That is the definition of a cell – any cell! blood cells, bone cells, skin cells, muscle cells, – all of which lack some of the properties of an organism!
Did you forget about unicellular organisms? Surely they have the properties of an organism.
What is it about a fertilized egg that disqualifies it as a unicellular organism, for tho…[Read more]
I don’t think that is what Phil was getting at, at least not precisely. I wasn’t so concerned with the “emerges” part. The question I had for Phil was regarding the use of the word “humanity” in this context. I’m sure Phil is quite capable of explaining himself.
Whole PARTS are not whole ORGANISMS! . . and parts which have not yet grown, are missing!
As I said earlier, it is quite clear to me that blood cells, fingers, eyes, and legs are parts. Please explain to me in what sense is a zygote, a blastocyst, or an embryo a part? What are they parts of?
This is the second time you’ve written this (yes, I did notice it before, but I got distracted by “other things” and lost track of it). I’m having difficulty here processing your use of the word “humanity” in the context of a discussion about “human” beings, “human” organisms, and “human” what-have-you, where…[Read more]
A fertilised egg is a whole egg. A blastocyst is a whole blastocyst.
A zygote is a whole zygote. An embryo is a whole embryo.
A blood cell is a whole blood cell. A finger is a whole finger.
An eye is a whole eye. A leg is a whole leg.
None of these is a whole human or a whole organism!
Clearly, you missed the point of my…[Read more]
…or emotional metaphors such as PP’s dumpster scenario.
The “metaphor” wasn’t intended to stir emotion, but I understand how it might. It struck me as representative of a real-life scenario. That’s the only reason I used it.
Again, I appreciate your comments.
.. . . and to be a whole multicellular living organism, these parts which are specialised organs, must present, functional, and supporting its regulated metabolism.
You are either unaware, have forgotten, or are in denial that there is a stage in the life-span of every human animal (maybe every animal, I’m not sure, but perhaps you k…[Read more]
“The whole” is an entity with capacities. The parts are flesh and sinew, bone and brain matter.
So, in your view, what is a fertilized egg, a blastocyst, a zygote, or a fetus, a part of? Why are they not considered wholes or, in your words, entities with their own capacities? It seems to me that they qualify.
the parts and properties of “an organism” which are missing from these stages in mammals…
Please enlighten us on what are the minimal “parts and properties” required to be considered an organism.
No spontaneously aborted human fertilized egg or zygote has ever survived as an independent organism.
No aquarium fish removed from the tan…[Read more]
A fallacy of division occurs when one reasons logically that something true for the whole must also be true of all or some of its parts. An example: The 2nd grade in Jefferson elementary eats a lot of ice cream.
So, when one commits this fallacy in a pro-life argument, what is “the whole” and what is/are the part/s?
…the stages of change, from human tissue to a whole organism.
You make a crucial mistake when you refer to the early stages in the development of a human organism as “tissue”. A fertilized egg is an organism. A zygote is an organism. A fetus is an organism. Every human animal, whether you refer to it as a being, a person, or…[Read more]
The fallacy is in the vague term “being-ness” being presented as some defined property at some defined point in time!
By “being-ness”, I was referring to whatever it is that makes a being a being, which strikes me as an important part of the definition of human being. What you seem to be saying here is that being cannot (or should not…[Read more]
By “unformed” I mean not yet constituted to a point where anyone could describe the entity coherently in relation to the functional properties necessary for minimum recognition of a holistic human being.
Wow. That’s a lot of meaning to pack into a nonsense word. I would suggest “developing” as a word that fits better with you…[Read more]
I appreciate (again) your comments here. You seem to “get” me.
Today scientific descriptions of early fetal development have obviated claims that products of conception constitute a human being in any functional sense.
How is one to understand this statement when the term “human being” is so poorly and variously…[Read more]
The individual is merely a mix of pre-existing DNA. A fertilised egg contains a complete set of chromosomes and a full set of DNA – just like every other cell in the body!
What’s so “merely” about a mix of pre-existing DNA? This is obviously what occurs at fertilization and what results in a distinct individual. There’s nothing “merely”…[Read more]
Carl Sagan has been one of my favorite writers, thinkers, scientific personalities for a long time, but I had not read that (or perhaps I had, but had forgotten, which is certainly possible). Thanks, Steven. I appreciate that.
I find it interesting that the term “human being” does not occur in the excerpt.
- Load More