Captive shark had "virgin" birth

[Explorer]

Here is the link:

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/sci/tech/6681793.stm

I was astonished that an animal of this level of order is capable of a virgin birth.

Vertebrates have lost the potential of parthenogenesis it seems. However, it can reappear according to the article if the species has few mates if any, available for normal fertilisation.

Could this happen with humans? If one vertebrate can do it, why couldn't it be possible for another? Like the shark, do we carry the potential for our long lost ancestral parthenogenesis?

No record of this ever happening to human females, or is there?

Dawkins would claim that any offspring from such an event would be female, so no supporting evidence for Christians, sadly!

[Michael C]

More in this thread: http://forums.randi.org/showthread.php?t=82915

[Soapy Sam]

Our ancestral line and that of sharks separated about 480 Million years ago.
Female parthenogenesis in humans is probably feasible with enough technical assistance, but then so are most things, I suppose.

[UnrepentantSinner]

Our ancestral line and that of sharks separated about 480 Million years ago.
Female parthenogenesis in humans is probably feasible with enough technical assistance, but then so are most things, I suppose.

Yeah, it's called cloning. :)

Parthenogenesis seems limited to oviviparus and oviviviparus (though don't hold me on the latter) species. I wonder if there's something about placental mammal embryology which prevents it or if there's any record of parthenogenesis in Monotremes.

[Cuddles]

One thing to notice is that this is not really all that surprising. Parthenogenesis has been observed in several species of bony fish before, this is news because it is the first example of a cartilaginous fish. Since cartilaginous fish are more distantly related to us than bony fish, if bony fish can do it we shouldn't be surprised that cartilaginous ones can.

[Pup]

<movie reference>

"Life will find a way."

</movie reference>

[CurtC]

Since cartilaginous fish are more distantly related to us than bony fish, if bony fish can do it we shouldn't be surprised that cartilaginous ones can.

And even more closely related to us is the Komodo Dragon. A female in a zoo in England turned up pregnant a few months ago, without the benefit of having been anywhere near a male.

[Soapy Sam]

And even more closely related to us is the Komodo Dragon. A female in a zoo in England turned up pregnant a few months ago, without the benefit of having been anywhere near a male.

A male Komodo Dragon. Zookeepers can be strange.

[Skeptic Ginger]

Watch out boys... you may be evolving away. ;)

[Hourglassmemory]

This has already been solved by the way.
Scientists went to take a look at the dna and it was exactly the same as the mother's...which means she did it therself.
I wonder if people think this is a messiah shark.

[Khonshu]

If it was the shark messiah, what would you call the stingray that killed it?

[cloudshipsrule]

No record of this ever happening to human females, or is there?

The Bible. Her name was Mary.

[Explorer]

The Bible. Her name was Mary.

But as I said above in the maiden post (haha!) Dawkins insists that such a birth would be a female only.

[cloudshipsrule]

Dawkins insists that such a birth would be a female only.

But he's not taking 'quantum gene theory' into account!