It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Immaculate Conception on Steroids... Steroidal Hormones that is

page: 1
0

log in

join
share:

posted on Jun, 17 2015 @ 08:52 AM
link   
I like to understand things. So the "Immaculate Conception" of Mary and the "Virgin Birth" of Jesus have always been a challenge for me. For many "miracles" of the Bible I can find a reasonable -- albeit unconventional -- explanation. I don't have to know exactly how things happened, just knowing that it could happen is enough for my purposes. But I could never find that possible -- even if unconventional -- explanation for two births without benefit of the male contribution. Until I started researching hormones... specifically, the adverse effects of hormones and other endocrine-disruptors in our water, soil and food supply, creating what is called the "intersex," or transgender people. Taking it to its natural (???) conclusion:

If the testes of male fish can produce eggs --

And, in fact, yes, they can.

-- then it stands to reason it is also possible for the testes of male humans to produce eggs...

And it therefore also stands to reason that the ovaries of females (fish and/or human) can produce sperm...

So it also stands to reason that female ovaries could produce both eggs and sperm; and if both an egg and sperm were released together during ovulation, the sperm could penetrate that egg and produce -- ultimately -- a baby.

AKA Immaculate Conception and/or Virgin Birth.

This could also explain how Amazonian women reproduced.

Of course, this theory raises as many questions as it answers. Since I can only assume that neither Mary nor her mother, St. Anne, were prescribed therapeutic hormones, nor that endocrine-disrupting herbicides or pesticides or other chemicals were in common use, how would their reproductive organs have been "disrupted?" I know some cultures eat Mountain Oysters (bull testes), which would be very high in male hormones; did the Hebrews? (I looked -- couldn't find anything). Did the British/Druids? (St. Anne is reputed to have been from England before traveling to Judah). Could it have been a fluke genetic thing passed from St. Anne to Mary? Would Jesus have had a similar fluke genetic thing? Or could/would Jesus have been sterile as a result?

Anyone want to play hypotheticals with me? Any thoughts???
edit on 17-6-2015 by Boadicea because: grammar/punctuation




posted on Jun, 17 2015 @ 09:45 AM
link   
a reply to: Boadicea

Noah could have warped space and time with a super dense ball of olive pits. That's how he fit 2 of every species on Earth into the ark.

BTW, I once fit 26 sorority pledges into a '78 Chevy conversion van.

Let's be honest though. Neither of those things happened.
edit on 17-6-2015 by InverseLookingGlass because: spelling



posted on Jun, 17 2015 @ 10:04 AM
link   
a reply to: Boadicea

As an atheist,I really need to add an addendum:


"None of the above may actually have occurred-This is pure hypothesis"



posted on Jun, 17 2015 @ 10:18 AM
link   

originally posted by: InverseLookingGlass
a reply to: Boadicea

BTW, I once fit 26 sorority pledges into a '78 Chevy conversion van.


I know of some Coyotes who have fit an amazing amount of illegals into a vehicle...

Let's be honest though. Neither of those things happened.

Okay, I'll take your word for it.

But neither of those things have any bearing -- yay or nay -- on the OP...



posted on Jun, 17 2015 @ 10:20 AM
link   

originally posted by: Ericthedoubter
a reply to: Boadicea

As an atheist,I really need to add an addendum:


"None of the above may actually have occurred-This is pure hypothesis"


And as a Christian, I already stipulated the hypothetical nature of the OP... as well as the factual premise.

So???



posted on Jun, 17 2015 @ 10:35 AM
link   
Come on people! This is ATS!!!

We've got some amazing thinkers here... surely not everyone is so stuck in their paradigm that they cannot think beyond self-imposed parameters...

As I see it now -- and unless and until someone disabuses me of my notions -- based on the known facts, intersex people and immaculate conceptions could have the same origins.... If you believe in one -- either one -- you cannot deny the other for the same exact reasons.

Someone... please!... blow my mind with your own hypothetical!



posted on Jun, 17 2015 @ 11:41 AM
link   
a reply to: Boadicea

Very well,I shall attempt some meaningful discourse despite my anti-theist leanings.

Since I am certainly not aware of all the genetic mutations and aberrations possible within the boundaries of human development,I believe that it is not impossible for a woman to give birth without a man being involved.

It isn't a very rare occurrence in the animal world -One wonders if it has happened again in human history?



posted on Jun, 17 2015 @ 11:58 AM
link   
Parthenogenesis

Still reading this article but, it appears it happens often enough in some species.

I suppose it could happen with humans...?

From Wikipedia...

Other ways of asexual reproduction include parthenogenesis, fragmentation and spore formation that involves only mitosis. Parthenogenesis is the growth and development of embryo or seed without fertilization by a male. Parthenogenesis occurs naturally in some species, including lower plants (where it is called apomixis), invertebrates (e.g. water fleas, aphids, some bees and parasitic wasps), and vertebrates (e.g. some reptiles,[3] fish, and, very rarely, birds[4] and sharks[5]). It is sometimes also used to describe reproduction modes in hermaphroditic species which can self-fertilize.

edit on 17-6-2015 by TNMockingbird because: addition



posted on Jun, 17 2015 @ 12:18 PM
link   

originally posted by: Ericthedoubter
a reply to: Boadicea

Very well,I shall attempt some meaningful discourse despite my anti-theist leanings.


Yay! Thank you!!!


Since I am certainly not aware of all the genetic mutations and aberrations possible within the boundaries of human development,I believe that it is not impossible for a woman to give birth without a man being involved.


That was also my understanding before I started down this rabbit hole, so I completely relate to that.


It isn't a very rare occurrence in the animal world -One wonders if it has happened again in human history?


Regarding animals, I knew of a few that reproduce by themselves, but I had thought it was only single-celled animals (never paid enough attention). Regarding humans, I only know of myths/legends, such as Mithras, Osiris, Amazon women, etc. I kinda sorta recall reading an article about a paternity test being unable to identify a father, considered an anomaly, but I couldn't find anything further when I searched. So either I'm mis-remembering, or I just didn't use the right search keywords.



posted on Jun, 17 2015 @ 12:22 PM
link   
a reply to: Boadicea

If we assume that there have been roughly seven billion homo-sapiens mothers to date,isn't it possible that at least one has managed it?



posted on Jun, 17 2015 @ 12:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: TNMockingbird
Parthenogenesis


Thank you!!! That was the term I needed to know/remember!


Still reading this article but, it appears it happens often enough in some species.

I suppose it could happen with humans...?

From Wikipedia...

Other ways of asexual reproduction include parthenogenesis, fragmentation and spore formation that involves only mitosis. Parthenogenesis is the growth and development of embryo or seed without fertilization by a male. Parthenogenesis occurs naturally in some species, including lower plants (where it is called apomixis), invertebrates (e.g. water fleas, aphids, some bees and parasitic wasps), and vertebrates (e.g. some reptiles,[3] fish, and, very rarely, birds[4] and sharks[5]). It is sometimes also used to describe reproduction modes in hermaphroditic species which can self-fertilize.


It seems to me that it would be the hermaphroditic species that would be most similar to any human asexual reproduction. And there are, indeed, hermaphroditic humans (though the pc term is now "intersex"). From Wikipedia:


Aside from having an ambiguous-looking external genitalia, true hermaphroditism in humans differs from pseudohermaphroditism in that the person's karyotype has both XX and XY chromosome pairs (47XXY, 46XX/46XY, 46XX/47XXY or 45X/XY mosaic) and having both testicular and ovarian tissue... [snip]... Thus, testicular and ovarian tissues will both be present in the same individual.


Apparently such dual-sexed people are considered infertile, much like mules or ligers... but maybe not. Just because we don't know it has happened, or just because most intersex people are sterile, doesn't necessarily mean that it has never happened and that all intersex people are sterile. And if we find it difficult to comprehend today, even knowing what we know, how would ancient cultures have viewed such a conception? As a miracle...



posted on Jun, 17 2015 @ 12:37 PM
link   
I believe I read that there were 11 DOCUMENTED cases of hermaphrodites being fertile.
There have been 0 DOCUMENTED cases of a hermaphrodite giving birth....

NOT documented doesn't mean it couldn't have happened...



posted on Jun, 17 2015 @ 12:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: Ericthedoubter
a reply to: Boadicea

If we assume that there have been roughly seven billion homo-sapiens mothers to date,isn't it possible that at least one has managed it?


I would think so. As I'm seeing it, it's definitely possible. And I don't see any reason (yet) that it cannot be true.

Like Ripley said: Sometimes the truth is stranger than fiction!



posted on Jun, 17 2015 @ 12:48 PM
link   

originally posted by: TNMockingbird
I believe I read that there were 11 DOCUMENTED cases of hermaphrodites being fertile.
There have been 0 DOCUMENTED cases of a hermaphrodite giving birth....

NOT documented doesn't mean it couldn't have happened...


Very interesting...

Of course, an intersex male -- not having a uterus -- would be unable to carry a pregnancy even if it was possible to fertilize one's self... so if fertilization could happen, I wonder how it would manifest? Would it cause a disease? Perhaps viewed as a growth or tumor of some kind? Could it simply be expelled somehow?

On the other hand, in my scenario, an intersex female could have the uterus to carry and deliver a child. How would know unless, for example, a paternity test was done? Even then, having no frame of reference for such an occurrence, how would modern science explain such a thing?



new topics

top topics



 
0

log in

join