NationStates Jolt Archive

I was just reading through Darknovae’s thread about the whole of the human population going gay, and it raised this question in my mind.

Would it be possible at some point in the evolution of humanity that women will produce offspring asexually? I do realize that through evolution that is possible, but what I want to know is it possible in the near future?

This is a phenomena does already occurs in nature, female Komodo dragons, have produced offspring with out any contact with a male, (article here (http://www.livescience.com/animalworld/061220_virgin_births.html)). Many marine animas do produce asexually as well, along with being able to switch which gender they are.

So what do you think the chances of human females being able to one day have children with out the help of a male?

Please no flaming and please keep the conversation at least semi-intelligent, thanks:)

Sex would be a more funy than it already is.

What is there even to flame about?

I thin that while it is possible, Its unlikely. Evolution isnt a sweeping change. It would have to start out as a new condition and then the woman would produce children who may (or may not) have the ability. The only way it will really ever be largely practiced is if those with the ability outproduce those without it until the ability to do without it is eventually lost. I think that if this developed, men could actaully eventually be weeded out oof human evolution as well. Of course, that doesnt happen with the animal variety, so who knows.

They can already get pregnant without so much as talking to a male in their entire life, unless one of the people they have to deal with at the sperm bank happens to be one. That’s almost the same thing.

I suppose you could always implant a cloned embryo, fetus or whatever they call that thing when its a few hours old.

But true asexual reproduction? Impossible and undesirable. Genetic variation is a good thing. There’s a reason we stopped budding.

Impossible to evolve. No mammal can do it. Our sex chromosomes aren't right for it.

Even if such a step were possible to humanity, a change that big would demand enbough of a change that the new creature would not be human. Not by any current definition, anyway.

Hmmm, I think that at some point it will be possible, and it will still allow for gentic variation.

Hmmm, I think that at some point it will be possible, and it will still allow for gentic variation.
How? Excessive mutation? That’s dangerous in any organism as complicated as a mammal.

How? Excessive mutation? That’s dangerous in any organism as complicated as a mammal.

How exactly I am not sure as I am not geneticist, but I would think that yes at what ever point this happens then yes those women would be distinctively different genetically.

It is true that mammals are complex especially genetically but that complexity would allow for the change to occur. Mutation by definition is a change, in some cases those mutations are beneficial to the organism and are passed on those mutations that are harmful to the organism are not, or if they are the mutation only lasts a few generations before it kills its host.

Read your Huxley.

Read your Huxley.

I have read brave new world but those are all test tube babies. I am talking about asexualy reprodution.

I have read brave new world but those are all test tube babies. I am talking about asexualy reprodution.

Shouldn't be a problem as soon as human cloning really works. Just put DNA from radical feminist into the egg of another and get rid of all males. The tech may soon be available.

Shouldn't be a problem as soon as human cloning really works. Just put DNA from radical feminist into the egg of another and get rid of all males. The tech may soon be available.

It might be possible if the egg is removed from a woman, altered in a lab and then reintroduced via AI, but aths not the same as nateral asexual reprodution

It might be possible if the egg is removed from a woman, altered in a lab and then reintroduced via AI, but aths not the same as nateral asexual reprodution

Well, on your original post you said near future. For the near future, I can only see artificial asexual reproduction (without male DNA, that is.)

So my answer to your question is no. There will not be any natural asexual reproduction within the foreseeable future.

A change that drastic would take millions of years.

I was just reading through Darknovae’s thread about the whole of the human population going gay, and it raised this question in my mind.

Would it be possible at some point in the evolution of humanity that women will produce offspring asexually? I do realize that through evolution that is possible, but what I want to know is it possible in the near future?

This is a phenomena does already occurs in nature, female Komodo dragons, have produced offspring with out any contact with a male, (article here (http://www.livescience.com/animalworld/061220_virgin_births.html)). Many marine animas do produce asexually as well, along with being able to switch which gender they are.

So what do you think the chances of human females being able to one day have children with out the help of a male?

Please no flaming and please keep the conversation at least semi-intelligent, thanks:)

Well, technically, men are already "obselete." Scientists have found ways to make two eggs (from the same female or two diffent females) to fuse to form a "fertilized" embryo. Kinda freaky, but I think its funny to know that I'm obselete.

