Joined: Mar. 2006
Thor, I'll be brief in my response because frankly, I think you already understand what I say pretty well, you're just trying to dodge and evade questions you know you can't answer.
Because conception does not mark the beginning of life. The sperm and ovum were alive in the first place. Period.
|So when I said that you said "life does not begin at the beginning," in what way is this different from you stating,"life (as in a living organism) does NOT begin at conception?"|
If that is what you meant, then you must explain why you thought it was a contradiction. Because abiogenesis describes the events that led to life on earth in the distant past. It has all to do with when life begun, but nothing to do with birth of an organism. Once again: Life does not begin at conception. It was there before that.
|And when I said that you said, "life comes from life except when it came from non-life," how is this different from you stating that "life comes from life" with the possible "exception" provided by the "theory of abiogenesis?"|
|Actually, my conception equals the emergence of a independent organism. Do you disagree?|
Of course I disagree. The zygote is not already independent, silly. It is unable to sustain itself and grow outside the womb, and won't be for the next six to seven months at least, when it's barely able to survive being born. However, nobody argues that ability for independent survival is what makes a fetus human; I'm just trying to explain to you what happens at conception. But this has nothing to do with whether it's human or not.
Huh? What on earth are you talking about? It's you that says there was no life before conception, not me.
|And please inform me of an emerging nonliving entity.|
You assume wrong. I mean to become a new fully formed individual of the species. Self-awareness, when we're talking about humans, is a good part of that, but not all. And I hope you finally understand that, yes, only a living thing might have the potential to become a new organism, but that doesn't mean that everything that does not have that potential is not alive.
|So only those things that are "alive" even have the potential to "emerge" (I assume you mean "emerge" to becoming self-aware). |
Well, a man can hope, right?
Sorry, I have no idea what you're talking about.
|Now we can argue about which things that are "alive" that can actually "emerge," but there is no argument that you and I have "emerged" from our conception (beginning). If you disagree and none of your individual living cells can "emerge" independently, when did you "emerge?"|
It has no brain, no heart, no blood, no glands or secretory or circulatory system whatsoever, it lacks any kind of specified tissue that we have as organisms for the first week, and the first traces of a CNS take many weeks to develop. It simply does not possess the means by which it might produce any of the traits attributed to humans. Now, I'm eagerly waiting for your evidence that it is human -although something tells me I need to get a seat.
|What's the evidence that it's not human? I'll be intently waiting for this. Both of us were zygotes and now we are humans.|
Yes, pregnancy. Your point?
|Are you aware of nonhuman to human transformations?|
Aaand here we go again... Nobody's making the concept of life "secondary". We just say it was there in the first place. If you yourself valued life in general above human life, you'd be in serious trouble: You wouldn't be able to eat anything. Like I said, if you know of another way of distinguishing humans from other life forms other than those I mentioned, feel free to share them.
|The primary quality of a human zygote is that it represents the conception of a human being. All those things you've listed that make a "human human" are meaningless without conception. You're taking secondary traits (consciousness, intelligence, emotions) and claiming primacy while taking the primary trait (life) and making it secondary.|
Yes it does display them, thor. If you are sincere and have actually kept a newborn in your arms, you just know this is true. The newborn displays emotions, shows curiosity and interacts actively with his enviroment. but the important thing is that, even if it didn't display them for some reason, it already posesses the means to display them.
|A new born baby displays none of the traits you claim makes a "human human" and yet you wouldn't dare say a newborn wasn't human, would you?|
Mechanisms of mechanisms... interesting. I wonder what else you'll think off. Of course the genetic information for creating a human brain is inside the zygote- but that does not mean it is also expressed there, and the zygote already posesses the equivalent of a brain! Tell me, is it safe to walk across a bridge that's not built yet, because the blueprint is already printed?
|You're only refuge is the existence of the alleged mechanisms for consciousness. Yet, the mechanisms that created the mechanisms (CNS) had to be included somewhere within the zygote, no?|
So? See my previous response. Oh, and that information came 50% from the sperm, and 50% from the ovum. Why do you attribute 0% importance to both? Unless you think that "something" happened when they merged, making the sum way, way, way more important than the parts... Hmm.
