Once Again Baxter is a fake libertarian

The bolded above shows how intellectually dishonest you are.

Viability does not determine whether it is human or alive. Viability is an argument for legal purposes... it has nothing to do with genetics.

I have already proven that biological definitions of life require viability or the ability to sustain existence. You are once again, confusing life with alive or "human life" with "of human origin and alive."

How is the bolded part intellectually dishonest? Your claim is wrong. A human skin cell, liver or any other contains the necessary genetic coding to create human life.

Your weak argument is circular and semantic. It is basically, the zygote is human life and other cells are not because they are not a zygote.

Here is some BASIC genetic science that might help you to overcome your ignorance if it were not willful and based on your religion/moronic philosophy.

http://learn.genetics.utah.edu/content/cloning/whatiscloning/

The nucleus is a compartment that holds the cell's DNA. The DNA is divided into packages called chromosomes, and it contains all the information needed to form an organism. It's small differences in our DNA that make each of us unique.
 
lol... its ok... I know you cannot address it.

I have already discredited your argument. Your statement was clearly wrong and AGAIN mine is 100% accurate. I have again provided sources confirming that your skin cells "contains all the information needed to form an organism." It is basic genetics and you deny the science based on nothing but your stubborn and ignorant opinion.

Your argument is actually about viability. You seem to believe that once the zygote has formed it is sufficiently viable or likely to develop to constitute human life. You have provided no other ACCURATE distinction to separate the zygote from other cells.

It's not a completely untenable position. But science offers no conclusive proof to your position. It is quite premature to say it is sufficiently viable and logically flawed as the zygote is completely dependent on the mother. Not like a baby, but more like your skin cells are dependent on you.
 
I have already discredited your argument. Your statement was clearly wrong and AGAIN mine is 100% accurate. I have again provided sources confirming that your skin cells "contains all the information needed to form an organism." It is basic genetics and you deny the science based on nothing but your stubborn and ignorant opinion.

LMAO... you have done no such thing. A skin cell is never going to be anything other than a skin cell. It is NOT a unique life. It shares the genetic code of the organism it is a part of. Your ignorance on this topic is astounding. You are talking about potentially CLONING using the DNA in skin cell? You actually think that is the same as a fertilized egg cell? Seriously, you should run away now. You have embarrassed yourself completely with that nonsense.

Your argument is actually about viability. You seem to believe that once the zygote has formed it is sufficiently viable or likely to develop to constitute human life. You have provided no other ACCURATE distinction to separate the zygote from other cells.

No moron. YOU are the one that is talking viability. Viability has NOTHING to do with my position. I have never stated a zygote is viable.

Yes moron, I have provided the distinction. A fertilized egg cell has genetic coding for a complete human being that is DIFFERENT from that of the parents.

It's not a completely untenable position. But science offers no conclusive proof to your position. It is quite premature to say it is sufficiently viable and logically flawed as the zygote is completely dependent on the mother. Not like a baby, but more like your skin cells are dependent on you.

Again, the above is complete nonsense. Genetics do offer conclusive proof. Again, I am not talking about viability AT ALL. It has nothing to do with my position. YOU are the one that pretends viability matters with regards to science. It does not. Viability is used to argue whether or not it is a 'person' (subjective) or whether or not the unborn deserves legal rights (subjective). It has nothing to do with the determination of the formation of a unique human life.
 
LMAO... you have done no such thing. A skin cell is never going to be anything other than a skin cell. It is NOT a unique life. It shares the genetic code of the organism it is a part of. Your ignorance on this topic is astounding. You are talking about potentially CLONING using the DNA in skin cell? You actually think that is the same as a fertilized egg cell? Seriously, you should run away now. You have embarrassed yourself completely with that nonsense.

No moron. YOU are the one that is talking viability. Viability has NOTHING to do with my position. I have never stated a zygote is viable.

Yes moron, I have provided the distinction. A fertilized egg cell has genetic coding for a complete human being that is DIFFERENT from that of the parents.

