APP - Proof That God Exists

[apple0154]

Again, it is the art of reproduction that matters. If the fused cells reproduced something, even though it was incomplete or inadequate, they met the criteria of a living organism. They may have only barely met the criteria, they may expire and stop being a living organism almost immediately, but there is no other point in time at which you can define when an organism begins, other than it's ability to reproduce something. It defies science, it defies biological fact, and it defies common sense.

Eh, check post #79. I hope this is your last post showing your lack of knowledge.

 

[apple0154]

/shrugs.....since he hasn't said that, I doubt you really "understand" him to say that.......what he has said is correct, that when a sperm and egg combine to form a zygote, that zygote is capable of producing more cells as needed for the zygote to survive as a human being.....

In 50% of cases it is not capable.

 

[apple0154]

of course a baby qualifies as an organism....

Looks like you require a bit of schooling, as well. Read post #79.

An organism has to be able to grow and metabolize nutrients and it can't do that if it can't eliminate waste.

I didn't come up with the definition. I'm only applying it.

 

[apple0154]

because all of your assumptions are false.....

To what assumptions are you referring? Try to be specific.

 

[apple0154]

This goes to the nucleus of thought. We must establish the criteria for "organisms" in science, and we have. There is no doubt or question as to what the criteria are, it is well understood and defined by science. Whenever any group (or couple) of cells reproduce other cells, or even one cell, without outside stimulation, it has met the criteria for a "living organism." By sheer process of elimination, it can't be anything else, according to science. It's certainly not inorganic, because inorganic material can't "produce" anything. A virus can reproduce, but it requires a host, so it doesn't meet the criteria for an organism and an embryo doesn't meet the criteria of a virus. Other than that, there is no way for two fused cells to independently reproduce another cell, and NOT be a living organism, it defies science.

Apple continues to ignorantly refute his own point, he contends that since it was alive and then died, it was never alive to begin with, and this is just FALSE.

I guess I spoke too soon in post #81. Re-read #79.

 

[apple0154]

Let me add this, hopefully, not to confuse apple too much, but rather for clarity, before some anal-retentive pinhead chortles in on it... There are also single-cell organisms, some bacteria fit this category, but again, since we are discussing the fused egg and sperm cell, the organism in question is obviously not "single cell" and also doesn't meet the criteria for a bacterial organism. Inorganic material can't reproduce itself, and all other reproductions require the assistance of some organism. A fused sperm and egg cell do not require anything else, including the host, we have been making babies in test tubes for years. We don't add anything to the fused cells, they reproduce and function as an organism from point of conception, therefore, they are a living human organism.

And how many don't reproduce? And how many reproductions are failures?

Why do you have difficulty understanding that a failed reproduction is not a reproduction? If it was a reproduction it would survive barring any outside interference. A failed reproduction means it didn't reproduce. In case you may be confused I'll offer an analogy.

One can say a person has to write an exam in order to become a doctor. If an individual writes an exam and fails they do not receive their licence. They have to write an exam AND pass. If, as you claim, a viable organism has to have the ability to reproduce it has to have the ability to reproduce a viable cell, not just any cell. Otherwise, how do we know if it has the ability to reproduce?

If a woman continually has miscarriages and is unable to bring a child to term it is considered she is unable to reproduce. If a woman has conceived five times and each time the pregnancy ended in spontaneous abortion do we say she has five children?

 

[apple0154]

but the problem is that he equates a zygote, the union of a sperm and egg into a totally different organism with some mythical "fusion of two cells" that he pretends are reproducing another cell.....one is science, the other is something he made up for the argument.....unless he has something in mind that he's failed to identify so far.....

My point is when it's stated an organism has to be able to reproduce it means the organism has to be able to reproduce something that will ultimately become similar to itself.

Reproduce: to make a copy, representation, duplicate, or close imitation of

When one considers 50% of the reproductions are not viable surely it's reasonable to conclude SOME of the reproductions are not reproductions. That means not all fertilized cells or fused cells are organisms and certainly are not human beings and that's the point.

