Atheists Spin on Evolution...

I understand this, I am talking about it. I am asking, how did the alleles decide to form into a fowl capable of doing nothing but consuming protein and being a good food source for other species?

What is the role of the wildebeest Dixie? It is capable of doing little more than consuming plant proteins and being a food source for predators. The mistake you are making is to assume that there is a 'meaning of life' to any particular animal.

How do genetic alleles mutate? Is that the question you asked? Chemical imbalances on a molecular level creates errors during cell replication.... There is no deciding about it, an animal's genes don't decide to do anything, they have no brain to process such decisions??
 
Sure... you didn't wait long enough. If you had waited for the matter in question to fully mature, it would have produced favorable results.

You are making his point. If an egg has to wait to develop into a chicken, a fetus waits to become a human.
 
Nah, the egg once fertilized is a chicken in its earliest stages, the chicken awaits to hatch, but it is a chicken at that point. It is no other type of life form than a chicken, unless there was mutation...
 
and I find the discussion about "what it is" to be nearly rhetorical in nature...what it "IS" is a little lump of cells that, during the first trimester in any case, is no bigger than a peach pit. Whether you think it is a cop out or not, I am unable to get all worked up about a lump of tissue the size of a peach pit that is growing inside a woman's body when she does not want it there. Adios peach pit. end of discussion.

That little clump of cells between your ears is called a brain, although it's only the size of a peach pit, it is still a human brain, nothing about its size matters with regard to what it is. Unlike the clump of cells growing inside a woman's body, your peach pit of a brain is no longer growing, it doesn't live independently from your body and have it's own DNA, and never will. Regardless of this fact, your clump of cells is more than just a random clump of cells, you realize and understand this, and you also realize and understand, you could not function without it, even though it's the size of a peach pit. Regardless of the fact that many humans have brains much larger and more developed than your peach pit, doesn't mean your brain is something other than a brain, it doesn't mean your brain gets to randomly decide if and when it wants to become a brain.
 
It exists, therefore it is a being. That isn't the point. Whether a fetus can be considered to be a human being is the point.

Okay, so we've established a fetus is a being, now let's determine what sort of being it could be. Well, the DNA and genetics suggest it is human, what do you have to suggest otherwise? Anything? Can we not assume, since it's living and growing inside a human, and if left undisturbed, would produce another human person, that it is indeed human life? Is there any evidence at all, to suggest it is any other life form besides human? I think not.

My point is this... a human fetus can't be considered to be anything other than what it is, a human life form or being. There is no evidence to support any other conclusion, and any other conclusion would fly in the face of biological facts that can't be refuted. So, you are in a pickle here, you've admitted a fetus is a being, and biology dictates it is a human being... end of debate!
 
What is the role of the wildebeest Dixie? It is capable of doing little more than consuming plant proteins and being a food source for predators. The mistake you are making is to assume that there is a 'meaning of life' to any particular animal.

Another good example of how Evolution must be an intentional aspect of Intelligent Design. How did all these incredible food sources for predators, happen to mutate and evolve into what they are, and not something more advanced? Isn't it just a little bit amazing to you, that so many of these alleles happened to mutate into convenient food sources for other mutations? So much so, that it actually created a harmoniously balanced food chain and circle of life! I think that is pretty incredible and fascinating, particularly given the fact, these mutations had no way of knowing or understanding what their individual roles would be, and just so happened to mutate as they did.

How do genetic alleles mutate? Is that the question you asked?

Not what I am asking at all... The question I have is, WHY? I want an explanation as to WHY alleles mutated into certain things, while other alleles mutated into something more advanced... why did some alleles mutate into little more than convenient food sources for other allele mutations, and yet, other alleles mutated into conscious intelligent beings called humans? And how did this manage to happen in a manner to create a perfectly balanced food chain and circle of life?

Chemical imbalances on a molecular level creates errors during cell replication.... There is no deciding about it, an animal's genes don't decide to do anything, they have no brain to process such decisions??

Wow! Well, then it's even more of a miracle that all of these various life forms managed to somehow naturally evolve into an intricately balanced and delicate life cycle! As you stated, genes have no way of knowing anything, they simply react to the chemical imbalances and such... so what caused the various chemical imbalances to occur in such a manner as to produce an abundance of self-sustaining life forms, dependent on each other for survival? A chicken's genes had no way of understanding they had to produce a viable food source for other predators, yet they somehow randomly managed to do this? I think that is pretty damn amazing!
 
