When Does Life Begin?

[needimprovement]

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.

 

For example, let's say that my wife and I go into a closed room together and after a lot of activity, sweating and moaning, we emerge with a recipe for a cake. All of the information necessary to create that cake is contained in the recipe. But my wife is still going to add ingredients, in some particular order, passing various milestones, and then leave the properly assembled items in her oven at a certain termperature for a set period of time.

 

Now, it seems clear to me that we have a cake once it comes out of her oven, and probably at some time prior to that. But is it a cake when it still a recipe on a piece of paper?

When the egg and sperm meet, it makes a zygote, not a recipe. "All the information" is not a collection of ideas, but a collection of genes - actual physical things. When you and your wife go into the dark room and sweat and moan and make up a cake recipe, you exchange ideas. When you go to bed and make love, two real, physical cells come together to begin an actual human being. If that joining did not occur, no human would be made. How can you say any other moment could possibly be the beginning of life?

[zapatos]

When the egg and sperm meet, it makes a zygote, not a recipe. "All the information" is not a collection of ideas, but a collection of genes - actual physical things. When you and your wife go into the dark room and sweat and moan and make up a cake recipe, you exchange ideas. When you go to bed and make love, two real, physical cells come together to begin an actual human being. If that joining did not occur, no human would be made. How can you say any other moment could possibly be the beginning of life?

I said nothing about the beginning of life. I talked about the starting point for human existence.

 

But here is another moment that could possibly be the starting point for human existence. When we reach the point through cloning or some other method to start human organisms without two real, physical cells coming together to begin an actual human being.

 

And if we can create humans using parthenogenesis then we can say that is the starting point for human existence. Or since there was no sperm involved, maybe the starting point for human existence was when the egg was created, not when it started dividing. So I guess I'm not sure what the starting point is. That's why I'm unsure. I find it easy to say that once the baby is born it is human. And I'm pretty sure that sometime before that it is human, but exactly when is not so clear to me. I dont' see how it can it be so clear to you.

[Mr Skeptic]

Legally in the US, life does begin at conception, at least in many States. In all States at the Nation the fetus is viable at the beginning of the third trimester and protected under law, with some exceptions. I have no idea where life beginning otherwise comes from, as under law, it was defined under Roe V Wade (1973), which simply states the bearer's (mother) rights supercede that of the fetus, for six months. Morally is a different subject and I've always had trouble accepting abortion, not so much for the tens of millions of potential Einstein's (pick your own elites), but for the stress later put on woman that have aborted their own children.

 

If I understand what you are saying, then we also consider animals to be people due to animal cruelty laws.

 

Skeptic; By definition a person is a "human being", they are inseparable.

 

Not true, corporations are persons but not human beings. A person would be an entity that we grant rights similar to the ones we grant to ourselves (as a practical definition).

 

Death is usually determined by brain dead, or reversed the death of the brain ends that persons life. People are mechanically kept alive all the time, by passing the heart.

 

Sort of. We give them the benefit of the doubt for quite a while before declaring them dead. Once the person is declared dead (even if his body isn't) then his body might be unplugged from life support or his organs donated, which you could not do to the living person. So the person is the mind, not the body.

 

Trying to define the product of two creatures, as a result of eons of generations of like creatures, it a bit a play on words. What is conceived in the woman's womb, by one of millions of sperm cells and one of the 50/80 eggs she will ever produce, is as unique as anything else possible. Any two persons born (or more) of the same two donors, will be as equally unique to the extent of their genetic structure. What effects the person, nurturing, education, environment or dozens of non related events happen are not relevant to that uniqueness. Tony IMO, has the correct outlook on his existence.

 

The environment does permanently affect your genetics, so I'd have to disagree there.

 

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.

 

For example, let's say that my wife and I go into a closed room together and after a lot of activity, sweating and moaning, we emerge with a recipe for a cake. All of the information necessary to create that cake is contained in the recipe. But my wife is still going to add ingredients, in some particular order, passing various milestones, and then leave the properly assembled items in her oven at a certain termperature for a set period of time.

 

Now, it seems clear to me that we have a cake once it comes out of her oven, and probably at some time prior to that. But is it a cake when it still a recipe on a piece of paper?

 

Wow. Great analogy.

[AzurePhoenix]

Azure; OK, on earth humans are people or people are humans, not dolphins or anything else.

why? what does personhood mean to you that it must be limited to Homo sapiens? Is it just a simple direct synonym for human, like kitty is to cat? Or does personhood itself hold a philosophical significance to you that restricts it specifically to Homo sapiens? If so, in what way, and would you assign more value to a human person over a non-human non-person entity of comparable intelligence and sentience or greater? Or would you respect them as beings equal to yourself, with all the same rights, just not called "people"?

