Conversation

Replying to

@whitequark

and

@nmgrm

when reducing this time, at what ε would one run into one of those hard problems?

Replying to

and

at the very least you'd have to let the blastocyst implant somewhere, and there's a complicated molecular handshake going on

Replying to

and

that and you'll need ova; but honestly once we have enough knowledge to tackle this we could probably induce parthenogenesis much easier

Replying to

and

meaning it'll more likely to spell doom for men than for women ;P

Replying to

and

apparently since the last time I read about this, we've found a way to create human embryos through parthenogenesis en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Parthenog

Replying to

and

this comes with a huge huge disclaimer that these embryos are more likely cannot be carried to term than can. but it's a prerequisite

Replying to

and

(currently looking through follow-up papers on that to see if something got lost in translation...)

Replying to

and

yeah, they're both easily obtainable in mammals and completely useless if your goal is a viable fetus, eg [1-17] in ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/P

Replying to

and

tl;dr of sci-hub.cc/https://linkin: viable embryo requires specific epigenetics from both the egg and the sperm; 46,XX from egg alone...

Replying to

and

results in an ovarian teratoma, 46,XX from sperm alone in a hydatidiform mole (do NOT google it); loss of epigenetic inhibitions results…

Replying to

and

obviously I googled that and neat

5:44 PM · May 6, 2017Twitter Web Client

Replying to

and

it looks like haggis

Replying to

and

*stares at a box of [REDACTED] that has retrograde amnesia as a side effect*