Dixie said:
and I find the discussion about "what it is" to be nearly rhetorical in nature...what it "IS" is a little lump of cells that, during the first trimester in any case, is no bigger than a peach pit. Whether you think it is a cop out or not, I am unable to get all worked up about a lump of tissue the size of a peach pit that is growing inside a woman's body when she does not want it there. Adios peach pit. end of discussion.

That little clump of cells between your ears is called a brain, although it's only the size of a peach pit, it is still a human brain, nothing about its size matters with regard to what it is. Unlike the clump of cells growing inside a woman's body, your peach pit of a brain is no longer growing, it doesn't live independently from your body and have it's own DNA, and never will. Regardless of this fact, your clump of cells is more than just a random clump of cells, you realize and understand this, and you also realize and understand, you could not function without it, even though it's the size of a peach pit. Regardless of the fact that many humans have brains much larger and more developed than your peach pit, doesn't mean your brain is something other than a brain, it doesn't mean your brain gets to randomly decide if and when it wants to become a brain.
Click to expand...

Like I said...I don't much care for abortion but... but I care for government intruding into the goings-on inside a woman's uterus even less. If a woman has a fetus growing inside her that she does not wish to take to term, and she wants to abort it.... I am going to side with her rights every time - adios peachpit.
 
Like I said...I don't much care for abortion but... but I care for government intruding into the goings-on inside a woman's uterus even less. If a woman has a fetus growing inside her that she does not wish to take to term, and she wants to abort it.... I am going to side with her rights every time - adios peachpit.

Yeah, but it's not a peachpit, it's a human being, as we've determined through biological fact. So, now the question becomes, does a woman have the right to deny this human being's right to life? I don't believe she does, you think she should. There is our "difference" of opinion. In your mind, you have justified this by pretending biological fact doesn't exist, and the fetus isn't what it is, it's something else. By ignoring the biological facts and truth, you can continue to condone supporting this mythical right you claim women have, to deny other human beings the right to live. You fully understand the absurdity of that position, so you must ignore the biological facts, and continue this silly argument that a fetus is something other than a human being in its earliest stages of development.

What you are, is devoid of morality and honesty.
 
"Do you honestly need me to teach you basic science? I'm going to half to charge by the hour if you do -- what did they teach you in alabama schools?"

Hopefully they teach the difference between "half" and "have".
 
"They taught us the difference between "half" and "have". What did they teach at your school?
"

Damn it... dixie already said it. oh well, it does bear repeating. ;)

(and yes, I spelled bear incorrectly on purpose.)
 
".... and a human fetus may eventually produce a human being. your point?"

Not to start the whole abortion argument, but every time I see this, I can't help myself....

please Maine... at what point is a fertilized egg anything BUT a human being?
 
"I am sorry...but I am unable to bring myself to grant legal rights and full citizenship status as a human being to a zygote. And, oddly enough, the Supreme Court agrees with ME."

That is within your right to argue that it should not be granted full human rights protections until it is born (or whatever arbitrary date you have in mind). BUT the point Damo (and myself for that matter) get worked up about is the fact that at NO POINT IN TIME is it anything other than a human being.

Let the two sides argue whether it should have rights or not. That is fine with me, it is a legitimate argument. JUST PLEASE, quit arguing that it is "not a human being" or "its just a clump of cells" (while the second one is technically true... it is ignorant to use as an argument because we are all just clumps of cells.... unless you are saying "size matters") ;)
 
Dixie said:
Like I said...I don't much care for abortion but... but I care for government intruding into the goings-on inside a woman's uterus even less. If a woman has a fetus growing inside her that she does not wish to take to term, and she wants to abort it.... I am going to side with her rights every time - adios peachpit.

Yeah, but it's not a peachpit, it's a human being, as we've determined through biological fact. So, now the question becomes, does a woman have the right to deny this human being's right to life? I don't believe she does, you think she should. There is our "difference" of opinion. In your mind, you have justified this by pretending biological fact doesn't exist, and the fetus isn't what it is, it's something else. By ignoring the biological facts and truth, you can continue to condone supporting this mythical right you claim women have, to deny other human beings the right to live. You fully understand the absurdity of that position, so you must ignore the biological facts, and continue this silly argument that a fetus is something other than a human being in its earliest stages of development.

