Virgin births are common--increasingly common--among other species. Nature--in its reproductive plasticity--is capable of dispensing with sex to keep a species going. But in mammals, imprinting foils parthenogensis. We how have evidence that the human brain can foil imprinting, and soon enough virgin birth may become natural (or at least not a miracle) for us too.
It's things like this that lead me to want to put scientists in Paris's place, or at least tgo be more resigned to the day when I depart this creepy world.
I have been doing some reading on sharks tonight (very uncharacteristic of me, just as unlikely as watching The Sopranos). It had at first occurred to me that these reports of shark parthenogons were somewhat fishy and quite convenient. Be that as it may, it seems that sharks have some non or pre-mammalian features to them. Don't seem ALTOGETHER mammals. Can anyone clarify this point? Wikipedia also emphasizes that from an evolutionary point of view, parthenogenesis is a bad thing, sort of a failure of "nature," if you will. Maybe Larry Arnhart can weigh in.
What is science withoout morals?
What is morality without reason?
This a wonderful advance. Unless you're extremely homophobic I don't see how you can't be happy for those who will be helped by this.