Science

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by inked

By the by, don't chimps and other animals exhibit tool use in obtaining food? I seem to remember some amazing tool usage experiments to enable obtaining bananas for chimps. Aren't stones a tool like that in this case?

Theyve shown the ability to use items at hand in pursuit of an immediate goal (like smashing a nut on a rock or poking termites out of a hole with a stick) and yes they certainly can memorize basic picture patterns on a touch screen computer to earn a banana but the concept here is somewhat unprecedented from what I understand. This chimp purposefully went out of his way to obtain tools to be used for a later purpose. That hasnt really been shown to be typical chimp behavior. It requires a level of abstract thinking and long term planning which most primate experts had not previously thought possible from a chimp.

My thinking is that a large black monolith from space visited our chimp friend one night… Clearly space aliens are conspiring to evolve chimpanzees and de-evolve us! Planet of the Apes is just around the corner people!! Wake up before its too late!!

[inked]

Thanks, IR. I guess if they had piled up twigs.....

All,
On the OBAMA front, I came across this excellent consideration of the embryonic stuff (see above) and an evaluation of its "science" component that is worth your reading, I think:
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn...031202764.html

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Well, I read it. In what way is it an evaluation of the "science" of embryonic stem cell research?

[inked]

I quite agree that there was no evaluation by the President of the science, SACA. This was fulfilment of a campaign promise and has nothing to do with science. For that you will have to cull from these factually-laced articles:

http://www.catholic-sf.org/news_sele...wsid=3&id=1059

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/03/14/us...einfels&st=cse

http://www.osvdailytake.com/2009/03/...integrity.html

The middle one is from the NYT, by the by.

The same sort of "faith" or "religious belief" in the materialism of "stem cells, embryonic" is evidenced here:

http://www.slate.com/id/2213707/

because, as I constantly remind everyone, zygotes become embryos become fetuses become babies become children become adults. In short, where they are, you were; we all were.

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

I know you see it that way, but I really see it differently. I see a woman's contribution (VOLUNTARY) as essential to the process, and I don't recognise as a "person" anything that hasn't been born yet.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by sisterandcousinandaunt

I don't recognise as a "person" anything that hasn't been born yet.

There are times when I'd even raise that bar until at least the age of eighteen.

[Count Comfect]

Originally Posted by inked

I constantly remind everyone, zygotes become embryos become fetuses become babies become children become adults. In short, where they are, you were; we all were.

The same is true of sperm and eggs; each of us was a sperm and an egg at some point. Yet masturbation, nocturnal emissions, and menstruation all dispose of one or the other of these every day. There simply has to be a line somewhere in that progression between what is human and protected as a human, and what is not; you draw it at the zygote, I draw it at the baby. That doesn't mean that I don't think one should have more concern and care for a zygote, an embryo, or a fetus than one does for something that will not become a baby in time, but it does mean I don't believe in treating them like humans until they are humans.

On the topic of science, I believe that this change by Obama is scientifically motivated, in the interest of increased our knowledge and our ability to, scientifically, use these stem cells to extend, improve, and most importantly save the lives of those already born.

[inked]

Count Comfect, you show me the sperm or the egg that can become human all on its own without another source for its half supply of DNA and then you might have an argument. Sperm nor egg are capable of producing a human alone. That is why the zygote is the initiation of the human and, with some carbohydrates and oxygen, becomes you.

The potential for a human being is not present in the single sperm or egg alone as the DNA is not adequate. This is simple scientific fact in regard to humans.

The wastefulness of the numbers of sperm and eggs is not an argument for the production of zygotes which become embryos which can then be experimented upon as though they were not human. They are the first that is human in toto. Whether they survive the wastefulness of the uterus and subsequent reproductive cycle is also not an argument that embryos are not human.

The reality is sperm + egg = zygote which becomes embryo which becomes fetus which becomes baby which becomes child which becomes adolescent which becomes adult = you.

It is also readily apparent that other avenues of stem cells are more productive and reliable.

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Originally Posted by inked

Count Comfect, you show me the sperm or the egg that can become human all on its own without another source for its half supply of DNA and then you might have an argument. Sperm nor egg are capable of producing a human alone. That is why the zygote is the initiation of the human and, with some carbohydrates and oxygen, becomes you.

A lovely idea for a new mother's day card.

Dear carbohydrates and oxygen,
It's a special day for you
a time for me to say
thanks for placenta and O2
that made me what
I am today.



Your formerly hosted zygote,
Jimmy.

Inked, if you can show ME a zygote that can become a human all on its own, you'll be closer to proving a point that remains theological.

[brownjenkins]

Originally Posted by inked

The reality is sperm + egg = zygote which becomes embryo which becomes fetus which becomes baby which becomes child which becomes adolescent which becomes adult = you.

So should a woman feel guilty everytime she ovulates without choosing to try to conceive the child? Is she killing a potential human being?

[Coffeehouse]

Originally Posted by inked

The reality is sperm + egg = zygote which becomes embryo which becomes fetus which becomes baby which becomes child which becomes adolescent which becomes adult = you.

Take a look at the word 'becomes' Inked. To the 'other side' that's where the answer lies. The zygote is a zygote, until it has become anything else. Just as a breathing human being is a human being, until it becomes dust. Until it is dust, it isn't dust. It is a human being. It has the potential to become dust in the wind, the ground, the sea (what may you), but that lies in the future.

The zygote is a zygote until it is anything else. The fetus is a fetus until it is anything else. The child is a child until it is anything else, and the adult human being is an adult human being, and whatever it was, and whatever its potential allows it to become, it is then and there an adult human being.

This is why I believe that turning off the lights on the zygote, and in the first medically recommended stages of a fetus, is okay, whatever emotional feelings it invokes. Until the zygote and the fetus have become something medicine strongly discourages from removing, they are a zygote and a fetus, and not a human being, and certainly not you or me. Zygote Coffeehouse is not Human Being Coffeehouse. It shares nearly identical traits as Zygote Chicken Coffeehouse, Zygote Duck Coffeehouse and Zygote Fox Coffeehouse, much less so with Human Being Coffeehouse. If Zygote Coffeehouse isn't in the plans, that's the end of him, if not, some day he might be (luckily he pulled through) Human Being Coffeehouse. But Zygote Coffeehouse has no green card, no inherent right in becoming Human Being Coffeehouse. And there are no sanctimonious golden letters engraved on his Zygote-body.

Zygote Coffeehouse like Zygote Chicken, Duck or Fox, has no more right in becoming the actual manifestation of his DNA-potential as any of the above-mentioned.

Anyways, don't we have an Abortion-thread for this?

[inked]

Gee, Coffeehouse, I thought this thread was about science. Kindly point out exactly where the science is wrong. For instance, where do you get an embryo or a fetus or a baby without a zygote.

If you wish to say that -on the basis of your argument- an apparent human less than thirty cm in length is an organ source and not a person entitled to protection as, say, a baby whale would be, why you cannot use it as an organ source for those able to afford it.

Perhaps you'd like enclaves of these "organ donors non-persons" to be available, as posited in several sci-fi scenarios? Since they are legally denied personhood - not scientifically- what exactly would be wrong with "experimenting" or "utilizing" them?

This is the science thread. When you disprove the link between zygote and all that follows then we can discuss the other ramifications of arbitrary decisions to enable what you desire. But until then, the science stands.

[Jonathan]

Originally Posted by brownjenkins

So should a woman feel guilty everytime she ovulates without choosing to try to conceive the child? Is she killing a potential human being?

If so, men are killing potential human beings to a much, much greater extent

[Count Comfect]

Gee, Coffeehouse, I thought this thread was about science. Kindly point out exactly where the science is wrong. For instance, where do you get an embryo or a fetus or a baby without a zygote.

Or a zygote without a sperm and egg? Or a baby without additional development from a zygote aided, as sisterandcousinandaunt says, by an outside source (incubator or mother)? A zygote is necessary to having a baby. Yes. That does not mean, scientifically, that a zygote IS a baby. You may have your theological/moral point of view as to when that zygote has become a human, but it does not make the viewpoint science, and saying that one is necessary to the other does not make them the same, by science.

[inked]

CC, you are not seriously suggesting a cabbage patch origin for babies, are you? ;>)

Produce the baby without a zygote, please. Then we shall reconsider. Even in the alleged parenthood of same-sex couples SOMEBODY provided egg and SOMEBODY provided sperm but not until a zygote was a human and all humans (even the donors in this example) are from a zygote. You cannot have a human without one. It is the first identifiably human cell from which all humans exist.

That fact doesn't change depending on the location of the zygote - intrafallopian or in vitreo - does it?

[Nurvingiel]

We do have a thread about abortion here to discuss this subject. The abortion thread left off discussing zygotes as well so it should be pretty seamless to pick up the discussion.

General science discussion that doesn't have its own thread already can stay in this section.

[Count Comfect]

To return to an upthread discussion (not very far upthread either): sea otters also use tools (they bring up rocks to later bash shells on).

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

Originally Posted by Count Comfect

To return to an upthread discussion (not very far upthread either): sea otters also use tools (they bring up rocks to later bash shells on).

They were the subject of my first science report.!

I still remember how proud I was of drawing the clam shell on the belly.

[Insidious Rex]

Originally Posted by Count Comfect

To return to an upthread discussion (not very far upthread either): sea otters also use tools (they bring up rocks to later bash shells on).

But do they secretly stash them so they can throw them later on at tourists who think they are cute?

[sisterandcousinandaunt]

No, cute is the otter's stock in trade. Without "cute" they're rapacious carnivorous members of the weasel family with promiscuious lifestyles.