 

[apple0154]

Organisms can produce cells, non-organisms can't.

Until you recognize that error there's little point in addressing the rest of your post.

Doctors can take a piece of human flesh and grow new skin for patients in a dish with certain medium. The skin is not an organism but it produces new cells.

If you won't do any research it's useless having a debate.

/////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////////

Do women produce sperm cells? Does the egg cell produce the sperm cell? Does the woman or egg have to add anything to the sperm? When scientists first performed this outside the woman's womb, they already knew what would happen, they already knew what constituted a living organism, it was not a surprise. When you use the term "life-sustaining culture" does it just not occur to your simpleton brain that you are using the word "LIFE" in your description? Is that failing to compute in your retarded mind as something LIVING? If it is alive, how can it not be living yet? If it's not inorganic, and it's not reproducing as the result of the female organism it resides in, what hell do you define it as? Because it simply can't be matter producing matter, that doesn't happen in science. It's not a bacterial life form, it's not a virus, it's not a fungus, it can only be one thing, by process of elimination.



I'm not arguing that a woman's womb is a suitable place for the living organism to grow, but that has nothing to do with it being a living organism. If you grow tomatoes in a greenhouse, does that make them NOT REALLY tomatoes? What if it's extremely cold and inhospitable to tomato plants outside? Does that change what a tomato plant is? Since it can't continue to live if we take it outside, does that mean it was never alive? Do you simply not see the utter stupidity of your argument here? The "fertilized egg" or fused egg/sperm cell, do not need anything from the host, if they reproduce anything, they become a living human organism, independent of the host. That means, they don't rely on the host to reproduce.





The sperm penetrates the egg cell, and the fused cells begin to reproduce more cells. This is not dependent on anything the woman does, or any additional part the woman adds, and there is nothing else added to make them reproduce, they either do or don't, that's it. If they DO, they become a living human organism, if they don't, the "fertilization" was unsuccessful and conception did not happen.



Again, you are just plain wrong about this. A liver or kidney cell is incapable of reproduction. The human body (organism) can reproduce cells for the kidney or liver, but the human body reproduces billions of various cells everyday, that is not in question. Organisms can produce cells, non-organisms can't. With a sperm/egg cell fusion, they either create another cell or they don't. If they don't, they were never a living organism, if they DO, they become at that precise moment, a living human organism. If you want to claim they are not yet "enough" of an organism, that's fine... I have no problem with you making that argument, I disagree with it, but at least it's honestly accepting the facts. You can't make an embryo be anything other than what it is, because you must defy all scientific knowledge and understanding to do so.



No, what's disgusting is ignorant people such as yourself, who can't bother to educate themselves to the point of understanding, regardless of how many times they are schooled on the subject up one side and down the other. I have not made the argument that a zygote has right on par with a woman, just that a zygote is a living human organism, and can be nothing else. You are simply refusing to acknowledge it is a living human organism, even though you stupidly continue to admit it's living and then dies, in virtually every explanation you give us. You've phrased it every way you can think of, and every single time, you admit that the process of life was being carried on before it stopped. Well, something can not stop living if it wasn't alive to begin with, and something that is living and dies, had to be alive before it could die.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

It has nothing to do with immortality. The link I posted shows a baby without an anus. While inside the woman, as part of her body using all her organs, it survived. It was not able to carry on the processes of life on it's own. No organism can carry on the processes of life if it is unable to eliminate waste and that baby was unable to eliminate waste. The ONLY reason it lived as a fetus is because it used the body parts of the mother.

Science Dictionary

organism (ôr'gə-nĭz'əm) Pronunciation Key

An individual form of life that is capable of growing, metabolizing nutrients, and usually reproducing. Organisms can be unicellular or multicellular. They are scientifically divided into five different groups (called kingdoms) that include prokaryotes, protists, fungi, plants, and animals, and that are further subdivided based on common ancestry and homology of anatomic and molecular structures.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/organism?s=t

Note it says usually reproducing so that means your statement, "Nothing in biology says that an organism must continue to function for an indeterminate amount of time, or be able to do anything other than reproduce" is false. It does not have to reproduce but it does have to grow and metabolize nutrients and it can't do that if it is unable to remove waste.

