We were all female

= GRIND = said:
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.
Click to expand...

I said when I made the statement, there are SOME single cell organisms.

ALL cells are organisms.
Click to expand...

No, they're not, Grind. You can do like Apple and keep repeating this over and over, but that's simply not true. In biology, an organism is any contiguous living system. A cell (unless it's a unicellular organism) is NOT an organism.

you are the one that doesn't know what an organism is.
Click to expand...

No, it is clearly YOU who doesn't know.


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.
Click to expand...


Which is 100% EXACTLY what I have said.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Organism

Also, 100% EXACTLY what I said!

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.
Click to expand...

No one has moved anything. Cells don't reproduce, unless they are unicellular organisms. Cells are not organisms unless they are unicellular organisms. Cells replicating are not cells carrying on the complex reproductive process of life. The long paragraph full of links above, clearly states this fact. We are clearly discussing the human body, human beings, and the difference between cells and organisms. We are clearly NOT discussing unicellular organisms. Is a bucket a hat? Well, it CAN be, but if we are having a discussion about proper attire, a bucket is NOT a hat, it never will be... all buckets are not hats... some buckets can be hats, but again, when discussing proper attire, that is not the case. YOU are the fucker who is trying to move goal posts, so that you can jut your chest out and claim you've bested Dixie. That's a sad life to be leading, if you ask me.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
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.
Click to expand...
Are you saying that in early stages of development, all embryos don't contain two x chromosomes, as the video suggests?

Dixie said:
Biology 101: IF a "clump of cells" exists at any point in time, they had to be the product of reproduction by an organism.
Click to expand...
Nothing could be further from the truth.
 
= GRIND = said:
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.

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.
Click to expand...
So Grind.....are you enjoying concussing your self by beating your head against a brick wall? LOL
 
Althea said:
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.
Click to expand...
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.

Where the video is intellectually dishonest is that it states, very briefly that the first five to six weeks are considered gender neutral but that most consider early embryology to be phenotpically female. That's just simply not true. In fact the opposite is true and the video is stating a bias. It is the overwhelming view that in early embrylogical development the embryo is gender neutral as gender phenotype, either male or female, have yet to be expressed. Genetically speaking, of course, the embryo is either male (XY) or female (XX).

Like I said in an earlier post this is a bias by the video producers and it's poor logic. It's like saying that because early embrylogical limb bud development look like fish fins and that early lung development looks like fish gills that we begin early embrylogical development as fish. It's the same logic the video producers are using and it's equally absurd.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
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.
Click to expand...

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. :)
 
Dixie said:
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.
Click to expand...

Ever hear of cloning? Now go sit in the corner and put on that dunce cap and stay there until your gardian comes to pick you up.
 
apple0154 said:
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. :)
Click to expand...
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.
 
Dixie said:
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.
Click to expand...

Just like the fetus. Remove the fetus from the organism known as woman and see what happens.

Back of the class. :lol: Look who's talking. Mr. One Third, himself.
 
apple0154 said:
Oh, you mean like a fetus that is inside the organism known as a woman?
Click to expand...

The fetus is reproducing its own cells. It is an organism inside an organism. Your own explanations have confirmed it has to be a living organism, because it is no longer a sperm and egg cell, it is a "clump" by your own words... and it is being given instructions from another organism, to which it will intelligently follow. It even has female sexuality which can change to male, according to you. Not to mention the 50% which spontaneously die, also your very words. At every turn, you are finding it difficult to explain how it's not a living human organism. Every explanation you have tried to give, is full of self-defeating admissions, that something is indeed living.

It's just plain intellectually dishonest to continue maintaining something which meets all qualifications of a living organism, is not really a living organism.
 
Dixie said:
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?
Click to expand...
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.
 
apple0154 said:
Just like the fetus. Remove the fetus from the organism known as woman and see what happens.
Click to expand...

Put an infant in a dumpster and see what happens... Put naked Apple at the North Pole, and see what happens!

Well??? What happens, Apple? The organisms DIE, don't they?
The fact that they were LIVING before they DIED, seems to be eluding your rather empty head.
 
PostmodernProphet said:
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.....
Click to expand...

And if you argue science long enough one can shoot holds through all the bullshit they come up with to try and pass an embryo off as a human being.

1. Their DNA is different from the woman's blood, skin, etc. so they must be a human being. FAIL. A woman can possess a liver with unique DNA.
2. They're alive. They must be a human being. FAIL. Skin cells are alive.
3. They divide. They must be a human being. FAIL. Cells divide.

Is this any different than souls entering male fetuses sooner than female fetuses? Quickening being the commotion of the soul moving in? Or the Pope and Napoleon of France making a deal for more male children to die in the slaughter of war?

ENOUGH! We've heard every sick, twisted, perverted, outrageous reason to dominate women and it's over. Lies and horse shit, every bit of it.

On an upnote :) people are becoming more and more informed by the day. It's 40 years since Roe vs Wade. Those who recall the dark ages before that ruling and wish for a return are aging nicely. So, too, they shall pass and abortion will be relegated to historical discussions where it rightfully belongs.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top