When Does Life Begin?

[needimprovement]

Wow. Great analogy.

in the scenario with the recipe and the cake, the recipe for human reproduction is a sperm and an egg which are both present and in place by the time zapatos and his wife come out of the room. however, in the cake analogy he come out of the room with nothing in place, just a list of things that need to be put in place. its not the same at all.

 

its not a horrible analogy but he failed to identify the fertilized egg as the cake already in the oven!

 

for the guy who keeps talking about killing living things such as cheek cells and things. you need to understand what being pro-life means. pro-life means that we do not intentionally kill living human beings. the cells in your mouth are not in themselves human beings. obviously we kill all kinds of living things and most pro-lifers probably enjoy a good steak now and then. however the cow is not human beings and either the cells in your mouth.

Edited October 19, 2010 by needimprovement

[zapatos]

in the scenario with the recipe and the cake, the recipe for human reproduction is a sperm and an egg which are both present and in place by the time zapatos and his wife come out of the room. however, in the cake analogy he come out of the room with nothing in place, just a list of things that need to be put in place. its not the same at all.

 

its not a horrible analogy but he failed to identify the fertilized egg as the cake already in the oven!

If you look at the original post you will see that the analogy was to refute an implication that life begins once all the information necessary for a fully formed human is gathered together. And a cake recipe does have all the information necessary to create the cake. I said:

 

"I have a difficult time with the idea that the starting point for human existence begins at the point that all of the information necessary for a fully formed person is gathered together. It seems if this concept worked for persons, then it should also work for other things."

 

While it may not be a perfect analogy to human reproduction (which it wasn't intended to be), I think it worked quite well for the purpose it was intended.

Edited October 19, 2010 by zapatos

[TonyMcC]

Zapatos- Actually I believe you are making reference to an earlier comment of mine. What I actually said was "At the moment of conception the fertilised egg contained all the information.....". In other words in your analogy it would be once the oven had been switched on, not just before it is switched on. I feel that "just before the oven is switched on" there are probably a million or so recipes waiting to have a chance of life. However once one of the "recipes" gets under way the "cake" is forming in response to that particular recipe. All the other "recipes" are discarded.

Edited October 19, 2010 by TonyMcC

[zapatos]

Zapatos- Actually I believe you are making reference to an earlier comment of mine. What I actually said was "At the moment of conception the fertilised egg contained all the information.....". In other words in your analogy it would be once the oven had been switched on, not just before it is switched on. I feel that "just before the oven is switched on" there are probably a million or so recipes waiting to have a chance of life. However once one of the "recipes" gets under way the "cake" is forming in response to that particular recipe. All the other "recipes" are discarded.

Yes, you're right of course. But I was actually only going after your words "contained all the information" because then I could use the analogy like it was. If I had to create an analogy for the whole of your perfectly reasonable observation, then my analogy wouldn't have been (in my warped sense of humor) nearly as funny. I was snickering when I was writing it, and I of course intended in no way to disparage your comments.

[Mr Skeptic]

in the scenario with the recipe and the cake, the recipe for human reproduction is a sperm and an egg which are both present and in place by the time zapatos and his wife come out of the room. however, in the cake analogy he come out of the room with nothing in place, just a list of things that need to be put in place. its not the same at all.

 

its not a horrible analogy but he failed to identify the fertilized egg as the cake already in the oven!

 

Two things:

1) This is not true, since you do not weigh about a milligram, but rather several million times more. Most of your ingredients were added after you were born.

2) He was addressing your (also false) claim that it was the information to make a human that matters, by pointing out that the information to make something is not the same thing as actually making it.

 

for the guy who keeps talking about killing living things such as cheek cells and things. you need to understand what being pro-life means. pro-life means that we do not intentionally kill living human beings. the cells in your mouth are not in themselves human beings. obviously we kill all kinds of living things and most pro-lifers probably enjoy a good steak now and then. however the cow is not human beings and either the cells in your mouth.

 

Being pro-choice also means not killing human beings (persons), but as a bonus it also allows people to improve their personal lives, and even has other beneficial side-effects like reducing crime (lots of criticism for that study but it makes sense from a logical point of view if you consider people ending up with unwanted children, with a side of extra financial burdens).

 

"I have a difficult time with the idea that the starting point for human existence begins at the point that all of the information necessary for a fully formed person is gathered together. It seems if this concept worked for persons, then it should also work for other things."

