Mokele

So I'm not married? Even though I'm part of an opposite-sex couple, our marriage is invalid because we've chosen not the reproduce? And at 6,500,000,000 humans, reproduction is the last thing we should be encouraging.

It's pretty much just water and sugar, with some associated minerals, nutrients, hormones, etc.

Are you serious? Are you honestly suggesting that if *any* gay relationship fails, the entire movement is flawed? Or that a couple must stay together in case some nosy asshole like you decides to judge the entire movement by two people? You're treading dangerously close to open, blatant bigotry here. Retract this, now.

Going a bit OT here, but: I'd generally agree, but the desert is pretty harsh on machines as well as people. High-tech would likely be an improvement, but sand gets into *everything*, especially moving parts, so it'd have to be pretty rugged tech.

You missed the point - this thread is explicitly about this historical definitions of marriage. It didn't specify *whose* definitions, nor should it. It was created to have a reference for those who claim marriage is defined this or that way. Waitforufo specifically said that it was a purely recent phenomenon without further specification. On that basis, my point flat-out proves him wrong, showing that it has a long history, longer than law itself. If this thread is just about *American* *legal* definition, then it should specify. That, however, was NOT specified, and the thread creator himself indicated that the two-spirit system was relevant.

Well, in all fairness, it *is* nearly 2000 miles of border, crossing some of the most inhospitable terrain in the continent, with one of the greatest possible wealth divides across it. The feat of making it even moderately secure is breathtaking in scope and difficulty, especially since it's trying to thwart the efforts of a highly intelligent species which excels at cooperation and tool use. I mean, look at the Berlin Wall: incredibly heavily built and guarded, only 96 miles long, with guards who could shoot crossers, and still roughly 5000 people managed to cross in 41 years. Just for fun, if we extrapolate that to the US border (assuming it would cover the same distance and have the same rate of crossings per year per mile), we'd still have an influx of 2500 individuals per year, and I don't even want to *think* about the cost.

Go read the link on Two-spirits. Gay marriage was common for the majority of American history. It only stopped when we showed up, killed off most of the original Americans, and implanted our laws. So, care to explain how you can simple dismiss a tradition that thrived through thousands of tribes for thousands of years?

What? Are you posting while drunk? None of that makes anything even close to sense.

IIRC, the synapse refers to the whole structure, including the tips of the cells, while the cleft specifically refers to the gap between them.

Not to delve too far into science fiction, but while I'd agree for Terminators, I'm not so sure for Cylons. Given a LOT of time, and a lot of technological advances, it may be possible to create a robot that operates at such a fine scale that its operating units are much like cells, and it has similar capabilities. Alternatively, could non-growing, non-reproducing robots produced by an automated factory be considered 'life' in much the same way as a bee hive, functioning as a sort of 'superorganism'? However, I do agree that it's moot, since such machines would need a non-mechanical race to create them in the first place.

What, however, do you mean by "definition"? Do you want only codified laws, or do you include cultural understandings and/or traditions (especially for non-literate cultures, or even our own, prior to literacy)? What do you mean by "marriage"? Several cultures have relationships that are non-identical to our concept of marriage. Does a union based on romantic love count? What if we find same-sex unions more akin to the arranged marriages that used to be so common? Does age difference matter? What do you mean by "same-sex"? What if a marriage system instead recognizes such individuals as an alternative gender, thus while *we* would consider it 'same-sex', they wouldn't, as in the Native American Two-spirit concept? Are we strictly going by the concept of biological sex?

I don't have much time for a full reply, so I'll post this briefly: Yes, abiogenesis is not "easy", and there are several steps that we don't fully understand. What does this have to do with panspermia? Whether on Earth or elsewhere, Crick's difficulties still apply. DNA, tRNA, ribosomes, codons, etc. still had to develop, even on another world. How does a change in temperature, oxygen level, or ocean salinity solve this? Furthermore, I don't think panspermia helps as much as you'd think. It expands the parameters, but only within a range such that the extraterrestrial life could live on early Earth. That means generally similar temperatures (nothing that needs -100C or +200C environments), similar chemical access (doesn't require things that are super-rare on Earth, isn't poisoned by common Earth chemicals), similar environment (no methane oceans or boiling lead), etc. Given that early Earth wasn't a homogenous mass, you could probably find some or many of the 'extraterrestrial' conditions here, such as under ice or near deep-sea vents. So how useful is it, really? What does it offer?

The problem is that even with the other states, there still needs to be federal recognition. For instance, one does not have to testify against one's spouse in court, but you can clearly see how, for a gay couple, state vs. federal court could make a HUGE difference.

For me, it's just a matter of time. I think I've read about 3 books in the last 6 years - everything else has been scientific papers. It never ends.

Remember that this is not a question in isolation - increasing rights for the fetus MUST reduce rights of the mother. That's not the case for racial discrimination.

What's the alternative? Defining it with arbitrary and ethically meaningless factors like "life" or having human DNA, both of which would grant personhood to a tumor? The plain fact is that there is no *real* definition - we, as a society, simply have to make one up that works for us, and that's going to mean compromise and picking the best of bad options.

The problem is terminology, and technical vs. popular definitions. Nobody disputes that a fetus is metabolically active, grows, has DNA, etc, nor that it's bioloigicly/genetically human. But outside of the most rigid, restrictive contexts, terminology becomes a lot more slippery. Say "I don't see what's special about human life" at a cocktail party, and you'll get the most horrified looks ever (I always do), even though you could be referring to a tumor (living thing that's genetically human). The fact that both sides are intent on using terminology to subtly bias the debate towards their side makes things even worse. If everyone would agree on a set of terms and what they mean, or invent a new set, things would be simpler, but there is absolutely zero chance of that ever happening. Frankly, the only way any resolution will ever occur is when we invent some sort of Ultra-Birth-Control that makes the whole issue moot. Or when we all just upload our minds into a giant supercomputer.

I've placed your text back in this post, and I'll have to re-create my reply later, and reply to this. It might be a few days, though - I've got all-day animal surgery tomorrow.

Well, there have to be limits to state's rights. The Articles of Confederation failed for precisely this reason - the states had too much independence. Nothing will change that, though. The differences in viewpoint in the US often fall along urban vs rural, with state-to-state differences most reflecting the relative proportion of each population. 200 years ago, yes, you could get huge cultural differences. Now, with instant global communications and incredibly rapid transport (we can fly in 8 hours what would take pioneers 8 years), even if you *did* allow boundaries, they wouldn't change anything. In a sense, I do agree with you - I wish there was a sort of "testing area" where people with a committed social vision (libertarianism, communism, theocracy, etc.) could try to build their own society and see how it works. Unfortunately, the planet's kinda, well, *full*. (Granted it was full before, but back then we'd just empty it by killing anyone with darker skin than us.)

If the theory is only "more likely to be correct", then how do you find out if it is correct? You are using it to eliminate theories that are more complex, but according to your own formulation, you can't do that! Because when you eliminate the theory (such as panspermia), you say that it is not correct at all. But, according to you, Ockham's Razor leaves it open that panspermia could be correct, just not as likely as abiogenesis. Basically, Mokele, you have cut yourself off at the knees. I can give you several examples (one of which I was personally involved in) where use of the Razor held science back. Actually, what the Razor originally stated was that we should not add hypotheses onto the description of phenomenon. Ockham's original example was "objects move because of an impetus". Ockham realized that movement is change in position over time. Therefore the correct statement is "objects move". "because of an impetus" is a hypothesis to explain why the object moves. It's not needed. In the present situation, the Ockham statement is "life exists on earth". Panspermia, abiogenesis, or special creation are all hypotheses to explain why live exists on earth. ALL of them are eliminated by the Razor. Now, panspermia is actually eliminated by phylogenetic analysis. If panspermia is correct, it means that DNA is injected into life on earth that has no historical connection to the life that is already present. That's the essence of panspermia: life from outside earth. But phylogenetic analysis of DNA sequences shows that all DNA sequences are related by historical connections. That isn't possible if panspermia is true. So we can evaluate the validity of panspermia the only way theories are evaluated: by the data. In this case, panspermia is falsified.

Why is it bad? You just favor the bird over the mouse. From the mouse's perspective, it's good. Give one good reason why we should favor one over the other? Nature clearly doesn't.

Or what makes death wrong at all? All life depends upon death. We avoid it and view it as "bad" only because we're programmed to. That no more translates to moral evil than Microsoft Word's aversion to imported tables makes imported tables morally evil. Good, evil, ethics, these are just rules we make up so we don't all murder each other in our sleep. Or so people like me can get the drop on everyone else, in order to more effectively murder everyone else in their sleep. Merged post follows: Consecutive posts mergedAnd what's your "scientific perspective"? Unless you invented a magic box that lights up green for 'good' and red for 'evil', I call BS.

Look, it's really, very simple: We know life originated, and that it exists on Earth. The simplest explanation is that the origin occurred on Earth, and at the moment, there's no data which indicates otherwise. It's also possible that life originated elsewhere and colonized Earth, but that requires an extra step, space travel. Ergo, it's most likely that life originated here. This doesn't mean we *KNOW* life originated here, only that Earthly abiogenesis is the most plausible working hypothesis. If data comes to light that shows otherwise, then we change our minds. That's how science works. It's not "geocentric", it simply minimizes assumptions. Consider horse evolution - all of the relevant fossils occur in the US, from the Eocene onwards, with only spotty remains elsewhere (in spite of intensive efforts). The most plausible explanation is that horse evolution occurred in the US, with occasional migrants elsewhere. It's technically possible that it happened elsewhere, and we just haven't found the bones, but until we *do* find the bones, this is the most likely course of events. Looking at earth first is nothing more than basic scientific principle. Nobody denies other possibilities, but possibilities without evidence are just speculations.

Very low Oxygen levels Because you can find decomposers of some sort on EVERY scrap of organic material on the planet, even methane clathrates. So great is the thirst of life for any biological molecules that there's even a fungus which has evolved to tolerate formaldehyde in order to live of the animals in museum specimen bottles (I encountered this one myself, and let me tell you, nothing smells worse than formalin + fungus + rot). Consider the lengths we have to go to for preserving food - freezing it, sealing it in airtight cans, lacing it with antibacterials, washing it... Find me an example to the contrary, a biologically useful molecules that nothing eats, even given the opportunity. Every rotting deer on the side of the highway is my evidence. Which is a necessary precursor. So why are you adding *more* unknowns, without reason? You. Me. trees. Birds. Fungi. Every living thing is my evidence. Look, it's very, very simple - Occam's razor. The simplest theory that accounts for the data is most likely to be correct. Geospermia - inorganic mess becomes complex chemicals becomes proto-life becomes life. Panspermia - as above, plus a ride through space. Panspermia involves an extra step, therefore is less likely. In order to consider this extra step, there needs to be evidence which at the very least cannot be explained by the simpler theory. Just finding evidence that it *could* have happened is insufficient - lots of things *could* have happened, but didn't. This goes to the very core of the scientific method, and is a basic precept. If you're going to cast it aside, you're doing pseudoscience.

A) I never suggested such soups were exclusive to Earth and B) We *do* know enough to say that it's both highly likely that early Earth had a wide variety of complex chemicals floating around and that such cocktails can come about in a wide variety of different conditions. Strawman. I never said "must", I said there's no evidence to the contrary. And as Kyrisch pointed out, any modern day biochemicals quickly get devoured. What makes you think we need those parameters? You're giving up *way* too easy, assuming failure because a tiny field hasn't made incredible progress in a few short decades. You're completely off-base. I posit that life evolved on Earth because it is the simplest explanation, and because there is no evidence to the contrary. That's how science works. We don't add complexity to theories without evidence that such additions are necessary. I'm NOT saying panspermia is wrong. I'm saying there's no evidence for it, and that all it does is allow a wider set of environmental parameters. What if it *was* right, scrappy? Then what? You *still* have to explain the origin of life. The only change is that maybe now, you're doing experiments assuming a different rock composition. It doesn't solve the questions of how replication began, or what the first genetic material was, or how cells learns to eat through a membrane. In fact, it barely really does anything except alter the parameters for the part of the problem that we've already solved, the origin of complex chemicals. Discussing panspermia is like discussing sea serpents - it may well have merit, but until there's evidence, it's nothing but a pretty idea.