Comments on: NCBI ROFL: Self-fertilization in human: Having a male embryo without a father.

By: Abdul Ghafoor Khalid

Abdul Ghafoor Khalid — Mon, 24 Sep 2012 15:28:00 +0000

So if that possibility might be there it means that Maria, mother of Jesus Christ gave actually birth being technically virgin, na?

By: Mokele

Mokele — Tue, 05 Oct 2010 12:21:01 +0000

I knew this was from Medical Hypotheses before I even got halfway through. Why does anyone even subscribe to that pile of hogwash?

By: acadian

acadian — Tue, 05 Oct 2010 07:52:04 +0000

Wow. The English in this article is really, really, bad. Not just in the scientific writing kind of way, either. Just BAD. The second sentence alone deserves a prize for mangled language.

By: shadegem

shadegem — Tue, 05 Oct 2010 04:20:38 +0000

wouldn’t the possibility of self-fertilization be very, very rare? If zoology drilled one thing into my head, it’s that hermaphrodites do not produce both types at the same time. Well, eggs ARE technically produced as the fetus develops, but if one hormone is overpowering the other (such as in ovulation), wouldn’t that take out the chance of the other set of gonads producing or opening up to the opposing sex cells?
Though female babies are definitely possible, I would say a boy is a bit…

By: ncbi rofl

ncbi rofl — Tue, 05 Oct 2010 01:17:02 +0000

@Dhivajri: because the scenario is specifically about having a male embryo without a father.

By: Dhivajri

Dhivajri — Tue, 05 Oct 2010 01:05:05 +0000

Why is it definitely a Y sperm?

By: Rhacodactylus

Rhacodactylus — Tue, 05 Oct 2010 00:12:45 +0000

Who knew immaculate conception was so complicated. ~Rhaco