What surprises me about this whole discussion is your refusal to accept the importance of an anus when that's from where you obtain all your post material.

*sigh* You remember a couple of posts back, when I posted the disclaimer about 'single-cell organisms?' Obviously, something that is a single-cell organism, can't and doesn't reproduce, else it would be multi-cellular. I should have more accurately stated, one of the things that distinguishes a multi-cell organism, is the ability to reproduce cells. It may not reproduce cells, or it may only reproduce some cells some of the time, but if it reproduces cells, it is a living organism, it can't be anything else.

What you continue to try and do, is muddy the water with your own inept ignorance, and it has long-ago gotten old. A baby born without an anus is most certainly some fucking kind of living organism, it can't be anything else. It may not be able to discard waste, and it may cease to be a living organism as a result, but that does not change what it was before it died. You are trying desperately to place some arbitrary and false criteria on living organisms, and I would avoid saying anything about someone's knowledge of science and biology until you understand that.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Eh, check post #79. I hope this is your last post showing your lack of knowledge.

Post #79 is just more of you misinterpreting things you apparently and obviously can't understand.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Until you recognize that error there's little point in addressing the rest of your post.

Doctors can take a piece of human flesh and grow new skin for patients in a dish with certain medium. The skin is not an organism but it produces new cells.

If you won't do any research it's useless having a debate.

I told you 50 posts ago, there was no need in us rehashing this entire debate. You've made the exact same inept points, and they have been shot down, exactly as they were before, and you are no closer to making your idiotic and ignorant point. [edit]

Skin cells are NOT organisms. Doctors can take a skin cell, add certain enzymes or chemicals, and cause the cells to reproduce, they do not accomplish this process on their own, they are NOT organisms! Sperm and egg cells are not organisms, they can do nothing on their own, they don't reproduce themselves. If they fuse together, two things may happen... 1) nothing, they die and never become an organism. 2) they reproduce other cells, becoming instantly, an independent and unique living organism. No other possibility exists in science or biology.

 

[PostmodernProphet]

In 50% of cases it is not capable.

and it dies.....that means it was alive.....it does not mean that the ones who do survive are not alive.....

 

[PostmodernProphet]

Looks like you require a bit of schooling, as well. Read post #79.

An organism has to be able to grow and metabolize nutrients and it can't do that if it can't eliminate waste.

I didn't come up with the definition. I'm only applying it.

no, you are the one in need of schooling.....for some reason you seem to believe the exceptions negate the rule instead of defining it.....

 

[PostmodernProphet]

To what assumptions are you referring? Try to be specific.

[edit]

 

[apple0154]

*sigh* You remember a couple of posts back, when I posted the disclaimer about 'single-cell organisms?' Obviously, something that is a single-cell organism, can't and doesn't reproduce, else it would be multi-cellular. I should have more accurately stated, one of the things that distinguishes a multi-cell organism, is the ability to reproduce cells. It may not reproduce cells, or it may only reproduce some cells some of the time, but if it reproduces cells, it is a living organism, it can't be anything else.

What you continue to try and do, is muddy the water with your own inept ignorance, and it has long-ago gotten old. A baby born without an anus is most certainly some fucking kind of living organism, it can't be anything else. It may not be able to discard waste, and it may cease to be a living organism as a result, but that does not change what it was before it died. You are trying desperately to place some arbitrary and false criteria on living organisms, and I would avoid saying anything about someone's knowledge of science and biology until you understand that.

I am not "trying desperately to place some arbitrary and false criteria on living organisms." I'm going by the definition, "An individual form of life, such as a plant, an animal, a bacterium, a protist, or a fungus; a body made up of organs, organelles, or other parts that work together to carry on the various processes of life." If it can not eliminate waste it can not carry on the processes of life. It is incomplete and you expect people to value something that is not only unable to carry on the processes of life but was never capable of carrying on the processes of life to hold the same value as a mature woman.