 

Other things like for example each of the cells in your body, which have the genetic information to make a human (but not the mechanics to do so, at least not without human fiddling).

[CharonY]

There exists different DNA replication processes, used for viral and plasmid DNA. This is counter to what is expected of common descent and stepwise evolutionary processes. Here are some quotes

 

First of all, who claims that evolution is step-wise? The only true steps are generations. Second, the papers themselves discuss models under which the existence and evolutionary relationship of these systems can be explained.

In fact Woese already stated in the 70s that this was to be expected. Why? Because they promoted the view of an RNA world and the common ancestor of archaea and bacteria are assumed to have originated then.

 

Edit: actually that was also in the paper. In the introduction section. Sometimes it pays off to read a paper.

Edited October 19, 2010 by CharonY

[AzurePhoenix]

Under official advisement to not be drawn further from the point of the thread by your baiting, addressing why Dr. Axe's tests don't accurately reflect the numbers likely to occur under natural conditions and within actual organisms will have to be set aside for the time being.

 

It matters a great deal because you seem to have used the relatedness conjecture to claim that life is continuous; that an individual organism is simply an extension of the first life 3.8 billion years ago. Relatedness is a conjecture and your argument that we are all an extension of life as a whole is as well.

That was only in regards to the basic question as it was phrased, without going further to address the inferred context regarding when a group of cells deserves human rights. Every argument I've made relating to the intended context as it rleated to abortion thereafter has been independent of those first expressions of technicality.

 

My points, and those of others, are that regardless of how something is related to anything else, or its uniqueness, or it's genome or particular genotype, the characteristics that earn an entity personhood and the rights that that status entails are independent from those aforementioned things. Those characteristics of personhood essentially being the entity's capacity to appreciate its own existence, from our point of view. What matters then are those particular characteristics, not where they came from, whether that means evolution, a deity, or the guy who programmed a self-aware AI. Give me three alternative individuals from different universes, one evolved, one created by god, one a manufactured but sentient, self-aware cylon, their disparate origins wouldn't matter in regards to whether or not I considered them people (assuming they're all comparatively likable).

 

I certainly agree more with your current statement that indicates "what is" are individuals unique and separate from the parents.

recognition of the factual uniqueness doesn't necessarily suggest any recognition of intrinsic value or the deserving of rights based on that uniqueness alone.

[cypress]

First of all, who claims that evolution is step-wise? The only true steps are generations. Second, the papers themselves discuss models under which the existence and evolutionary relationship of these systems can be explained.

 

Do uninvestigated conjectures, cleverly inserted to cover a failed prediction, represent an adequate explanation?

 

In fact Woese already stated in the 70s that this was to be expected. Why? Because they promoted the view of an RNA world and the common ancestor of archaea and bacteria are assumed to have originated then.

 

Edit: actually that was also in the paper. In the introduction section. Sometimes it pays off to read a paper.

 

As far as I can see, Woese did not "predict" there should be differences in DNA replication processes until after the differences were known. I don't call that a prediction, I call it an after the fact explanation.

 

Years ago, it seemed obvious that eukaryotes evolved from the simpler prokaryote cells. This would nicely fit into the evolutionary expectation of a simple-to-complex lineage, but it does not fit the evidence. The assumption that archaea and bacteria originated from a self replicating RNA based organism also lacks an adequate explanation. It is not empirically derived, rather it is motivated by the conviction of a common ancestor, and it is carefully fitted to that conjecture.

 

A significant issue with this assumption is that it drops the old prediction and instead presupposes a new evolutionary model that is far more complex and requires that some fundamental molecular processes, performing functions common to all life, may not originate from a common ancestor, and instead evolved independently. This paper concluded, “the modern-type system for double-stranded DNA replication likely evolved independently in the bacterial and archaeal/eukaryotic lineages"[1]. Some evolutionary biologists are reconsidering the assumption that all life on Earth shares the same basic molecular architecture and biochemistry, and instead consider the possibility of multiple origins of fundamentally different life forms.[2]

 

1. D. Leipe, L. Aravind, E. V. Koonin, “Did DNA replication evolve twice independently?", Nucleic Acids Research 27 (1999): 3389-3401.

 

2. Carol E. Cleland, “Epistemological issues in the study of microbial life: alternative terran biospheres?", Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C: Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences, 38 (2007): 847-861.

 

The model of common ancestry is not "perfectly adequate". It relies on conjecture motivated by factors other than empirical evidence.

 

The relevance to this thread is that the idea of common ancestry cannot be used to support a particular interpretation of when a unique human life begins.

[Moontanman]

Do uninvestigated conjectures, cleverly inserted to cover a failed prediction, represent an adequate explanation?

 

 

 

As far as I can see, Woese did not "predict" there should be differences in DNA replication processes until after the differences were known. I don't call that a prediction, I call it an after the fact explanation.

 

Years ago, it seemed obvious that eukaryotes evolved from the simpler prokaryote cells. This would nicely fit into the evolutionary expectation of a simple-to-complex lineage, but it does not fit the evidence. The assumption that archaea and bacteria originated from a self replicating RNA based organism also lacks an adequate explanation. It is not empirically derived, rather it is motivated by the conviction of a common ancestor, and it is carefully fitted to that conjecture.

 

A significant issue with this assumption is that it drops the old prediction and instead presupposes a new evolutionary model that is far more complex and requires that some fundamental molecular processes, performing functions common to all life, may not originate from a common ancestor, and instead evolved independently. This paper concluded, “the modern-type system for double-stranded DNA replication likely evolved independently in the bacterial and archaeal/eukaryotic lineages"[1]. Some evolutionary biologists are reconsidering the assumption that all life on Earth shares the same basic molecular architecture and biochemistry, and instead consider the possibility of multiple origins of fundamentally different life forms.[2]

 

1. D. Leipe, L. Aravind, E. V. Koonin, “Did DNA replication evolve twice independently?", Nucleic Acids Research 27 (1999): 3389-3401.

 

2. Carol E. Cleland, “Epistemological issues in the study of microbial life: alternative terran biospheres?", Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part C: Studies in History and Philosophy of Biological and Biomedical Sciences, 38 (2007): 847-861.

 

The model of common ancestry is not "perfectly adequate". It relies on conjecture motivated by factors other than empirical evidence.

 

The relevance to this thread is that the idea of common ancestry cannot be used to support a particular interpretation of when a unique human life begins.

 

 

I am curious, why is the exact method of abiogeneisis so important? We have more than enough data to show that Divine intervention is not required and we know that extant complex life is indeed derived from one type of single celled life form called a Eukaryote. Does it really matter if the remaining two basic life forms were formed from the merger of several other life forms or that they were derived completely independent of each other? The idea that the "tree" of life has a complex root system that had many different single celled life forms sharing DNA has been long suspected. Current single celled life forms also share DNA big time, often resulting in life forms that are not closely related acquiring DNA from each other is an established fact. But the fact remains that all complex life forms including humans share a common ancestor in eukarotes...

[cypress]

I am curious, why is the exact method of abiogeneisis so important? We have more than enough data to show that Divine intervention is not required and we know that extant complex life is indeed derived from one type of single celled life form called a Eukaryote. Does it really matter if the remaining two basic life forms were formed from the merger of several other life forms or that they were derived completely independent of each other? The idea that the "tree" of life has a complex root system that had many different single celled life forms sharing DNA has been long suspected. Current single celled life forms also share DNA big time, often resulting in life forms that are not closely related acquiring DNA from each other is an established fact. But the fact remains that all complex life forms including humans share a common ancestor in eukarotes...

 

I hesitate to tread old ground after AzurePhenoix, who originally postulated this, has dropped the argument in favor of a more supportable one. Are you taking up the argument that your and my life are actually connected and began billions of years ago as a Eukaryote? If so, I will provide a similar example of how your conjecture (the one you incorrectly describe as a fact) is equally problematic, is not a demonstrable fact, and it also fails to adequately provide evidence to support a causal process.

 

If you would please confirm your argument with regard to when my and your life began.

[Moontanman]

I hesitate to tread old ground after AzurePhenoix, who originally postulated this, has dropped the argument in favor of a more supportable one. Are you taking up the argument that your and my life are actually connected and began billions of years ago as a Eukaryote? If so, I will provide a similar example of how your conjecture (the one you incorrectly describe as a fact) is equally problematic, is not a demonstrable fact, and it also fails to adequately provide evidence to support a causal process.

 

If you would please confirm your argument with regard to when my and your life began.

 

 

I am not AP, I fear no creationist, and if I am banned for pursuing the truth then so be it, bring it on... I will go to a forum where the truth is valued over repeated baseless assertions ...

 

I will start this out, all complex organisms on the Earth are Eukaryotes.

Edited October 20, 2010 by Moontanman

[cypress]

I don't understand your response in context to the question asked.

[Moontanman]

I don't understand your response in context to the question asked.

 

 

Well then if you can't be honest then I guess discussion is not possible. But I'll try to make it clearer, it is demonstrable that all complex life is descended from single celled Eukaryotes, yours, mine, all complex life forms are Eukaryotes....

Edited October 20, 2010 by Moontanman

[cypress]

Well then if you can't be honest then I guess discussion is not possible. But I'll try to make it clearer, it is demonstrable that all complex life is descended from single celled Eukaryotes, yours, mine, all complex life forms are Eukaryotes....

 

You were clear about your commitment to evolution earlier, but you did not answer my question that you claim this belief is true and by extension, it is also a fact that my life and every other complex life did not begin as individual organisms but rather our lives are an inseparable extension of the first eukaryote cell. Is this your claim?

Edited October 20, 2010 by cypress

[Moontanman]

You were clear about your commitment to evolution earlier, but you did not answer my question that you claim this belief is true and by extension, it is also a fact that my life and every other complex life did not begin as individual organisms but rather our lives are an inseparable extension of the first eukaryote cell. Is this your claim?

 

 

I will say this again, it is demonstrably true that all complex life forms are Eukaryotes, all complex life forms have as their ancestor single celled Eukaryotes. Elephants, sharks, flat worms, jelly fish, sponges, lions, sunfish, snakes, naked mole rats, ants, chimps, gorillas, earth worms, us, you and me, are all descended from single celled Eukaryotes.

[cypress]

Ok, then it is not your claim and it is irrelevant that you are mistaken.

[Moontanman]

Ok, then it is not your claim and it is irrelevant that you are mistaken.

 

 

AP is correct you are baiting people, I have followed this thread very closely, AP did not fail, you failed to follow any reasonable rules about debate, you make assertions with no back up other than your assertions. i am not incorrect but even if i am you are the one who has made an assertion that is non mainstream, it's up to you to back it up, not me. Now i will admit that not being part of the main stream doesn't make you wrong but not backing up your assertions does... We are not discussing this in the philosophy section, this is a science section either back up your assertions or admit defeat and move on.

 

Ok, then it is not your claim and it is irrelevant that you are mistaken.

 

 

Since you are using a definition of life that is not relevant to the idea of common decent i have no doubt you think you are correct but changing the goal posts doesn't mean you win. The OP is flawed it should have been worded as human consciousness instead of life. Human consciousness is not life, a human who is unconscious is still alive in the sense of biology but not in the sense of the OP. Now if you want to discuss this honestly then do so but don't try to use a twist of words to redefine the answer....

[cypress]

If your belief were central to a relevant argument regarding the topic of when life begins, then by debate rules, I would have an obligation to rebut. But since you as much admit that it does not follow from your claim that all complex organisms are connected in a sense, and thus my life began billions of years ago, then your claim is a straw man and it does not matter whether or not it is an established fact (it is not). Since it does not matter to this topic, I believe I am obligated by rules to move on without responding to it any further. If you wish to tie it the the central question, then I would respond. I am not preventing you from debating your claim on its own merit in a post with your claim as the topic.

 

I am sorry this upsets you.

[Moontanman]

If your belief were central to a relevant argument regarding the topic of when life begins, then by debate rules, I would have an obligation to rebut. But since you as much admit that it does not follow from your claim that all complex organisms are connected in a sense, and thus my life began billions of years ago, then your claim is a straw man and it does not matter whether or not it is an established fact (it is not). Since it does not matter to this topic, I believe I am obligated by rules to move on without responding to it any further. If you wish to tie it the the central question, then I would respond. I am not preventing you from debating your claim on its own merit in a post with your claim as the topic.

 

Of course, You have just confirmed what you really are, you are doing your best just to stir discord, you take a definition and apply it the way you want then use it to argue something that is simply bullshit, talk about straw man. By the definition of the OP I am indeed correct you are just running around with the goal posts.

 

I am sorry this upsets you.

 

Upsets me? Being correct makes me smile...

[needimprovement]

The OP is flawed it should have been worded as human consciousness instead of life.

point of order: the question is when does life begin? Not "When does consciousness’ begin?".

 

Life begins at conception.

 

I believe it is, Some believe it isn't. Who is right? Scientists apply conditions that would also make people in comas worthless. Some secularists apply principles that would make people with mental defects or physical ailments not really "living".

 

Now, Moontanman, when does fetus acquire consciousness? when is fetus a person?