 

And ydoaPs brings up another excellent example. In several million years, our descendants will have evolved into a completely new species, even genus, and eventually, family and beyond. They will be as distinct from humans as humans are from our tree shrew ancestors. They will not be human. Would you still consider them people?

 

If you would like an addition to my post, then what makes Tony unique (your apparent problem) could not have been logically 100% duplicated anyplace, anytime in the history of the Universe, eternal or back to some Big Bang and another definition for matter. He is, as is every human/person biologically different, genetically and in other ways different to any other human living or has ever lived on the planet. Yes he has similar genetic characteristics of Dolphins or a Rose Bush, but different in total...

indeed he is absolutely unique genetically, and that uniqueness will be added to via life experiences and epigenetic development... but except for those organisms that reproduce clonally, the exact same thing can be said for any other living thing. I'm not sure what your point is. He is genetically distinct. So?

 

If the person is born, capable of living with out life support (the scenario), he/she remains both a person and human. I don't think many new born could live very long with out some support, but are in fact human and people.

You state "are in fact" as if the definition of personhood is established and definite. This is not true. As I pointed out earlier, there are a number of varying, widely used definitions of personhood, some legal, others religious, others ethological and such. On the surface without more data to go on, your preference seems to be one of human exceptionalism, but there are others, and according to some, such as my own self-awareness preference, an infant isn't.

 

Agree and I answered accordingly, however that response was directed at the evolution to humans and before. 3.8BYA implies human life began to evolve from micro organisms, which I don't disagree with, but those organisms could not have formed with out certain elements (as you suggest), primarily carbon (we are carbon based life forms) and carbon in my SSU World has always been around but under BBT after the first stars formed. The point being to guesstimate an existence on what was can go a long way back. Hope this clarifies....

Not really... I don't contest the basic truth of what your saying, only the immediate relevance to the topic. And I in no way suggested life doesn't require carbon. What I said is that two lines of biological descent originating from two independently generated abiogenic events are not biologically related. I don't know how mineralogists or chemists conceptualize relatedness, or if they even do, but the two lines of descent would only be related in THAT sense. Edited October 17, 2010 by AzurePhoenix

[TonyMcC]

I think that once you put the mixed ingredients for your cake in the oven and switch the oven on you are entitled to anticipate eating your cake (have to lol although this is a serious topic)!

[AzurePhoenix]

AzurePhoenix - Has panspermia been defintely been ruled not viable and so not responsible for life on earth? I only introduced it as possible link between life on this planet and any life to be found elsewhere in the galaxy. I believe the odds have been calculated at 10^24 against panspermia but that is a bit short of infinity!

Oh no I wasn't discounting panspermia as something that might possibly be possible, at least within a solar system, I just meant that, even if it can occur, and has, there's still likely to be batches of life that don't share common biological ancestors and are completely isolated from one another, and so those ones are entirely unrelated in that sense.

 

Specifically, I was making the distinction that the amino acids in meteors are sub-biological, and so even two lines of organisms descended from the same batch of amino acids, aren't biologically related, just chemically.

Edited October 17, 2010 by AzurePhoenix

[cypress]

I guess this is a topic that many people have differing views about: All of them valid in one way or another. As for me, I am content to feel that I, as a unique human being, came into existence at the moment of conception. Given nourishment and protection throughout my developing years all that I had the possibility of becoming was decided (almost entirely by chance) at that time. If I had been born with a brain limited in ability such that it could keep my body alive but nothing more I would still be a live human being.

 

Those who claim unfertilized eggs and sperm represent life are equivocating likely to blur the lines. Neither of them replicate. the life of the living organism begins at conception.

 

it's not just "possible," it's the established reality.

 

THIS is a different matter. The relatedness issue is a matter of the fact that all extant lifeforms on earth are descended from a shared ancestral organism. Unless panspermia were viable and involved, life from other worlds would be descended from an independent source, an isolated and separate abiogenic event.

 

 

It is not an established reality that all life is related. It is an open question. The idea that life has a single common ancestor to this day lack causal adequacy. Nobody is able to factually show that it is physically possible much less show that it is factually accurate that all life is related. It is a metaphysical belief that may or may not be true.

[needimprovement]

I said nothing about the beginning of life. I talked about the starting point for human existence.

 

But here is another moment that could possibly be the starting point for human existence. When we reach the point through cloning or some other method to start human organisms without two real, physical cells coming together to begin an actual human being.

