reapplied to Christ. I know this is a hard issue to accept
sometimes.
He also states that the earliest "Christian" sources don't say
anything about the virgin birth. This probably comes because he may
believe the Gospel writings came much later than Christians say they
did. Many people say this because they don't want to believe that the
early sources, close to the time of Christ, made such extravagant
claims about Jesus. However, there is large evidence that the Gospels
and other NT books were all written within 100 years of his death. He
also says pagan sources had virgin birth examples. Pagan sources have
all kinds of strange thinking, but we don't find all these included in
the Bible. The fact that the virgin birth also happens to be found in
pagan ideas doesn't mean they ripped it off from pagans. Pagans also
had fertility cults and temple prostitutes, but Corinthians (1 Cor 6)
warns Christians against these pagan practices, as well as against
meat sacrificed to idols.
There were certain false teachings, like Gnosticism, which did
includes features from Greco-Buddhism. These are some of the ideas
found in the Da Vinci Code. Also, strangely enough, many of the
mainstream "pop theology" found in stores today includes ideas which
seem to have sprung from New Age thinking. This doesn't nullify
Christianity, in my mind. It just means a smart, discerning person
checks their sources and verifies if what they read elsewhere fits
with the Bible's truth. You and I already know that many "Christians"
don't verify things, and just blindly stupidly believe whatever
nonsense comes their way. James warns against these "double-minded"
people. And I think anyone is at risk unless they learn discernment.
That's my take on this, in a short way of writing it.