Well, technically, men are already "obselete." Scientists have found ways to make two eggs (from the same female or two diffent females) to fuse to form a "fertilized" embryo. Kinda freaky, but I think its funny to know that I'm obselete.

i have head about that, though last i head they were prittty sure they could do it, i had not heard that they actulay made it work.
but i do agree that it is funny that they have deemed men obsolete

I was just reading through Darknovae’s thread about the whole of the human population going gay, and it raised this question in my mind.

Would it be possible at some point in the evolution of humanity that women will produce offspring asexually? I do realize that through evolution that is possible, but what I want to know is it possible in the near future?

This is a phenomena does already occurs in nature, female Komodo dragons, have produced offspring with out any contact with a male, (article here (http://www.livescience.com/animalworld/061220_virgin_births.html)). Many marine animas do produce asexually as well, along with being able to switch which gender they are.

So what do you think the chances of human females being able to one day have children with out the help of a male?

Please no flaming and please keep the conversation at least semi-intelligent, thanks:)

Actually, I think asexual reproduction would be a devolutionary trend rather than an evolutionary trend - the animal instances that you've cited involve primitive organisms. Besides, with the development of cloning technology, we should be able to reproduce without the help of the opposite gender in the very near future/

How exactly I am not sure as I am not geneticist, but I would think that yes at what ever point this happens then yes those women would be distinctively different genetically.

It is true that mammals are complex especially genetically but that complexity would allow for the change to occur. Mutation by definition is a change, in some cases those mutations are beneficial to the organism and are passed on those mutations that are harmful to the organism are not, or if they are the mutation only lasts a few generations before it kills its host.

But the philosophical question remains. If they reproduce assexually, are they even still female, or of any gender? The whole concept of gender is differentiation in organisms based on the balance of hormones, and body structures based on the center of reproduction.

Also I doubt so, it wouldn't be evolution, it would be a step back. Only very simple organisms reproduce assexually. Complex organism reproduce sexually for genetic variation, such as the steps of meiosis should show you. Evolution and differences are more likely to be achieved via sexual reproduction then assexual.

If we humans were to reproduce assexual we would all have the same skin color, same eye color, same bone structure, in other words be literally all clones of one another. Meaning we would be VERY weak to any change in the enviroment, such as a vector (disease), which as everyone is so similar would wipe out everyone.

Instead of now with everyone having such subtle differences in their genetic makeup a chunk of the population will always survive (unless it is a series of different threats, that all attack at once). Such as that about 10% of the european population is through a slight genetic defect unable to contract HIV (carry and spread it yes) but not develop HIV and subsequently AIDS (this is because a protein is coded with a deformed active site, this active site is essential for the HIV microbes).


To reproduce assexually might seem an advantage but it would be an Achilles heel to humanity and its ability to thrive and survive.

Also of interest, this is one of the reasons we often percieve children of mixed couples as very attractive and why inbreeding/incest is often a taboo. The further the spread of genes goes the stronger the human race becomes.

Also false is the perception that in the future we will all be one color if we keep interbreeding between the ethnicities. On the contrary we would all look strikingly different, since with white/black skin neither is recessive. And with blue eyes which are recessive, with enough inbreeding will resurface, since if both parents have ancestors with blue eyes it has a chance to resurfance, and an even stronger chance in the grandchildren.
If enough intermarriage is done, by the millionfold, we could have sub-ethnicities of African (dark skinned) people with exclusively blond hair and blue eyes, if several have these features and isolate themselves. (this is how in Scandinavia blond hair and blue eyes became so dominant, the few that had it were isolated , and had only a few brunnettes and dark haired individuals, meaning it thrived).

For example, if a blond and blue eyed male, marries an african american female, their children would with highest chance be a lighter version of the mother and take the more dominant dark eyes and hair, and the skin would be in the highest chance somewhere between the mother and fathers, very rarily is it as pure as the mothers or fathers tone),

Now if that african american female had a white european grandfather, the child would have most likely a mixed skin tone, and COULD have blue eyes and blond hair if both recessives meet.

The reason we aren't seeing a lot of this is because there is not enough interracial breeding and marriage for it to be fully seen and appreciated. For example a white european with no african ancestors marries and breeds with an african with no european ancestors, you do not see what I am talking about since it is only first generation.

