[Pale RIder]

Quote by: Starboy Call me a goof ball if you like but the question was in the biological context of a species. It is a fact that successful reproduction is one of the requirements of a species. Now if you want to frame the question in a social context that is fine as well, but surely such an intelligent and well education person as yourself *cough* knows that over history and even today different societies have different standards as to when offspring are vested as humans. It is not as if it is set by nature in any definite way.

It is sad when one has to explain in juvenile terms the blatantly obvious, but for you star boy, I will do it. When "reproduction" is discussed in a taxonomical context, what is being discussed is not whether each individual breeds, what is being discussed is whether there is enough genetic similarity between to individuals to facilitate reproduction, It in no way depends upon whether two particular individuals actually reproduce... Cats and dogs are not genetically similar enough to facilitate reproduction so they are clearly of a different species...a juvenile dog is still classified as canis familiaris and a juvenile cat is still classified as felix cattus...and believe it or not, a juvenile human being is still homo sapiens whether he or she has reproduced or not...

Let me get out my crayons here and see if I can draw you a simple picture that you can follow…Mules are not a species by virtue of the fact that all mules are born sterile. Mules are sterile hybrids. But all horses…even those who are sterile by virtue of a birth defect are equus caballus, and all donkeys, even those who were born sterile are equus assinus…mules are classified as a hybrid - equus assinus x equus caballus…such classification does not apply to humans as there are no hybrid humans.

Quote by: ”star boy” There have been many notable cases of people that were dead yet still connected to life support. Their bodies were alive but they were dead. The point that apparently eludes you is that human live is an emergent phenomenon. It is not enough for all the cells in a body to be alive, they must also work together to create a living human being. A single cell doesn't qualify. Ten cells do not qualify. One million cells do not qualify, but there is a point during gestation when they do qualify. When if what is in the womb was removed from the womb it could survive as a baby. At that point it becomes it becomes human. And as we grow old and our cells slowly cease to work well together we also die, even though at the moment of the human death most of the cells in the body are still alive. The presence of living human cells doesn’t in and of it self constitute a living human being.

What seems to elude you here is that when all the cells are working in concert, and doing exactly what they are supposed to do and no man made apparatus is required in order to facilitate respiration, then the organism is alive…in the case of a developing human being, if the development is proceeding normally then the human is alive…at whatever stage of development that it happens to be…as much as you might wish it to be true, there simply is no valid comparison between a normally developing growing human, and one who is damaged and on an artificial life support system…perhaps you haven’t noticed…or don’t have the intellectual wattage to grasp the obvious but a uterus is not artificial in any way…

Quote by: ”star boy” But that is my point. That what dies is the ability of the cells in the body to act as an animal organism. That living cells in and of themselves do not constitute a human. That human life is an emergent phenomenon.

It is strange that you have somehow confused the beginning of life with the beginning of death. If you want to discuss what death is, then a thread in which death is the topic would be appropriate…It doesn’t, however, have much to do with the beginning of life. A zygote has the ability to act as a living organism…mitosis occurs and it does exactly what it is supposed to do at that stage of its development…perhaps single living muscle cells do not constitute human life, but in the case of a human in the very early stages of development, what cells are present represent the being in its entirety…and if they are working in concert and all parts are normal, healthy, and growing, then they do indeed constitute a living human being at whatever stage of development they happen to be…

If you had read a bit deeper into the links that you provided you would have noticed that the information included what constitutes life as well as death…and a growing embryo certainly meets the criteria for life…and since its DNA clearly identifies it as human, it must be a living human…

Quote by: ”star boy” I am not a biochemist but know a few. They are more concerned with molecular biophysics than multicellular organisms. It is not as if they have the cell figured out.

If they are competent biochemists, they know far more about how cells work than a biologist…

Quote by: ”star boy” At least I know how to count and at least I know the difference between a single cell and an animal organism. But we appear to be going around in circles. You want to play this word game. You want to say that an embryonic cell of any species is the same as an animal of that species. No one thinks an egg is a chicken. Except apparently you and you think I am silly. And yes you are right. Lots of people are reading this. Keep it up and there will be no doubt you are a moron. Starboy

Again, you seem to fail to grasp what is being said…I did not say that an embryonic human being is the same as a 325 pound linebacker…I said, and accurately, I might add, that they belong to the same species and unless you can offer up some credible evidence to the contrary you should, if you have the level of maturity required to see when you are mistaken, admit that you were overzealous in your argument and stepped outside the realm of scientific fact……Perhaps this would be easier if you tried to read for comprehension…

Also, as to the egg statement...perhaps you believe that the "egg"is the shell rather than the contents..actually the shell is just a calcite layer that is deposited around the "egg"in the lower part of the hen's oviduct....I don't know where you are from or how you grew up, but I grew up on a farm with chickens and cows and pigs and the whole Old Macdonald bit...occasionally when we gathered eggs we would get one that we had missed for the previous few days...when you crack those eggs there is blood, and tissue and there is no doubt that the "egg" is no longer just an egg...it is obvious that there is a chicken growing inside the shell.

Wait 7 days and there is a definite chicken in there...wait 10 days and there are eyes and feet...wait 14 days and there is a beak and wings..at 16 days there are feathers developing...crack it open at 18 days and it is possible, under the right conditions, for the chick to survive...

The point is that just because the chicken is microscopic at 1 day (when most eggs are gathered) doesn't mean that it isn't a chicken...The yolk and albumin is simply a food source for the chicken, not the chicken itself...there is a germinal disk on the yolk that is the actual chicken.

I am surprised that you do not know this stuff...As I remember, I learned this back in the 4th or 5th grade...(of course I went to school before the fed took over education and dumbed down the cirriculum for generations of kids in the pursuit of higher test scores)

So….once again I ask, what species did you belong to before you were born…I suppose I should ask if you were alive before you were born but I tremble with laughter when I consider what answer that may pull out of your ass..