Is human Parthenogenesis possible. Was the first human being a true Hermaphrodite who used parthenogenesis to reproduce? Is there any scientific evidence to confirm human parthenogenesis?

asking

I would go further. Your friend is not evidence at all (not just not proof or strong evidence). It doesn't sound as though she was even pregnant. I assume you would have mentioned a delivery and baby if she were. (Which is just as well, because a baby that developed under such conditions would be quite unhealthy.)

Neither lack of periods (amenorrhea) nor leaking breasts necessarily mean pregnancy, let alone parthenogenesis.

According to the Mayo Clinic website:

asking

So can a person survive on grape juice for 2.5 years? Or did she drink other things? Whey? Yeast?

Denisis

Let's give my unusual friend a name. It is Laurie (for real) and she is alive and well and living a normal life. Yet, she tells me, though she eats solid food every day, she maintains her earlier "fasting weight" of 135 lbs. If you google breatharian(s) you will get to explore this rare condition and make up your own mind.
Lori mostly lived on distilled water. She visited me in 1978, here on the East Coast, in the middle of her long fast. She stayed with my divorced sister-in-law and my little nephew in a third floor apartment building that my grandfather built. I was back living with my parents on the first floor and trying to recover from the loss of my four and a half year old, blue-eyed boy who drowned in a river in California in 1976.
Before her arrival I purchased two gallons of distilled water and a pound of grapes. By the end of her 7-day visit she only drank one gallon of water and the grapes were only half gone. Can anyone live on almost nothing? Yes, yes and yes. Once again, I saw it, and my sister-in-law, with our own eyes.
Was she anorexic? Did she suffer from depression, anxiety, fatigue, hallucinations? Did she go around preaching that everyone should choose her lifestyle? Did she have a "Holier Than Thou" attitude? Was she a religious fanatic? Were the spirit voices she sometimes heard in her evening meditations real or imaginary? To the best of my un-scientifically trained brain and the intuitive perceptions of my poetic, artistic eye in the center of my heart and soul, the answers to these questions are no, no and no.
Once I got over my dislexia in the 7th grade I became an avid reader. Psychology, physics, transendentalism, Vedanta, Zen, fiction, art, philosophy, anthropology, archelogy, biographies, history, music, poetry, meta-physics and you name it. And I haven't stopped.
Still, dispite my busy intellect, I remain overwhelmed by the story of Laurie. I bit off more than I could chew when I had access to the vast libraries at Hippocrates Health Institute, that espoused a living food diet, as "Life Comes Only From Life", way back in 1969 in Boston, Massachusetts. This is where I began to learn that 80% of the genes were passed down from mother to child. That a child in its first few month of life in the womb was a female, (natures preference?) and, if it were going to be a male, that the ovaries would descend and become testicals and the clitoris would elongate etc.
Much later I found out about how us males, of which I'm a member, have an excess of Y chromosomes, or broken, biologically degenerate X chromosomes. That man is secondary to woman-----an afterthought of nature. And, somehow, right away, it was all okay for me to accept. My precious, precarious male ego did not crumble. My manhood was not threatoned or diminshed. I still loved myself, my wonderful, fiddle-playin, hard-working father and my comic, fisherman brother. Guys are fun, cool, and full of piss and vinigar. Trouble-makers.
So it's good to find people like you, who are science-based, to have this discourse with. Because, truly, I am sometimes overwhelmed by it all.
I'm a left-handed, right-brained oriented person. To really get a grasp about where I am coming from please go to YouTube and look up a 20-minute video of a lecture from a prominate brain-scientist, Jill Bolte Taylor. Type in: My Stroke of Insight. If this doesn't convince you of anything significant, then our future conversations may be in jeopordy. Why? Because if you scepticize (I don't think this is an actual word, but it was fun to invent) this lecture to death then you may not be able to let me walk you through the remaining experiences that my dear friend Laurie went through.
Good luck and please stay in touch. Thanks. ---Den

asking

Denisis,
Very sorry to hear about the loss of your son. That must have been so hard. I hope the loss has gotten easier to bear over the years.

