where else can you find us?

The League of Reason still has some social media accounts! You can find us on Facebook or on Twitter for some interesting links and things.

Is a human zygote a human (not person, cladistically human)

Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 2 of 3
 [ 41 posts ] 
Is a human zygote a human (not person, cladistically human)
Author Message
Nesslig20User avatarPosts: 189Joined: Wed Mar 16, 2016 6:44 pm Gender: Male

Post Re: Is a human zygote a human.

hackenslash wrote:
Nesslig20 wrote:Any organism species that is descendant of a clade is a member of that clade.


Didn't watch the video, but this is the source of your malfunction. The cladistics line is entirely specious (see what I did there?)

Cladistics doesn't deal with organism classification, but with population classification.


Understanding evolution from Berkeley university wrote:Reconstructing trees: Cladistics

Cladistics is a method of hypothesizing relationships among organisms — in other words, a method of reconstructing evolutionary trees. The basis of a cladistic analysis is data on the characters, or traits, of the organisms in which we are interested. These characters could be anatomical and physiological characteristics, behaviors, or genetic sequences.

The result of a cladistic analysis is a tree, which represents a supported hypothesis about the relationships among the organisms. However, it is important to keep in mind that the trees that come out of cladistic analyses are only as good as the data that go into them. New and better data could change the outcome of a cladistic analysis, supporting a different hypothesis about the way that the organisms are related.

Definition of clade

A clade is a grouping that includes a common ancestor and all the descendants (living and extinct) of that ancestor. Using a phylogeny, it is easy to tell if a group of lineages forms a clade. Imagine clipping a single branch off the phylogeny — all of the organisms on that pruned branch make up a clade.
"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, and not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science."
Charles Darwin
Fri Sep 09, 2016 3:42 pm
hackenslashLime TordUser avatarPosts: 2136Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2009 3:43 pm Gender: Cake

Post Re: Is a human zygote a human.

That's a teaching resource website, aimed at teaching the basics. Like many such resources, it uses simplified language. In context, what it says is correct, but it isn't nearly rigorous enough to employ as a basis for a deductive proof.

My contention stands. Evolution is a population phenomenon, and all our classification systems are population based, not organism based.

Next you'll be telling me that DNA is a code containing instructions, based on this from the same source:

These instructions are inscribed in the structure of the DNA molecule through a genetic code.


Sorry, but my understanding of evolutionary theory considerably more robust than that of a teaching resource for schools.

ETA: An ancestor can certainly be a single organism, but a clade cannot. A clade is, by definition, a grouping, and thus population-based.

To be honest, I'm not sure why this is even being argued. It's fairly trivial in the grand scheme of things.
Fri Sep 09, 2016 4:10 pm
Nesslig20User avatarPosts: 189Joined: Wed Mar 16, 2016 6:44 pm Gender: Male

Post Re: Is a human zygote a human.

hackenslash wrote:That's a teaching resource website, aimed at teaching the basics. Like many such resources, it uses simplified language. In context, what it says is correct, but it isn't nearly rigorous enough to employ as a basis for a deductive proof.

My contention stands. Evolution is a population phenomenon, and all our classification systems are population based, not organism based.

Next you'll be telling me that DNA is a code containing instructions, based on this from the same source:

These instructions are inscribed in the structure of the DNA molecule through a genetic code.


Sorry, but my understanding of evolutionary theory considerably more robust than that of a teaching resource for schools.

ETA: An ancestor can certainly be a single organism, but a clade cannot. A clade is, by definition, a grouping, and thus population-based.

To be honest, I'm not sure why this is even being argued. It's fairly trivial in the grand scheme of things.


I know it is very trivial, this isn't an argument against abortion nor anything else. It is merely a correction to Steve, and I thought it was interesting if it could make other people be convinced about this and also learn some cladistics.
Steve made the argument that a zygote isn't a human because a human must be an animal and an animal must be multicellular, thus in order for something to be a human, it must be multi cellular.
The irony is that if he never made that argument, we wouldn't have this conversation now. I knew that according to cladistics, if an animal were to give rise to singel cellular descendants, they would still be part of the clade of animals and thus a single celled organism with animals as ancestors would still be an animal. So his reason for why a zygote isn't a human, doesn't fly.
So I thought, if a single celled organisms that descended from animals would still be an animal according to cladistics, how can a zygote not be a human if it is an organism that is a descendant of the clade hominina? I really thought about it and I can't say it is not a member of the hominina clade without violating cladistics. So I corrected Steve on this, but he wasn't very happy about it. I argued with him over this somewhere else in writing and during the conversation on google hangout he agreed with me that a human zygote is an organism that is a descendant of a human. However during the written conversation (with several others) I told someone else (who didn't agreed with me that a human zygote is a descendant) that Steve agreed with me that a human zygote is in fact a descendant of a human. Steve saw me writing this to someone else and he wrote to me that he did not agree with that. I pressed him several times on the fact that he did agreed with me during the hangout, at first he still denied it so I called him out on his dishonesty. He was not happy about that either. Eventually he did admit that he at first agreed with me that a zygote is a descendant, but now he says he misspoke during the hangout and he ended the conversation right there (literally when he admitted that he previously agreed with me).

To address your statements:

1. The source was a university with the specific goal to teach evolution, no less. You are being very dismissive.
But if one university isn't enough for you.
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1 ... 508.x/full
http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF00144036 (this one actually sees to solve the species problem by defining the species as a group of organisms between two speciation events.)
http://www.harding.edu/plummer/morph/wh ... istics.htm

"Cladistics is a philosophy of classification that arranges organisms only by their order of branching in an evolutionary tree and not by their morphological similarity"
- Luria et al. (1981).

2. The process of evolution occurs indeed at the population level. However classification in biology is uniting organisms under groups, cladistics is no different (read citations). Thus it is still organisms that make up the clade. For example an organism that is included in the clade "tetrapoda" is called a tetrapod, single organism. Are you a tetrapod? Yes or no? (rhetorical question)

Like the old traditional taxonomy you had:
Organisms making up a species, species making a genus, genuses making a family, families making order, etc

Cladistics
Organisms (common ancestor and all descendants) making a clade, this clade with others making a clade, this clade with others making a clade and so on.

