Talk:Jacques Loeb

This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Physiology Low‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Physiology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Physiology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PhysiologyWikipedia:WikiProject PhysiologyTemplate:WikiProject PhysiologyPhysiology articles Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the importance scale. This article has been classified as relating to the field of physiology. Biography: Science and Academia This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles This article is supported by the science and academia work group. Chicago This article is within the scope of WikiProject Chicago, which aims to improve all articles or pages related to Chicago or the Chicago metropolitan area.ChicagoWikipedia:WikiProject ChicagoTemplate:WikiProject ChicagoChicago articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Looking up parthenogenesis on Wikipedia I saw no reference to Jacques Loeb. I may be mistaken, but if he is not referenced in regard to parthenogenesis then I wish to connect the head to the tail so to speak. The successful and controversial parthenogenetic experiments he did about 100 years ago should be scrutinized further. My thought is this, and I've been contemplating this since 1969, is that if humans are the most highly evolved lifeform on the planet, and many lower species demonstrate the ability to give birth without benefit of a male, then why aren't more biologists or scientists in general asking why women can or cannot concieve this way? Have women done so already? Why do women have a hyman? Is it because nature, the great conservative, has a different, more ideal way to concieve than through epigenesis? (The normal sexual way.) Why do women atheletes stop having periods? Why do strict vegetarian/fuitarian women, or women who fast for long amounts of time stop having them as well? Is it that they are setting the stage or conditions required by the process of parthenogenesis by recycling hormones, vitamins, minerals etc. which are otherwise lost via menstruation? Ancient art depicting Mary standing on the Crescent Moon may be evidence that our ancestors were already aware of this mystery of mysteries. Was a parthenogenetic birth planned and carried out by The Essenes 2,000 years ago? Was this the real threat that King Herod feared? A return to ancient, pacific, matriarchal cultures that sometimes used this method to give birth to its geniuses? Through wision and will women can choose what sex even a parthenogentically concieved child will be. Only humans can break the law that a parthenogenetically concieved offspring must be a female. Mary chose a son, so we are told. Is this the true reason that Jesus was so threatening to the existing empires? Parthenogenesis is but the tip of an iceberg that is slowly emerging into the light of day. I seek non-religous, curious-minded people to communicate with regarding all of the above.