toddjh said:
What is "genetic life?" A definition, please.
Lemmee see. A bounded cell that contains the genetic information to operate and reproduce.
Don't get insulting; you're doing fairly well so far. No, of course I don't think animal life is equivalent to human life. I simply see no reason to view a fertilized egg as "human life" -- it lacks the physiological structures that give rise to humanity as I see it.
So when humans reproduce they don't reproduce humans? The product of reproduction is not human?
All the information needed to "give rise" (your phrase) to physiological structures are in the fertilized egg.
Call it "sentient life," if you prefer, to avoid semantic arguments about what "human" means.
What semantics? If a fertilized egg isn't human, what is it? Semantics have nothing to do with this.
The ability of our brains to grow is coded by our DNA. The way our brains will grow is determined as much by our environment as our genetic code.
No, the FACT that our brain will grow (or not, given genetic aberration) is coded by our DNA. As for the way business, that is secondary to the reality of a brain.
DNA itself does not encode "me" -- my personality and experiences. If I were killed and then cloned, the clone would not be "me," and "I" would still be dead.
Right, the clone would be human.
DNA makes us human, it doesn't make us "me" or "self".
Yes. Or, to put it in a way that somewhat more accurately represents my position: without a brain, "I" -- the part of my identity and mind that I consider important -- did not exist.
OK, so if trace your existence back before you had a brain...or can we not do that, based on your restrictive definition? So before you had a brain, the thing the moment before brainless you wasn't you.
I'm sorry, I'm gonna sound like a twat, but I really don't care to much about what you consider important and your identity issues. I hardly expect you to think differently because of what I say, but I'm really curious what was going on before you became you. What was the deal the moment before you started being you?
I don't see a particularly relevant difference between the two. Sure, one has been fertilized, but big deal. It's still just a single cell; nothing to get worked up about. We lose millions of them every day.
!!! Are you serious? We are not a parthenogenetic species.
Yes big deal. Without fertilization, there is no you. Unless you are parthenogetically spawned.
When the fertilized egg is the ONLY single cell, it is something to get worked up about. The fertilized egg (the one that wasn't you, but would eventually be you) was the only thing that would eventually be you in existence. Lose that egg and there is no you. Yes, there are other unfertilized eggs which would result in genetically different yous, maybe even yous with girl's names.
Are you trying to be deliberately difficult here? I think it's safe to assume that I'm only concerned with significant effects, not negligible ones. And the information contained in DNA specifies only how an organism should grow.
No issues here...I mean, you're ignoring non-coding DNA and fingerprints but whatever.
I don't consider that kind of information meaningful. I'm talking about the information of human experience and personality -- much more meaningful and much harder to reproduce.
So essential information means less to you than meaningful information.
But I even agree with you. I'm saying that human experience embraces, includes, and incorporates every thing from the fertilized egg on. Same goes for personality. Anyhow when does personality kick in exactly? What are the standards by which we should measure or determine personality? We're talking about life classifaction here, which makes this literally a life/death issue.
Suppose the DNA of the fertilized egg were recorded. Would you then consider it okay to destroy the fetus? No information would be lost...
No, I wouldn't, because it isn't just about information.
Ah, then you're arguing that human life is superior to other forms of life because our genetic code is superior --
Of course it's superior.
that the things that make us special aren't a result of our physical form per se,
Ah, the old faith/works Christian conundrum.
I say faith and works.
I say genotype and phenotype, but obviously you can't have phenotype without genotype. Yes, the genetic code manifest itself physically. The fertilized egg and the subsequent development.
but simply because the information contained in our DNA is somehow "better?"
Sure it's better, there are no aardvarks participating in this forum. If the aardvark had better DNA, maybe one day, given enough random and compounding point mutations...we can only hope!
[That's a rather bizarre way of looking at it. Can you give me any kind of reason to think this is true?
The proof is in the results? I don't know, why are humans superior to other animals? We've got a better operating code that makes us run. That's only the obvious reason. I used to program in the early Basic computer language. I'm clueless about modern computer languages, but just looking at the phenotypical results, I reckon they are superior to Basic.
A numeric analysis of our DNA, for instance, that clearly shows it is superior to the genetic code of other species? I don't even know what "superior" would mean in that context, but the claim is yours, not mine.
Well I'm only saying this because I'm a human who runs on human DNA. Granted, I'm biased. As for numerical DNA analysis, I don't know what standards can be whipped up, nor am I all that interested. All I know are the results.
To put it another way, could you perform a double-blind study of the genetic codes of several species, and tell me which one was "superior" without comparing the phenotypes of those species at all? Please outline your plan for doing so.
I don't know enough about DNA to do that. For example, you could show me the most advanced computer programming language (nameless of course) and then show me a sham whipped up programming language, and I won't know which is superior. But one is superior.
Genotype and phenotype work hand in hand, and the phenotype is absolutely dependent on the genotype.
Also, if you're discussing only genotype, then explain your distinction between a fertilized egg and any other cell in our body. They contain the same genetic code. Shouldn't one be treated the same as the other, if genetics is the only relevant thing?
When I said I was discussing only genotype, I assumed that you agreed that phenotype was essentially and absolutely dependent upon coding DNA.
I addressed your other points earlier. Dead people have the same DNA as the fertilized egg in their past. Be sensible.
-Elliot