So a clade is a group of individual organisms, The common ancestor and and descendants, of course a clade can be comprised of more clades, but eventually the clade cannot be subdivided any more clades and what is left is a group of organisms. Actually you could argue that your father and mother plus you and your siblings is a clade assuming none of you had any children of your own (because it is a common ancestor and all descendants), but we don't talk about such small clades because they are insignificant.
"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, and not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science."
Charles Darwin
Fri Sep 09, 2016 8:27 pm
hackenslashLime TordUser avatarPosts: 2136Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2009 3:43 pm Gender: Cake

Post Re: Is a human zygote a human.

Nesslig20 wrote:It is merely a correction to Steve, and I thought it was interesting if it could make other people be convinced about this and also learn some cladistics.


And that's a noble goal, but I'm not sure this is the route to it.

Steve made the argument that a zygote isn't a human because a human must be an animal and an animal must be multicellular, thus in order for something to be a human, it must be multi cellular.


It's probably worth pointing out that there may be some disconnect here. A zygote is human, but A human, no. While it isn't a taxonomically useful term, there are characteristics that are definitional to humans, erect posture, large brain, etc. If you were to collect all the things that we would use to define humans, we'd have to say that a zygote isn't a human.

1. The source was a university with the specific goal to teach evolution, no less. You are being very dismissive.


I didn't merely dismiss it, I explained why it isn't sufficiently robust for a deductive proof. Yes, it's a university, and yes, its goal is the teaching of evolution, but it's a resource for schools.

http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1096-0031.1987.tb00508.x/full


I can only see the abstract there. No matter, what I can see actually supports my case and defeats yours. let's look at the language:

Defining characters found universally in a group of organisms, but unknown outside those organisms have no alternative state that can be designated as absent. Absence, however, is valid as a character state if it can be shown to be apomorphic. When two or more character states occur within a taxon, that taxon must be coded as having an unknown state for that character, or the taxon must be split in two or more taxa.


As we can see, although it uses the word 'organisms', it specifically says that these characteristics are used for grouping purposes. No taxon consists of a single organism. Indeed, on this basis, since a human zygote is absent massive numbers of the defining characteristics of the taxon, it cannot be said to be a human under a cladistic treatment.

These are subtle issues, which is precisely why a rudimentary text constructed as a teaching resource, such as the one cited above, is nowhere near sufficiently rigorous for a deductive proof.

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF00144036 (this one actually sees to solve the species problem by defining the species as a group of organisms between two speciation events.)


This one makes your case even weaker, because it's dealing with species. Again, this is all population, not individual organisms.

http://www.harding.edu/plummer/morph/what%20is%20cladistics.htm


More of the same.

"Cladistics is a philosophy of classification that arranges organisms only by their order of branching in an evolutionary tree and not by their morphological similarity"
- Luria et al. (1981).


And by 'arrange' we mean 'group'. This isn't making your case.

2. The process of evolution occurs indeed at the population level. However classification in biology is uniting organisms under groups, cladistics is no different (read citations). Thus it is still organisms that make up the clade. For example an organism that is included in the clade "tetrapoda" is called a tetrapod, single organism. Are you a tetrapod? Yes or no? (rhetorical question)


Thing is, you've yet to establish that a zygote constitutes an organism, and this is what you'd have to do (you can't, because a zygote is missing defining characteristics, such as homeostasis, for example). I read your citations, and they haven't made your case for you, they've made mine.
Fri Sep 09, 2016 10:44 pm
Nesslig20User avatarPosts: 189Joined: Wed Mar 16, 2016 6:44 pm Gender: Male

Post Re: Is a human zygote a human.

hackenslash wrote:
Steve made the argument that a zygote isn't a human because a human must be an animal and an animal must be multicellular, thus in order for something to be a human, it must be multi cellular.


It's probably worth pointing out that there may be some disconnect here. A zygote is human, but A human, no. While it isn't a taxonomically useful term, there are characteristics that are definitional to humans, erect posture, large brain, etc. If you were to collect all the things that we would use to define humans, we'd have to say that a zygote isn't a human.


If we were to do that [define humans by the characteristics we associate with them], but cladistics doesn't. Cladistics defines a group not primarily based on the characteristics of organisms, but on the ancestry of the organisms. Their phylogeny.
If later, like in the future, our species would gave evolve into a new species, but have lost certain characteristics like a large brain, or an erect posture, or even mammary glands and lost all their hair. Every individual would still be a member of the clade of humans, and thus a human.

If we use the same logic to tetrapods: there are characteristics that are definitional to tetrapods, four legs, terrestrial, etc. If you were to collect all the things that we would use to define tetrapods, we'd have to say that a snake/whale isn't a tetrapod.
Get what I am saying?

And humans is a taxonomically useful term. In traditional taxonomy the genus "homo" is the category of all humans. Cladistics has the clade "hominina" which is the human clade (the common ancestor of all humans plus their descendants).

hackenslash wrote:
1. The source was a university with the specific goal to teach evolution, no less. You are being very dismissive.

I didn't merely dismiss it, I explained why it isn't sufficiently robust for a deductive proof. Yes, it's a university, and yes, its goal is the teaching of evolution, but it's a resource for schools.


So everything that is a source for schools, isn't sufficient?

hackenslash wrote:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/j.1096-0031.1987.tb00508.x/full

I can only see the abstract there.


Okay now everything that is in abstract is also insufficient. See now the reason why I think you are being dismissive here?
I gave you several sources and every time you come up with a new excuse to dismiss it. And poor excuses no less. "it is a source for schools" yeah, my biology textbook is a source for schools, does that mean my textbook isn't a sufficient source, no!

A textbook saying that cladistics is looking at the evolutionary relationships among organisms.
https://books.google.nl/books?id=WJdfkm ... ll&f=false

Every time I open a source (textbook, university, scientific article, etc) that define cladistics, it always says along the line that organisms are classified within larger croups of common ancestors and descendants, yet you said cladistics is entirely specious and it doesn't deal with organism classification.
"Cladistics doesn't deal with organism classification, but with population classification."