 

And if we can create humans using parthenogenesis then we can say that is the starting point for human existence. Or since there was no sperm involved, maybe the starting point for human existence was when the egg was created, not when it started dividing. So I guess I'm not sure what the starting point is. That's why I'm unsure. I find it easy to say that once the baby is born it is human. And I'm pretty sure that sometime before that it is human, but exactly when is not so clear to me. I dont' see how it can it be so clear to you.

It's crystal clear to me:

 

Take the concept of regression. A "born" baby is human, right? Everyone can agree on that. One hour earlier, is that baby human? How about an hour before that? And so on and so on. It is clear that you can go back second by second all the way back to when Mr Sperm and Miss Egg meet, and the moment before then, and only at that moment and previously can we definitively say that there a unique individual has not been yet been created.

 

Go forward a moment......we have a new life.

 

Eggs by themselves will never form a new life. However, if we figure out how to parthenogenically get an egg or sperm cell to start dividing and to start a new life; when it starts dividing is when it becomes a new life. The moment that new life starts is the moment it becomes human.

[zapatos]

First you said:

 

When you go to bed and make love, two real, physical cells come together to begin an actual human being. If that joining did not occur, no human would be made. How can you say any other moment could possibly be the beginning of life?

Now you say:

 

However, if we figure out how to parthenogenically get an egg or sperm cell to start dividing and to start a new life; when it starts dividing is when it becomes a new life.

 

So which is it? Has to be an egg and a sperm coming together or not? It's not crystal clear to me, and based on what you are saying it doesn't even seem to be crystal clear to you. Will you be able to envision another moment that could possibly be the beginning of life if we can come up with a different technology to create a human organism?

 

And I know you didn't like my cake analogy, but let's apply the concept of regression to that. It's a cake when it comes out of the oven. I can go back second by second to when the Miss egg met Mr. flour (and sugar and butter and...). But I still don't think I'd call that mass of goo a cake.

[The Foot Tapper]

Life begins the instant the ovum is fertilised (for Humans) and has nothing to do with the brain.

[Moontanman]

Life begins the instant the ovum is fertilised (for Humans) and has nothing to do with the brain.

 

 

Ok, that is at least a definition with no sliding scale but, let's say i harvested a cell from your body, skin will do, then I grew that cell into a culture and took one of the cultured cells and grew a new human being, lets say an artificial womb (it will happen) would this body be a human being? What if you grew it with no brain, could it just be harvested for organs or would it be a human with all the rights and privileges everyone with brains does? What makes us human, our conscious brain or our shape?

[cypress]

Ok, that is at least a definition with no sliding scale but, let's say i harvested a cell from your body, skin will do, then I grew that cell into a culture and took one of the cultured cells and grew a new human being, lets say an artificial womb (it will happen) would this body be a human being? What if you grew it with no brain, could it just be harvested for organs or would it be a human with all the rights and privileges everyone with brains does? What makes us human, our conscious brain or our shape?

 

 

Supposing this could be done. The skin cell is alive, as is the culture, and the resulting cells. I don't see how this has helped the question of when life begins. How is this relevant?

 

It was a perfectly biological answer.

 

From the origin of life to today every organism is a small piece of an ongoing continuum of life with no gaps of non-life between one cell and the cells it divides into along the way. In multicellular organisms such as ourselves living germ-line gametogonia divide into living gametes via meiosis, and when complimentary gametes fuse, a new genetically distinct organism is produced, but at no point is new life created, nor has it ever been created within the framework of life on earth as we know it since its initial origin.

 

Ergo, life began 3.8 billion years ago.

 

Unfortunately this does not reveal truth because it is a metaphysical belief as opposed to an established fact. It fails on causal adequacy and it fails because during this process there are transitions whereby previously a unique and separate entity did not exist but now does. Your concept fails to recognize the reality of unique and separate beings. It is therefore logically inconsistent.

[Moontanman]

Supposing this could be done. The skin cell is alive, as is the culture, and the resulting cells. I don't see how this has helped the question of when life begins. How is this relevant?

 

It's relevant because we are talking about what a human life is, is this creature, a clone, a human being? Is it a human being if it is specifically grown with no brain? other animals have been cloned, i see no reason humans could not be cloned. But there is an even more artificial way to make a life from, make up the genes from stock chemicals that were not already alive and place them in a cell and have it go on about it's business like nothing had happened. Eventually it will be possible to do this with complex animals and of course humans are animals...

 

So would this totally artificial being be human? Some people think it's a life from the time of conception and i am cool with what ever the other guy wants to believe as long as he doesn't make me follow his beliefs. But what if there is no conception? all human cells have the potential to be humans. does this make very cell precious? Or does it show that a cells potential is not fixed, all fertilized eggs do not go on to produce a fetus, when does it become a human being? and what makes it a human being? I think it's human being when the brain becomes active and when that activity ceases it ceases to be human.

[Mr Skeptic]

It's crystal clear to me:

 

Take the concept of regression. A "born" baby is human, right? Everyone can agree on that. One hour earlier, is that baby human? How about an hour before that? And so on and so on. It is clear that you can go back second by second all the way back to when Mr Sperm and Miss Egg meet, and the moment before then, and only at that moment and previously can we definitively say that there a unique individual has not been yet been created.

 

You can keep going back a few thousand years, it's still human, and always alive. My hair is human but not alive. My kidneys are human and alive. Again you are equating different things; life, human, and person each mean different things.

 

Go forward a moment......we have a new life.

 

Try "making life" with a dead egg. You might be able to do it with a dead sperm, but I'm not sure.

 

Eggs by themselves will never form a new life. However, if we figure out how to parthenogenically get an egg or sperm cell to start dividing and to start a new life; when it starts dividing is when it becomes a new life. The moment that new life starts is the moment it becomes human.

 

Sure they do, just not in our species. In ants an unfertilized egg becomes a male. Note that this is closer to my suggestion of gametogenesis as being more significant than fertilization, which as I pointed out was where the greatest reduction in possible outcomes happens (for genetics at least).

 

For humans, an unfertilized egg would be fatally missing half its genes.

[jackson33]

If I understand what you are saying, then we also consider animals to be people due to animal cruelty laws.[/Quote]

 

Skeptic; Not understanding the connection, Animal Laws are usually "local" or fall under some endangered species program, BUT no animals are not people, different species.

 

Not true, corporations are persons but not human beings. A person would be an entity that we grant rights similar to the ones we grant to ourselves (as a practical definition).[/Quote]

 

No, your thinking Corporations have some equal rights to persons, but Corporations are entities, made up of people. An empty factory has no defined right for anything, as if "it" could perform those rights to begin with....

 

The environment does permanently affect your genetics, so I'd have to disagree there.[/Quote]

 

Actually not true IMO. You genetics are preset by your donors and if not adaptable to the environment, you will suffer, not genetically change. Now if your thinking the immune system or other influence such as medical, these can protect that structure, only.

 

indeed he is absolutely unique genetically, and that uniqueness will be added to via life experiences and epigenetic development... but except for those organisms that reproduce clonally, the exact same thing can be said for any other living thing. I'm not sure what your point is. He is genetically distinct. So?[/Quote]

 

Azure; The poster believed he was "conceived" uniquely different, which of course infers before environmental influences, then genetically. He is IMO correct, which you are agreeing with in your comment.

 

They will be as distinct from humans as humans are from our tree shrew ancestors. They will not be human. Would you still consider them people?[/Quote]

 

No, I consider humans a species, that probably evolved from other primates. By definition then we are primates, the species "Homo Sapian", and humans and people.

 

 

 

You state "are in fact" as if the definition of personhood is established and definite. This is not true.[/Quote]

 

By definition a person is a human, I really have no place else to go with this and to quantify beyond that simple point would lead nowhere....

 

Noun: person (people,persons) pur-sun

A human being[/Quote]

 

http://www.wordwebonline.com/search.pl?w=person

 

 

A person (from the Latin persona meaning "mask")[1] is most broadly defined as any individual self-conscious or rational being, or any entity having rights and duties; or often more narrowly defined as an individual human being in particular.[2][3][4][5] [/Quote]

 

http://www.wordwebonline.com/search.pl?w=person

 

 

And if we can create humans using parthenogenesis then we can say that is the starting point for human existence. Or since there was no sperm involved, maybe the starting point for human existence was when the egg was created, not when it started dividing. So I guess I'm not sure what the starting point is. That's why I'm unsure. I find it easy to say that once the baby is born it is human. And I'm pretty sure that sometime before that it is human, but exactly when is not so clear to me. I dont' see how it can it be so clear to you.[/Quote]

 

needimprovement, what else could it be once fertilized and splitting cells, if in a human, not a human. Since "In Vitro Fertilization" is now reality (2008), I suppose a human embryo could be place into another vertebrate or animal (don't think would work, rejection), never the less the donors were humans. To take this a little further, I see no reason in say 50 or 100 years they will be able to sustain the premature births (accidents/decease etc) from virtually any point. I'm getting to hate analogies, but we are all supposed to become old men or women, but at different points are called different things, why not use embryo and fetus for starters....

