Are We Still Evolving?

“Is that all you've got?”

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

#21 Mar 19, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Whenever we (arbitrarily) decide it is.
That's far too vague. There must be an exact point when this happens otherwise your "decision" is murder. Is it when the first brain cell develops or when the fetus has a complete spinal cord, or when it first wiggles a toe or hiccups or cries or breathes or applies to college......

“Is that all you've got?”

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

#22 Mar 19, 2013
Bluenose wrote:
<quoted text>
At an indeterminate point, somewhere between birth and about age 7*. However, this is too messy for any practical purpose, so it simpler to consider it to be human from birth.
.
.
.
.
.
.
* Of course this depends on what you mean by fully human. What I mean is by considering what it is that separates us from other animals and IMO that is a question of degree rather than kind, for there is nothing that we have that other animals don't also have, except some things are more developed in humans. To me the defining quality for "human-ness" is the ability to use language and to think rationally and abstractly far better than any other animal that we know of. This develops in humans some time after birth and there is no bright line that we can draw to say exactly when it occurs, thus by choosing birth as a demarcation point we can be sure that we include all those that have developed the quality that makes them fully human, by this definition.
So, you agree with Singer?

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

Why am I not surprised? It makes me sick to think that someone like you might work at a school for underage children.
The Dude

Macclesfield, UK

#23 Mar 19, 2013
nanoanomaly wrote:
<quoted text>That's far too vague. There must be an exact point when this happens otherwise your "decision" is murder. Is it when the first brain cell develops or when the fetus has a complete spinal cord, or when it first wiggles a toe or hiccups or cries or breathes or applies to college......
Yes it is far too vague. That's because there is no objective measure or agreed upon consensus of when or what stage of human development should human offspring be considered fully human with all the legal rights that entails.

I'm sure it's far more complicated but let's just go with the two main generic views: On the one side you have those who say a single-celled zygote (female human egg combined with male sperm at the moment of conception) should be considered fully human. On the other you have those who say it can only be realistically considered fully human complete with all legal rights when it is born.

Which one is right? Or should there be a line drawn somewhere inbetween? No matter which we choose it is gonna be arbitrary. And if no compromise is reached the situation will never be resolved and this stalemate will last for as long as humanity. And to demonstrate that arbitrariness:
nanoanomaly wrote:
The DNA says that a human fetus is full on human at every stage of development. It will, at no time, have the capacity to develop into anything except what it is; human.
DNA says exactly the same thing about sperm. And I guarantee you that countless trillions will be lost today, but very few people will cry about it. There will also be a considerable number of eggs lost too. Now some will claim that a zygote is different because it's set on the path of human development and its cells are now beginning to replicate. However scientifically speaking it's still just the normal fully-human chemical reactions that's a part of human biological reproduction system. And just as any number of events can prevent sperm ever reaching their intended goal, there's also any number of events - perfectly natural without deliberate human intervention - that can also prevent that zygote from reaching the intended goal of fetal development.

Because in the end, it's ALL "fully human".

So how do we sort it out? I'm no biology or sociology expert so I don't have an answer. But I can provide a scenario that might make some people think about it a bit. I can't take credit for it as it was one of the guys who posted it on here years ago, can't remember who. It went something like this:

You're in a room in the maternity wing of a hospital. It's on fire. There's two exits, both on opposite sides. On one side of the room there's ten test-tubes which have each got a fertilized zygote inside them. On the other is a single baby in a cot. Above you a huge burning support beam crashes through the ceiling causing you to move out of the way. It's width prevents you from going to the other side. You have two options:

1 - Save the test tube rack with 10 potential human beings inside. The baby will perish.

2 - Save the baby. The 10 zygotes will perish.

Which one do we choose?

“Maccullochella macquariensis”

Since: May 08

Melbourne, Australia

#24 Mar 19, 2013
nanoanomaly wrote:
<quoted text>So, you agree with Singer?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personism
Why am I not surprised? It makes me sick to think that someone like you might work at a school for underage children.
Oh aren't we just the little perfect ethical being? I have the honesty to admit that what makes us human is not very well defined, but propose a useful demarcation point that includes all those you seem to be concerned about above. I am deeply offended that you make the inference that I would be prepared to countenance anything that might harm small children or babies, or worse that I might perpetrate such things. This is an ad hominem of the worst kind and as far as I am concerned you have forfeited the right to have any of your posts seen as worthy of any consideration whatsoever.

“Is that all you've got?”

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

#25 Mar 19, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
Yes it is far too vague. That's because there is no objective measure or agreed upon consensus of when or what stage of human development should human offspring be considered fully human with all the legal rights that entails.
I'm sure it's far more complicated but let's just go with the two main generic views: On the one side you have those who say a single-celled zygote (female human egg combined with male sperm at the moment of conception) should be considered fully human. On the other you have those who say it can only be realistically considered fully human complete with all legal rights when it is born.
Which one is right? Or should there be a line drawn somewhere inbetween? No matter which we choose it is gonna be arbitrary. And if no compromise is reached the situation will never be resolved and this stalemate will last for as long as humanity. And to demonstrate that arbitrariness:
<quoted text>
DNA says exactly the same thing about sperm. And I guarantee you that countless trillions will be lost today, but very few people will cry about it. There will also be a considerable number of eggs lost too. Now some will claim that a zygote is different because it's set on the path of human development and its cells are now beginning to replicate. However scientifically speaking it's still just the normal fully-human chemical reactions that's a part of human biological reproduction system. And just as any number of events can prevent sperm ever reaching their intended goal, there's also any number of events - perfectly natural without deliberate human intervention - that can also prevent that zygote from reaching the intended goal of fetal development.
Because in the end, it's ALL "fully human".
So how do we sort it out? I'm no biology or sociology expert so I don't have an answer. But I can provide a scenario that might make some people think about it a bit. I can't take credit for it as it was one of the guys who posted it on here years ago, can't remember who. It went something like this:
You're in a room in the maternity wing of a hospital. It's on fire. There's two exits, both on opposite sides. On one side of the room there's ten test-tubes which have each got a fertilized zygote inside them. On the other is a single baby in a cot. Above you a huge burning support beam crashes through the ceiling causing you to move out of the way. It's width prevents you from going to the other side. You have two options:
1 - Save the test tube rack with 10 potential human beings inside. The baby will perish.
2 - Save the baby. The 10 zygotes will perish.
Which one do we choose?
We both know that sperm and a zygote have two separate genetic signature from each other so stop trying to pretend the reality is that it is a new being just as an ape's newly formed zygote is also a new life.

http://www.youtube.com/watch... #!

Everybody knows that it is A life and should have the right to exist just as much as those already born.

You never see the other mammals trying to rip their fetuses from their own wombs.

“Is that all you've got?”

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

#26 Mar 19, 2013
Bluenose wrote:
<quoted text>
Oh aren't we just the little perfect ethical being? I have the honesty to admit that what makes us human is not very well defined, but propose a useful demarcation point that includes all those you seem to be concerned about above. I am deeply offended that you make the inference that I would be prepared to countenance anything that might harm small children or babies, or worse that I might perpetrate such things. This is an ad hominem of the worst kind and as far as I am concerned you have forfeited the right to have any of your posts seen as worthy of any consideration whatsoever.
What makes us human is that we understand "why" ripping another being to shreds and eating them is wrong and "why" we SHOULD feel ashamed of doing it. No other animal on the planet would feel shame for killing and eating you or me. That is what makes it so evil that we kill our own spawn before they even have a chance to draw their first breath; we KNOW that life of an individual begins at conception. Expecting any creature to only be deserving of life if they are experiencing consciousness/self-awareness from the very moment of conception is unreasonable and bloodthirsty.

Conception IS evolution in action, it is "life" struggling to continue into the future.

“Maccullochella macquariensis”

Since: May 08

Melbourne, Australia

#27 Mar 19, 2013
nanoanomaly wrote:
<quoted text>What makes us human is that we understand "why" ripping another being to shreds and eating them is wrong and "why" we SHOULD feel ashamed of doing it. No other animal on the planet would feel shame for killing and eating you or me. That is what makes it so evil that we kill our own spawn before they even have a chance to draw their first breath; we KNOW that life of an individual begins at conception. Expecting any creature to only be deserving of life if they are experiencing consciousness/self-awareness from the very moment of conception is unreasonable and bloodthirsty.
Conception IS evolution in action, it is "life" struggling to continue into the future.
You have already demonstrated an unwillingness to engage in intelligent debate. Your arguments are vacuous. You indulge is a significant exposition of the logical error of non sequitur. None of the supposed consequences you allege flow from my proposition. I am not interested in the diatribes of unthinking reactionary right to lifers. Take your narrow view of the world and stick it where the sun doesn't shine. I'm not interested.

“Do not bend, fold, staple or”

Level 9

Since: Jan 11

mutilate. Point down range.

#28 Mar 19, 2013
nanoanomaly wrote:
<quoted text>We both know that sperm and a zygote have two separate genetic signature from each other so stop trying to pretend the reality is that it is a new being just as an ape's newly formed zygote is also a new life.
http://www.youtube.com/watch... #!
Everybody knows that it is A life and should have the right to exist just as much as those already born.
You never see the other mammals trying to rip their fetuses from their own wombs.
I don't know if I accept that so stop speaking for the rest of us.

Mammals will often kill the offspring of other members of their species. A number of reasons have been sited for this behavior including overcrowding in rats and mice or terminating the line of a previous alpha male in lions and other mammals. Predators will single out the young of prey species and they aren't any too friendly while doing it. I wouldn't suggest blythely using other mammals as examples to support human ethical positions. Too often that is a wrong turn.

“In God we trust”

Level 7

Since: Dec 12

Cape Town, South Africa

#29 Mar 20, 2013
nanoanomaly wrote:
<quoted text>Do you believe in the bible?
Jesus of course, and the Bible stories
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#30 Mar 20, 2013
nanoanomaly wrote:
<quoted text>We both know that sperm and a zygote have two separate genetic signature from each other so stop trying to pretend
I'm not trying to pretend. Zygotes don't have two separate signatures any more than you or I do. They have a unique one, which is comprised of DNA from both its mother and father plus just over 100 mutations. Exactly the same with the sperm. Exactly the same with any human being.
nanoanomaly wrote:
the reality is that it is a new being just as an ape's newly formed zygote is also a new life.
http://www.youtube.com/watch... #!
Everybody knows that it is A life and should have the right to exist just as much as those already born.
You never see the other mammals trying to rip their fetuses from their own wombs.
No. You can see them do worse. Such as eat them.

So there's two choices. Save the zygotes or save the baby.
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#31 Mar 20, 2013
nanoanomaly wrote:
<quoted text>What makes us human is that we understand "why" ripping another being to shreds and eating them is wrong and "why" we SHOULD feel ashamed of doing it. No other animal on the planet would feel shame for killing and eating you or me.
Actually some might, such as some apes or dolphins. Of course it may depend on the individual. A bit like humans really.
nanoanomaly wrote:
That is what makes it so evil that we kill our own spawn before they even have a chance to draw their first breath; we KNOW that life of an individual begins at conception. Expecting any creature to only be deserving of life if they are experiencing consciousness/self-awareness from the very moment of conception is unreasonable and bloodthirsty.
Then we should save the trees?
nanoanomaly wrote:
Conception IS evolution in action, it is "life" struggling to continue into the future.
Yes it is. So is the egg on its own. So is the sperm on its own. It's all part of the process. And it's all a fully human process.

So then you would save the ten zygotes?

“Is that all you've got?”

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

#32 Mar 20, 2013
Bluenose wrote:
<quoted text>
You have already demonstrated an unwillingness to engage in intelligent debate. Your arguments are vacuous. You indulge is a significant exposition of the logical error of non sequitur. None of the supposed consequences you allege flow from my proposition. I am not interested in the diatribes of unthinking reactionary right to lifers. Take your narrow view of the world and stick it where the sun doesn't shine. I'm not interested.
I was posting to Dude, skank. You were, obviously, interested...in spewing your agenda tainted viewpoint. Fk off, troll.

“Is that all you've got?”

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

#33 Mar 20, 2013
DanFromSmithville wrote:
<quoted text>I don't know if I accept that so stop speaking for the rest of us.
Mammals will often kill the offspring of other members of their species. A number of reasons have been sited for this behavior including overcrowding in rats and mice or terminating the line of a previous alpha male in lions and other mammals. Predators will single out the young of prey species and they aren't any too friendly while doing it. I wouldn't suggest blythely using other mammals as examples to support human ethical positions. Too often that is a wrong turn.
I wouldn't dare speak for hypocrites.

I wasn't using them as *support*, but as a comparison, WE consider ourselves as intellectually superior to other animals yet are far worse. What other animal rips its young out of its own womb? None.

“Is that all you've got?”

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

#34 Mar 20, 2013
The Dude wrote:
<quoted text>
I'm not trying to pretend. Zygotes don't have two separate signatures any more than you or I do. They have a unique one, which is comprised of DNA from both its mother and father plus just over 100 mutations. Exactly the same with the sperm. Exactly the same with any human being.
<quoted text>
No. You can see them do worse. Such as eat them.
So there's two choices. Save the zygotes or save the baby.
I posted that a sperm and a zygote have two separate DNA signatures, meaning, more precisely, that each one's DNA is different from the other one's. That makes the zygote a developing, human individual, exactly what I wanted you to admit. Thank you. A zygote is a baby human.

I'm pretty sure you knew what I meant but I guess being a dick is more important.

“Is that all you've got?”

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

#35 Mar 20, 2013
Carchar king wrote:
<quoted text>
Jesus of course, and the Bible stories
Then why would you tell Dude he would regret his comment about "common ancestry"? The bible claims that everybody has two people as their common ancestors; Adam and Eve. If you accept that as true then why wouldn't you accept the same concept stated a different way?

“Is that all you've got?”

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

#36 Mar 20, 2013
Bluenose wrote:
<quoted text>... I am deeply offended that you make the inference that I would be prepared to countenance anything that might harm small children or babies, or worse that I might perpetrate such things.
....
Bullshyt! Were you joking when you said they weren't "fully human" until some "indeterminate" time somewhere between birth and 7 years"? A young child hearing that sentiment would assume that most or all adults considered them (the very young) as *barely* or not human. I can guess how that might affect their self esteem and how they might decide to treat small children when they get older, i.e., as beings with no rights or deserving of respect or empathy.
No, you should not be allowed to teach other peoples' children your own, personal beliefs about who is or, is not, "fully human".

“Maccullochella macquariensis”

Since: May 08

Melbourne, Australia

#37 Mar 21, 2013
nanoanomaly wrote:
<quoted text>I was posting to Dude, skank. You were, obviously, interested...in spewing your agenda tainted viewpoint. Fk off, troll.
Very erudite, a most convincing argument.

“Maccullochella macquariensis”

Since: May 08

Melbourne, Australia

#38 Mar 21, 2013
nanoanomaly wrote:
<quoted text>Bullshyt! Were you joking when you said they weren't "fully human" until some "indeterminate" time somewhere between birth and 7 years"? A young child hearing that sentiment would assume that most or all adults considered them (the very young) as *barely* or not human. I can guess how that might affect their self esteem and how they might decide to treat small children when they get older, i.e., as beings with no rights or deserving of respect or empathy.
No, you should not be allowed to teach other peoples' children your own, personal beliefs about who is or, is not, "fully human".
Your poor reading comprehension skills are not my problem. You jump to a conclusion based upon a very incomplete reading of what I said and then go off on some bizarre tangent ascribing to me all manner of offensive attitudes that are not in any way consequent upon what I actually said. Project much?

“Is that all you've got?”

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

#39 Mar 21, 2013
Bluenose wrote:
<quoted text>
Your poor reading comprehension skills are not my problem. You jump to a conclusion based upon a very incomplete reading of what I said and then go off on some bizarre tangent ascribing to me all manner of offensive attitudes that are not in any way consequent upon what I actually said. Project much?
You shouldn't have posted it if you didn't want to be called on it.
LowellGuy

Salem, MA

#40 Mar 21, 2013
nanoanomaly wrote:
<quoted text>What would you say to somebody who claims a human fetus is less human that a grown pig? "It" being a combination of two peoples' genetic information seems to make it fully human as far as I can tell.
A misrepresentation of Dawkins' words. Shame.

Tell me when this thread is updated:

Subscribe Now Add to my Tracker

Add your comments below

Characters left: 4000

Please note by submitting this form you acknowledge that you have read the Terms of Service and the comment you are posting is in compliance with such terms. Be polite. Inappropriate posts may be removed by the moderator. Send us your feedback.

Evolution Debate Discussions

Title Updated Last By Comments
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 6 min Dogen 78,725
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 3 hr ChromiuMan 163,037
News Atheism, for Good Reason, Fears Questions (Jun '09) 5 hr Eagle 12 - 32,457
News Why Atheist Richard Dawkins Supports Religious ... 7 hr Eagle 12 - 1,411
News Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 11 hr Regolith Based Li... 222,225
Mathematicians PROVED evolution IMPOSSIBLE! Sat Science 814
News Nonsense of a high order: The confused world of... (Jan '17) Aug 5 yehoshooah adam 4,381
More from around the web