Biology of Jesus' virginal conception

[AveMariaPurissima]

With today's solemnity of the Annunciation, I found myself pondering Jesus' virginal conception and wondering how it would have worked in terms of biology.  Obviously it was miraculous, but I was thinking about how Jesus' genetic material would have come about.  Since Jesus doesn't have a human father, would He have gotten His full 46 chromosomes from Mary? But how would that have happened, since Mary's ovum would naturally only have 23 chromosomes?  Or is that where the miracle part comes in?  Is there any Church teaching or tradition on this?

(Biology isn't my strongest subject, so forgive me if my terminology or understanding is off!!)

[DominicanHeart]

Interesting. This isn't something I normally think about.

[Nihil Obstat]

If the full set of chromosomes came from Mary, then Jesus could not have been a man. So there was something more there, certainly.

[AveMariaPurissima]

16 hours ago, Nihil Obstat said:

If the full set of chromosomes came from Mary, then Jesus could not have been a man. So there was something more there, certainly.

I hadn't thought of that...!! That is an excellent point.

[Era Might]

Look up parthenogenesis. Not saying it's an explanation, just interesting.

[CatherineM]

My Dad said that God used Joseph's DNA. 

[chrysostom]

I would say that the only human contributor to Jesus' DNA was Mary. Beyond that I have no idea.

[xSilverPhinx]

On 3/26/2017 at 4:53 PM, Era Might said:

Look up parthenogenesis. Not saying it's an explanation, just interesting.

Nope, parthenogenesis is basically a female cloning herself, Jesus would be have to be female. 

[Luigi]

A number of Biblical miracles leave many unanswered questions about how things got done - I guess that's the very definition of a miracle.

I've often wondered not about the biology of the man born blind, but about his cognitive processing after the miracle. He had never seen a thing in his life - Jesus makes some mud, sends him to wash in the waters of Siloe, and POOF! - he can see. Alright, I accept that. But then the people and the Pharisees start asking him a lot of questions - don't you think he'd be distracted by the all the new sights around him - "What did He do to you?" "Hey you guys! What's that up there? Is that the sky? Is that what the color blue looks like?" "Answer the question, please."  "YIKES! What's that thing that just went past my head? Was that a bird? Is that what flying looks like?" "Answer the question, please." "Is this a tree? It looks kind of like I imagined it, but I didn't realize it would be darker (if he knew dark from light) under it. Waddaya know about that?!" I mean really, it should've taken him some time to adjust to this brand new sense, don't you think? But the Bible doesn't say anything about that - he just responds to the questions. So the only thing I can figure is that the miracle also affected his brain so that he just took his new sense for granted as if he'd had it all his life.

The same goes for the deaf child, and Bartimaeus, and the crippled man lowered through the roof. Lazarus had been alive before, so coming back to life might be hard to believe, but he'd at least know the ropes. Those other people, though... 

So there's no explaining miracles - not the biology of them, nor the cognition, nor the physics, nor a whole lot of other stuff. 

[AveMariaPurissima]

16 hours ago, Luigi said:

A number of Biblical miracles leave many unanswered questions about how things got done - I guess that's the very definition of a miracle.

I've often wondered not about the biology of the man born blind, but about his cognitive processing after the miracle. He had never seen a thing in his life - Jesus makes some mud, sends him to wash in the waters of Siloe, and POOF! - he can see. Alright, I accept that. But then the people and the Pharisees start asking him a lot of questions - don't you think he'd be distracted by the all the new sights around him - "What did He do to you?" "Hey you guys! What's that up there? Is that the sky? Is that what the color blue looks like?" "Answer the question, please."  "YIKES! What's that thing that just went past my head? Was that a bird? Is that what flying looks like?" "Answer the question, please." "Is this a tree? It looks kind of like I imagined it, but I didn't realize it would be darker (if he knew dark from light) under it. Waddaya know about that?!" I mean really, it should've taken him some time to adjust to this brand new sense, don't you think? But the Bible doesn't say anything about that - he just responds to the questions. So the only thing I can figure is that the miracle also affected his brain so that he just took his new sense for granted as if he'd had it all his life.

The same goes for the deaf child, and Bartimaeus, and the crippled man lowered through the roof. Lazarus had been alive before, so coming back to life might be hard to believe, but he'd at least know the ropes. Those other people, though... 

So there's no explaining miracles - not the biology of them, nor the cognition, nor the physics, nor a whole lot of other stuff. 

Very valid points! I guess I was just curious if any possible explanations had ever been proposed... I'm totally cool with accepting miracles on faith though!

Your comments about the man born blind are very interesting. It reminds me of a documentary I saw that discussed a man who had become blind from an accident at a  very young age. As an adult, he underwent  a surgery that restored his sight...but his brain didn't know what to do with all the new sensory input it wasn't used to receiving.

[xSilverPhinx]

On 4/20/2017 at 5:27 PM, AveMariaPurissima said:

Your comments about the man born blind are very interesting. It reminds me of a documentary I saw that discussed a man who had become blind from an accident at a  very young age. As an adult, he underwent  a surgery that restored his sight...but his brain didn't know what to do with all the new sensory input it wasn't used to receiving.

Look up "critical periods". 

[KnightofChrist]

On 4/19/2017 at 6:34 PM, xSilverPhinx said:

Nope, parthenogenesis is basically a female cloning herself, Jesus would be have to be female. 

Probably why he stated he wasn't saying it's an explanation, just interesting.

[Era Might]

On 4/19/2017 at 5:34 PM, xSilverPhinx said:

Nope, parthenogenesis is basically a female cloning herself, Jesus would be have to be female. 

Whatever it is, it's interesting and shows that nature holds many possibilities.

If (a big if) you believe God set up this world of atoms and particles and moving parts, I guess it doesn't much matter what he moved around for the Virgin Birth. But, why is nature so complicated in the first place? Creationists point to that as proof of an intelligent designer, but I see it as proof against. 

[xSilverPhinx]

Well, since we're talking about hypothesis here, it would probably make more sense to compare Mary's mode of conception to that of hermaphroditic animals, not parthenogenetic ones.