But every source I come across say otherwise. So I don't believe you.

hackenslash wrote:No matter, what I can see actually supports my case and defeats yours. let's look at the language:
Defining characters found universally in a group of organisms, but unknown outside those organisms have no alternative state that can be designated as absent. Absence, however, is valid as a character state if it can be shown to be apomorphic. When two or more character states occur within a taxon, that taxon must be coded as having an unknown state for that character, or the taxon must be split in two or more taxa.

As we can see, although it uses the word 'organisms', it specifically says that these characteristics are used for grouping purposes. No taxon consists of a single organism. Indeed, on this basis, since a human zygote is absent massive numbers of the defining characteristics of the taxon, it cannot be said to be a human under a cladistic treatment.


This source was meant to explain to you that cladistics does indeed deal with the classification of organisms! As you can clearly see in the quote you put here. I know that cladistics doesn't have clades with only one organism, I never said that. I said that an organism is a member of a clade and a clade is a grouping of organisms.

This source comes from 1987, a time when genetic sequencing (today used primarily to construct phylogenetic trees) was relatively new and not allot of data, to construct phylogenetic trees based on molecular data, was available back then. So the only data they had was characteristics of the organisms they wanted to classify under clades. But even then, they knew that snakes and whales are tetrapods, even though they lack the characteristics of four legs. So they already could determine which organisms lost certain characteristics, and they still classified them under the clade they descended from.

hackenslash wrote:These are subtle issues, which is precisely why a rudimentary text constructed as a teaching resource, such as the one cited above, is nowhere near sufficiently rigorous for a deductive proof.


Makes me think of Michael Behe during the dover trail who claimed that the vertebrate immune system wasn't explained by evolution. When he got several high school textbooks and articles all explaining the evolution of the immune system, he simply declared it wasn't sufficient or rigorous enough.
That is exactly what you are doing now, I gave you school sources

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/BF00144036 (this one actually sees to solve the species problem by defining the species as a group of organisms between two speciation events.)

This one makes your case even weaker, because it's dealing with species. Again, this is all population, not individual organisms.

I never said it is about INDIVIDUAL ORGANISMS!!! Damn. I said that an organism is a member of a clade (a clade is a group of organisms). You said cladistics doesn't deal with classifying organisms.
This doesn't make my case weaker, it makes it stronger, because it defines a species as a group of ORGANISMS (there is that pesky word again) between two speciation events (or between a speciation event and extinction).
So a species is also a classification of organisms, just like a clade is a classification of organisms. Cladistics is deals with the classification of organisms.

hackenslash wrote:
http://www.harding.edu/plummer/morph/what%20is%20cladistics.htm

More of the same.


Agains dismissed.

hackenslash wrote:
"Cladistics is a philosophy of classification that arranges organisms only by their order of branching in an evolutionary tree and not by their morphological similarity"
- Luria et al. (1981).

And by 'arrange' we mean 'group'. This isn't making your case.


A group of ORGANISMS, a classification of organisms. It is making my case.

hackenslash wrote:
2. The process of evolution occurs indeed at the population level. However classification in biology is uniting organisms under groups, cladistics is no different (read citations). Thus it is still organisms that make up the clade. For example an organism that is included in the clade "tetrapoda" is called a tetrapod, single organism. Are you a tetrapod? Yes or no? (rhetorical question)

Thing is, you've yet to establish that a zygote constitutes an organism, and this is what you'd have to do (you can't, because a zygote is missing defining characteristics, such as homeostasis, for example). I read your citations, and they haven't made your case for you, they've made mine.

[/quote]

none of those citations makes your case. All of them explicitly said that cladistics is the classification of organisms while you said that cladistics doesn't deal with the classification of organisms. How dense can you be? I mean really.

A zygote does indeed have homeostasis, it metabolize, grows/develop, composed of cell(s), response to stimuli, reproduces (after developing to adulthood) and evolves.
The fourth (composed of cell(s)) is pretty obvious. The first three is necessarily for the early stages of mitosis to occur which the zygote must do to later divide and becoming an embryo.
And since a zygote develops into adulthood, it can reproduce, but it also can reproduce asexually without developing into adulthood by a process called polyembryony that makes clones of himself, this is how twins form.
And since it can reproduce and pass on its genetic characteristics (with modifications) to its descendants, it can also evolve.
Also it responds to stimuli. Every cell reacts to stimuli.

Also biological reproduction is defined as a process of which progenitor or parent organisms produce new organisms which would be the offspring, the progeny or the descendants of those organisms. So when reproduction is finished, you have a new organism.
Sexual reproduction is finished when two gamete cells fuse into one cell, the resulting cell (the zygote) would be (by the definition of reproduction) the offspring, the new individual organism.
"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, and not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science."
Charles Darwin
Sat Sep 10, 2016 10:07 am
hackenslashLime TordUser avatarPosts: 2136Joined: Mon Feb 23, 2009 3:43 pm Gender: Cake

Post Re: Is a human zygote a human.

Nesslig20 wrote:If we were to do that [define humans by the characteristics we associate with them], but cladistics doesn't. Cladistics defines a group not primarily based on the characteristics of organisms, but on the ancestry of the organisms. Their phylogeny.


This contradicts your own source.

If later, like in the future, our species would gave evolve into a new species, but have lost certain characteristics like a large brain, or an erect posture, or even mammary glands and lost all their hair. Every individual would still be a member of the clade of humans, and thus a human.


Granted, but zygote isn't a species designation.

If we use the same logic to tetrapods: there are characteristics that are definitional to tetrapods, four legs, terrestrial, etc. If you were to collect all the things that we would use to define tetrapods, we'd have to say that a snake/whale isn't a tetrapod.
Get what I am saying?


Yes, but these are species and groups of species, while zygote is not.

So everything that is a source for schools, isn't sufficient?


Is that what I said? No. What I'm saying is that, being a teaching resource for schools, it's rudimentary, and thus not sufficiently robust for a deductive proof.

Okay now everything that is in abstract is also insufficient.


Again, not what I said, and I'll thank you not to put words in my mouth. I was commenting only that the full paper wasn't available at your link, so I could only work from the abstract.

See now the reason why I think you are being dismissive here?


Yes, I do. You think I'm being dismissive because you're constructing massive strawmen of my position.

I gave you several sources and every time you come up with a new excuse to dismiss it.


I don';t fucking do excuses. Deal with what I'm actually saying, rather than attempting to interpret it.

And poor excuses no less. "it is a source for schools" yeah, my biology textbook is a source for schools, does that mean my textbook isn't a sufficient source, no!


Again with the strawman. I'm not saying that a source for schools is not a sufficient source, I'm saying that it's not sufficiently robust for a deductive proof. We still teach Newtonian gravity in schools, and all manner of other things that are wrong, because they serve as a useful platform on which to construct better explanations.

A textbook saying that cladistics is looking at the evolutionary relationships among organisms.
https://books.google.nl/books?id=WJdfkm ... ll&f=false


Cladistics is a system of fucking classification, and it deals with evolutionary relationships, thus it is, by definition, a population-based system. Evolution is a population phenomenon.

Every time I open a source (textbook, university, scientific article, etc) that define cladistics, it always says along the line that organisms are classified within larger croups of common ancestors and descendants, yet you said cladistics is entirely specious and it doesn't deal with organism classification.


Again, not what I said. I said you argument was specious, and it is. Zygote is not a species, nor is it an organism.

"Cladistics doesn't deal with organism classification, but with population classification."


Correct.

But every source I come across say otherwise. So I don't believe you.


Except I've shown that the sources you've presented DO agree with me. Your belief or not is entirely irrelevant.

This source was meant to explain to you that cladistics does indeed deal with the classification of organisms!


I know what you wanted it to say, but it doesn't fucking say it!

This source comes from 1987, a time when genetic sequencing (today used primarily to construct phylogenetic trees) was relatively new and not allot of data, to construct phylogenetic trees based on molecular data, was available back then. So the only data they had was characteristics of the organisms they wanted to classify under clades. But even then, they knew that snakes and whales are tetrapods, even though they lack the characteristics of four legs. So they already could determine which organisms lost certain characteristics, and they still classified them under the clade they descended from.


Except that they still have vestigial legs, and this was known.

Makes me think of Michael Behe during the dover trail who claimed that the vertebrate immune system wasn't explained by evolution. When he got several high school textbooks and articles all explaining the evolution of the immune system, he simply declared it wasn't sufficient or rigorous enough.
That is exactly what you are doing now, I gave you school sources


I see, so your tactic now is to compare me to a cretinist fuckwit, is that it? Not enough to misrepresent what I've said? I should point out that Behe admitted not having read those sources. I read yours, and they don't say what you think they do. I might, were I as eager to knock down your argument as you seem to be of mine, note that there is a massive disconnect between what I've said and what you think I've said, and that your reading of the articles is equally faulty.

I never said it is about INDIVIDUAL ORGANISMS!!! Damn. I said that an organism is a member of a clade (a clade is a group of organisms). You said cladistics doesn't deal with classifying organisms.
This doesn't make my case weaker, it makes it stronger, because it defines a species as a group of ORGANISMS (there is that pesky word again) between two speciation events (or between a speciation event and extinction).
So a species is also a classification of organisms, just like a clade is a classification of organisms. Cladistics is deals with the classification of organisms.


Into fucking groups!

Agains dismissed.


Yes, because it repeats what's already been said, and my previous objections stand.

A group of ORGANISMS, a classification of organisms. It is making my case.


No.

none of those citations makes your case. All of them explicitly said that cladistics is the classification of organisms while you said that cladistics doesn't deal with the classification of organisms.


It deals with grouping organisms. It's still dealing with populations.

How dense can you be? I mean really.


Really? You want to assert that I'm dense, now?

A zygote does indeed have homeostasis, it metabolize, grows/develop, composed of cell(s), response to stimuli, reproduces (after developing to adulthood) and evolves.


I'm happy to stipulate that. What it doesn't have is independent viability, so still not an organism.
Sat Sep 10, 2016 10:58 am
Nesslig20User avatarPosts: 189Joined: Wed Mar 16, 2016 6:44 pm Gender: Male

Post Re: Is a human zygote a human.

hackenslash wrote:This contradicts your own source.


No it doesn't, we use data like genetics and characteristics to determine the phylogeny of organisms and the phylogeny of the organisms determine in what clade they belong.

hackenslash wrote:
If later, like in the future, our species would gave evolve into a new species, but have lost certain characteristics like a large brain, or an erect posture, or even mammary glands and lost all their hair. Every individual would still be a member of the clade of humans, and thus a human.

Granted, but zygote isn't a species designation.


Again, if you apply that logic you cannot say that a snake isn't a tetrapod, since a single snake isn't a species designation. And bear in mind that a species is defined (by cladistics) as a group of ORGANISMS!! between two speciation events. So if the zygote is an organism, then cladistically, it is also part of the human species.
A single snake isn't a species designation, a group of snakes (between two speciation events) are a single species. But every single snake is still a tetrapod.
This is the point that you don't get. Each individual is still a member of the clade! Is A individual snake a member of tetrapoda thus a tetrapod? yes it is. Is a zygote a member of the clade hominina? Yes it is.

hackenslash wrote:
If we use the same logic to tetrapods: there are characteristics that are definitional to tetrapods, four legs, terrestrial, etc. If you were to collect all the things that we would use to define tetrapods, we'd have to say that a snake/whale isn't a tetrapod.
Get what I am saying?

Yes, but these are species and groups of species, while zygote is not.


I didn't use species. I said ["A"] snake/Whale. A single snake or a single whale is not a species (a species is a group of organisms between two speciation events).

However, despite not using species designations, saying this:

A single snake is still a tetrapod
A single starfish is still a bilatarian
A single bird is still a dinosaur
A single human zygote is still a member of the clade hominina.

Is still accurate.
This is the point you keep missing.

hackenslash wrote:
So everything that is a source for schools, isn't sufficient?


Is that what I said? No. What I'm saying is that, being a teaching resource for schools, it's rudimentary, and thus not sufficiently robust for a deductive proof.

Okay now everything that is in abstract is also insufficient.


Again, not what I said, and I'll thank you not to put words in my mouth. I was commenting only that the full paper wasn't available at your link, so I could only work from the abstract.

See now the reason why I think you are being dismissive here?


Yes, I do. You think I'm being dismissive because you're constructing massive strawmen of my position.


I didn't straw man you, I quoted you verbatim.
"Yes, it's a university, and yes, its goal is the teaching of evolution, BUT it's a resource for schools."

This is what you wrote with the "BUT" is supposed to be the reason why it is insufficient. And it is sufficient (along with all the other sources I came across) for the backing of my argument. I wouldn't call it proof, nothing is proven in science (I am using biology) but I am using definitions (and I looked up universities, textbooks and articles to determine what the definition is) and the definition of a clade is a group of organisms which include a common ancestor and all its descendant organisms. And each organisms is thus a member of the clade. I have given you several sources that do say that and you dismiss them all on the basis that it isn't sufficient for proof. Well I didn't say it was meant as proof,
who is straw manning who?

hackenslash wrote:
A textbook saying that cladistics is looking at the evolutionary relationships among organisms.
https://books.google.nl/books?id=WJdfkm ... ll&f=false

Cladistics is a system of fucking classification, and it deals with evolutionary relationships, thus it is, by definition, a population-based system. Evolution is a population phenomenon.


I agree, I never said otherwise that evolution is a population phenomenon. Cladistics is the classification of ORGANISMS based on their evolutionary relationships. Not a single organism a group of organisms, populations of organisms. And each single organism is a member of the clade they belong too.
I am beginning to repeat myself here correcting you on the same issue.

A clade is made up of a group of organisms (not a single organism) like tetrapods.
A singel snake is a single tetrapod.

Cladistics is indeed the classification of organisms!

hackenslash wrote:
Every time I open a source (textbook, university, scientific article, etc) that define cladistics, it always says along the line that organisms are classified within larger croups of common ancestors and descendants, yet you said cladistics is entirely specious and it doesn't deal with organism classification.

Again, not what I said. I said you argument was specious, and it is. Zygote is not a species, nor is it an organism.


A single snake is not a species, thus it isn't a tetrapod then? See the problem in your argument. By your argument we can't say a single snake isn't a tetrapod because clades all about species classification, not organisms, so a single snake isn't a tetrapod but a species of snake are tetrapods.

Wrong, a single snake (not being a species) is still a tetrapod.

And I have demonstrated previously that a zygote is an organism, it is the end result of sexual reproduction and reproduction is the process by which a new offspring organism is produced.

hackenslash wrote:
"Cladistics doesn't deal with organism classification, but with population classification."

Correct.
But every source I come across say otherwise. So I don't believe you.

Except I've shown that the sources you've presented DO agree with me. Your belief or not is entirely irrelevant.


What?? I have read every sources and they do say that cladistics is the classification of ORGANISMS!! Again I don't believe you when I can read that for myself.

hackenslash wrote:
This source was meant to explain to you that cladistics does indeed deal with the classification of organisms!

I know what you wanted it to say, but it doesn't fucking say it!


Cladistic data are the characters of organisms. Character is defined as a feature that can be evaluated as a variable with two or more mutually exclusive and ordered states. Cladistic characters must be treated as multistate variables, and coded as sequential numbers or in additive binary fashion. Any other interpretation and handling of cladistic data will introduce error into analysis. Character states cannot be treated independently as present or absent, i.e., as nominal variables, because redundancy is introduced into the data and information content is sacrificed. Non-additive binary coding demonstrates that treating cladistic variables as nominal data will lead to multiple, equally parsimonious solutions. Defining characters found universally in a group of organisms, but unknown outside those organisms have no alternative state that can be designated as absent


The article uses the characteristics organisms as the data set for cladistics to group organisms in clades. You say cladistics doesn't deal with the classification of organisms, just populations of organisms or species.

I don't believe you. It does fucking say it, I can read it clear.

hackenslash wrote:Except that they still have vestigial legs, and this was known.


Two vestigial legs, not four. This is why I said, cladistics doesn't PRIMARILY use characteristics, they can use it as data to determine phylogeny, even if legs are missing, they can still determine whether the organism is a tetrapod or not.

hackenslash wrote:
Makes me think of Michael Behe during the dover trail who claimed that the vertebrate immune system wasn't explained by evolution. When he got several high school textbooks and articles all explaining the evolution of the immune system, he simply declared it wasn't sufficient or rigorous enough.
That is exactly what you are doing now, I gave you school sources

I see, so your tactic now is to compare me to a cretinist fuckwit, is that it?


It was an accurate comparison, Behe said the sources he was presented to (about the evolution of the immune system) wasn't rigorous enough.
You say my sources were not rigorous enough.
See the comparison?
That is when the comparison ends. I did not say you have never read them my sources, I didn't not say you were a creationists fuckwit, I said that you dismissive tactic "they are not rigorous enough" sounds allot like Behe's dismissal of those articles.

So I ask you, what source do you want if universities, textbooks and articles aren't good enough?

hackenslash wrote:Not enough to misrepresent what I've said? I should point out that Behe admitted not having read those sources. I read yours, and they don't say what you think they do.


They do say what I have read, they say cladistics is the classification of organisms under clades. I can read that for myself.

hackenslash wrote:
I never said it is about INDIVIDUAL ORGANISMS!!! Damn. I said that an organism is a member of a clade (a clade is a group of organisms). You said cladistics doesn't deal with classifying organisms.
This doesn't make my case weaker, it makes it stronger, because it defines a species as a group of ORGANISMS (there is that pesky word again) between two speciation events (or between a speciation event and extinction).
So a species is also a classification of organisms, just like a clade is a classification of organisms. Cladistics is deals with the classification of organisms.

Into fucking groups!


Why do you have to pretend to correct me that organisms are classified into groups, when I have written (two times) that organisms are classified into fucking groups? And within that group of organisms, each individual is A MEMBER of the GROUP!!
A single snake is a member of tetrapoda.

hackenslash wrote:
none of those citations makes your case. All of them explicitly said that cladistics is the classification of organisms while you said that cladistics doesn't deal with the classification of organisms.


It deals with grouping organisms. It's still dealing with populations.