Again, the above is complete nonsense. Genetics do offer conclusive proof. Again, I am not talking about viability AT ALL. It has nothing to do with my position. YOU are the one that pretends viability matters with regards to science. It does not. Viability is used to argue whether or not it is a 'person' (subjective) or whether or not the unborn deserves legal rights (subjective). It has nothing to do with the determination of the formation of a unique human life.

Again, you practice intellectual dishonesty by dropping context and moving goalposts. You said...

A skin cell does not contain the coding to form a complete unique human being.

You are wrong. There is no doubt or debate about it. I pointed that out and instead of acknowledging your error you vaguely claimed I was being intellectually dishonest.

Genetically unique has nothing to do with it. Both twins are human life. If we clone an individual the clone will be human life.

Viability, the ability to sustain existence and/or the ability to maintain homeostasis IS a requirement in all biological definitions of life. I have posted the definition several times and have referenced different sources. You have provided nothing accept your dogmatic denial of scientific sources and attacks on them.

Your argument is viability. You have offered no ACCURATE distinction between the zygote and another cell other than that. Your claim of viability is just premature and logically flawed as it demands quite a bit of inconsistency.

There is no point in continuing. You insist on denying the science and basic genetic facts whenever they are inconvenient to your argument. Your opinion is immune to the scientific facts.
 
Again, you practice intellectual dishonesty by dropping context and moving goalposts. You said...

You are wrong. There is no doubt or debate about it. I pointed that out and instead of acknowledging your error you vaguely claimed I was being intellectually dishonest.

No moron, I am not wrong. The skin cells DNA is NOT unique. It is the same as that of every other cell in the body. A fertilized egg cell has a completely different code for a complete human being that again is DIFFERENT from that of the parent. So yes, you are absolutely unequivocally intellectually dishonest.

Genetically unique has nothing to do with it. Both twins are human life. If we clone an individual the clone will be human life.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/11/health/11real.html

Viability, the ability to sustain existence and/or the ability to maintain homeostasis IS a requirement in all biological definitions of life. I have posted the definition several times and have referenced different sources. You have provided nothing accept your dogmatic denial of scientific sources and attacks on them.

Again moron... viability has nothing to do with HARD science... GENETICS. The zygote all the way through birth does indeed maintain homeostasis. It is the genetic coding within the unborn child that regulates it. It acts independently from the mother. You want to pretend that because it can sustain itself on its own without assistance that somehow negates its humanity. That is absurd. Again, it is no different than a coma patient living off of life support.

Your argument is viability. You have offered no ACCURATE distinction between the zygote and another cell other than that. Your claim of viability is just premature and logically flawed as it demands quite a bit of inconsistency.

you running around stamping your feet insisting that my argument is viability will NEVER change the fact that my position has NOTHING TO DO WITH VIABILITY. NOTHING.
 
No moron, I am not wrong. The skin cells DNA is NOT unique. It is the same as that of every other cell in the body. A fertilized egg cell has a completely different code for a complete human being that again is DIFFERENT from that of the parent. So yes, you are absolutely unequivocally intellectually dishonest.

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/03/11/health/11real.html

Again moron... viability has nothing to do with HARD science... GENETICS. The zygote all the way through birth does indeed maintain homeostasis. It is the genetic coding within the unborn child that regulates it. It acts independently from the mother. You want to pretend that because it can sustain itself on its own without assistance that somehow negates its humanity. That is absurd. Again, it is no different than a coma patient living off of life support.

you running around stamping your feet insisting that my argument is viability will NEVER change the fact that my position has NOTHING TO DO WITH VIABILITY. NOTHING.


Funny, you argued that each cell was genetically unique before.

genetic distinction can be found between all types of cells. A liver cell is not the same as a skin cell etc...

But stumbling into the truth had no impact on your dogmatic opinion.

Your statement IS factually incorrect.

A skin cell does not contain the coding to form a complete unique human being.

