Cancel 2018. 3
<-- sched 2, MJ sched 1
grind is still a female
grarla is his true name
grarla is his true name
.or inyourmy case sheep.![]()
no one is arguing otherwise, as long as you are also counting previous single celled organisms before mitosis. Something tells me you aren't doing this.
ALL cells are organisms.
you are the one that doesn't know what an organism is.
In biology, an organism is any contiguous living system (such as animal, fungus, micro-organism, or plant). In at least some form, all types of organisms are capable of response to stimuli, reproduction, growth and development, and maintenance of homeostasisas a stable whole.
An organism may be either unicellular (a single cell) or, as in the case of humans, comprise many trillions of cells grouped into specialized tissues and organs.
Here you are trying to move the goal posts because you are an idiot and are now trying to reframe the debate. you said cells do not reproduce. You also denied cells were individual organisms. You were categorically wrong.
Are you saying that in early stages of development, all embryos don't contain two x chromosomes, as the video suggests?That's not quite true Dixie. A clump of tissue can be genetically male or female. Where Apples argument falls apart is by making an assumption that because in human embryology that at an early stage of development undifferentiated tissue bears some morphological resemblence to female reproductive organs, ergo, that embryo is therefore female makes no sense because it is undifferentiate tissue. The tissue has not developed, at that stage, into either male or female anatomical structure. It's like saying that because arm and leg buds in early embrylogical development look like fins and that early lung development looks like gills, that at these stages of development we are all fish. It's seriously bad logic.
Nothing could be further from the truth.Biology 101: IF a "clump of cells" exists at any point in time, they had to be the product of reproduction by an organism.
So Grind.....are you enjoying concussing your self by beating your head against a brick wall? LOLno one is arguing otherwise, as long as you are also counting previous single celled organisms before mitosis. Something tells me you aren't doing this.
ALL cells are organisms.
you are the one that doesn't know what an organism is.
In biology, an organism is any contiguous living system (such as animal, fungus, micro-organism, or plant). In at least some form, all types of organisms are capable of response to stimuli, reproduction, growth and development, and maintenance of homeostasisas a stable whole.
An organism may be either unicellular (a single cell) or, as in the case of humans, comprise many trillions of cells grouped into specialized tissues and organs.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organism
Here you are trying to move the goal posts because you are an idiot and are now trying to reframe the debate. you said cells do not reproduce. You also denied cells were individual organisms. You were categorically wrong.
The video doesn't suggest that. The video suggest that the Y chromosome does not contribut to phenotypical development for the first 5 to 6 weeks. At that point the Y chromsome begins to be expressed and male phenotypical development begins to occur. What the video fails to state is that this is also the same time that female phenotypical development begins.Are you saying that in early stages of development, all embryos don't contain two x chromosomes, as the video suggests?
Nothing could be further from the truth.
That's just simply wrong Apple. To assume that a similiarity in morphology equate to undifferentiated tissue being "female" is a collosal, even willful, misrepresentation of embryological development. Your position and that of the video simply isn't borne out by the facts. We are not all first physically female. You could make an argument that at the early stages of fetal development that we are gender neutral simply cause anatomical gender simply hasn't differentiated into the different sexual organs. It's a nonsense argument.
Just stop it. This is not correct. NO cell has the potential to become a human being. It always requires TWO cells, a sperm cell and egg cell, specifically, to create a human organism. No other cells will work, no other combination of cells will produce a living organism.
It is alive, and it is carrying on the process of life, therefore, it is an organism. Other cells which are 'alive' are not reproducing their own cells and carrying on the process of life, they simply belong to the organism which is reproducing them. Now, fucking save yourself the time and trouble of simply re-typing your entire diatribe over and over again, and go read some information about reproduction and organisms. That's the only way you are going to ever learn anything. This silliness has gone on long enough, you are more mature than this.
The CELL does NOT reproduce itself, sorry. If it did, it would be "an organism" because that is what organisms do. Cells are reproduced by an organism.
cells are organisms dumbass. They are individual life.
I understand that. What I'm trying to tell you is that the video is wrong on that count. That there is no gender direction at all during this phase. Either male or female, phenotypically speaking. They are assigning femaleness by default. The assertion that we are all born female and some of us become male due to the Y chromosome "interfering" is just plain silly and reeks of personal bias.The point is from day one the growth pattern is headed in the female direction and it is the interference of the "Y" chromosome that causes it to change direction. While neither male nor female genitals have formed if not interfered with it would be female. The video is not meant to be a scholarly article, Mott. It's OK. I'm not submitting it as a court exhibit.![]()
What we have here is another "1/3" argument. You want to manipulate semantics and pretend I am saying something which hasn't been said. I realize cells have a life cycle, I never denied that cells live and die. A cell CAN be an organism, but this is not always the case, and isn't usually the case. It must be able to live by itself, performing all the functions of life, in which case it is a unicellular organism. Our cells in our human bodies are not unicellular organisms, they are all dependent on the host organism or other cells within it.
Now take a seat at the back of the class with Apple.
Oh, you mean like a fetus that is inside the organism known as a woman?
You're making an artificial distinction Dixie. In biology any life form that can react to stimuli, reproduce (including replication), grow and maintain homeostasis, is classified an organism. Though I am willing to make an exception for Skidmark being classified as an organism as he has shown little growth, rarely reacts to stimuli, has questionable ability to maintain homeostasis and I seriously doubt that he will ever reproduce.Well the context is the conversation you interjected your comments in, I thought that was obvious. We were discussing the difference between "organisms" and random "cells" within an organism. My view is, any living cell is produced by another living organism, because that's the only physical way the cell can exist. Making the point that some cells are capable of being organisms, is not refuting my point, it's only confusing to idiots like Apple, who don't comprehend what constitutes an organism. In short, the 'context' is, we're trying to educate Apple (and Grind) on basic biology, can you help us with that or not? The difference between an organism producing billions of different kinds of cells, to do many different things with regard to the organism carrying on the process of life, and the simple replication of live cells, is enormous. To try and pretend they are the same, or related, or even similar, is a stretch. To say there is not a difference and both are synonymous, is scientifically inaccurate. Now do you care to explain how cell "replication" and organism "reproduction" in biological terms, are two entirely different things, or do you want to keep being obtuse and confusing?
Just like the fetus. Remove the fetus from the organism known as woman and see what happens.
Mrs. Clause might.I don't think Santa would appreciate that.
I hear ya but it is the North Pole and it does get awfully cold up there and you can't be to picky when the alternative is a bunch of little elves.We're not talking about me here, Mott.
if you argue science long enough anyone can make an insupportable generalization....such as yourself......true, any cell is alive unless, like brain cells demonstrated in this thread, they have recently died......however, every cell is not an organism.....and Dixie, certain parts of the organism are made up of specialized cells, which do replicate themselves.....the stem cells of the organism is required to produce specialized cells, but the specialized cells themselves can reproduce identical specialized cells.....