I don't believe in anything except what I can prove. And the only thing that I, or anyone else can prove as known fact(regarding human life), is this:
Humans, all have (or had) parents, of which the mother gave birth to the child. There are absolutely NO KNOWN exceptions to this rule.
Is this statement scientifically true?
If it is not scientific, can any one argue it with their own personall observation?
If not, deos anyone know of any person that has not been born of a woman?
2007-06-15 15:26:08 · 9 answers · asked by J A/M 2 in Society & Culture ➔ Religion & Spirituality
Adam and Eve did not have parents. This is the only exception.
2007-06-15 15:37:17 · answer #1 · answered by packerswes4 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Sounds about right.
Though scientists have produced a rat from skin cells without using an egg. And there are groups trying to build what can only be called a "uterine replicator". That is, a device that will carry a baby to term. No mother involved or required.
Not sure what application this technology could possibly be used for, but I for one hope that it is used to genetically modify humans to weed out disease.
Only time and human imagination will tell.
2007-06-15 22:31:55 · answer #2 · answered by Yoda Green 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Although there are test tube babies and clones and etc. there has always been a 'parent'(s) even if it is asexual or in a clone's case, there is something providing another life.
Perhaps it is not genetically female, but it is still somewhat considered the mother.
I think this question contains a lot of loopholes.
2007-06-15 22:54:27 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Faulty Wiring: I think, as you have phrased it, this is true, but I cannot guarantee it. Parthenogenesis (asexual reproduction in a normally sexually-reproductive animal) has been shown to happen in a number of species.
However, in humans, any parthenogen (creature so conceived and born) would have been born a woman because women carry only the "Y" chromosome, and male offspring require an "X" & "Y" chromosome.
2007-06-15 22:30:13 · answer #4 · answered by NHBaritone 7 · 2⤊ 0⤋
i'll tell u who hasnt been born of a woman' physical body. test tube babies. life changes everyday. so where did the first human come from. u cant prove that either. seems u cant prove a lot so u choose to believe in nothing. i wonder how it feels....
2007-06-15 22:34:25 · answer #5 · answered by deedee 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
What are you 6? Have you never in your life attended a school? Even your attempt at the pure conceptual is flawed. Philosophically the only thing you can prove (and ONLY to yourself) is "I think, therefore I am" (your own existence).
Seriously.......try learning something new because your ignorance is annoying.
2007-06-15 22:33:47 · answer #6 · answered by thewolfskoll 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Sounds true to me, assuming no one has successfully cloned a human being, in which case the clone has only one genetic parent.
2007-06-15 22:31:49 · answer #7 · answered by frugernity 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
Yes, a mother has given birth to children. So what?
2007-06-15 22:31:11 · answer #8 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
At you point is?
2007-06-15 22:29:29 · answer #9 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