Oh Pleeeeeeeeeze!

Radio 4 is never far from my heart, and when I heard an unnamed (well, he was named but I forgot it) evolutionary biologist stating that the virgin birth had a potential scientific explanation, my ears pricked up faster than a speeding bullet. Oh, crap! I'm mixing my metaphor, but no matter.

Parthenogenesis (literally virgin-creation) is a form of reproduction where a single female creature gives birth to another female without the ova being fertilised. The reason for only female births is that a male requires a Y chromosome and females don't posses it.

Now this evolutionary biologist was a Christian who took his bible pretty seriously, and although he accepted Darwin's theory (and neo-Darwinian theory) he felt that the virgin birth could be real. He even went on to explain the rare case of a woman who does carry a Y chromosome - someone in the comments will doubtless remember the name.

Anyway, assuming "Mary" had this rare condition AND had experienced parthenogenesis, that would explain the fact that she was a virgin who had a spontaneous pregnancy and gave birth to a son. Ta dah!

And this is a respected biologist!

The fact that virgin birth stories existed before Jesus would only serve to strengthen his argument, but since this guy is a scientist, how can he have missed Occam's Razor?

Oh shit. Maybe he was snoozing that day?

I don't personally believe in supernatural intervention; but I do accept virgin birth. Not in the church's version of course. Sperm are pretty tricky little buggers and although unlikely, it is possible for a couple of horny teens in a fit of dry humping, end up with an surprise.

If we accept (and I highly doubt) that Mary WAS a virgin, there's no way to tell that this child wasn't just a product of a simple mistake.

So our choices are:

1) Supernatural power;
2) An early example of dry humping or;
3) Mary had a little shag (before she knew Joseph)?

Occam's Razor says 3: every time and it's very rarely wrong and even assuming that parthenogenesis was the cause, why has it never been reported since in 2000+ years of human history?

Daily Mail: "Ming Emperor Had Swiss Timepiece"

OK, I admit I'm having a laugh at the Mail's expense, but this is the sort of dubious BS that it prints on a daily basis, so why shouldn't I?

The story now starring all over the net although I can't find an original source, is that a couple of archaeologists have found a swiss-made ringwatch in some rubble while excavating a tomb. The key bit is here, where the writer records:

"They believed they were the first to visit the Ming dynasty grave in Shangsi, southern China, since its occupant's funeral.

It's fairly obvious they are mistaken. Says Jiang Yanyu, former curator of the Guangxi Museum:

'When we tried to remove the soil wrapped around the coffin, suddenly a piece of rock dropped off and hit the ground with metallic sound.'

Conspiracy theorists will have a field day with this. Perhaps it was a time traveller? But you'd have thought a couple of things would have occurred to them, notwithstanding that time travel is paradoxically impossible, the simple fact that the clumsy bastard could would have brought a more accurate electronic timepiece - not a early 20th century clockwork version.

I can see it now: "Flux capacitor: check! FTL drive: check! Antique clockwork timepiece: check!"

Oh do behave - the most worrying thing about this is that so many new sources are sufficiently slow to actually print this as news.

Let me spell it out for you O-C-C-A-M-S R-A-Z-O-R. The idea that when there are several conflicting theories, the simplest one is usually the correct one.

Christ, these people get on my nerves.