[needimprovement]

First you said:

 

 

Now you say:

 

 

 

So which is it? Has to be an egg and a sperm coming together or not? It's not crystal clear to me, and based on what you are saying it doesn't even seem to be crystal clear to you. Will you be able to envision another moment that could possibly be the beginning of life if we can come up with a different technology to create a human organism?

 

And I know you didn't like my cake analogy, but let's apply the concept of regression to that. It's a cake when it comes out of the oven. I can go back second by second to when the Miss egg met Mr. flour (and sugar and butter and...). But I still don't think I'd call that mass of goo a cake.

Yeah, it's clear to me.

 

I was talking about what goes on in the joining of egg and sperm to make a new life. Where is this unclear?

 

Parthenogenesis is not possible (yet), and may never be. But let's say it was possible. When the two combined cells come together (asexually) and start forming an embryo, it's a new life. Where is THAT unclear?

 

I don't know what the future holds. When such technologies are developed or are in development, perhaps we'll have to examine such technologies.

 

Your cake anaology is flawed because it deals with an inanimate object. Apples and oranges.

Edited October 18, 2010 by needimprovement

[AzurePhoenix]

Actually not true IMO. You genetics are preset by your donors and if not adaptable to the environment, you will suffer, not genetically change. Now if your thinking the immune system or other influence such as medical, these can protect that structure, only.

Look up epigenetics. Non-genetic external factors and mechanisms can influence and change gene expression, and potentially influence the phenotype, albeit without altering the original genome of the organism. Axolotyls are a good example, typically most individuals of the species never mature out of their larval phase, but can be induced to do so via application of hormones.

 

Azure; The poster believed he was "conceived" uniquely different, which of course infers before environmental influences, then genetically. He is IMO correct, which you are agreeing with in your comment.

We're not in disagreement over the basic fact of his uniqueness, but over the implications and ultimate importance of it at the embryonic or fetal, or even infantile stage.

 

No, I consider humans a species, that probably evolved from other primates. By definition then we are primates, the species "Homo Sapian", and humans and people.

So you are saying you would not consider our non-human ancestors people. Which again forces me to reiterate, do you attribute any special philosophical value to the term "person" that non-human sentient intelligences (including our distant ancestors) wouldn't possess? Would you consider them "lesser than" human-persons?

 

By definition a person is a human, I really have no place else to go with this and to quantify beyond that simple point would lead nowhere....

your preferred definition is limited and narrowly particular. In common parlance what you say is often the case (and so likely to show up in dictionaries, as you've shown), but those fields that take time to examine and consider the deeper philosophical concept of the idea are not so definite, and often define personhood according to a set of cognitive characteristics regardless of humanity. In theistic mythos, gods are regularly considered people (the persons of the Trinity, for example,) ethology and psychology frequently consider what characteristics constitute personhood, with the inevitable conclusion that it's not necessarily "just a human thing." You have to take into account that you seem to just be using the word person in a laymen context as a synonym for "human," ignoring that its often used with the implication of deeper philosophical values regarding the concept of a being's "worth" or "rights" and whatnot. You are sticking to a particular, and fairly shallow variation of the definition of person, and that's perfectly valid in your subjective use of it, but there are other definitions of the concept that apply it to a wider range of concepts, and those other definitions are not wrong.

 

Unfortunately this does not reveal truth because it is a metaphysical belief as opposed to an established fact. It fails on causal adequacy and it fails because during this process there are transitions whereby previously a unique and separate entity did not exist but now does. Your concept fails to recognize the reality of unique and separate beings. It is therefore logically inconsistent.

Not at all, you're just using a different concept of "new life" than the way I was expressing the concept of life. My reference to the conception of a distinct organism is perfectly synonymous with the context that you're using life in. My conceptions only become inconsistent when you apply your own foreign context to them. It's as if you said 3 is smaller than 4, and I said you were wrong because I used the symbol 3 to represent the amount we call six.

[zapatos]

Yeah, it's clear to me.

 

I was talking about what goes on in the joining of egg and sperm to make a new life. Where is this unclear?

 

Parthenogenesis is not possible (yet), and may never be. But let's say it was possible. When the two combined cells come together (asexually) and start forming an embryo, it's a new life. Where is THAT unclear?

 

I don't know what the future holds. When such technologies are developed or are in development, perhaps we'll have to examine such technologies.

 

Your cake anaology is flawed because it deals with an inanimate object. Apples and oranges.

Sorry for repeating myself, but you said (all bolding is mine):

 

"When you go to bed and make love, two real, physical cells come together to begin an actual human being. If that joining did not occur, no human would be made. How can you say any other moment could possibly be the beginning of life?"

 

I took this to mean that you believed that two real, physical cells coming together is the only moment that could possibly be the beginning of life.

 

You then said:

 

"However, if we figure out how to parthenogenically get an egg or sperm cell to start dividing and to start a new life; when it starts dividing is when it becomes a new life."

 

Since 'parthenogenesis' means: "a form of reproduction in which the ovum develops into a new individual without fertilization"

(http://www.encyclopedia.com/topic/parthenogenesis.aspx), I took this to mean that you believed that it was NOT necessary that two real, physical cells coming together is the only moment that could possibly be the beginning of life.

 

Since it appeared to me that you were making two contradictory statements, I said that it doesn't seem to be clear to YOU when life begins. And looking at it again I still do not understand where you stand on this issue. Is it necessary that life begins with an egg and a sperm, or is it not? I accept that I may have misunderstood what you were saying so I'd be happy to be corrected.

 

Regardless, it is still unclear to ME when life (or from my perspective, human existence) begins. Your explaining why you believe it starts at a certain time did not clear up anything for me. I still am not comfortable picking some milestone, such as conception, cell division, brain development, self awareness, birth, or any other. And the possibility that I may have to change my definition of when it begins based on current technology makes it even worse. If there is a God, I hope He isn't changing His definition of when life begins just because of changing human technology.

 

I drop my cake analogy (even though I thought it was kind of amusing). I'll come up with one involving animate objects.

 

As an aside, do Christians belive in human parthenogenesis, given the virgin birth of Jesus Christ?

Edited October 18, 2010 by zapatos

[AzurePhoenix]

It is not an established reality that all life is related. It is an open question. The idea that life has a single common ancestor to this day lack causal adequacy. Nobody is able to factually show that it is physically possible much less show that it is factually accurate that all life is related. It is a metaphysical belief that may or may not be true.

the scientifically derived explanation for the evolutionary diversification from a common ancestor is perfectly adequate, and repeatedly shown to be consistent with observable reality. The mechanisms that allow for this have been factually observed, and, lets say in the case of an eye, the evolution of all of the little intermediary steps necessary to form an eye like our own have been shown to be individually possible. It would require some unknown mechanism to working to actively prevent these processes from occurring to limit the possibility of the evolution of a complex eye via observed mechanisms. Ultimately, there are no coherent arguments against the relatedness and common descent of observed life on earth, only evidence for.

 

Anyway, do you believe that genetic testing can be used to determine the relatedness of individual humans within a population? Or is that metaphysics too? Since the use of genetics to evaluate the relatedness between more distinct groups of organisms in phylogenetics is the same principle.

 

But even if none of that were true, how does the relatedness or lack thereof between groups of organisms impact the issue? It seems that the conception/life/person issue is a matter of "what is" regardless of what came before.

Edited October 18, 2010 by AzurePhoenix

[needimprovement]

Sorry for repeating myself, but you said (all bolding is mine):

 

"When you go to bed and make love, two real, physical cells come together to begin an actual human being. If that joining did not occur, no human would be made. How can you say any other moment could possibly be the beginning of life?"

 

I took this to mean that you believed that two real, physical cells coming together is the only moment that could possibly be the beginning of life.

 

You then said:

 

"However, if we figure out how to parthenogenically get an egg or sperm cell to start dividing and to start a new life; when it starts dividing is when it becomes a new life."

 

Since 'parthenogenesis' means: "a form of reproduction in which the ovum develops into a new individual without fertilization"

(http://www.encyclopedia.com/topic/parthenogenesis.aspx), I took this to mean that you believed that it was NOT necessary that two real, physical cells coming together is the only moment that could possibly be the beginning of life.

 

Since it appeared to me that you were making two contradictory statements, I said that it doesn't seem to be clear to YOU when life begins. And looking at it again I still do not understand where you stand on this issue. Is it necessary that life begins with an egg and a sperm, or is it not? I accept that I may have misunderstood what you were saying so I'd be happy to be corrected.

 

Regardless, it is still unclear to ME when life (or from my perspective, human existence) begins. Your explaining why you believe it starts at a certain time did not clear up anything for me. I still am not comfortable picking some milestone, such as conception, cell division, brain development, self awareness, birth, or any other. And the possibility that I may have to change my definition of when it begins based on current technology makes it even worse. If there is a God, I hope He isn't changing His definition of when life begins just because of changing human technology.