A skin cell does contain the coding to form a unique human being. Each twin is a unique human being. A clone would be a unique human being. They would be genetically identical, but so what?

I am sorry you don't seem to understand the basic genetic facts and instead seem to be dogmatically stuck on some talking point about whether the zygote is an individual life or part of the mother's body but that has no relevance to this discussion. Are you sure you are not a bot?

Viability does have to do with the hard science which you reject. A zygote is able to maintain homeostasis as a zygote not as a human, just as a sperm is able to maintain homeostasis as a sperm or a skin cell is able to maintain homeostasis as a skin cell, but they are not able to maintain homeostasis as a human. But you reject that this is based on "hard science" or is a defining characteristic of life.

You are again wrong. The zygote does not act independently of the mother. It relies on hormonal cues from the mother to guide its development and is completely dependent on the mother to maintain homeostasis. Outside of the mother it will die immediately.

It is nothing like a coma patient. A coma patient is temporarily impaired and may require life support until he/she recovers. It is not waiting to develop new abilities that will allow it to live as a human. A zygote on life support is dead.
 
Funny, you argued that each cell was genetically unique before.

My god you are an idiot. Each cell has the DNA of the person, but each cell is ALSO genetically coded to perform a specific function within the body.



But stumbling into the truth had no impact on your dogmatic opinion.

Your statement IS factually incorrect.

Just more of your nonsense. What I stated was correct. You just deny science.

A skin cell does contain the coding to form a unique human being. Each twin is a unique human being. A clone would be a unique human being. They would be genetically identical, but so what?

ROFLMAO... no moron, it does not. You obviously don't know how cloning works either. That skin cell does not grow into a unique human being. The DNA from the cell is EXTRACTED... the cell itself does not become a unique human being. You moron.

I am sorry you don't seem to understand the basic genetic facts and instead seem to be dogmatically stuck on some talking point about whether the zygote is an individual life or part of the mother's body but that has no relevance to this discussion. Are you sure you are not a bot?

LMAO... what genetic facts have you stated? You have run from every fact presented. Where have I once argued whether the zygote was an individual life or part of the mothers body? I have stated time and again that it is a unique human life. Only a fucking moron would say that it is part of the mothers body.

Viability does have to do with the hard science which you reject.

No, it does not.

A zygote is able to maintain homeostasis as a zygote not as a human, just as a sperm is able to maintain homeostasis as a sperm or a skin cell is able to maintain homeostasis as a skin cell, but they are not able to maintain homeostasis as a human. But you reject that this is based on "hard science" or is a defining characteristic of life.

And here we go with the magic human fairy again. At NO point is the zygote anything other than human you moron. NO POINT.

You are again wrong. The zygote does not act independently of the mother. It relies on hormonal cues from the mother to guide its development and is completely dependent on the mother to maintain homeostasis. Outside of the mother it will die immediately.

LMAO... it does indeed act independently. Or do you think the mother tells it to move and kick etc...? Do you think the mother tells it when it is hungry or the other way around? Truly... you should shut your ass now.

It is nothing like a coma patient. A coma patient is temporarily impaired and may require life support until he/she recovers. It is not waiting to develop new abilities that will allow it to live as a human. A zygote on life support is dead.

A coma patient is on life support, just as the child is. While the reason for being on support is different, you are pretending one isn't human as a result. The mother via the umbilical cord is the life support you dolt.
 
My god you are an idiot. Each cell has the DNA of the person, but each cell is ALSO genetically coded to perform a specific function within the body.

Just more of your nonsense. What I stated was correct. You just deny science.

ROFLMAO... no moron, it does not. You obviously don't know how cloning works either. That skin cell does not grow into a unique human being. The DNA from the cell is EXTRACTED... the cell itself does not become a unique human being. You moron.

LMAO... what genetic facts have you stated? You have run from every fact presented. Where have I once argued whether the zygote was an individual life or part of the mothers body? I have stated time and again that it is a unique human life. Only a fucking moron would say that it is part of the mothers body.