As far as the biology of your interests, I can tell you what is known. But some of the things you have learned over the years are not quite right or actually not true. So as you want me to be open minded, I would want you to be open to hearing what science has to say about some of these things.

It is quite possible for someone to live on just water for long periods--perhaps several weeks, depending on how much fat they have, and probably other factors. (Without water, people die of dehydration quite quickly, a few days.) But I am nearly certain that no one could survive with their health intact on JUST water for 2.5 years. So I assume that Laurie drank something with some amount of calories. Fruit drinks would help, but she would have developed some nutritional deficiencies without certain vitamins and minerals that would not be found in grape juice.

Intermittant fasting or extreme calorie restriction (30% fewer calories than "normal") are another matter and these actually LENGTHEN lifespan in other mammals. There is every reason to think that would work in humans as well and there are people who live on calorie restricted diets. If you have not read about calorie restriction diets, I think you would find them interesting.

If there's any possibility that Laurie varied her fasts a little, that would seem possible to me. Fasting amenorrhea is normal. It's the body's way to conserving energy. In essence, if there's not enough food, the body decides that reproduction can wait until there's an increase in calories.

Okay. Some of your other comments.
You said you learned that a child inherits 80% of genes from the mother.
This is factually incorrect. ON AVERAGE, we inherit half of our nuclear DNA from out mother and half from our father. But in reality, that can vary from child to child. So one child might get more genes from the father, another more than half from the mother. That's why some kids seem to take after different sides of the family.

Also, notice I said "nuclear" DNA. Those are the genes in the nucleus of the every cell in the body. Also in each cell are "mitochondria," tiny organelles responsible for transforming the energy in sugar into ATP molecules that can be used to help you run, think, read, or make new skin cells. ATP is like the body's spending money, the cash you carry around for everyday expenses.

It turns out the mitochondria have their own DNA*. And ALL your mitochondrial DNA (genes) come from your mother. That's because the egg cell has the mitochondria and the sperm bring nothing really except nuclear DNA.

The genes in the mitochondria all came from your mother but there are not that many of them compared to the number in the nucleus. So 80% is too high. It's still pretty close to 50:50. I'd have to look up exactly how much DNA is in the mitochondria to give you an average number.

*The REASON mitochondria have their own DNA is that billions of years ago, they were separate organisms--some kind of bacterium--and they came to live inside of other cells in a cooperative association. That cooperative association has lasted 2-3 billion years and continues today in all the cells of plants, animals and fungi (mushrooms, yeasts, and molds).

You said that a fetus is female for the few months of development.


A lot of people say this, but it is also not really true. A developing human is an embryo from right after fertilization (one cell) until the end of 8 weeks, when all the organs form in outline, and we then call it a fetus (at 9 weeks). Before that, the genitals of all embryos look pretty much the same and biologists call it the "indifferent stage." They are neither female nor male.

At around week 9, the genitals start to differentiate -- start to appear different. As you probably know, the clitoris and the penis are derived from the same embryonic tissue. Likewise the scrotal sac and the outer labia are derived from the same tissue and have similar nerves. (This is sometimes useful to know.) By the end of 10 weeks, the two sexes' genitals are different enough for an expert to tell them apart, but they are not fully developed by any means. So although they are the same up to then, they are not female in the usual sense.

You say that the Y chromosome is a degenerating X chromosome.

I have read this too, but I would not take it too much to heart. For now, men are a very necessary part of human reproduction!

As you know, not all organisms have two sexes and it's not all that clear why sex is important enough to go to the trouble. To be blunt, a lot of energy and effort goes into sexual reproduction, not just in humans, of course, but in millions of species, in a process that has gone on for millions of years. Surprisingly, biologists aren't all that certain why. If you take a biology class, they will tell you it's to increase genetic variation. That's true, but it seems insufficient to account for the huge amount energy that goes into it. Plus why do organisms that reproduce through parthenogenesis do so well without it? The answer is not yet obvious. another reason given is that two sets of chromosomes (one from the mother and one from the father) helps the DNA to repair damaged genes. Still, my sense is that biologists feel that there is something they are missing here.

