ydoaPs

Why do you assume it was something genetic?

Hockey stick graphs?

Examples?

LIES! Our Chromosome 2 is actually two fused chromosomes.

I don't remember hearing of anyone trying to mate with a chimp.

So, does the same reasoning apply to the proliferation of theist material?

Who is the standard H. Sapiens? Is it me? My grandchild? My great great grandfather? With whom does one have to be able to mate successfully to be considered H. Sapiens? It's not as though a group will be born without the ability to successfully mate with the generation before them. There is no prime mammal. Mules have been born that are fertile. Does that mean horses and donkeys are the same species? What about ring species? I never said Chimps were human(although some biologists disagree). I did, however, imply that some chimps are people. "Human" and "Person" are distinctly separate concepts. As I said previously, one of them is morally relevant and the other is not. Do you have data on abstract communication with chimps? That is, discussing things like geometry, calculus, philosophy, etc. I haven't seen that data. How do you define abstract thought? Chimps have been shown to be able to deceive each other. That shows they have some concept of what other beings are thinking; what they know. It also shows they have a concept of multiple future possibilities. Chimps have been able to associate order to numbers. Is that abstract? I didn't say to treat all species the same. In fact, when I said species membership is irrelevant, I meant species membership is irrelevant. Properties of individuals should be considered(however properties of the majority of the species can be used as a general thumbrule in many circumstances). To treat a being solely based on it's species is not only speciest, but tantamount to nepotism in ethical consideration. To easily cast aside the well being of people because they don't fit into your arbitrarily drawn group(again, where does our species end. See Dawkins quote above.) is frankly sickening. What makes it permissible to discriminate against sentient beings simply because they are not in your group? Why stop at species? Why not draw the line at race or sex? Hell, why not choose occupation or location? Lovely strawman there. Is the mantis a person? Oh, it isn't? Well, it's not a fair comparison then, is it? If you want to hear it expressed better, try Rethinking Life and Death. It's a great read.

He was a human(or was he?)

DING DING DING! Person is morally relevant; human is not.

??? You're saying you choose based on the morally relevant properties(without coming out and saying it) and then you just say you're choosing because of the species. You're confusing me.

Correlation does not imply causation.

The duration of "now" is as close to 0seconds as a duration can be without being 0seconds.

Is it on eBay? I want one!

??????? YOU just tried to use it as evidence AGAINST global warming!

Unless you are suggesting religion is prerequisite for something to be a person, I think you misunderstood. I was replying to: "A very good story, but it is based on deceit. In using the term people, he implies that they would at least potentially have been, or be in the future, capable of certain attributes, which it turns out that they don't have." I apologize for any misunderstanding.

I was merely giving an example of something with a charge which is not a multiple of e. I thought you said you had me on ignore, anyway!

Which requisite attributes are they missing?

I'm a fan of Peter Singer:

Zeno's paradoxes are crap. If you apply how we actually move to the situations, they fall apart. We move with a nearly constant gait. Zeno was an idiot.

So, if an anencephalic human and a healthy chimp were both it mortal trouble, and you could only save one, you'd save the human simply because it's human? When does humanity cease to be human? How many generations back(or forward)?

Human!=person. There are people who are not human and there are humans who are not people. As I said before, species membership(whether or not something is a human) is not morally relevant.

shade, do you know the charges of quarks?

So, a self-aware ant with emotions and the capacity to suffer is more valuable than a human with no brain who is only alive due to mechanical aid?

How many neutrons are we talking about here? My reactor emitted neutrons with no ill effects.

Mind showing us?