No, it does not.

And here we go with the magic human fairy again. At NO point is the zygote anything other than human you moron. NO POINT.

LMAO... it does indeed act independently. Or do you think the mother tells it to move and kick etc...? Do you think the mother tells it when it is hungry or the other way around? Truly... you should shut your ass now.

A coma patient is on life support, just as the child is. While the reason for being on support is different, you are pretending one isn't human as a result. The mother via the umbilical cord is the life support you dolt.


You really should just stfu while you are behind. You keep contradicting yourself, idiot. DNA is THE genetic coding. Either each cell in your body is genetically identical or it is not. And fyi, it is, moron. Each cell is genetically identical. There is no special genetic code within an individual cell, instead gene expression controls the cells function (i.e., parts of the genetic code are active), but each and every cell "contains all the information needed to form an organism."

You don't know what the fuck you are talking and you continue to make a mess of your own argument. It does not really matter, you state correctly that each cell is genetically identical and claim that is proof of your conclusion, you incorrectly state that each cell is genetically distinct and claim that is proof of your conclusion. Your conclusion has nothing to do with the scientific facts of which you have no command.

The nucleus of the cell is used in cloning. Yes, it certainly does become a unique human being through cloning.

I have corrected you numerous times on your genetic errors. You were/are wrong on the genetic facts concerning the sperm, egg and other cells within your body. Sperm/egg is not genetically identical to father/mother as you claimed and your skin cells are genetically identical to the liver and every cell in your body (except for those gametes) contain all the information needed to form a human life.
 
PZ Myers recently wrote this rebuttal to an argument from a pro life atheist trying to claim science supported her position. The pro life atheists arguments were quite similar to sf, i.e., ignorant nonsense, but she did seem to understand the genetics better than sf. If you are unaware, Myers is a developmental biologist and knows a bit about the subject. Below is just an excerpt and the whole thing is not very long and worth reading to find insight into the pseudo scientific argument of sf and others.

http://freethoughtblogs.com/pharyng...-be-pro-life-only-by-lying-about-the-science/

If she repeats that the conceptus becomes fully human at the instant of fertilization, and that science says so, over and over, we surely must be persuaded that she’s right, and we have to concede that she’s making an entirely secular argument, because SCIENCE. Unfortunately for her, she’s not actually using SCIENCE, but has mistaken BULLSHIT for science.
Let me tell you what science actually says about this subject.


Science has determined that development is a process of epigenesis; that is, that it involves a progressive unfolding and emergence of new attributes, not present at conception, that manifest gradually by interactions within the field of developing cells and with the external environment. The conceptus is not equal to the adult. It is not a preformed human requiring only time and growth to adulthood; developmental biologists are entirely aware of the distinction between proliferation and growth, and differentiation. So science actually says the opposite of what Kruszelnicki claims. It says that the fetus is distinct from the adult.


Of course, science also has to concede that because there is a continuum of transformation from conception to adulthood, it can’t draw an arbitrary line and say that at Time Point X, the fetus has acquired enough of the properties of the adult form that it should be now regarded as having all the rights of a member of society. That’s a matter for law and convention. But we already implicitly recognize that there is a pattern of change over time; children do not have all the same privileges as adults. Third trimester fetuses have fewer still. First trimester embryos? Even less. We all understand without even thinking about it that there is a progressive pattern to human development.


But what about this claim that science can tell us who among us belongs to the human species?


First question I have is…which species concept are you using? There are a lot of them, you know; I daresay we might be able to find a few, that when inappropriately and too literally applied, would define away my status as a human, which simply wouldn’t do. There are also a lot of non-scientific or pseudo-scientific definitions of what constitutes a human that have been historically abused. Were the Nazis being scientific when they defined sub-species of humans and classed Jews, Gypsies, and Africans as something less than fully human? What, exactly, is Kruszelnicki’s “scientific” definition of human, that she’s using so definitively to declare a fetus as completely human?


She doesn’t say. She can’t say. She’s not applying a scientific test, but a traditional and colloquial one, which she’s then claiming by implication as synonymous with an unstated scientific definition. That’s dishonest and more than a little annoying.


Reading between the lines on her horrible little website, I’m guessing that she’s using a trivial and excessively reductive definition of human: it’s human by descent. The cells come from the division of human cells, so it is by definition not a monkey or a llama or a beetle cell, it’s a human cell.


Of course, that’s not enough: by that definition, sperm and eggs would be fully human, and women would be committing murder every time they menstruate, and men would be committing genocide every time they ejaculate.
 
Wow... here we have a NO SHIT moment from the science denier. Who knew that a fetus was not EQUAL to an adult and that it had a lot of growth and development needed to reach adulthood?

GROUND BREAKING NEWS FOLKS!!!
 
The above post from string AGAIN argues about LEGAL rights and ARBITRARY decisions of 'what attributes must exist for certain rights to be granted'... NONE of which has to do with GENETICS.

Amazing how many times the idiot String comes back to either LEGAL (subjective) definitions or PHILOSOPHICAL (subjective) definitions only to then pretend he is discussing the SCIENCE.
 
Wow... here we have a NO SHIT moment from the science denier. Who knew that a fetus was not EQUAL to an adult and that it had a lot of growth and development needed to reach adulthood?

GROUND BREAKING NEWS FOLKS!!!

The point Myers clearly made and I have made repeatedly is that what separates a zygote from a fully formed human or adult is much more than growth. Did you not get that, dummy?
 
The above post from string AGAIN argues about LEGAL rights and ARBITRARY decisions of 'what attributes must exist for certain rights to be granted'... NONE of which has to do with GENETICS.

Amazing how many times the idiot String comes back to either LEGAL (subjective) definitions or PHILOSOPHICAL (subjective) definitions only to then pretend he is discussing the SCIENCE.

Uh-oh. He's employed Angry Random Capitalization.

This thread could last a while...
 
The above post from string AGAIN argues about LEGAL rights and ARBITRARY decisions of 'what attributes must exist for certain rights to be granted'... NONE of which has to do with GENETICS.

Amazing how many times the idiot String comes back to either LEGAL (subjective) definitions or PHILOSOPHICAL (subjective) definitions only to then pretend he is discussing the SCIENCE.

You don't understand the genetics and they do not support your argument. You still have not given us any reason that the genetic characteristics of a zygote make it any more human life than a skin cell. Your argument is not based on the genetics that you don't understand, which is made clear by the fact that you have argued that your accurate and inaccurate understanding of each cells uniqueness supports your conclusion. Your conclusion is reached by your equally ignorant grasp of philosophy.

I have now provided several developmental biologists that have quite clearly stated that science does not support your claims.
 
The point Myers clearly made and I have made repeatedly is that what separates a zygote from a fully formed human or adult is much more than growth. Did you not get that, dummy?

Clearly made? Myers simply rambled on in your nonsensical fashion, making absurd comments. Not shocking that you found that enlightening.
 
You don't understand the genetics and they do not support your argument. You still have not given us any reason that the genetic characteristics of a zygote make it any more human life than a skin cell. Your argument is not based on the genetics that you don't understand, which is made clear by the fact that you have argued that your accurate and inaccurate understanding of each cells uniqueness supports your conclusion. Your conclusion is reached by your equally ignorant grasp of philosophy.

I have now provided several developmental biologists that have quite clearly stated that science does not support your claims.

Actually I have... and you continually ignore it. A skin cell has the DNA of the person that skin cell belongs to. It cannot be anything other than a skin cell. A fertilized egg cell has the unique genetic code of a NEW human life. You tried and failed to argue 'cloning'. Because you understand that as well as you do basic genetics and we know that understanding is similar to a two year olds.
 
Back
Top