Edited October 20, 2010 by needimprovement

[Moontanman]

point of order: the question is when does life begin?

 

 

Exactly! Life began something like 3.8 billion years ago! Now, not what you had in mind? Then give me your definition of life, exactly what are you talking about? A human life? Complex life? All life? Let us know...

[needimprovement]

Exactly! Life began something like 3.8 billion years ago! Now, not what you had in mind? Then give me your definition of life, exactly what are you talking about? A human life? Complex life? All life? Let us know...

When life begins is a biological question, not historical one. Since we both can agree you need to have an egg & a sperm, we now are tasked to answer when life begins after their joining.

Edited October 20, 2010 by needimprovement

[Moontanman]

point of order: the question is when does life begin? Not "When does consciousness’ begin?".

 

Life begins at conception.

 

I believe it is, Some believe it isn't. Who is right? Scientists apply conditions that would also make people in comas worthless. Some secularists apply principles that would make people with mental defects or physical ailments not really "living".

 

Now, Moontanman, when does fetus acquire consciousness? when is fetus a person?

 

 

Ok, i agree, life does begin at conception but it is not a person at this time, i cannot say exactly when it is a person, if indeed it is a person then every time a woman misses her period and then gets it back the next month a person has died but do we hold funerals for that life? do we even notice unless there is a problem? No we do not, it is obvious that the closer to a live birth you are the closer it gets to being a person. i am not in favor of abortion as routine birth control but I recognize that the mothers needs out weigh the fetus. Sometimes that need will not be life threatening but i can't see it used as routine birth control as many people try to suggest it is used

 

So we know that a newly implanted fertilized egg is not a person, we assume a live birth is a person. A live birth hasn't always been considered a person but i can't see such a thing in any modern context. Now i think a good rule of thumb is if the thinking parts of the brain have not developed then it is i not a person. We have just demonstrated it is not a person just after implantation so where do we go now?

[needimprovement]

Ok, i agree, life does begin at conception but it is not a person at this time, i cannot say exactly when it is a person, if indeed it is a person then every time a woman misses her period and then gets it back the next month a person has died but do we hold funerals for that life? do we even notice unless there is a problem? No we do not, it is obvious that the closer to a live birth you are the closer it gets to being a person. i am not in favor of abortion as routine birth control but I recognize that the mothers needs out weigh the fetus. Sometimes that need will not be life threatening but i can't see it used as routine birth control as many people try to suggest it is used

 

So we know that a newly implanted fertilized egg is not a person, we assume a live birth is a person. A live birth hasn't always been considered a person but i can't see such a thing in any modern context. Now i think a good rule of thumb is if the thinking parts of the brain have not developed then it is i not a person. We have just demonstrated it is not a person just after implantation so where do we go now?

The only way to produce a person, in any of his or her forms or at any stage of personhood, is to begin via the contact between egg and sperm. No contact, no human life, no person.

 

Suppose a woman who is pregnant maybe 8months 3rd trimester, walks into a bank. Bank gets held up by robbers who shoot the woman, she survives but the baby doesn't. Robber Joe get charged with man slaughter etc...

 

Same woman, pregnant 3rd trimester, goes to an abortion clinic, and Joe performs the abortion killing the child, and is paid, and goes free.

 

 

is that okay?

Edited October 20, 2010 by needimprovement

[Moontanman]

The only way to produce a person, in any of his or her forms or at any stage of personhood, is to begin via the contact between egg and sperm. No contact, no human life, no person.

 

You know thats not true needimprovement, clones can be made of body cells, it has been done in animals no reason it cannot be done in humans. Every cell in the human body has the potential to be a human being, just because this new cell does it easiest doesn't mean it is a person.

 

The artificial separation of life from personhood lead to the enslavement of millions of Africans. I would not dare argue the morality of that. But, in that case, man also artificially separated morality from legality. Trouble ensues when man arbitrarily separates that which is inseparable by its nature.

 

Needimprovement, we are on a science forum not philosophy.

 

Suppose a woman who is pregnant maybe 8months 3rd trimester, walks into a bank. Bank gets held up by robbers who shoot the woman, she survives but the baby doesn't. Robber Joe get charged with man slaughter etc...

 

Yes he should...

 

Same woman, pregnant 3rd trimester, goes to an abortion clinic, and Joe performs the abortion killing the child, and is paid, and goes free.

 

 

is that okay?

 

No it is not ok and it is also illegal. So now we have from one month it's not a person and at 8 months it is, can we narrow it down some more?