The post where I corrected him about the necessary requirements of life, i.e., ability to sustain it's existence and maintain homeostasis. Then there were the post where I corrected his claim that every cell in the human body is genetically distinct and his claims that sperm/egg cells are not genetically distinct. He does not know the first thing about biology or genetics.
Another thread wherein I embarrass superstupid
- Thread starter Timshel
- Start date
The post where I corrected him about the necessary requirements of life, i.e., ability to sustain it's existence and maintain homeostasis. Then there were the post where I corrected his claim that every cell in the human body is genetically distinct and his claims that sperm/egg cells are not genetically distinct. He does not know the first thing about biology or genetics.
Airstrip One
Completely Effed
How many infants sustain their own lives?
PostmodernProphet
fully immersed in faith..
/shrugs....I thought he'd been embarrassing himself since page one......
You are missing the point of that requirement and taking it out of context. If you have a problem with it, take it up with the community of biologists. Sf claimed he was using their definition but embarassingly does not even know what it is. The truth is he was just repeating something he heard from some right winger, which is what he always does.
Oh, you've made plenty of claims thats for sure....first it was multi-celled, then some vague requirement to maintain homeostasis, then some ability to live as a human, etc...
Biological life....plain and simple...how about YOU show us a definition of life that requires it to be multi-celled, or have a higher degree of homeostasis then just
staying alive, or a definition that requires the "life" to have the ability to live as a human...
Seems this will be our hangup...our inability to define 'life' in some basic way.....as in, life, meaning not dead...life, being alive....life, being animate as opposed to inanimate.
If that is the case, we're both wasting our time.
You are hopelessly confused, as usual, mushbrain. There have been no changes in my argument.
AGAIN, we are talking about HUMAN life. Not all life is multicellular, but humans are multicellular organisms and a zygote is but a single cell. I stated that quite clearly. You are just wasting my time.
The biological definition of life ABSOLUTELY includes a requirement that the existent be able to maintain homeostasis. You are switching contexts and trying to bring in the common definition. We are discussing the biological definition. It does not help you though. Your argument is less sound by claiming that anything that is alive must be legally protected.
The zygote is not able to maintain homeostasis as a HUMAN or sustain it's life (does not mean have a job and pay rent idiots) and so it is wrong to call it human life.
Of course, not all life must live as a human. Your strawman arguments are completely absurd. If you can't stay on topic and discuss this honestly then I will put you on ignore with your very stupid friend.
Specifically, if the human zygote is not human, what speci is it.....
Last edited:
yup... his hole has gotten pretty deep.
Learn to use the quotes, moron.
I already posted the definition twice from biology-online.com.
http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/Life
Read the entire thing. Not as you typically do, just a couple sentences until you find what you want and ignore everything that contradicts your preconceived notions.
What species is the human sperm or the cells in my arm? You fools are nothing but a bunch context dropping hypocrites. You suffer a stolen concept fallacy.
Last edited:
You are too stupid to even make it out of the peanut gallery. Why don't you actually wade in and we'll see if you have half the wit of sf the halfwit?
Random thoughts:
How many zygotes live on your street? Work with you? Play with your kids when they were little.
I am sorry, I just got this image of a little zygote riding a bike with you and just had to post my thoughts.
Obviously, everyone on the street was once a zygote, and embryo, a fetus, etc....soon they'll be middle age, seniors, geriatrics and then dead....amazing how many
labels you can get tagged with over the course of a life time....quite meaningless in the bigger scheme of things.
Maybe you ought not post your thoughts.....just sayin'...
Cancel 2016.2
The Almighty
it is truly comical watching you continually try to compare a human sperm CELL or the cells in your arm to a fertilized egg cell. You are quite the fool and every time you utter that nonsense, you show just how little about genetics you comprehend. You have been buried on this thread and you actually think you are winning the debate. Hilarious.
You obviously don't know what homeostasis means.
I understand the genetic charasterics of all of those things, how they differ and how they are alike. You don't. You proved that conclusively.
You obviously can't provide the definition....so what you should do about now is ...... stfu for awhile...your hole is deep enough.
PostmodernProphet
fully immersed in faith..
we're lucky he didn't use one of his brain cells as an example.....we'd have had to concede they were dead....
I already have. Why do you think I used it together with being able to sustain life? Homeostasis conceptualizes a living things ability to maintain its own life support systems.
Look it up and throw in "requirement of life." Maybe you will learn something.
No, that does not mean someone on temporary life support is dead and again if you assclowns have a problem with it then take it up with the biological community.
The zygote may be able to maintain homeostasis as a zygote, i.e., safely in the womb of the mother and with the aid of the placenta it may be able to sustain its existence as a zygote-blastocyst, but it can't do it as a human and until the fetus (at a much later stage than zygote) can its not properly classed as "human life." That's what Wolpert and the numerous other biologists i have referenced were saying.
Last edited: