« The Right to Fashion Our Lives How We Want | Main | Links Mentioned on the Show »

August 19, 2011

Comments

Sam

Ya i don't know why those two are so mean to me.

Why do you think it is?

ToNy,

Because sometimes, and i'm just saying sometiems, you probably come off a little harsh.

Sam,

Well, Sam, not only are you intelligent and have a pleasant odor, but, when you're right you're right.

I shall try to change.

Roger,

Are you a real person? Or a figment of my imagination?

ToNy,

I am indeed a real person.

But I do agree that Sam has a pleasant odor.

Roger,

Now, that Roger, I will take as a compliment.

alright funs over

Trent,

>> "You don't need to know my answer unless you can show that my statement concerning planetary status is related to fetal reduction. You do remember the original point, right?"

ah come on man.

ok listen, i've been programming for 16 hours straight.

I'm feeling a little batty right now.

my brain is literally caving in on itself. Delphi code and ms Access will do that to you.

I'll make you a deal. If you answer that last question, i won't ask you anymore questions without explanation.

I know it probably does seem like i just ask away. I am sorry about that. But i've tried laying things out in total on blogs, and it just doesnt work all that well.

Speciation occurs when an organisms lineage changes over time to the point that we need to change the species classification for individual members.

We don't have an adequate definition to define if two organisms are of the same or different species.

Therefore

We cannot tell if speciation actually happens.


Or

Parents give birth to offspring that differ from them genetically.

If the offspring is sufficiently different, then they are considered a different species.

Therefore
Parents can give birth to offspring of different species.


----------------
These are arguments. You can examine the premises to see if they are valid, and determine if the premises are true whether they justify the conclusion.

If you present the conclusion but refuse to give the premises, then you are just making assertions.


Humans have an innate ability to recognize other humans.

No one should be forced to prove they are human.

Therefore

An ironclad definition of human is only needed to exclude those innately identified as human.

ToNy is demanding an ironclad definition of human.

therefore

ToNy is trying to exclude humanity from those that would otherwise be identified as human


Sam,

When he stops playing games, we can talk. He is continually demanding answers to his questions and refusing to answer questions put to him, mostly to show the relevance of his comments.

I also believe that the implied position is a position that has consequences far beyond the context that we are trying to discuss. I do not believe Nazi death camps are merely something that seems to make me sad due to some subjective preference against them. Minimizing such carnage to fail to score rhetorical points is not in the subset of tactics that garners any respect from me.

If he want to get respect, he can stop referring to infanticide as the equivalent to killing farm animals.

Trent,

Sam is me ya cheesehead.

hee hee

sorry

i'm feeling punchy

Anyway, I'm confused...Ok are you going back to the daron question now?

You posted two different analysis's of it...

So...which side is the side you want to take?

I am giving examples of how to present an argument.

Argument 1, I consider true if you accept that there is not a valid definition for species. I believe in working definitions, and have already stated my position regarding the grey zones when it comes to humans.

Argument 2 is true if you have a definition of species which is accepted for use.

Argument 3 is my estimation of a rationale for spending so much effort demanding that a definition with no grey area, outside a purely academic discussion.

Trent,

ok...

its actually not a bad outline...i guess...

but which side do you take?

1 or 2

or...

did you want to discuss 3?

do you not want to answer my planet question?

ToNy/Sam,
Neither am I disingenuous nor am I misinformed. Tackle the evidence if you want to make such charges.

Argument 2 still relies on actually showing situations where offspring are born sufficiently different. It merely show what would happen if such an offspring was born.

My personal opinion is that I should never have to answer what definitively defines a human. For anyone shown to be born of human parents, that should be assumed. Defining this is for people who want to prove something is not human, despite parentage. This is why is is such a dangerous question, because it is only applicable when you have something that I would define as human, that you want to refuse human status.

I do not want this to be ad hominem I do not dislike you, but I really dislike the consequences of the position that is being put forward, and would serious question someone who could look at another person and expect that they define why they are human.

ToNy,
Calling yourself "harsh" is very self-congratulatory. Speaking the truth in a straightforward manner and letting the chips fall where they may is often called "harsh". It is to be respected. What you do is not.

I accept evolution, although I don't think it is a complete explanation and believe that certain evolutionary events were devinely tinkered with.

I believe, in general, species is merely a naming convention to classify organisms and each species has a list of characteristics that define that species.

I also believe that while homo sapiens sapiens may be a definite species, with defining characteristics that I cannot name right now as it is not my field of expertise, the term human is a wider term and could encompass several species. Therefore speciation is not, in my opinion, an argument of human status.

Trent,

>> "My personal opinion is that I should never have to answer what definitively defines a human."

But Trent there are all sorts of constructs produced by your wife's body that you refuse to call a human.

Suppose I wanted to accuse your wife of murder, because she threw one of her ovums in the river.

Further suppose, when asked why I have elected to draw the starting line of human, at the ovum stage, I merely answered:

"My personal opinion is that I should never have to answer what definitively defines a human."

As a Christian, the defining factor is the human soul (as opposed to a general soul category that some animals have) which appeared about 50 or so thousand years ago when humanity moved from long periods of slow intellectual improvement to a much faster rate of intellectual development than any period in our genus's past.

Are you now clear on my position?

The body naturally expels ova which expire naturally and without active involvement from anyone. Regardless of whether or not you want to pretend you think an unfertilized ovum is a human being it is not murder to fail to expend heroic methods to preserve a life naturally expiring.

Once again, species classifications are irrelevant.

Since we can't know to the satisfaction of some whether or not the progeny of any mating pair of any species on earth will be human, it is best we err on the side of caution.
Because, apparently, in any and every case we might be killing a human being let us determine that it would be morally wrong to abort any fetuses of any living creatures. We might not even know whether or not the contents of a womb constitute a living creature, so let us resolve that it is immoral to perform any invasive surgeries removing anything from the womb unless it is deemed medically necessary or unless we know for sure it is not killing a living being.

Once the baby has been delivered we can assess it. Does it look sufficiently like the babies that grow into human beings, or does our science know enough to deem it human? If yes, or if we are not sure, let's say it is immoral to kill it. As it grows, for those still unsure whether or not this construct is human, let us not kill anything that resembles human beings enough that there is a question. When it has achieved the sufficient qualities that allow even the most ardent pro-abortionists to allow that the construct is, in fact, human, let us deem that causing its death without justification is immoral. Being unsure of its humanity or not is not a justifiable reason for its killing.

Your illustration is not the product of human parents. It is the result of only a single genetic source, and does not contain enough genetic material to be considered human.

At what point in the development process you can call it human is a valid discussion re: abortion, but in the case of fetal reduction the question is if you have two or more organisms you are considering, what is your criteria for differentiation. My point has been species is not a valid criterion, as whatever you define as the species you need to define the others as the same as there is do difference between them.

Got to go, Doctor Who and Torchwood will soon be on here.

Daron,

Sorry buddy, i just don't read your posts until you answer man.

==============================================

The premises were:

A: evolution is true
B: species exists

Now, as should be clear over the last couple years, I don't believe B is true. I'm fairly agnostic on A, and tend to think the jurys still out. I'm not sure, but I don't think you believe A is true.

But when we engage in philosophical discourse, we often adopt premises for the sake of argument.

And given the above two premises, Daron said that the below statement was still false:

"A species can give birth to a different species."

I have drawn a very simple model that reveals that the above statement is true--given premises A and B.

If Daron still wishes to hold that the above statement is false, then he shall have to tell me where my model is not congruous with evolutionary theory.

Couldn't care less, ToNy.
They aren't for you.
No surprise that you still don't read but still write your "responses", though.

Trent,

>> "Your illustration is not the product of human parents. It is the result of only a single genetic source, and does not contain enough genetic material to be considered human."

So that's your mitigating rule.

Your rule is:

The construct in question must come into contact some other matter (sperm).

ok

Suppose I said:

No. I don't think that's when the matter in question (the ovum) is of the set of humans. Rather, I think it happens before that.

Just for the record, tissue from my wife does have genetic components from both parents, but it's natural condition is not to grow into a separate organism. All things being equal, without genetic or health issues, the natural state of a fertilized ovum is to divide and differentiate into all the different kinds of cells needed to create a fully realized human, as opposed to the muscle tissue which is single purpose and will never ( if left on it's own) differentiate itself and create another human.

Daron,

oh well..i'll give it a try. This will be interesting.

the satement was:

==============================================

The premises were:

A: evolution is true
B: species exists

Now, as should be clear over the last couple years, I don't believe B is true. I'm fairly agnostic on A, and tend to think the jurys still out. I'm not sure, but I don't think you believe A is true.

But when we engage in philosophical discourse, we often adopt premises for the sake of argument.

And given the above two premises, Daron said that the below statement was still false:

"A species can give birth to a different species."

I have drawn a very simple model that reveals that the above statement is true--given premises A and B.

If Daron still wishes to hold that the above statement is false, then he shall have to tell me where my model is not congruous with evolutionary theory.

==============================================

I went back for the 4th time and looked at your rant. Most of it was an assault on my feeble mind.

I did see this paragraph.

So i'm just gonna go ahead and critique it. I got no idea what you'll say next so...

Daron: "Darwin shows plainly that what the theory shows us is that the continuum creates species for the very reason you are ignoring - the missing varieties in between. With your flippits, and with the case of the human and the offspring, we are not missing the varieties, therefore, we do not have a "point" at which the speciation happened, nor where you can put your red tick. On Uncommon Descent there is an evolutionary scientist who put forward the same thing just the other day. Her example was the change from adolescence to adulthood. We can tell what we have at the ends, but there is no point in the gradation where you can non-arbitrarily say it happened."

This is why I was sure to keep posting premise B. Species Exist.

In scientific classification, any given genetic sample would ultimately be assigned to a species class.

Suppose you were to take a cell from all of the organisms shown in the photographs, and place them all in individual viles.

Ultimately, one of the major goals of the science of biology itself, is that each vial would come back with a label that indicated what species the genetic sample is.

This would necessarily be the case if premise B is true and species exist.

Some vials may come back labeled wrong by technicians.

Some biologists may disagree on how to label a given vial.

But if premise B is true, then it is necessarily the case that there exists an objectively true answer for each vial, for the question, "What species should I write here?"

Once the vials come back, we need only fasten their labels to each picture. And, then we will get our red tick marks wherein we can see where one species, birthed another.

I think if you were to use consider a genetic component, the unfertilized ovum is a completely different organism from the fertilized ovum. The unfertilized ovum is merely a contributer.

if you pushed humanness back to the ovum, you have the issue that every month, every woman who does not get pregnant is aborting as she is preventing the ovum from being fertilized and every man who does not fertilize during the appropriate time is forcing is wife to choose between infidelity or abortion. I would consider that a silly position.

A programmer?

If you consider a a species as an object and each individual as an instance of an object, there would be many variables that can be different. A descendant species would be an object with some functions a being overridden.

in the case of twins, we are looking at two instances of the object initialized with the same constrictor, with the same initial variable values. The only difference is the instance name and the memory locations. Over time, variables will change values and the instances will become different, but both are in the same state they were initialized at. Other than the name and the memory address, what distinguishes one instance of the object Homo Sapiens Sapiens from the other? Assume no functions have been added or overridden.

Trent,

Indeed, there would be many humans lost each month if my rule is invoked.

That would be troublesome for jail wardens.

But the question we ask is, why is my rule objectively false?

How come you are allowed to throw out a rule, and i'm not?

Your rule is based in a different assumption.

You demand proof of humanity.

My rule is the standard definition. My illustration meets that definition,

Yours fails yours as you cannot prove yours is human. I make the assumption it is from the beginning and reject the ovum because it does not meet my original stated assumption.

Your rule is based in a different assumption.

You demand proof of humanity.

My rule is the standard definition. My illustration meets that definition,

Yours fails yours as you cannot prove yours is human. I make the assumption it is from the beginning and reject the ovum because it does not meet my original stated assumption.

In scientific classification, any given genetic sample would ultimately be assigned to a species class.
OK, and to a variety or subspecies within that species.
But if premise B is true, then it is necessarily the case that there exists an objectively true answer for each vial, for the question, "What species should I write here?
Objectively true? No, I think not. Species are, as you are so fond of saying, human constructs. We have what we call the lumper and the splitter problem, for instance. Some biologists (possibly to be the discoverer of some new species) think there are far more species than do other biologists. They do not agree with the divisions, whether we have unique species or whether we have normal variance within a species. That is why there are so many different ways to determine what a species is - as you are so kind as to point out repeatedly.

The acceptance that 'species exist' says absolutely nothing about how many species exist and what the range is within each species.

As the Darwin example showed, in evolutionary theory (sans Goldschmidt-style saltation) a parent births an individual that varies only a little from the parent. These variances add up over many generations so that you have varieties, then subspecies, then species. At no point do you cross the species barrier between parent and offspring.

I gave you a perfectly good example of using the most common biological delineator and showed you how this crashed your claim that humans can birth non-humans - unless you accept the Hopeful Monster scenario. You said you don't need to accept Hopeful Monsters to make your claim.

So you have never answered the question "do humans often give birth to non-humans" and your attempt to look like you were answering is a washout.

BTW,
That was not a rant but a recitation of objective facts.

Daron,

>> "Objectively true? No, I think not. Species are, as you are so fond of saying, human constructs."

By premise B, they are in this example of course, not human constructs.

And hence, each vial would indeed be labeled to one species or another.

Trent,

what?

ToNy

"But a zygote has no "understanding of moral categories"

And yet, you think they are human."

I have already responded to this earlier and if you backtrack, you will see that I did.

Louis,

oops sorry

must be getting oldddd

By premise B, they are in this example of course, not human constructs.
False. Saying that "species exist" (your beloved premise B) does not say that there is an objective truth about where the distinctions are found.

It is an objective truth that there is day and there is night. There is no objective truth about every minute and its belonging to one or the other.

And hence, each vial would indeed be labeled to one species or another.
Your labeling of the vials has nothing to do with premise B and says nothing about whether those labels are objectively true or not.
By premise B, they are in this example of course, not human constructs.
Who said human constructs don't exist?

Daron,

If the class "species" objectively exists then, indeed each given organism would occupy one of course.

That's right, every organism will be a member of a species. Which species that will be is not objectively knowable - the species problem is your pet, not ours.

And without an objective definition you can not objectively say which organisms are in which species.

Again, it is objectively true that men go from young to old, but no objective truth about when they make the transition.

The acceptance that 'species exist' says absolutely nothing about how many species exist and what the range is within each species.

As the Darwin example showed, in evolutionary theory (sans Goldschmidt-style saltation) a parent births an individual that varies only a little from the parent. These variances add up over many generations so that you have varieties, then subspecies, then species. At no point do you cross the species barrier between parent and offspring.

Daron

>> "Which species that will be is not objectively knowable"

Indeed, man may not have access to this knowledge. And may not be able to render it correctly for several reasons.

But per premise B, there indeed exists a objectively true answer to the question:

"What species should I write here on this vial?"

ToNy,

We are starting from two separate sets of assumptions,

You have been coming at it from defining a species definition, and determining whether a particular organism meets the definition of the species.

I have been defining several rules, and unless shown otherwise have been using that to make assignments.

If you cannot define the species as a set of propositions, the logical assumption is to use a more heuristic approach.

But per premise B, there indeed exists a objectively true answer to the question:

"What species should I write here on this vial?"

That is not what premise B tells you unless you know what "species" means. You don't. And, according to you, nobody does. Now unless "species exists" means that there is some kind of Platonic ideal of each species, which it doesn't, then "species exists" does not imply that there is an objective truth in the labeling.

Just as there is not an objective truth as to which minute is the first minute of night or which minute is the first one when a man passes from young to old - even though it is objectively true that there is day/nigh and young/old.

Daron,

Premise B does indeed mean that there is a platonic ideal for each species.

No it doesn't.

It means that it is objectively true that in taxonomy there exists a category below genus and above subspecies consisting of similar organisms.

Daron,

Premise B asserts that the class objectively exists. All classes that objectively exist are indeed part of the platonic realm.

The comments to this entry are closed.