Finally, you admit that it deals with the classification of organisms into groups. That is my point. ALL THIS TIME!! Never said that a group of organisms contained only one, it contains multiple organisms. A clade contains multiple organisms and each individual is a member (among other members) of the clade.

hackenslash wrote:
How dense can you be? I mean really.

Really? You want to assert that I'm dense, now?


Well not anymore, you have admitted that cladistics deals with the classification of organisms into clades, which I have said from the get go. Although it took you long enough to admit that.

hackenslash wrote:
A zygote does indeed have homeostasis, it metabolize, grows/develop, composed of cell(s), response to stimuli, reproduces (after developing to adulthood) and evolves.

I'm happy to stipulate that. What it doesn't have is independent viability, so still not an organism.


I don't see "independent viability" to be a criteria for being an "organism" anywhere?
There are organisms that are parasitic throughout their entire life time (a zygote after becoming an embryo when it attaches to the womb, it becomes parasitic), so they aren't independently viable, like plasmodium needs blood cells from a host in order to reproduce and it needs mosquitos to spread to new hosts. Does that mean a single plasmodium parasite is not an organism? (rhetorical question)
"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, and not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science."
Charles Darwin
Sat Sep 10, 2016 12:52 pm
tuxboxLeague LegendUser avatarPosts: 1172Joined: Sun Oct 30, 2011 7:05 amLocation: Vero Beach Gender: Tree

Post Re: Is a human zygote a human.

WarK wrote:O rly? Have you seen The Thing? :)


Hehe, I played a video game by that name a long time ago.... :D
"Belief in a cruel God makes a cruel man." ~ Thomas Paine
Sat Sep 10, 2016 1:54 pm
Grumpy SantaPosts: 230Joined: Fri Mar 27, 2015 6:27 pm Gender: Male

Post Re: Is a human zygote a human.

No one can deny that a zygote is genetically human. I don't think that's ever been in question (assuming, of course, a human zygote). I think the question I would have is this... at what point of development would the zygote be considered an actual human being, and why? If it's simply because it's genetically human then you're saying a vial of stem cells is human. If you're saying if it's because it's capable of developing into a human being from the point of conception then it's simply a matter of where you placed the goalposts. You could push the goalposts further back if you wanted and claim human sperm and eggs are human because of their potential to become human beings or you could shift them the other way and say it's not a human being until it develops the attributes of a human organism and isn't simply a mass of human cells rapidly dividing.

It's simply an argument over definitions, and to be honest it's where you place the goalposts that has a huge effect on the abortion debate. Do we call "it" human once the fetus is viable or is every sperm sacred? Somewhere in between?
J. R. R. Tolkien was a Middle Earth Creationist.
Mon Sep 12, 2016 2:04 pm
Dragan GlasContributorUser avatarPosts: 2712Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 1:55 amLocation: Ireland Gender: Male

Post Re: Is a human zygote a human.

Greetings,

The topic title is tautological since the adjective "human" before zygote automatically declares that it's human.

The real question would appear to be "Is a human zygote a human (read "person")?"

The answer being "No".

Medically, the criterion for a person is a sufficiently developed brain - clearly a zygote or fetus are not. In fact, the brain doesn't complete its neurological development until two years of age. Therefore, a child before that time is not a person.

Kindest regards,

James
Image
"The Word of God is the Creation we behold and it is in this Word, which no human invention can counterfeit or alter, that God speaketh universally to man."
The Age Of Reason
Mon Sep 12, 2016 2:12 pm
Grumpy SantaPosts: 230Joined: Fri Mar 27, 2015 6:27 pm Gender: Male

Post Re: Is a human zygote a human.

Dragan Glas wrote:Greetings,

The topic title is tautological since the adjective "human" before zygote automatically declares that it's human.

The real question would appear to be "Is a human zygote a human (read "person")?"

The answer being "No".

Medically, the criterion for a person is a sufficiently developed brain - clearly a zygote or fetus are not. In fact, the brain doesn't complete its neurological development until two years of age. Therefore, a child before that time is not a person.

Kindest regards,

James


Hmm... I wonder if that criterion could result in further controversy then. For example, a baby born with microcephaly due to a Zika infection, would this ever be considered a person should it survive? (Just tossing the thought out there.)
J. R. R. Tolkien was a Middle Earth Creationist.
Mon Sep 12, 2016 2:36 pm
Dragan GlasContributorUser avatarPosts: 2712Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 1:55 amLocation: Ireland Gender: Male

Post Re: Is a human zygote a human.

Grumpy Santa wrote:
Dragan Glas wrote:Greetings,

The topic title is tautological since the adjective "human" before zygote automatically declares that it's human.

The real question would appear to be "Is a human zygote a human (read "person")?"

The answer being "No".

Medically, the criterion for a person is a sufficiently developed brain - clearly a zygote or fetus are not. In fact, the brain doesn't complete its neurological development until two years of age. Therefore, a child before that time is not a person.

Kindest regards,

James

Hmm... I wonder if that criterion could result in further controversy then. For example, a baby born with microcephaly due to a Zika infection, would this ever be considered a person should it survive? (Just tossing the thought out there.)

There are people who are micro-encephalitic.

The definition I gave is related to America - I'm not sure about other countries (even Ireland, which is where I am! :oops: )

However, I'm sure the definition is more complicated than my simplification of it.

Kindest regards,

James
Image
"The Word of God is the Creation we behold and it is in this Word, which no human invention can counterfeit or alter, that God speaketh universally to man."
The Age Of Reason
Mon Sep 12, 2016 2:51 pm
VisakiUser avatarPosts: 640Joined: Fri Nov 12, 2010 12:26 pmLocation: Helsinki, Finland Gender: Male

Post Re: Is a human zygote a human.

Dragan Glas wrote:Greetings,

The topic title is tautological since the adjective "human" before zygote automatically declares that it's human.

The real question would appear to be "Is a human zygote a human (read "person")?"

The answer being "No".

Medically, the criterion for a person is a sufficiently developed brain - clearly a zygote or fetus are not. In fact, the brain doesn't complete its neurological development until two years of age. Therefore, a child before that time is not a person.

Kindest regards,

James

As a total derailment of this thread: Will I still be a person when I'm dead (as in no brain activity, no heart activity, no lung activity, a goodly way into finding a equal temperature to my surroundings etc)?
Mon Sep 12, 2016 4:06 pm
WarKChat ModeratorUser avatarPosts: 1148Joined: Wed Aug 12, 2009 9:59 am Gender: Tree

Post Re: Is a human zygote a human.

Visaki wrote:As a total derailment of this thread: Will I still be a person when I'm dead (as in no brain activity, no heart activity, no lung activity, a goodly way into finding a equal temperature to my surroundings etc)?


You will be person no more. You'll cease to be. You'll be expired, gone to see your maker. You'll be a late person.
Did you see that ludicrous display last night?
Mon Sep 12, 2016 5:53 pm
thenexttodiePosts: 472Joined: Fri Mar 13, 2015 7:59 pm Gender: Male

Post Re: Is a human zygote a human.

Duvelthehobbit666 wrote:To a certain extent yes. However, to play devil's advocate, how far along the evolutionary line do you need to go for something to be non-human if humans only can give birth to humans?
There is no where to go.
Mon Sep 12, 2016 7:44 pm
tuxboxLeague LegendUser avatarPosts: 1172Joined: Sun Oct 30, 2011 7:05 amLocation: Vero Beach Gender: Tree

Post Re: Is a human zygote a human.

Dragan Glas wrote:Greetings,

The topic title is tautological since the adjective "human" before zygote automatically declares that it's human.

The real question would appear to be "Is a human zygote a human (read "person")?"

The answer being "No".

Medically, the criterion for a person is a sufficiently developed brain - clearly a zygote or fetus are not. In fact, the brain doesn't complete its neurological development until two years of age. Therefore, a child before that time is not a person.

Kindest regards,

James


Hey there, Dragan,

What is the definition of a person, in your opinion? Just because the brain has not fully developed, does not make a 12 month old a non-person. It is still a living, breathing human being. Even in the womb, the fetus dreams and responds to stimuli. My sister is a NICU nurse and cares for pre-mature babies. A lot of them, unfortunately, are addicted to drugs, due to the fact they have a shitty mothers. They feel emotion and pain. Sounds like a person to me? :)
"Belief in a cruel God makes a cruel man." ~ Thomas Paine
Mon Sep 12, 2016 8:13 pm
Nesslig20User avatarPosts: 189Joined: Wed Mar 16, 2016 6:44 pm Gender: Male

Post Re: Is a human zygote a human.

Just clarifying certain things

Grumpy Santa wrote:No one can deny that a zygote is genetically human. I don't think that's ever been in question (assuming, of course, a human zygote). I think the question I would have is this... at what point of development would the zygote be considered an actual human being, and why?


I don't think you understood what I had written. I am assuming you are responding to me, if this wasn't meant for me, I apologize in advance.
I don't know what would qualify as an "actual" human. I don't know what the difference it makes to add that adjective. I don't know what you mean by that. In context of philosophy like "human person"?

My argument only concludes that a human zygote is a human in the context of classification of life forms (biology), specifically cladistics.
Basically, it is a human in the same sense
a bird is a dinosaur
an iguana is a lizard
a whale is a mammal
a snake is a tetrapod
a starfish is a bilatarian

The definition of humans in the context of cladistics is the clade hominina. Every organism that is a member of this clade, is a human and all descendant (offspring) organisms would also be members of the clade.

Grumpy Santa wrote:If it's simply because it's genetically human then you're saying a vial of stem cells is human.


But that's not what I am saying.

Grumpy Santa wrote:If you're saying if it's because it's capable of developing into a human being from the point of conception then it's simply a matter of where you placed the goalposts.


But that's not what I am saying either.

Grumpy Santa wrote:You could push the goalposts further back if you wanted and claim human sperm and eggs are human because of their potential to become human beings or you could shift them the other way and say it's not a human being until it develops the attributes of a human organism and isn't simply a mass of human cells rapidly dividing.


The very person, who I argued with on hangout, made the same moot point. "By your logic, a sperm is a human, har har har." No, a zygote is an organism. A sperm cell is not.

Grumpy Santa wrote:It's simply an argument over definitions, and to be honest it's where you place the goalposts that has a huge effect on the abortion debate. Do we call "it" human once the fetus is viable or is every sperm sacred? Somewhere in between?


I agree, it depends, what do you mean by "a human". I have explained the context of the meaning of "a human" when I say that the zygote is a human. I don't mean to say it is a person, nor "a human" in any other context. Just cladistics, clade hominina. Look it up.

And this doesn't give the anti-abortion any ammunition. In fact it makes their line "it is human!! (while citing biology textbooks)" just metaphorically like blank bullets. Because human (in the context that I am saying) doesn't mean person and it doesn't mean it has rights and it doesn't mean it justifies that we can force a women to remain pregnant. So the point that it is biologically a human with respect to the issue of abortion is moot.

Dragan Glas wrote:Greetings,

The topic title is tautological since the adjective "human" before zygote automatically declares that it's human.


I am sorry if you see it that way, I don't think saying: "a human sperm cell" automatically declares the sperm cell to be a human. I thought this was clear to most people.

So rephrasing: Is a zygote, which resulted from the fusion of human gametes, a human?
And I have clarified here what I mean by human.
Not human person
Not human philosophically
Human as in a member (a descendant) of the clade "hominina".

Dragan Glas wrote:The real question would appear to be "Is a human zygote a human (read "person")?"
The answer being "No".


I would also agree that it doesn't qualify as a person.

Dragan Glas wrote:Medically, the criterion for a person is a sufficiently developed brain - clearly a zygote or fetus are not. In fact, the brain doesn't complete its neurological development until two years of age. Therefore, a child before that time is not a person.


I would slightly disagree with that. If we ever have artificial intelligent robots with the same mental capacity to our own, I would consider them persons, even though they don't have brains (at least not in the biological sense that develops during embryonic development).