I do agree that guys are fun, cool, and full of piss and vinegar and the world would be a duller place without them. I have even said this to women friends and they give me a funny look. I am not sure why; I totally agree with you.

"Scepticize" is a fine word in my opinion. But that's what I do. I ask a lot of questions. But if it's any comfort I am equally skeptical of a lot of things that scientists say. Have not yet checked out the youtube video, but will.

Edit: Just watched it. Very cool video.

Cheers,
Asking

Denisis

Hi again. Thanks for your warm comment regarding my son. Though it's long ago the loss never goes away as the loss of a parent, spouse or friend usually, in time, does fade into the background. A childs loss is forever unhealed and that's as is should be and I've had to learn to live with it. It's okay.
I really thank you for straightening out some of the so-called science facts I've picked up over the years. Seeing an up to date version of these facts helps me to unravel this blessing/curse of a story that I'm stuck with for better or worst. I'm a self-willed intermediary for my dear friend Laurie. Ironically she doesn't feel that parthenogenesis is as important as I feel it is. This, to me, is ideal as, if a woman was as passionate about this subject as I am, it would probably create more reasons to hate and/or to fear women.
I've been away for almost two days and there's still much ground to cover and the answers you've given lead to more questions which, as a scientist, comes with the job. Did you google breatharians yet? There's a man, who fasts for long periods of time that is working with NASA. I forget his name, but they are wondering if it is possible to train future astronauts to be like him. Imagine how much easier it would be if astronauts didn't have to eat and eliminate to much.
I can assure you, as I stayed closely in touch with Laurie throughout her fast that she mostly subsided on distilled water and didn't at all take any vitamin suppliments or drink regular significant quantities of fruit or vegetable juices. Her long fast breaks the bubble of existing knowledge. But this is just the beginning of her story. I'll get back to you with more a.s.a.p.
I just realized that I don't know your first name or even your nick-name. How shall I address you?
One of my artistic web-sites is: Custom painted wall murals .....and please realize that I'm not trying to sell you anything or to try and get you to think or believe in anything in particular. I simply want you to know, besides being a happily married man for the last 7 years, that I am a struggling artist and musician and am otherwise healthy and normal.
I am quite sincere in trying to deal with the many mysteries my friend Laurie experienced and, though with you I feel I've got a tiger by the tail, and it's a bit tough to get the facts of Laurie's story challenged, I am curious and grateful regarding your concise input.
Thanks again, Den.

Denisis

I can't say I know when I don't but if the ovaries are inside the body before they descend into testicals then, to me, it is a female. If it looks and walks like a duck then it's a duck. Here's a quote from Darwin's Origin Of Species. "There is a parallel resemblence in the sexes, which shows and proves their conformity in essential parts to some remote ansestor who preceded them, before the division of the sexes." This embraces the subject somewhat but also leads to other questions and possibilities. The following is something else altogether. "The idea that Charles Darwin himself believed (The Descent of Man) that the final climb to human civilization called upon a principle of moral conduct far above the "selfish gene" concept so prevalent in today's popular accounts come as a surprise. But the fact that he argued at length and with passion for the recognition of this principle, along with anticipating scientific concepts from far beyond his time, and further that this work has been utterly disregarded by the official keepers of evolutionary theory, boggles the mind." This is a quote from David Loye's Darwins Lost Theory of Love, which is based on his Darwin's unsung The Descent of Man. Apparently Darwin spent a longer period of time on this second book of his but, more or less, he was considered a flake or a scientist that went soft in the head. I'm trying to point out, from this second quote of Darwins, an example of how physics (physical reality) and meta-physics (spiritual reality) are contiually crossing paths these days. It's getting so that one can't separate the thoughts of a Yogi from India from the thoughts of a mathematician at Harvard University. Another reason for you to watch that YouTube lecture called "My Stroke of Insight". Peace, Den.

asking

Hi Den,
I did watch Stroke of Insight, as I mentioned yesterday. She is a fabulous speaker.

