fossilesque@mander.xyzM to Science Memes@mander.xyzEnglish · 9 months agoPraise Sheezusmander.xyzimagemessage-square48fedilinkarrow-up1773
arrow-up1773imagePraise Sheezusmander.xyzfossilesque@mander.xyzM to Science Memes@mander.xyzEnglish · 9 months agomessage-square48fedilink
minus-squareKaryoplasma@discuss.tchncs.delinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up10·9 months agoGenomic imprinting says no. It wouldn’t produce a fetus that is in congruence with the possibility of life. It could at most start growing and developing, but it would die in the womb. More akin to a tumor than to a baby.
minus-squareoce 🐆@jlai.lulinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up10·9 months agoHow comes it’s possible for a bird or a fish, but not a human? If this article explains why, it is a bit obscure for non specialists.
minus-squareGormadtlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up12·9 months agoNo worries the whole concept of parthenogenesis is a really obscure and obtuse one. Here’s a SciShow link that does a really good job of describing it in a less obtuse and confusing way.
minus-squaremexicancartel@lemmy.dbzer0.comlinkfedilinkEnglisharrow-up4·9 months agoGood to know. Didn’t expect a serious reply
Genomic imprinting says no. It wouldn’t produce a fetus that is in congruence with the possibility of life. It could at most start growing and developing, but it would die in the womb. More akin to a tumor than to a baby.
How comes it’s possible for a bird or a fish, but not a human? If this article explains why, it is a bit obscure for non specialists.
No worries the whole concept of parthenogenesis is a really obscure and obtuse one.
Here’s a SciShow link that does a really good job of describing it in a less obtuse and confusing way.
Good to know. Didn’t expect a serious reply