|I think the zygote contains all the information needed to proceed through the human life cycle including that information required for consciousness. I don't think current science allows it to be any other way.|
Important? Yes. We wouldn't have a bridge without a blueprint first. Same thing? Heck no.
|"Being something" may be different than "becoming something," but if that "becoming something" is ENTIRELY DEPENDANT on "being something" first then I would say that "being something" is very important indeed.|
See above. Aaaand don't think I'll get tired of "reminding" you:
|Yes, I am a father and would love to read about these "traces" of consciousness in newborns. Hopefully, these "traces" will include small children that haven't forgot their moment of self-awareness.|
Um, no. Sorry. Again, see above. Or rather, see below:
|How about a human zygote for starters?|
1) This "fundamental and unrecognizable form" is very well known; it's called genome. Gee thor, I wonder what else you might have been thinking of...
|You must concede that the "features responsible for consciousness" were at least existing in a more fundamental and unrecognizable form within YOUR zygote. The question then becomes whether these fundamental "features" provided a less recognizable degree of consciousness. It seems reasonable to me that one's degree of consciousness develops over time at least within the early stages of develop following conception. You as a newborn may have been more conscious than when you were a zygote, but you are definitely more conscious now than you were as a newborn.|
2) A gene provides no degree of its trait unless at the time it's expressed. Our brain does not exist in some platonic world of information archetypes, before being developed when the genes responsible start being expressed; it does not exist at all. Sorry to ruin your illusions.
What? I claim no such thing. Please elaborate. Oh, and of course:
|In fact, you are claiming a self-awareness (at or around either birth or a developed CNS) and then a loss of that self-awareness only to reclaim a self-awareness that you don't recall. Whoa!|
Well, I suppose that, since my conception was necessary for me to learn how to drive, I could already shift gear like a pro at the time, and do some amazing drifts round the fallopeian tubes.
|When add to this that YOUR conception WAS REQUIRED for YOUR consciousness and you have no evidence of when YOUR consciousness began then it seems silly to assume that it began anywhere other than at conception.|
If only I had limbs, and a tiny Subaru Impreza...
Moving the goalposts, are we? What does that have to do with your AIDS example?
|I've said nothing of the wrong or rightness of homosexuality. Science regularly determines normalcy and abnormality. In fact, homosexuality was once consider abnormal by the AMA. What scientific findings have allowed the AMA to change this designation?|
And that is why what should be taught is how AIDS and all STDs are transmitted, and in what way one should stay safe, regardless of being a homosexual, a doctor or a regular teenager that bangs anything that moves.
|Homosexuality should be taught in it full scope like all other topics of importance. That means the good, bad and ugly. I'm simply astonished to hear these supposed rebuttals to the easily observable fact that practicing homosexuals present a very grave public health hazard that doesn't simply reside with AIDS, but all STDs.|
Do you know how AIDS is transmitted, thordaddy? Do you know the reason that makes homosexuals a high-risk group, and doctors another? Or do you think it's something impure in the homo blood that attracts it?
Maybe you should look into this matter with a clear head.
We do not, because it does not. It is not homosexuality that is responcible for the incredible risk: it's the lack of safety measures. Once again: Are surgeons freaks, because they are also a high-risk group?
|When you say we should teach how to "prevent it," in what way does this jive with teaching the normalcy of homosexuality? All we should teach is that homosexuality is an abnormal (not normal) lifestyle that presents incredible risks to those that practice it including diminished life expectancy and death.|
Please define what this "deadly lifestyle" is, and how science is teaching it. It's not up to science to say which lifestyle is or is not "normal". Science can only say how we can protect ourselves from STD's whether we are homosexual, heterosexual, drug addicts or medical personnel- the methods are pretty much the same, and the results equally adequate for gays and family men alike. Now, is there any more bigotry you'd like to share with us?
|Why are we teaching this statistically dangerous and deadly lifestyle to younger and younger children under the guise of a normal alternative lifestyle?|
Oh and about that other forgotten "example" of yours- you know that science denies that "races" even exist, right?
PS. Did I say "brief"? Whoops.
A look into DAVE HAWKINS' sense of honesty:
"The truth is that ALL mutations REDUCE information"
"...mutations can add information to a genome. And remember, I have never said that this is not possible."