The selfish gene is just a way of thinking about things and the idea made a point that needed to be made in the 1970s. No one should literally think that genes operate individually to propagate themselves. Instead, selection operates at the level of whole organisms, which are a product of a conversation between the environment and the genes. Each of us is a lifelong conversation.

Darwin was one of the first people to fully recognize that essentialism is wrong, that populations are made up of groups of unique individuals. There is not "perfect" rabbit or human, man or woman. There is no type that we all deviate from. Each of us is as perfect as any other. This applies both to individuals and to species. We are not "more evolved" than our pets or even the bacteria in our guts.

Denisis

Hi, I like the idea that we are a product of the environment and the genes and that we're not more evolved than our pets. I am humbled.

Here's a bunch of various quotes I gathered over the years.

"Great truths are too important to be new." ----W.S. Maugham
"Life begins as female. Life is feminine. In woman is the creative center. That everything proceeds from the egg, the vital focus, is the verdict of biology". ---Francis Lester Ward
"The male is not necessary for reproduction. A simple physio-chemical agent in the female is enough to bring it about." --Jacques Loeb
Looking up dermoid cysts in Chambers Medical Dictionary, under Medio-logical Records, one finds; "dermoid cystic growths; embryonic growths or tumor-like formations found in women (and sometimes men) which are of congenital origin, containing evidence of being dejecta membra, or the remains of pregnant growths, in the embryonic fetal period of gestation, somewhat akin to the primary state of being with child." Some of these dermoid cysts, sometimes mistaken by surgeons for tumors, but really are embryos, are similar in all respects to the products of female gestation, containing bones, hair, teeth, flesh, glands, portions of the scalp, face, eyes, ribs,-----in short, all the organs of the human body----what else could they be but virgin embryos in the process of development?
"In the Mother Cell begins all living things. The Creative Principle is feminine. The highest divine mystery is Brahamana, the feminine of Brahma." (according to Hindu mythology.)
"Eve was of a primal race----self perpetuating. She brought forth Abel, and Cain,....the solitary homicide." (From a Celtic poem.)
"Women are the race itself.....the strong primary sex, and man the biological afterthought." ---Francis Lester Ward
"The trouble with women is men; the trouble with men is men." (Anonymous Chinese quote.)

katieokell

Parthenogenesis is indeed a fascinating topic. There was even an episode of 'House' that dealt with parsenogenesis, although it turned out that Dr House was being a jerk (big surprise there)

There are no documented cases of parthenogenesis, however modern scientists have allowed us to create humans from the fusion of two eggs, compared to the fusion of an egg and a sperm (what naturally happens in humans). This was done in-vitro (ie, in a test tube), with lots of hormones and cytokines involved, so rest assured that it could not happen naturally between two eggs hanging out in a woman's ovaries. However, one could hypothetically consider the fusion of two eggs together from the same individual parthenogenesis, even if it happens in a test tube.
However, you have to think about a few things. Firstly, if humans were able to self-inseminate, we would be host to a huge amount of problems. One of the reasons that incest is deemed illegal is becasue of biological reasons - humans need genetic variance in their adaptive immune system, amongst many other things, in order to survive. A restricted gene sequence in your adaptive immune system would prevent you from being able to respond to the hundreds of thousands of pathogens that you are exposed to in your lifetime. If parthenogenesis were possible, the resultant offspring would be riddled with all sorts of genetic defects.

Denisis

Hello Katie, I'm grateful for your interest and imput. Please go to my blog, which I just posted a short while ago: Parthenogenesis, Virgin Birth, The Story of Laurie You'll be entertained at the very least, all though entertaining people is not my intention. I've no agenda, no book to sell, no axe to grind. I simply need to share what I know, what I've been contemplating for 40 years or so.
If you've the time you should also go to: Gnostic Media and search for an audio interview with Marguerite Rigogliosio and/or her book: The Cult of Divine Birth in Ancient Greece. She is an incredible scholar and will make you think twice about parthenogenesis.
She has become an email buddy of mine within the last two weeks and is very excited about my blog.
Please get back to me after your adventures to these sites. It's my hope to attract trained scientists to this controversial subject matter. Sincerely, Denisis.