 

I drop my cake analogy (even though I thought it was kind of amusing). I'll come up with one involving animate objects.

 

As an aside, do Christians belive in human parthenogenesis, given the virgin birth of Jesus Christ?

Is it necessary that life begins with an egg and a sperm, or is it not? At this point in time, yes. If science figures out how to manipulate ova or DNA or whatever to create a new life, then we will have to reexamine how we define new life.

 

But just for discussion, let's say that science can join the DNA of one egg into another, forming an embryo which grows into an adult human being. At some point, that organism becomes a unique individual, different from either one of it's "parent" eggs. As Catholics, I would believe that when that happened, a new human life was formed, and as such at that moment it became a human person.

 

Since human parthenogenesis has not been demonstrated, we are free to believe whether or not it is possible. In reference to Christ, it is a matter of faith that he was incarnated by the action of the Holy Spirit, not by some parthenogenic event. We will never be able to explain this action scientifically, and accept it as a mystery of our faith.

 

BTW, since you do not have a particular milestone for when a human embryo becomes a human person, why not consider it to be the moment of conception? Philosophically speaking, it's as valid a notion as any other time.

Edited October 18, 2010 by needimprovement

[zapatos]

BTW, since you do not have a particular milestone for when a human embryo becomes a human person, why not consider it to be the moment of conception? Philosophically speaking, it's as valid a notion as any other time.

I can't just pick any moment and pretend I believe that. And if I did pick the moment of conception then I would have to consider all those who have abortions as murderers. That's fine if I really believe it, but I don't. I'm just not sure. So while I consider the fertilized egg to be a significant form of life, I find the needs of a conflicted and tortured young girl to be more significant. And I think the fertilized egg is more significant than my needs, if I was just too lazy to put on a condom and now find that having another kid is going to be financially challenging. And of course once the fertilized egg becomes a human person, then the needs of the conflicted and tortured young girl can no longer reign supreme.

[Moontanman]

I think it should be pointed out that most of the problems of the "conflicted girl" are due to religion, quite specifically in this case Religion of the male dominated controlling monotheistic type. The conflicted young girl is conflicted due to religion telling her things that conflict with the feelings inside her. You can't have sex, that's the basic message, but her desire for sex is quite high, the pressure on her to have sex from boys is quite high, her very biological being screams for sex. So to full fill this biological imperative and serve God she gets married early and has babies like door steps most of her life. (no masterbation either BTW.)

 

Or she can, as most eventually do because the conflicted girl is indeed an intelligent human being, use birth control! yes, modern science has solved the dilemma of unsafe sex! She can hump to her hearts content until she decides to have a baby!

 

Religion cannot deal with this of course so birth control is immoral as immoral as the pregnancy in the unmarried girl and the abortion she needs to have to get her lives potential back. But in the eyes of God her main job is having those babies. Even in married couples, no birth control, only abstinence and pregnancy are the allowed possibilities. BTW marriage without birth control would be a very special type of hell to me B)

 

I think it's relevant that the people who are against abortion are also against birth control, i think this is because in the over all world view of religion females are basically less human than males. keep em bare foot and pregnant, that's what they are for. Birth control gives sexual freedom and what freedom is more basic than sexual freedom? Religion opposes freedoms, especially sexual freedoms.

 

I think life begins when you reject religious control of your self, if not for the twisted religious moral views abortion would be a rare thing, taken care of quickly and early but most unwanted pregnancies could be avoided before when life begins becomes a problem.

Edited October 18, 2010 by Moontanman

[needimprovement]

I can't just pick any moment and pretend I believe that. And if I did pick the moment of conception then I would have to consider all those who have abortions as murderers. That's fine if I really believe it, but I don't. I'm just not sure. So while I consider the fertilized egg to be a significant form of life, I find the needs of a conflicted and tortured young girl to be more significant. And I think the fertilized egg is more significant than my needs, if I was just too lazy to put on a condom and now find that having another kid is going to be financially challenging. And of course once the fertilized egg becomes a human person, then the needs of the conflicted and tortured young girl can no longer reign supreme.

I think you're partway there.

 

Perhaps if you were to take some to consider this matter from a purely philosophical angle, that might be helpful.

 

We have to be careful not to become quasi-utilitarian as Catholic Christians, in terms of who's "needs" are more important. That opens up a whole new can of worms.

[cypress]

the scientifically derived explanation for the evolutionary diversification from a common ancestor is perfectly adequate, and repeatedly shown to be consistent with observable reality.

 

It is inadequate because at the molecular level new discoveries have shown that functional proteins greater than 150 units are approximately 1 in 10^78 of the total possible. Douglas Axe, "Estimating the Prevalence of Proton Sequences Adopting Functional Enzyme Folds", Journal of Molecular Biology, 2004. A unique protein in a functional system generally requires multiple binding sites of generally 3-10 consecutive amino acid pairs. In addition corresponding gene expression controls and developmental controls are required along with a host of specialty proteins to aid in storage, transportation, assembly and repair. These systems are all required for most protein systems and must all be in place for the system to function. Evolution by random stepwise processes along with selection once a useful function can be selected for does not adequately explain how such systems might arise. In the lab attempts to observe derivation of sub-steps have thus far failed to demonstrate that mutation even with strong selection pressure derives systems requiring 3 or more steps. Novel functions seem to require several times that many steps. Axe's work seems to explain why we don't observe multiple step pathways leading to new function. There is the rare case of a stand-alone enzyme requiring no protein protein binding sites having been derived in a single step mutation. There are also cases of single mutations damaging current function to prevent introduced chemicals from exploiting a protein system to defeat bacteria. There are no known cases of these single mutations forming a portion of a larger pathway to novel function.

 

The mechanisms that allow for this have been factually observed,

 

Stepwise mutation and natural selection has not generated the required multi-step pathways. What mechanism do you refer to and what novel protein function was formed? Mutations allowing for adaptation of an existing function has been factually observed, but your claim is that known evolutionary processes are factually observed to generate the new systems that lead to new species. These novel systems require multi-protein systems that in turn give rise to new form and function. Can you please factually establish these observations you claim exist?

 

 

and, lets say in the case of an eye, the evolution of all of the little intermediary steps necessary to form an eye like our own have been shown to be individually possible.

 

No, I've seem a bit of hand waving and citation of a handful if plausible intermediates separated by an unknown number of specific steps with no pathways from one intermediate to another. Please describe even five contiguous steps in the presumably thousands of steps involved in an presumed evolutionary pathway involving an eye. Don't skip and of the "little intermediary steps".

 

It would require some unknown mechanism to working to actively prevent these processes from occurring to limit the possibility of the evolution of a complex eye via observed mechanisms.

 

References supporting this statement please.

 

Ultimately, there are no coherent arguments against the relatedness and common descent of observed life on earth, only evidence for.

 

Here is one:

 

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

 

It is therefore surprising that the protein sequences of several central components of the DNA replication machinery, above all the principal replicative polymerases, show very little or no sequence similarity between bacteria and archaea/eukaryotes.

 

In particular, and counter-intuitively, given the central role of DNA in all cells and the mechanistic uniformity of replication, the core enzymes of the replication systems of bacteria and archaea (as well as eukaryotes) are unrelated or extremely distantly related. Viruses and plasmids, in addition, possess at least two unique DNA replication systems, namely, the protein-primed and rolling circle modalities of replication. This unexpected diversity makes the origin and evolution of DNA replication systems a particularly challenging and intriguing problem in evolutionary biology.

 

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

 

E. V. Koonin, “Temporal order of evolution of DNA replication systems inferred by comparison of cellular and viral DNA polymerases", Biology Direct 18 (2006): 1-39.

 

For DNA replication, the prediction that these molecular process should be conserved across all life has been empirically falsified. Not only are specific important molecular parts not conserved, but there are several types of DNA replication processes.

 

Anyway, do you believe that genetic testing can be used to determine the relatedness of individual humans within a population? Or is that metaphysics too?

 

Of course it can because one can empirically validate the results of genetic testing by comparison to birth records. Once validated by direct comparison on known subjects, one can se the same test to infer relatedness of unknown subjects.

 

Since the use of genetics to evaluate the relatedness between more distinct groups of organisms in phylogenetics is the same principle.

 

The principle is not the problem. the problem arises when one attempts to extend a valid concept further and further from the limits to which it has been validated. It quickly reaches a point where the uncertainty of the conclusion exceeds the range of observed similarity and differences. At that point to claim that the results are empirically meaningful is without merit.

 

But even if none of that were true, how does the relatedness or lack thereof between groups of organisms impact the issue? It seems that the conception/life/person issue is a matter of "what is" regardless of what came before.

 

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.

 

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

[Neta]

It's a biological question, not historical one.

 

According to a new book I am reading, Becoming Human; Just saying you're human doesn't do it --very interesting--life began with the "big bang"