However as each generation passes and more genes are exchanged and the recessives become more present in more people the result occurs. One place where this phenomenom can easily be seen is deep in Mongolia, where thousands of years ago a small band of european barbarians settled and melted into the horde.

Mongolian child with blond hair and blue eyes; http://www.photochrome.org/images/2005_slide_winners/thumbnails/TB-3-Blond_Boy-Oskar_Bruening.jpg

another Mongolian child with blond hair and blue eyes;
http://www.pbs.org/wnet/secrets/case_amazon/images/p-meirangul2.jpg


Those two are extreme examples, taking the two common most recessive traits. However there are a lot more numerous examples of people with just blue eyes, or green eyes, or a lighter shade of skin, european face structure or isolated features instead of such a stark example as above.

Which is also why the claims that there will never be any natural blondes in 200 years is bogus. Nature is very complex, cruel but also nurturing, it does not allow a trait to simply dissappear. It will always resurface.

The only way to ever achieve ridding the world of blonde people is to find all people who ever had blonde people in their family, be it one ancestor 5000 years past or so and remove them all from the gene pool. Otherwise traits cannot be outbred. They can be made less common, but made to dissappear impossible.

This is why assexual reproduction is simply bad. It recycles the same features again and again with no new input. The same is true for women be able to mate with other women, to artificially make children from two eggs it would not have any immediate consequence. But you doom the gene pool in the long run. You exclude 50% of the gene pool, and so this in the long run causes inbreeding and weakness. Unless you can artificially add and synthesize new genes, or had the insight to freeze some male sperm to infuse the new fresh blood.
However anything straying from normal sexual reproduction, is scientifically very unviable and unadvisable in the long view of matters. The current system is the best available, so it would be foolish to supplant it with faultier and less efficient methods just because it sounds exotic or is doable, or is brought out of a hate of male's role in reproduction. Such methods may make a male's role obsolete, but would cripple humanity when enough generations have passed. If our way of reproduction wasn't effective or workable, it will be naturally replaced. Artificially replacing it is comparable to trying to fix a TV that is not broken.

The only thing that at present we know which perhaps has some validity is genetic engineering, i.e strengthening some genes, adding some new ones in, in various genetic lines (if a family has a high percentage of genetic defects and diseases (color blindness for example) you could remove/replace those with ones which give the children perfect eyesight and strong muscles and fitness.

Actually, I think asexual reproduction would be a devolutionary trend rather than an evolutionary trend - the animal instances that you've cited involve primitive organisms. Besides, with the development of cloning technology, we should be able to reproduce without the help of the opposite gender in the very near future/

And what then? If we clone, new genetic material cannot be added, it is the same as assexual reproduction. You have effectively killed evolution and advancement. The opposite gender will always be needed, at least until both are incorporated into one organism (i.e a coin with two sides) and that organism has the ability to always mix and add new genetic material. Just culling one off is about as wreckless as one can be.

Has anyone thought about society's reaction to this. A woman that can reproduce asexually would be deemed abnormal and as such would that genetic line be able to continue?

Has anyone thought about society's reaction to this. A woman that can reproduce asexually would be deemed abnormal and as such would that genetic line be able to continue?

some would say yes, i say no.

our socioty has allowed people with abnormalities to reproduce

And what then? If we clone, new genetic material cannot be added, it is the same as assexual reproduction. You have effectively killed evolution and advancement. The opposite gender will always be needed, at least until both are incorporated into one organism (i.e a coin with two sides) and that organism has the ability to always mix and add new genetic material. Just culling one off is about as wreckless as one can be.

I was just providing a response to the ops question about asexual reproduction. It wasn't an endorsement of cloning. Jeez.

So what do you think the chances of human females being able to one day have children with out the help of a male?

Pretty good, actually. Like Dr. Ian Malcolm from Jurassic Park would say, "Life finds a way."

Has anyone thought about society's reaction to this. A woman that can reproduce asexually would be deemed abnormal and as such would that genetic line be able to continue?
Society probably wouldn't find out that she could reproduce asexually until the first kid had already appeared. So unless people killed or sterilized all her kids (and her too), the line would most likely continue.

By the time it was prevalent enough to be more than a medical curiosity, it would most likely be an established line that would be very hard if not impossible to completely eradicate. In fact, by the time it hit the radar of serious publications, that may have already happened. The first reports would likely be taken for no more than made-for-tabloid faerie stories.

I'm resonably sure it WILL happen. Humanity is on the cusp of something amazing - in very short order we will be in complete control of our own evolution.

Even more importantly, genegineering isn't something that needs big labs and government funding. Once the tools are found, a small clinic is all that is needed.

Every human being has a different concept of perfection, and everyone wants their child to be perfect. So, soon humanity will begin to...fragment.

Humans who can breathe underwater. Humans who don't lose calcium from their bones in microgravity. Enhanced brainpower. Enhanced musculature. Asexual reproduction. Functional hermaphrodites. Uplifted animals. We're not going to see some of it - we're going to see ALL OF IT.

Personally, I can't wait.

Read your Huxley.Or rather read "The Handmaid's Tale" by M. Atwood.

I was just reading through Darknovae’s thread about the whole of the human population going gay, and it raised this question in my mind.

Would it be possible at some point in the evolution of humanity that women will produce offspring asexually? I do realize that through evolution that is possible, but what I want to know is it possible in the near future?

"Near" future? No.

Eventually? Possible. However, the human species as we know it may have branched or developed into another species or multiple species before this happens.


This is a phenomena does already occurs in nature, female Komodo dragons, have produced offspring with out any contact with a male, (article here (http://www.livescience.com/animalworld/061220_virgin_births.html)). Many marine animas do produce asexually as well, along with being able to switch which gender they are.

So what do you think the chances of human females being able to one day have children with out the help of a male?

Well, that is already possible with the aid of modern science. We basically already know how to make it possible for female human beings to reproduce without the aid of male human beings.

I'm resonably sure it WILL happen. Humanity is on the cusp of something amazing - in very short order we will be in complete control of our own evolution.

Even more importantly, genegineering isn't something that needs big labs and government funding. Once the tools are found, a small clinic is all that is needed.

Every human being has a different concept of perfection, and everyone wants their child to be perfect. So, soon humanity will begin to...fragment.

Humans who can breathe underwater. Humans who don't lose calcium from their bones in microgravity. Enhanced brainpower. Enhanced musculature. Asexual reproduction. Functional hermaphrodites. Uplifted animals. We're not going to see some of it - we're going to see ALL OF IT.

Personally, I can't wait.

If things were so easy...

It isnt easy. It isnt simple. Its complex.

The deal is that women would only be able to breed children assexualy if they were female. Women wouldnt be able to breed male children. Why? Because they Y cromossome always come from the male.

That is because female doesnt have the Y cromossome. They only need the X one. And the deal is that women only need ONE X cromossome in a cell. The other X cromossome becomes dormant and transforms into the Bahr corpuscule. Which means a woman actually needs one cromossome. The problem is that each cell needs a diferent one, meaning a woman XO will have genectic problems, like the Turner Syndrome.

Men, in the other hand, need both the X and the Y. What is funny is that man are, geneticaly, almost like women. Up to a certain fetus development, men and women are diferent. But the Y cromossome starts to function, producing proteins, enzimes and hormones that are meant to happen only in men.

Which means men are women who had the influence of the Y cromossome. That is why people say the clitoris was meant to be a penis. And it really was meant to be one, if the Y cromossome had acted on the fetus.

Some say homossexuals are people from certain genders who had hormone problems when they were fetus, and their brain was transforming. Male homossexuals didnt had enough male hormones present, and female ones had those hormones in a bigger quantity than regular females should receive.

Anyway, female gametes only have one cromossome in them. Which means a full health individual wouldnt be able to develop from there, unless it became a woman with Turner Syndrom.

You see, nothing is easy. I have highschool level knowledge, and it sounds hard enough. Humans have 30.000 genes, which only 3.000 are functional. If you want a human that can breath water, its not as simple as cuting tape here and adding there. Its an extremely complex process that will take many years, testing and errors to happen.

Well, technically, men are already "obselete." Scientists have found ways to make two eggs (from the same female or two diffent females) to fuse to form a "fertilized" embryo. Kinda freaky, but I think its funny to know that I'm obselete.

i have head about that, though last i head they were prittty sure they could do it, i had not heard that they actulay made it work.
but i do agree that it is funny that they have deemed men obsolete

I heard about this, too, during the last year. Seems to me the scientists involved did it with guppies, and combined genetic material from two ova to create a viable gamete. They also said that people shouldn't hold their breath waiting for this to become widely available. It was a very complicated, expensive experiment with many failures before the one success.

Could it happen through evolution? I suppose. Not soon, though.

Would it be possible at some point in the evolution of humanity that women will produce offspring asexually?Well, there's a documented case from some two millenia ago..*)

But seriously.
The problem of asexual reproduction seems to be that the whole population would be equally susceptible (genetically) to parasites and germs. So if something comes along that can kill a person, it can pretty much whipe out the whole population. Sexual reproduction is the shield phase modulation of humanity, to use trekkie technobabble..
So basicly, we'd first need to find another effective way of fighting off any germ and parasite, like medical science. And if it's effective enough, it's just a matter of waiting. After all, once the first women that can asexually reproduce comes to the scence, she can start a whole race of them. It's not like you need two, that's the beauty of asexual reproduction.

*) of course, asexual reproduction would almost certainly mean all offspring would be female, because where would a Y-chromosome come from in parthenogenesis?

What is there even to flame about?

I thin that while it is possible, Its unlikely. Evolution isnt a sweeping change. It would have to start out as a new condition and then the woman would produce children who may (or may not) have the ability. The only way it will really ever be largely practiced is if those with the ability outproduce those without it until the ability to do without it is eventually lost. I think that if this developed, men could actaully eventually be weeded out oof human evolution as well. Of course, that doesnt happen with the animal variety, so who knows.

Actually, that is precisely what biologists think happened with whiptail lizards. They seem to have evolved from a species that included both males and females, but the males were eventually bred out, as it were. Only female whiptail lizards exist, and each goes through a hormone "cycle" which includes male and female hormones. Females simulate copulation, which induces the female who is at the right time in her "cycle" to lay fertile eggs. Later, that female will be more "male", as it were, and will simulate copulation with a female that is in her more "female" stage.


Of course, I don't see it happening in humans. First of all, even in the lab, parthenogenesis has never been acheived with human eggs. Second of all, there's no evolutionary pressure for it.

Anyway, female gametes only have one cromossome in them. Which means a full health individual wouldnt be able to develop from there, unless it became a woman with Turner Syndrom.

They also only have 1 copy of each chromosome. You wouldn't get a human being (or any organism that generally reproduces sexually) from an egg that had totally undergone meiosis for this very reason. Any egg which undergoes parthenogenesis must have the full complement of DNA.


I heard about this, too, during the last year. Seems to me the scientists involved did it with guppies, and combined genetic material from two ova to create a viable gamete. They also said that people shouldn't hold their breath waiting for this to become widely available. It was a very complicated, expensive experiment with many failures before the one success.

*I think you mean they combined to ova to create a viable zygote. The ova themselves would be gametes.

And much parthenogenesis, it hasn't been acheived in any higher-order organisms. There are many odd things we seem to be able to do in some reptiles, amphibians, and fish that we haven't yet been able to duplicate in mammals. Even when we duplicate it in mammals, it seems to get more difficult when we try to move from rodents into livestock or primates.

We may get there at some point, but it's most likely a long way off, even in the lab.

They also only have 1 copy of each chromosome. You wouldn't get a human being (or any organism that generally reproduces sexually) from an egg that had totally undergone meiosis for this very reason. Any egg which undergoes parthenogenesis must have the full complement of DNA.



*I think you mean they combined to ova to create a viable zygote. The ova themselves would be gametes.

And much parthenogenesis, it hasn't been acheived in any higher-order organisms. There are many odd things we seem to be able to do in some reptiles, amphibians, and fish that we haven't yet been able to duplicate in mammals. Even when we duplicate it in mammals, it seems to get more difficult when we try to move from rodents into livestock or primates.

We may get there at some point, but it's most likely a long way off, even in the lab.

Gametes, zygotes ... :p I agree, Dem, but if someone figures out how to make money off it, we'll have it for Christmas '08.

Or rather read "The Handmaid's Tale" by M. Atwood.

Actually, the read on topics like this is now

"The Elementary Particles"
by Michel Houellebecq