@fossilesque@mander.xyzM to Science Memes@mander.xyzEnglish • 2 months agoPraise Sheezusmander.xyzimagemessage-square54fedilinkarrow-up1823arrow-down112
arrow-up1811arrow-down1imagePraise Sheezusmander.xyz@fossilesque@mander.xyzM to Science Memes@mander.xyzEnglish • 2 months agomessage-square54fedilink
minus-squareKaryoplasmalinkfedilinkEnglish10•2 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 🐆linkfedilinkEnglish10•2 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-squareGormadtlinkfedilinkEnglish12•2 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-square@mexicancartel@lemmy.dbzer0.comlinkfedilinkEnglish4•2 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