Are We Still Evolving?

“Maccullochella macquariensis”

Since: May 08

Melbourne, Australia

#41 Mar 22, 2013
nanoanomaly wrote:
<quoted text>You shouldn't have posted it if you didn't want to be called on it.
I have been called on nothing. You made up a load of bollocks based upon your own misinterpretation of what I said. Why should I have to defend myself for what I did not say, for what has been invented by a liar? You are beneath contempt.

“I started out with nothing”

Level 6

Since: Nov 10

and still got most of it left

#42 Mar 22, 2013
Bluenose wrote:
<quoted text>
I have been called on nothing. You made up a load of bollocks based upon your own misinterpretation of what I said. Why should I have to defend myself for what I did not say, for what has been invented by a liar? You are beneath contempt.
Ahh, that’s done it, about now nano no mates usually goes into abusive rant mode for a few days until she gets bored then she’ll go an squat on another thread

“Is that all you've got?”

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

#43 Mar 22, 2013
Bluenose wrote:
<quoted text>
I have been called on nothing. You made up a load of bollocks based upon your own misinterpretation of what I said. Why should I have to defend myself for what I did not say, for what has been invented by a liar? You are beneath contempt.
You said children are not fully human until after they are born. You are carrying a HUGE load, liar.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#44 Mar 23, 2013
nanoanomaly wrote:
<quoted text>At exactly what point in its development do you think it becomes "fully" human?
Doctors, having to take a practical approach rather than a high-falutin' metaphysical holier then thou one, have a rather more straightforward determination.

If a "developing human" is viable outside the womb, its a baby. If its not yet at this point, its a fetus. Thus its independently alive when it can independently sustain its required metabolic processes. As medical techniques progress, I suppose this means the line in the sand will change.

“Maccullochella macquariensis”

Since: May 08

Melbourne, Australia

#45 Mar 23, 2013
nanoanomaly wrote:
<quoted text>You said children are not fully human until after they are born. You are carrying a HUGE load, liar.
As I said, you failed to read or at least understand what I said. I was using a very specific definition of what it is to be human, I am not arguing that babies and children should not be treated as anything less than fully human, in my first post on this subject I said that it was too hard to draw the line, so using birth was a useful demarcation point ensuring all were included. You are so quick to throw objectionable accusations around that it simply demonstrates that you lack the ability to engage in intelligent debate. No skin off my nose. None of the despicable attitudes you ascribe to me flow logically from my proposition, and I reject them. You can accuse me of all manner of things that I have not done or do not say, it does not matter how many times you repeat them it does not make them true. Anyone can have a look back at the last few pages of this discussion and see for themselves that it is not me that has a problem with the truth.

“Is that all you've got?”

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

#46 Mar 23, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
Doctors, having to take a practical approach rather than a high-falutin' metaphysical holier then thou one, have a rather more straightforward determination.
If a "developing human" is viable outside the womb, its a baby. If its not yet at this point, its a fetus. Thus its independently alive when it can independently sustain its required metabolic processes. As medical techniques progress, I suppose this means the line in the sand will change.
Where the fk do you get "metaphysical" from my comments on the subject? At conception it starts replicating/growing; there's nothing "metaphysical" about that. It IS a new entity at all stages of its development, from conception until death; its DNA is proof. "Independence" has nothing to do with whether it is "fully human" or not. If an ape can be defined as a "person" at conception then a human should too.

You suck at logic, troll.

“Is that all you've got?”

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

#47 Mar 23, 2013
Bluenose wrote:
<quoted text>
As I said, you failed to read or at least understand what I said. I was using a very specific definition of what it is to be human, I am not arguing that babies and children should not be treated as anything less than fully human, in my first post on this subject I said that it was too hard to draw the line, so using birth was a useful demarcation point ensuring all were included. You are so quick to throw objectionable accusations around that it simply demonstrates that you lack the ability to engage in intelligent debate. No skin off my nose. None of the despicable attitudes you ascribe to me flow logically from my proposition, and I reject them. You can accuse me of all manner of things that I have not done or do not say, it does not matter how many times you repeat them it does not make them true. Anyone can have a look back at the last few pages of this discussion and see for themselves that it is not me that has a problem with the truth.
There IS no line to draw. It is made of living human tissue from two people and is human until its tissue can no longer be identified as such. I suspect that would take many years of decay. Eons. Probably after all humans are long dead.

“Maccullochella macquariensis”

Since: May 08

Melbourne, Australia

#48 Mar 24, 2013
nanoanomaly wrote:
<quoted text>There IS no line to draw. It is made of living human tissue from two people and is human until its tissue can no longer be identified as such. I suspect that would take many years of decay. Eons. Probably after all humans are long dead.
LOL

You still can't do reading comprehension, can you? Buffoon.

“Maccullochella macquariensis”

Since: May 08

Melbourne, Australia

#49 Mar 24, 2013
nanoanomaly wrote:
<quoted text>There IS no line to draw. It is made of living human tissue from two people and is human until its tissue can no longer be identified as such. I suspect that would take many years of decay. Eons. Probably after all humans are long dead.
The tip of my little finger meets your definition. Do you want to give it human rights too? Idiot.

“Is that all you've got?”

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

#50 Mar 24, 2013
Bluenose wrote:
<quoted text>
The tip of my little finger meets your definition. Do you want to give it human rights too? Idiot.
The tip of your little finger doesn't have a separate DNA signature than the rest of your body, it IS you and nothing else but you. You are not dealing with a "not fully human" 5 year old, you psycho.

“Is that all you've got?”

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

#51 Mar 24, 2013
Bluenose wrote:
<quoted text>
LOL
You still can't do reading comprehension, can you? Buffoon.
xD

Is THAT all you got? Loser.

“Maccullochella macquariensis”

Since: May 08

Melbourne, Australia

#52 Mar 24, 2013
nanoanomaly wrote:
<quoted text>xD
Is THAT all you got? Loser.
Ooh! Nasty Nano doesn't like me, I am SO upset!
Listen, child, I have been insulted by experts and I am unimpressed by your puny efforts.

“Is that all you've got?”

Since: Jun 10

Location hidden

#53 Mar 24, 2013
Bluenose wrote:
<quoted text>
Ooh! Nasty Nano doesn't like me, I am SO upset!
Listen, child, I have been insulted by experts....
Why am I not surprised that you find it impossible to understand your superiors?

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH...AHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAhahaaaaaaaa... .

“Maccullochella macquariensis”

Since: May 08

Melbourne, Australia

#54 Mar 25, 2013
nanoanomaly wrote:
<quoted text>Why am I not surprised that you find it impossible to understand your superiors?
BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH...AHA HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAhahaaaaaaaa... .
What does understanding my superiors have to do with you?

I suppose demented laughter is all that can be expected from someone who lacks the ability to frame a logical argument. Thanks for playing, I'm off to talk with some grown up now. Seeya.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#55 Mar 25, 2013
nanoanomaly wrote:
<quoted text>Where the fk do you get "metaphysical" from my comments on the subject? At conception it starts replicating/growing; there's nothing "metaphysical" about that. It IS a new entity at all stages of its development, from conception until death; its DNA is proof. "Independence" has nothing to do with whether it is "fully human" or not. If an ape can be defined as a "person" at conception then a human should too.
You suck at logic, troll.
Everyone agrees that "At conception it starts replicating /growing...It IS a new entity at all stages of its development, from conception until death; its DNA is proof" as you say.

Yet many disagree with your conclusions on the implications of this, OBVIOUSLY, or there would be no argument. Its your conclusions, not your facts, that are metaphysical.

The question is WHEN does this bundle of cells on its way to becoming a human get accorded the legal rights that we give to a human? And that can be a metaphysical question on one hand, or a purely practical one on the other. Endless prattling about replication, DNA, etc, are not going to convince anyone of anything.

I offered the doctors' necessarily practical view that an embryo/fetus can be seen as a baby when its capable of surviving outside the mother's womb.

I leave the trolling to you. You are getting quite a reputation for it.

Level 6

Since: Mar 12

Location hidden

#56 Mar 25, 2013
nanoanomaly wrote:
<quoted text>There IS no line to draw. It is made of living human tissue from two people and is human until its tissue can no longer be identified as such. I suspect that would take many years of decay. Eons. Probably after all humans are long dead.
So if you were late one month, then had a very heavy discharge that indicated you were probably undergoing a spontaneous abortion, would you hold a funeral or flush the mess?

Get real.

“Maccullochella macquariensis”

Since: May 08

Melbourne, Australia

#57 Mar 25, 2013
ChristineM wrote:
<quoted text>
Ahh, that’s done it, about now nano no mates usually goes into abusive rant mode for a few days until she gets bored then she’ll go an squat on another thread
Hmm, seems you might be right. You must be psychic...
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#58 Mar 25, 2013
nanoanomaly wrote:
<quoted text>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.
Yes it is a baby human, if your definition of a human baby arbitrarily encompasses the stage of a zygote. We can also arbitrarily encompass the stage of egg and sperm if we wish. For just as the zygote has the DNA of both its parents so do the sperm and egg.

So you would save the ten zygotes?
nanoanomaly wrote:
I'm pretty sure you knew what I meant but I guess being a dick is more important.
Meow! Kitteh need claws trimming ickle bit lately.

:-/
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#59 Mar 25, 2013
nanoanomaly wrote:
<quoted text>The tip of your little finger doesn't have a separate DNA signature than the rest of your body, it IS you and nothing else but you. You are not dealing with a "not fully human" 5 year old, you psycho.
Ah, I see now. Your definition of human is the newly formed DNA configuration. A single cell with a new unique configuration while a single cell without a unique configuration is not. Although I'd imagine things could get pretty complicated should the developing baby split into twins, triplets or more. Then that genome is no longer unique.

So it's save the ten zygotes?
The Dude

Birkenhead, UK

#60 Mar 25, 2013
Chimney1 wrote:
<quoted text>
So if you were late one month, then had a very heavy discharge that indicated you were probably undergoing a spontaneous abortion, would you hold a funeral or flush the mess?
Get real.
The problem with biology forums is every now and then it makes me wonder why I go on here at lunchtimes.

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 Evolution vs. Creation (Jul '11) 11 min Agents of Corruption 171,516
News "Science vs. Religion: What Scientists Really T... (Jan '12) 1 hr ChristineM 20,448
News Pope Francis Affirms Evolution and Big Bang Theory 1 hr Paul Porter1 199
Darwinism: Science or Philosophy? 1 hr Zog Has-fallen 1
News It's the Darwin crowd that lacks the facts in e... (Mar '09) 6 hr Dogen 142,469
Terms need to be defined better 10 hr MikeF 7
News Bobby Jindal: I'm fine with teaching creationis... (Apr '13) 21 hr GTID62 247
More from around the web