wow Darla has the cutest voice ever

Hasa Diga Eebowai said:
No, they don't. You need to work on your phrasing. Your own source states....

There is no consensus regarding the answer to the question as to when does life begin.

You provided a link to a definition of life not any claim as to when life begins. The definition is not unequivocal and, no, a fertilized ovum does not meet it. It cannot sustain its own existence separate from the mother.

I don't give a shit what your education is. You are clearly confused about the proper phrasing and you are a little sloppy in reading comprehension.
Click to expand...
No I am not. A zygote meets all the definition of life as it is commonly defined. Please explain to me what characteristics of life a zygote, for example, doesn't have or how it is not a uniquely new life form? A zygote forms at fertilization. It has a unique diploid set of chromosomes it has inhereted from the parents gamettes. The DNA is unique, no other organizm will have DNA exactly like this it is New DNA. No cell or ogranism like this would have ever existed before and this zygote meets all the conditions to be defined as life and would have done so at the moment of fertilization and thus life has begun.

Now you can argue that it may not be a human life, yet and that it may not be a viable life yet and you would be correct to argue that there is no consensus as to when a "human life" or a "viable life" begins but there is no argument and solid consensus that a a new life has begun at fertilization. Arguing otherwise is just plain silly and ignores the facts.
 
Last edited:
this is why he is a fake libertarian as well. he has a fundamental misunderstanding of the world around him.
 
Ghost of Watermark said:
a white blood cell is life but it'll die pretty quickly outside the body too.

Sorry fake libertarian, you are arguing objective facts. Cells are life. Zygotes are life. This is second grade stuff.
Click to expand...
That's not what he was saying. He was saying biologist don't know definatively when life begins. He wasn't saying cells aren't alive or living things.

That's not corrrect. There is no consensas in biology as to when "A" life begins. As in "A" autonomous, individual and viable life. There is solid consensus as to when life begins to argue otherwise is just plain silly.
 
Last edited:
proved him wrong on zimmerman
proved him wrong on zygotes
proved him wrong on him being a libertarian.

I have made the trifecta.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
That's not what he was saying. He was saying biologist don't know definatively when life begins. He wasn't saying cells aren't alive or living things.
Click to expand...

mott I am semi-trolling.

but we do know definitively when life begins. And that is based on the objective qualities of life, which he dismisses.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
No I am not. They were refering to the ultimate begining of life of which there is no consensus....we weren't there. As I said, a zygote meets all the definition of life as it is commonly defined. Please explain to me what characteristics of life a zygote, for example, doesn't have or how it is not a uniquely new life form?
Click to expand...


Mott don't pull an sf. They were not not referring to the ultimate beginning of life with that sentence. Here is the full context.

There is no consensus regarding the answer to the question as to when does life begin. Does it begin at the time of fertilization or the time before or after that? The origin of life is also contestable.


Very clearly, that first sentence is referring to when life begins.

I already explained how it does not meet the definition. It is not capable of sustaining its own life. It will die immediately if separated from the mother. Again, this is the same reason the biologist and biology text book author I sourced gave.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
You need to be more precise in your phrasing. I do have a biology education and as you have stated it you're wrong. Biologist know perfectly well when life begins. Had you said when "a human life begins" your argument would be more correct as what defines a "human life" is more ambigous than the definition of life iteself.

The biological definition of life is: A distinctive characteristic of a living organism from dead organism or non-living thing, as specifically distinguished by the capacity to grow, metabolize, respond (to stimuli), adapt, and reproduce.

A fertilized ovum, zygote, blastocyst, which ever term you prefer, meets all these conditions of the definition of life. Thus biologist do know when life begins.

Now when does "a" human life or sentient life begin? That's more ambiqious question and you would have a point there but more of a philosophical or ethical point than a scientific one.

http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/Life
Click to expand...

You are half right, half wrong. A biologist also knows what makes a fertilized ovum, zygote, blastocyst etc... human or non-human. It is encoded in our DNA. It is basic genetics. There is NO point in time that it is non-human.

Now, if you want to talk about LEGAL rights or when a human life is 'viable'... THOSE are subjective. When a life begins, as you stated, is not. Whether or not it is human, is NOT.
 
Hasa Diga Eebowai said:
Mott don't pull an sf. They were not not referring to the ultimate beginning of life with that sentence. Here is the full context.

There is no consensus regarding the answer to the question as to when does life begin. Does it begin at the time of fertilization or the time before or after that? The origin of life is also contestable.


Very clearly, that first sentence is referring to when life begins.

I already explained how it does not meet the definition. It is not capable of sustaining its own life. It will die immediately if separated from the mother. Again, this is the same reason the biologist and biology text book author I sourced gave.
Click to expand...

The SAME can be said about a person on life support. Does that mean they are not alive? That they are not human?

You argue about 'viability' as if that determines whether something or someone is alive.
 
Mott the Hoople said:
That's not what he was saying. He was saying biologist don't know definatively when life begins. He wasn't saying cells aren't alive or living things.
Click to expand...

Part of the problem in this discussion is the continued pretense that there is some unequivocal definition of life. There is not and every definition is dependent on a variety of theories.

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/295/5563/2215.long

What is the definition of life? I remember a conference of the scientific elite that sought to answer that question. Is an enzyme alive? Is a virus alive? Is a cell alive? After many hours of launching promising balloons that defined life in a sentence, followed by equally conclusive punctures of these balloons, a solution seemed at hand: “The ability to reproduce—that is the essential characteristic of life,” said one statesman of science. Everyone nodded in agreement that the essential of a life was the ability to reproduce, until one small voice was heard. “Then one rabbit is dead. Two rabbits—a male and female—are alive but either one alone is dead.” At that point, we all became convinced that although everyone knows what life is there is no simple definition of life.
 
Hasa Diga Eebowai said:
Part of the problem in this discussion is the continued pretense that there is some unequivocal definition of life. There is not and every definition is dependent on a variety of theories.

http://www.sciencemag.org/content/295/5563/2215.long

What is the definition of life? I remember a conference of the scientific elite that sought to answer that question. Is an enzyme alive? Is a virus alive? Is a cell alive? After many hours of launching promising balloons that defined life in a sentence, followed by equally conclusive punctures of these balloons, a solution seemed at hand: “The ability to reproduce—that is the essential characteristic of life,” said one statesman of science. Everyone nodded in agreement that the essential of a life was the ability to reproduce, until one small voice was heard. “Then one rabbit is dead. Two rabbits—a male and female—are alive but either one alone is dead.” At that point, we all became convinced that although everyone knows what life is there is no simple definition of life.
Click to expand...

Again... you are drifting away from hard science and into the soft science of philosophy. Philosophically, you are correct... there is argument about the definition of life.

But the HARD science... the biology and the genetics tells us whether something is alive or dead and what species it is.
 
Superfreak said:
The SAME can be said about a person on life support. Does that mean they are not alive? That they are not human?

You argue about 'viability' as if that determines whether something or someone is alive.
Click to expand...

If they are brain dead then they are dead, for legal and medical purposes. They may not have reached complete cellular death.

It does determine if someone is dead or alive for the purposes relevant to the state.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top