Again, we come back to the legs link I posted. Why weren't those legs considered a human being? They grew. They carried on the processes of life by living off another body. Sound familiar, living off another body, using organs not their own?

 

[apple0154]

Post #79 is just more of you misinterpreting things you apparently and obviously can't understand.

I understand it quite well. People can classify something as anything they want. An organism is a self-contained unit carrying on the processes of life even if it is attached to another human being and using the parts/organs of the other human in order to carry on the processes of life because it doesn't possess it's own organs. Once detached from the other human being it is unable to carry on the processes of life without modification but, hey, that doesn't matter. We'll still call it an organism. Better yet, let's call it a human being and place it on par with a mature woman.

Maybe that's the value you and Repubs put on women but you sure as hell are not going to make it law because "Alice" knows her worth even if others try to devalue her to some hunk of human flesh.

 

[apple0154]

so, any young person who dies before having children is therefore not an organism?.....[edit]

[edit]

I didn't say "any young person who dies before having children is therefore not an organism. It was Dixie who claimed in msg #68, ”Nothing in biology says that an organism must continue to function for an indeterminate amount of time, or be able to do anything other than reproduce."

Perhaps you should ask Dix if he's an idiot as we all know you are by being unable to follow a couple of pages of posts.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

I am not "trying desperately to place some arbitrary and false criteria on living organisms."

Yes, you are.

I'm going by the definition.

No, you're not.

"An individual form of life, such as a plant, an animal, a bacterium, a protist, or a fungus; a body made up of organs, organelles, or other parts that work together to carry on the various processes of life." If it can not eliminate waste it can not carry on the processes of life.

Whether it had an asshole or not, it was carrying on the process of something before it DIED, [edit]

Again, we come back to the legs link I posted. Why weren't those legs considered a human being?

Because they aren't ORGANISMS!

I understand it quite well. People can classify something as anything they want.

Yes, you've more than proven that, Curly!

An organism is a self-contained unit carrying on the processes of life even if it is attached to another human being and using the parts/organs of the other human in order to carry on the processes of life because it doesn't possess it's own organs.

Yes, even though it may not have an asshole, and it may eventually die, it is still an organism. Even though it may eventually die, it is STILL a living organism, and since it came from a human sperm cell and egg cell, it is a living human organism. It becomes this, BY DEFINITION, at the point of conception, and it will be this, BY DEFINITION, until it is no longer living.

We'll still call it an organism. Better yet, let's call it a human being and place it on par with a mature woman.

I've not made a single argument for placing it on par with anything. Science dictates when something is or isn't an organism, I can't help that. Blame science!

It was Dixie who claimed in msg #68, ”Nothing in biology says that an organism must continue to function for an indeterminate amount of time, or be able to do anything other than reproduce."

Which is true when talking about MULTI-CELLULAR organisms, like human beings.

 

[PostmodernProphet]

I didn't say "any young person who dies before having children is therefore not an organism. It was Dixie who claimed in msg #68, ”Nothing in biology says that an organism must continue to function for an indeterminate amount of time, or be able to do anything other than reproduce."

Perhaps you should ask Dix if he's an idiot as we all know you are by being unable to follow a couple of pages of posts. Do try to comprehend who said what before making a jackass of yourself.

no, you said if it is not able to reproduce it cannot be an organism.....a four year old child is not able to reproduce.....thus your claim would be a four year old child is not an organism....

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

no, you said if it is not able to reproduce it cannot be an organism.....a four year old child is not able to reproduce.....thus your claim would be a four year old child is not an organism....

You're missing the sweet spot on this one Prophet.... He's arguing with me, that since some organisms, (mostly single-cell) do not reproduce, that reproduction doesn't have a thing to do with it being an organism. His logic indicates he believes we can't define something as an organism unless it is completely able to be immortal and never die, because if it ever does die, it proves it was incapable of continuing the process of life, and therefore, not an organism.

It's almost in line with Watertard's questioning of reality.... Are we really here, or is this all a figment of imagination?

:lol:

Pinheads! Gotta love 'em!