What you are, is devoid of morality and honesty.
Click to expand...

fuck you.... I do not ignore biological "facts"...I just don't think that they are really important to the larger issue. A fetus certainly is the earliest stage of development of our species....I just don't happen to feel that, at those earlest stages, that the fetus deserves any rights that would supercede the rights of the woman in whose body the fetus is developing. YOu can call abortion "murder" all day long, but even before Roe v. Wade became the law of the land, women who had abortions were not prosecuted for MURDER.... nor were the doctors who performed abortions prosecuted for MURDER.

YOu can huff and puff with righteous moral indignation all you want, but, from my perspective.... people who vehemently oppose abortion while simultaneously supporting the death penalty, or cheering when America demonstrated "shock and awe" on Baghdad are the worst sort of immoral hypocrites. I tend to get a lot more worked up about kids living in homes where the conservatives have reduced welfare benefits...I tend to get a lot more worked up when a state in this country has to release thirty death row inmates because DNA testing proved their INNOCENCE.... I tend to get a lot more worked up by 25K dead and wounded Americans in Iraq... I tend to get a lot more worked up about a thousand Iraqi civilians dying LAST WEEK in Iraq and koolaid soaked Bush asslicking apologists continue to say it isn't a civil war even though, if America suffered proportional losses in a conflct HERE that would work out to TEN THOUSAND AMERICAN civilians slaughtered - IN ONE WEEK.... I get a lot more worked up about a LOT of terrible things that the nation perpetrates on living breathing eating sleeping walking talking human beings every single day to get all worked up about a fucking ZYGOTE.
 
Superfreak said:
"I am sorry...but I am unable to bring myself to grant legal rights and full citizenship status as a human being to a zygote. And, oddly enough, the Supreme Court agrees with ME."

That is within your right to argue that it should not be granted full human rights protections until it is born (or whatever arbitrary date you have in mind). BUT the point Damo (and myself for that matter) get worked up about is the fact that at NO POINT IN TIME is it anything other than a human being.

Let the two sides argue whether it should have rights or not. That is fine with me, it is a legitimate argument. JUST PLEASE, quit arguing that it is "not a human being" or "its just a clump of cells" (while the second one is technically true... it is ignorant to use as an argument because we are all just clumps of cells.... unless you are saying "size matters") ;)
Click to expand...

I think size does matter...I think self awareness matters...I think viability matters.... I think that a fetus does not deserve any rights that would, in any way, supercede those rights of the woman in whose body it is developing...

If I were a single woman trying to make ends meet in this country and I had something growing inside of me that I did not want there - be it a fetus or a tumor - I would be some pissed off if a bunch of white male legislators told me I did not have the choice to remove it.
 
fuck you.... I do not ignore biological "facts"...I just don't think that they are really important to the larger issue. A fetus certainly is the earliest stage of development of our species....I just don't happen to feel that, at those earlest stages, that the fetus deserves any rights that would supercede the rights of the woman in whose body the fetus is developing.

No, let's not fuck me, since I am schooling your ass... let's fuck YOU! It is ignoring biological fact to claim a fetus is not a human being. I am glad you've finally moderated your position on that, because it was pathetically stupid and indefensible, and you looked like a major moron trying to.

Now we get to the meat of the matter, you believe some human beings deserve rights and others don't, and it all depends on your subjective analysis of their condition. Why didn't you just say this to begin with?
 
just don't think that they are really important to the larger issue.

There is no larger issue to the fetus than its right to live. What "larger" issue are you referring to? Women don't have the right to take any other human beings lives, and we don't deny people the right to live based on anyone else's rights, so what "larger issue" could there be here?
 
Okay, so we've established a fetus is a being, now let's determine what sort of being it could be. Well, the DNA and genetics suggest it is human, what do you have to suggest otherwise? Anything? Can we not assume, since it's living and growing inside a human, and if left undisturbed, would produce another human person, that it is indeed human life? Is there any evidence at all, to suggest it is any other life form besides human? I think not.

A being is merely something that exists. Whether it is 'human' or not is in dispute.

No-one disputes that a fetus is 'of' humans, human cells, but so is an amputated arm and that isn't deemed to be a human. Why? Because an amputated arm isn't independent, it cannot exist (or live) on its own. Neither can a fetus. Until it is capable of existing on its own, it is a symbiant, part of the mother.

I can imagine the pathos you will pour onto this... 'You're equating a fetus with an amputated limb' with the usual righteous indignation. But this argument is no place for emotive outbursts, and should be dealt using reason and logic.

It would be also interesting to see how you unravel the paradox that you agree with executing prisoners for the benefit of society (and themselves) yet are so vehemently opposed to abortion?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top