This scene from the film "Bicentennial Man" perfectly reflects the point about the distinction between, what qualifies as "human (biologically)" and "person (or human is some lofty philosophical sense)"

I indeed have to face the undeniable fact that Andrew Martin (played by Robin Williams) is not a human. Humans are a subset of

Eukaryotes, Ophisthokonts, Metazoans, Eumetazoans, Bilaterians, Deuterostomes, Chordates, Craniates, Vertebrates, Gnathostomes, Teleostomes, Sarcopterygians, Stegocephalians, Tetrapods, Anthracosaurs, Amniotes, Synapsids, Therapsids, Cynodonts, Mammals, Placentals, Primates, Haplorhines, Simians, Catarrhines, Hominoids, Hominids, Hominines and Hominins.

It doesn't matter how much you look like a human on the outside, or behave like a human being, or how intelligent or civilized you may be. If you are not a mammal, nor belonging to any other clade listed here, you simply cannot be a human.

On the other hand, I would say that Andrew martin, though not a human in the sense just explained, is certainly a person.

My reaction to this scene when I saw it for the first time.
Image
"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, and not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science."
Charles Darwin
Mon Sep 12, 2016 9:03 pm
Dragan GlasContributorUser avatarPosts: 2712Joined: Mon Dec 14, 2009 1:55 amLocation: Ireland Gender: Male

Post Re: Is a human zygote a human.

Greetings,

tuxbox wrote:
Dragan Glas wrote:Greetings,

The topic title is tautological since the adjective "human" before zygote automatically declares that it's human.

The real question would appear to be "Is a human zygote a human (read "person")?"

The answer being "No".

Medically, the criterion for a person is a sufficiently developed brain - clearly a zygote or fetus are not. In fact, the brain doesn't complete its neurological development until two years of age. Therefore, a child before that time is not a person.

Kindest regards,

James

Hey there, Dragan,

What is the definition of a person, in your opinion? Just because the brain has not fully developed, does not make a 12 month old a non-person. It is still a living, breathing human being. Even in the womb, the fetus dreams and responds to stimuli. My sister is a NICU nurse and cares for pre-mature babies. A lot of them, unfortunately, are addicted to drugs, due to the fact they have a shitty mothers. They feel emotion and pain. Sounds like a person to me? :)

To a greater or lesser extent, all animals feel emotion and pain - this doesn't make them persons.

For me, the definition of a person is sapience - ie, self-awareness. A two year old is capable of this since the brain has fully developed. Equally, to quickly answer Nesslig20's point, this would mean that "non-human persons" would be included, whether biological (cetaceans(?), aliens) or artificial (robots). In relation to micro-encephaly, which was raised earlier, if the individual - see what I did there? - is self-aware, then they are clearly a person.

The medical definition really refers to whether the brain has completed its neurological development. As such, the controversial paper, suggesting that an "abortion" could be performed on a baby that had not reached that stage of neurological development, really showed that the "person-hood" argument of the pro-life movement was flawed, in that a fetus - never mind a zygote - isn't a person.

Kindest regards,

James
Image
"The Word of God is the Creation we behold and it is in this Word, which no human invention can counterfeit or alter, that God speaketh universally to man."
The Age Of Reason
Mon Sep 12, 2016 10:09 pm
tuxboxLeague LegendUser avatarPosts: 1172Joined: Sun Oct 30, 2011 7:05 amLocation: Vero Beach Gender: Tree

Post Re: Is a human zygote a human.

Dragan Glas wrote:Greetings,


To a greater or lesser extent, all animals feel emotion and pain - this doesn't make them persons.

For me, the definition of a person is sapience - ie, self-awareness. A two year old is capable of this since the brain has fully developed. Equally, to quickly answer Nesslig20's point, this would mean that "non-human persons" would be included, whether biological (cetaceans(?), aliens) or artificial (robots). In relation to micro-encephaly, which was raised earlier, if the individual - see what I did there? - is self-aware, then they are clearly a person.

The medical definition really refers to whether the brain has completed its neurological development. As such, the controversial paper, suggesting that an "abortion" could be performed on a baby that had not reached that stage of neurological development, really showed that the "person-hood" argument of the pro-life movement was flawed, in that a fetus - never mind a zygote - isn't a person.

Kindest regards,

James


Thank you for clarifying. Put into those terms, then I will have to agree with you.
"Belief in a cruel God makes a cruel man." ~ Thomas Paine
Mon Sep 12, 2016 10:30 pm
Nesslig20User avatarPosts: 189Joined: Wed Mar 16, 2016 6:44 pm Gender: Male

Post Re: Is a human zygote a human.

Dragan Glas wrote:
tuxbox wrote:Hey there, Dragan,

What is the definition of a person, in your opinion? Just because the brain has not fully developed, does not make a 12 month old a non-person. It is still a living, breathing human being. Even in the womb, the fetus dreams and responds to stimuli. My sister is a NICU nurse and cares for pre-mature babies. A lot of them, unfortunately, are addicted to drugs, due to the fact they have a shitty mothers. They feel emotion and pain. Sounds like a person to me? :)

To a greater or lesser extent, all animals feel emotion and pain - this doesn't make them persons.

For me, the definition of a person is sapience - ie, self-awareness. A two year old is capable of this since the brain has fully developed. Equally, to quickly answer Nesslig20's point, this would mean that "non-human persons" would be included, whether biological (cetaceans(?), aliens) or artificial (robots). In relation to micro-encephaly, which was raised earlier, if the individual - see what I did there? - is self-aware, then they are clearly a person.

The medical definition really refers to whether the brain has completed its neurological development. As such, the controversial paper, suggesting that an "abortion" could be performed on a baby that had not reached that stage of neurological development, really showed that the "person-hood" argument of the pro-life movement was flawed, in that a fetus - never mind a zygote - isn't a person.

Kindest regards,

James


I agree that self-awareness is the best definition of what qualifies as a person.
It includes all that I consider and would (self aware aliens, robots) to be persons, however some people would say it isn't a good definition since it doesn't include babies. I am not one of those. It is still a good definition.
"Ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge: it is those who know little, and not those who know much, who so positively assert that this or that problem will never be solved by science."
Charles Darwin
Tue Sep 13, 2016 5:52 am
PreviousNext
Post new topic Reply to topic  Page 2 of 3
 [ 41 posts ] 
Return to Science & Mathematics

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests