Beginning of Human Life

[Dan From Smithville]

But -- not to go on right now -- wasn't that taught? I know it was when I was in the NYC school system. And, of course, it was debunked with bravery as time went on. BUT you had to know the answer at the time as if it were TRUE in order to pass tests, which I did with flying colors, also being a National Merit Scholar. I believed EVERYTHING they taught me. (I no longer do.)

Are you aware that most embryologists rejected this idea by the 1920's? Is it those scientists that you are referring to or do you have someone else specifically in mind?

 

[Mister Emu]

Like all mammals, it has a haploid stage and a diploid stage to its life cycle.

I would dispute this. The human life cycle is diplontic(see source) and at no point in a human's life do they exist as a haploid cell, all humans come into being as diploid single-cell zygotes that mature into diploid multicellular organisms, nor are we ever primarily haploid cells.

14.5: Life Cycles

Further: "Haploidy is not observed in vertebrates"
https://www.cell.com/developmental-cell/pdf/S1534-5807(17)30345-3.pdf

Life does not begin at conception; it continues *through* conception. The haploid stage *is alive*.

That seems to conflate living material with having a new human life. Those are different concepts.

So, sperm and egg cells are *human life*.

Again, I feel you are conflating concepts. Neither cell alone, or considered together as separate entities constitute a human life. If you had a trillion ova and a trillion sperm, you wouldn't have a single living human until and unless an ovum is fertilized.

2. Whether something is a living human individual is NOT the central question.

Sperm and egg cells are living human individuals, but we don't have moral qualms when they die.

This conclusion is incorrect. A human individual is an entire human organism, which neither sperm nor ova are, they are the reproductive cells of a human. Just as a liver cell is of a human, not a human. Not even the whole liver, which is an organ of a human organism.

Whether abortion is right or wrong is NOT a scientific question.

I agree and have said as much. This discussion was purposed to inform positions, not argue what position was correct(notwithstanding how it turned at times).

 

[YoursTrue]

Why do you ask? What does humanness entail?

Obviously you've agreed that humans do not go through all stages of evolution while in the embryonic state, is that correct? But somehow something then go lost in the transference...genes...dna...got lost I suppose.

 

[YoursTrue]

Are you aware that most embryologists rejected this idea by the 1920's? Is it those scientists that you are referring to or do you have someone else specifically in mind?

The NYC school system was teaching it in the 50's and 60's as true. It was Stephen Jay Gould, although an atheist (We knew, btw, his cousin very well.) who had the integrity to come out and say it just wasn't true.At that time I was not concerned with evolution and God.
Haeckel's summation was still being taught. Gould wrote an article in 2000, and noted with disapproval that Haeckel’s drawings were still widely used in high school and biology textbooks.
The drawing of some monkey type evolving to human is still widely proliferated today.
"Hairless, fully upright, with close-cropped hair and a neatly-trimmed beard, “Modern Man” boldly strides into the future. Instantly recognizable and universally understood to depict the evolution of man, this image is one of the most famous scientific illustrations of all time. It is also wrong."
On the Origins of "The March of Progress" | Washington University ProSPER | Washington University in St. Louis (wustl.edu)
I repeat -- Gould wrote an article in 2000, and noted with disapproval that Haeckel’s drawings were still widely used in high school and biology textbooks.
Take from that what you will, but many way after the 20's were taught that embryos went through all the stages of said "evolution."

 

[DNB]

No, it's a clarification of some important distinctions, with significnt ramifications, which I've already explained numerous times. You're being simplistic.

Breakdown: A human is anything with a human genome. It designates species.
A person is anything that is sentient, self-aware, and anticipates futurity.

Not every human is self-aware/sentient. Some are unaware that they exist; unaware of existence itself. Not every human comprehends futurity and has an interest in continuing to exist -- if he even comprehends continuity. Mentally, they are the equivalent of rocks.
So what criteria -- other than DNA -- accords them rights or moral consideration?

A person is not necessarily human. Your definition would exclude intelligent extraterrestrials, for example, inasmuch as they were clearly not human. Mr. Spock or Worf would have no more claim to any rights or consideration than rocks or laptops.
OK... but what constitutes a "one?" One what? What differentiates a one from a non-one?
And what is this "ubiquitous law?" Tell me more about it.

You haven't answered my question. You've just restated your opinion of it, without justifying the opinion.

I think you're being simplistic, DNB. I think your assignment of rights is either blindly deontological or simply emotional. You're either following traditional rules, or personal emotion.

Have you thought about/critically analyzed this or other moral issues, or are you are using prepackaged religious or traditional rules as a convenient crutch?

You're being excessively pedantic, and unnecessarily complicated.
When a man and a women have intercourse, and the woman's egg gets fertilized by the male's sperm, and no action is taken to either interfere or impede the natural development of the fertilized egg, then guess what: a human person is formed.
That is, any deliberate action by another human, either the parents or a third party, to obstruct or desist the biological progress of the zygote, is an act of homicide. Those complicit in the abortion are called 'murderers'.

...oh, by the way, there are no extraterrestrials out there, neither in this universe or any other imaginary one.

 

[DNB]

I think you're preaching, DNB; asserting a personal or religious opinion as fact.
Q: Why does a human have more worth? Love? Altruism? Compassion? I don't think you've studied much ethology.

Determination of right from wrong? Humans have been oppressing and slaughtering each other to enforce their particular view of right or wrong for millennia. Humans usually have compassion for their own tribe members, but even this is questionable, judging from the widespread exposure of unwanted children in many cultures.
Outside their tribes, they show little natural reluctance to slaughter men, women and children, as we saw in the US, Germany, Vietnam, Cambodia, Chile, San Salvador, Myanmar, and countless other places. Indeed, people often take a perverse pleasure in causing the maximum pain and anguish possible.
I'd say man is among the least compassionate, loving or altruistic species.
Yes, animals usually do their dharma, and are incapable of hatred, gratuitous cruelty, vindictiveness, &c. Immorality is rare or impossible inmost non-human animals. Doesn't that make them our superiors? People learn their version of a creator, if their culture has one, and there is little agreement about his/her/its/their attributes. God belief is not innate.
Nor is there much agreement about proper behavior or attitudes.
So, no. Man is not the paragon of animals. We're a cruel, vicious, aggressive species.

You cannot teach an non-human morality. Therefore, despite man's potential to be inhumanly cruel, he also has the capability of being the quintessence of righteous and holy - because he comprehends the principles, and differentiate between right and wrong. You were very selective in defining man's characteristics, you failed to mention those who make gratuitous sacrifices for others, who do continuous volunteer and charity work, who are definitively philanthropic i many of their endeavors. Man writes dissertations, polemics, homilies, liturgies , etc.. all in the name of love, piety and benevolence - no other creature on earth but man can produce, or fathom, such conceptual works.

 

[Valjean]

Obviously you've agreed that humans do not go through all stages of evolution while in the embryonic state, is that correct? But somehow something then go lost in the transference...genes...dna...got lost I suppose.

I don't see how you came to that conclusion. It doesn't follow.

Much of the archaic DNA didn't get lost, which is why we see archaic features expressed during early embryonic development in birds and mammals, before the ancient genes get epigenetically 'turned off' during later development.

This happens, It's clearly visible if you look. Is this what you mean by going through "all the stages of evolution?"
And you still haven't explained why this is significant.

 

[Valjean]

You're being excessively pedantic, and unnecessarily complicated.

Pedantic because many don't seem to follow my argument, so I explain again in greater detail.
Unnecessarily complicated? How so? My argument's pretty simple and straightforward, as philosophic analyses go. Each point is necessary to reach the conclusion.

When a man and a women have intercourse, and the woman's egg gets fertilized by the male's sperm, and no action is taken to either interfere or impede the natural development of the fertilized egg, then guess what: a human person is formed.

A human zygote is formed, which goes through several stages and eventually becomes a human person.
That is, any deliberate action by another human, either the parents or a third party, to obstruct or desist the biological progress of the zygote, is an act of homicide. Those complicit in the abortion are called 'murderers'.[/quote]All homicide is murder?

...oh, by the way, there are no extraterrestrials out there, neither in this universe or any other imaginary one.

Thanks, I'm glad you cleared that up.

 

[Valjean]

You cannot teach an non-human morality.

Are you saying all morality is man-made?

Therefore, despite man's potential to be inhumanly cruel, he also has the capability of being the quintessence of righteous and holy - because he comprehends the principles, and differentiate between right and wrong.

Most people are good because they're unconsciously enculturated withthe values of the community, not because they've critically analyzed the underlying principles. They're conventional, because it's the best way to fit in and get along.

You were very selective in defining man's characteristics, you failed to mention those who make gratuitous sacrifices for others, who do continuous volunteer and charity work, who are definitively philanthropic i many of their endeavors. Man writes dissertations, polemics, homilies, liturgies , etc.. all in the name of love, piety and benevolence - no other creature on earth but man can produce, or fathom, such conceptual works.

I was speaking about mankind in general, the big picture.
Yes, we're clever. So what? Yes, an intense sense of band loyalty and altruism evolved during our millions of years as obligate social animals. These were selective.
Altruism and moral obligation outside the band, however, is mostly learned -- and a thin, easily stripped veneer.

 

[Messianic Israelite]

Logic? I don't think you understand the term.
Is deferring belief in something with no evidence of existence unreasonable?
And science doesn't claim to have "all the answers."
Science's purview is empirical facts. Concrete, measurable, testable things. Questions of meaning, value, purpose, &c. are the purview of religion.
Science stays in its lane. Problems arise when religion doesn't, and makes factual claims about empirical reality, with no empirical supporting evidence. "It doesn't work." Religion's answers are based on folklore.
Don't confuse spontaneous generation with abiogenesis.
The organic building blocks of life: amino acids, fatty acids, membranes, nucleic acids, self-replicating molecules and organic structures -- all are formed from ordinary chemistry. Were you aware of this?

Life vs non-life are not are not black-or-white. Life is a chemical continuüm. with no clear point where a chemical structure can definitively be called "alive."
I assume you agree that there was once a time where no life existed on Earth. So how, in your opinion, did it get here?I see only three possibilities:
*Abiogenesis by familiar, observed, chemical evolution.
*Panspermia.
*Magic, ie: effect without mechanism.
Panspermia just shifts the venue. It doesn't answer the question of origin.
Magic, in your words, "has never been observed." There is no evidence of the supernatural, yet the religious seem to think magic is a reasonable hypothesis. For the life of me I can't imagine why.
So what reasonable, observable, testable alternative remains?
The theory of evolution says nothing about the origins of life. It deals only with anatomic, physiological or behavioral changes in existing organisms. Research is well on it's way to confirming this right now, with further evidence emerging monthly.
I don't see why you believe this is virtually impossible. It's familiar and easily observable chemistry, that can be reproduced in any high school chemistry lab. Yes, it is complex, and biology explains the many small steps that led to this complexity. No foolishness or failures. But it doesn't! "Evolution" means change, not origin. You're conflating two, different disciplines.
I don't know what religious disinformation sites you're getting all this from, but "change," not origin, is the very definition of evolution. Evolution and abiogenesis are two, entirely different things, with two, entirely different mechanisms."Created?" All "evolutionists" believe life came from ordinary chemistry, and, once established, adapted and changed over time. There are no scientific observations of magical creation.What does purpose have to do with anything? Science deals with facts. Purpose, value, meaning, &c are the purview of religion. They are not observable or measurable. Science has nothing to say about them,
Humanists are altruists, like Christ. They exalt human rights and well-being, not self. They believe in fairness, righteousness, justice and compassion --The values of Christ, not the values of Yahweh.
Logic? What does the algebra of logic have to do with this? No. Happiness exists everywhere, not just in Christians.

Hi Valjean. Good afternoon. Thank you for your explanation. You say science is based on empirical facts. Concrete, measurable, testable things. Correct me if I am wrong but macroevolution has never been observed. Isn't it you then who is exercising vast amounts of faith simply to believe in a theory that eats away at faith in the Bible?

 

[Polymath257]

I would dispute this. The human life cycle is diplontic(see source) and at no point in a human's life do they exist as a haploid cell, all humans come into being as diploid single-cell zygotes that mature into diploid multicellular organisms, nor are we ever primarily haploid cells.

14.5: Life Cycles

Further: "Haploidy is not observed in vertebrates"
https://www.cell.com/developmental-cell/pdf/S1534-5807(17)30345-3.pdf

You are misunderstanding the article. There is no haploid stage in mammals that is multicellular (as there is in many other organisms), but the sperm and the egg cells *are* our haploid stage.

From the National Human Genome Research Institute:

Haploid

"
Haploid refers to the presence of a single set of chromosomes in an organism’s cells. Sexually reproducing organisms are diploid (having two sets of chromosomes, one from each parent). In humans, only the egg and sperm cells are haploid."

That seems to conflate living material with having a new human life. Those are different concepts.

Really? Precisely what is the difference? Sperm and egg cells *are* human (they are certainly not dog) and are our haploid stage. They are also genetically individuals.

So they are living and human and individuals. When they are formed, they are new human life.

Again, I feel you are conflating concepts. Neither cell alone, or considered together as separate entities constitute a human life. If you had a trillion ova and a trillion sperm, you wouldn't have a single living human until and unless an ovum is fertilized.

And I feel that *you* are conflating the concepts of 'living human' and 'person'. No, that fertilized ovum is NOT a person. Like the sperm and egg cells, it is living human material, but it is NOT a person with legal and moral aspects.

But that is a legal and moral question, not a scientific one. SCIENTIFICALLY, there is little difference between the unfertilized ovum and the fertilized one except that the fertilized one has 46 chromosomes as opposed to 23.

This conclusion is incorrect. A human individual is an entire human organism, which neither sperm nor ova are, they are the reproductive cells of a human. Just as a liver cell is of a human, not a human. Not even the whole liver, which is an organ of a human organism.

And a growing embryo is NOT an 'entire human organism'. It is developing into such, but is not yet one. It is at least diploid.

I agree and have said as much. This discussion was purposed to inform positions, not argue what position was correct(notwithstanding how it turned at times).

I think that saying a single fertilized ovum is an 'entire human organism' is a remarkable claim. Entire human organisms have a full complement of organs that are functional. And that is certainly *not* the case at conception.

 

[Polymath257]

You're being excessively pedantic, and unnecessarily complicated.
When a man and a women have intercourse, and the woman's egg gets fertilized by the male's sperm, and no action is taken to either interfere or impede the natural development of the fertilized egg, then guess what: a human person is formed.

This is incorrect. The woman has to supply food and energy to the growing embryo and fetus or it will not develop into a person. Those are definite actions that need to be taken.

That is, any deliberate action by another human, either the parents or a third party, to obstruct or desist the biological progress of the zygote, is an act of homicide. Those complicit in the abortion are called 'murderers'.

And those that lose bodily autonomy to another are called slaves.

If someone decides to live *inside of your body*, demanding energy and resources that you provide, then you have the right to evict them. That would be true of an adult as well.

...oh, by the way, there are no extraterrestrials out there, neither in this universe or any other imaginary one.

That is not known.

 

[Mister Emu]

There is no haploid stage in mammals that is multicellular

And our zygote, when a new human being comes into existence as a single-celled organism, also has no haploid stage.

Sexually reproducing organisms are diploid (having two sets of chromosomes, one from each parent). In humans, only the egg and sperm cells are haploid.

Precisely. No human is ever at a stage where it exists as a haploid.

Really? Precisely what is the difference?

It's a difference of wholeness. A liver cell, a skin cell, a sperm cell etc. do not make up a whole human, they are constituent parts of a human being. A zygote is the entirety of a human existence.

And I feel that *you* are conflating the concepts of 'living human' and 'person'.

Considering I've said, several times, that I don't engage in dividing humans into persons and non-persons in defense of depriving some humans of rights, no, you are confused. I dispense with the empty term "personhood" altogether.

SCIENTIFICALLY, there is little difference between the unfertilized ovum and the fertilized one except that the fertilized one has 46 chromosomes as opposed to 23.

Little difference, except all of the difference. The fertilized ovum, as quoted, is a new human being, a brand new human individual that did not exist prior to the fertilization. That's a big difference, SCIENTIFICALLY.

And a growing embryo is NOT an 'entire human organism'.

That's a claim. Does it not encapsulate the entirety of a living human entity? Are you suggesting there is some non-material element that is shared with the zygote in a singular human existence?

Entire human organisms have a full complement of organs that are functional.

Humans are never single-celled organisms? Pshaw.

 

[Valjean]

Hi Valjean. Good afternoon. Thank you for your explanation. You say science is based on empirical facts. Concrete, measurable, testable things. Correct me if I am wrong but macroevolution has never been observed.

Lots of things we believe in are too slow or distant to be observed. Should we disbelieve in evolution because the process is multigenerational and slow, and major changes can rarely be seen in a lifetime?
We see microevolutionary change all the time. Macroevolution is just an accmulation of microevolutionary changes. How would these small changes know when to stop, so as to avoid accumulating into big changes?
How do you account for fossils and the DNA record?

If someone walks West from New York City, would you not expect him eventually to reach the Pacific, even though each step is insignificant?
Observed Instances of Speciation
Some More Observed Speciation Events

Isn't it you then who is exercising vast amounts of faith simply to believe in a theory that eats away at faith in the Bible?

Hardly. Science doesn't believe in faith. It believes in evidence -- observable, predictive, testable evidence. Not folklore and heresay.
Faith is unjustified belief; poorly evidenced belief. Me, I prefer knowledge.

Why do you have faith in the Bible? Why is unjustified belief a good thing?
Why not believe the Quran, or Guru Granth Sahib, or Tao, or Chronicles of Narnia? All are equally evidenced.
There is a great deal more consilient, testable evidence supporting the ToE than there is for biblical theology.

 

[Polymath257]

And our zygote, when a new human being comes into existence as a single-celled organism, also has no haploid stage.

Not the issue. The sperm and egg are the haploid stage of our life cycle. They are individuals and are human.

Precisely. No human is ever at a stage where it exists as a haploid.

Eggs and sperm are human, so this is wrong.

It's a difference of wholeness. A liver cell, a skin cell, a sperm cell etc. do not make up a whole human, they are constituent parts of a human being. A zygote is the entirety of a human existence.

What do you consider to be the constituent parts of a human being? Because the zygote is single celled, has no liver, brain, arms, legs, etc.

And, of course, this now becomes a matter of definition. What does it mean to be a 'whole human'? If I have had a kidney removed, I am no longer whole, but I would still be a moral agent, right? Genetics can't be the criterion since those with Down's syndrome don't have the same number of chromosomes.

Considering I've said, several times, that I don't engage in dividing humans into persons and non-persons in defense of depriving some humans of rights, no, you are confused. I dispense with the empty term "personhood" altogether.

But you do. You deny the personhood of sperm and eggs, which are full human organisms (the haploid stage).

Little difference, except all of the difference. The fertilized ovum, as quoted, is a new human being, a brand new human individual that did not exist prior to the fertilization. That's a big difference, SCIENTIFICALLY.

How is a fertilized egg a 'full human being'? By what criteria?

That's a claim. Does it not encapsulate the entirety of a living human entity? Are you suggesting there is some non-material element that is shared with the zygote in a singular human existence?

Humans are never single-celled organisms? Pshaw.

Humans are multicellular organisms with complex consciousness. Zygotes dont have that.

 

[Valjean]

And our zygote, when a new human being comes into existence as a single-celled organism, also has no haploid stage.

Because a zygote, by definition, is a fused, haploid egg and sperm.

Precisely. No human is ever at a stage where it exists as a haploid.

Unless you believe the egg and sperm are human.


It's a difference of wholeness. A liver cell, a skin cell, a sperm cell etc. do not make up a whole human, they are constituent parts of a human being. A zygote is the entirety of a human existence.

Considering I've said, several times, that I don't engage in dividing humans into persons and non-persons in defense of depriving some humans of rights, no, you are confused. I dispense with the empty term "personhood" altogether.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Hi Valjean. Good afternoon. Thank you for your explanation. You say science is based on empirical facts. Concrete, measurable, testable things. Correct me if I am wrong but macroevolution has never been observed. Isn't it you then who is exercising vast amounts of faith simply to believe in a theory that eats away at faith in the Bible?

But it has been observed in real time. There are many examples. The problem is that creationists do not even know what macroevolution is.

Do you think that you can define macroevolution?

 

[Mister Emu]

Not the issue.

It actually is a huge issue if you can't place the stage in any human's lifespan.

Eggs and sperm are human, so this is wrong.

Yes, in the same way skin cells are. As a small part of a human being's makeup.

What do you consider to be the constituent parts of a human being?

Any portion of a human being that does not make up the whole. A single celled zygote has constituent parts like a nucleus, cell membrane, etc.

What does it mean to be a 'whole human'?

To comprise the entirety of the existence of a human being.

But you do.

What part of rejecting the concept of personhood with respect to the value of human, or any other creature, life is difficult to grasp?

I don't reject the personhood of sperm and ova because I don't utilize the term at all.

How is a fertilized egg a 'full human being'? By what criteria?

By the criteria of embryology, by the criterion of being a new member of the homo sapiens species. A sperm is not a homo sapiens. An ovum is not a homo sapiens. A zygote is.

Humans are multicellular organisms with complex consciousness.

Except when they are briefly a single celled organism, and when they don't have complex consciousness because their developmental stage has not, or possibly never will, reached that point.

By this argument you reject all your prior arguments about sperm and ova, which is nice, at least.

 

[Messianic Israelite]

Lots of things we believe in are too slow or distant to be observed. Should we disbelieve in evolution because the process is multigenerational and slow, and major changes can rarely be seen in a lifetime?
We see microevolutionary change all the time. Macroevolution is just an accmulation of microevolutionary changes. How would these small changes know when to stop, so as to avoid accumulating into big changes?
How do you account for fossils and the DNA record?

If someone walks West from New York City, would you not expect him eventually to reach the Pacific, even though each step is insignificant?
Observed Instances of Speciation
Some More Observed Speciation Events
Hardly. Science doesn't believe in faith. It believes in evidence -- observable, predictive, testable evidence. Not folklore and heresay.
Faith is unjustified belief; poorly evidenced belief. Me, I prefer knowledge.

Why do you have faith in the Bible? Why is unjustified belief a good thing?
Why not believe the Quran, or Guru Granth Sahib, or Tao, or Chronicles of Narnia? All are equally evidenced.
There is a great deal more consilient, testable evidence supporting the ToE than there is for biblical theology.

Hi Valjean. Good afternoon. Thanks for the response. Don't you think it's rather convenient that we can't actually prove macroevolution to be true? You say some things are too slow or distant to be observed, however, the leaps that theorists have made to claim that one organism evolved in to a radically different organism by adding the sum of hundreds of thousands of years to the equation is to me laughable. I read articles like this: From Bambi to Moby Dick: how a small deer evolved into the whale | Evolution | The Guardian and I'm laughing all the way through. It's not science. It's something that belongs to a Disney production. I have no idea how people who consider themselves intelligent could believe such absurdity.

Perhaps you feel the same way about the Bible, that it's all made-up. But historians and archaeologists use the Bible as an accurate source to explain where certain cities were located, events occurred and cultures were evident. It makes sense that what we see around us was created because there is beauty and harmony in this world. If Yahweh didn't create in this world, this world would look like that mentioned in Genesis 1:2 "2 Now the earth was formless and empty, darkness was over the surface of the deep...". No amount of time will result in human beings evolving in to something else. What about Mendel's laws?
A logical consequence of Mendel’s laws is that there are limits to such variation. Breeding experiments and common observations also confirm these boundaries. Mendel discovered that genes (units of heredity) are merely reshuffled from one generation to another. Different combinations are formed, not different genes. The different combinations produce many variations within each kind of life, as in the dog family.

In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - 3. Mendel’s Laws (creationscience.com)

How do you account for fossils and the DNA record?

Let's start with the DNA record. Natural processes cannot produce large amounts of information. The genetic information in the DNA of each human cell is roughly equivalent to a library of 4,000 books In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - 33. Genetic Information (creationscience.com) Even if matter and life somehow arose—perhaps only a bacterium—the probability that mutations and natural selection produced this vast amount of information is essentially zero. To produce just the enzymes in one organism would require more than 10 to the power of 40,000 trials.i (To begin to understand how large 10 to the power of 40,000 is, realize that the visible universe contains fewer than 10 to the power of 80 atoms.)

What about "junk" DNA? Evolutionists out of ignorance began to call huge chunks of DNA they considered to be irrelevant and redundant aspects of our evolutionary past, yet this so called "junk" DNA was shown to contain millions of switches that regulate gene activity at specific times and in unique ways for each of thousands of different types of cells. No, DNA implies creation, it certainly doesn't imply macroevolution.

What about fossils you might ask? Fossils are proof of a global flood. If that much water sloshed over the earth for a year, many dead animals and plants would have been buried in vast amounts of mud and other sediments. This could explain how almost all fossils formed, especially those on the highest mountains. Further, in-between forms (or intermediates), which should be vast in number if macroevolution occurred, are never seen as fossils or living species.

There's a good explanation here about that of the fossil record proving rapid burial: In the Beginning: Compelling Evidence for Creation and the Flood - 21. Rapid Burial (creationscience.com)

Why do you have faith in the Bible?

Well, I can't speak on the Quran, or any other religious literature. I was brought up on the Bible, and the scripture says in Romans 10:16-17 "16 But not all the Israelites accepted the good news. For Isaiah says, “Yahweh, who has believed our message?” 17 Consequently, faith comes from hearing the message, and the message is heard through the word about the Messiah." I heard the message, and I came to believe it. Actually, in my youth nearly every day I would listen to a sermon and my faith grew and the fruits in my life increased of which I give the praise to Yahweh. The Bible doesn't resonate with everyone. It did resonate with me and by Yahweh's grace He called me (see scriptures like 1 Corinthians 1:25-27, 2 Thessalonians 2:14 etc):

“But you, Israel, my servant,
Jacob, whom I have chosen,
you descendants of Abraham my friend,
9 I took you from the ends of the earth,
from its farthest corners I called you.
I said, ‘You are my servant’;
I have chosen you and have not rejected you.
10 So do not fear, for I am with you;
do not be dismayed, for I am your Elohim.
I will strengthen you and help you;
I will uphold you with my righteous right hand."

I have found that we have to be called by Yahweh and that won't happen unless Yahweh sees something in us worth salvaging. If we are worthy to have the good news dawn upon us, Yahweh will call us, but we should be seeking Him. Do you remember what happened in Mark 10:49? The blind man wasn't healed right away, Yahshua had to call him to him. People in this world are blinded. We need Yahshua to open our eyes.

Knowing Yahshua has been the best thing that has happened in my life. He makes my life worth living and I have so much to live for, keeping the commandments, trying to please Yahweh and Yahshua and following in his footsteps.

 

[Polymath257]

It actually is a huge issue if you can't place the stage in any human's lifespan.

And that is NOT a scientific question. That is a philosophical or moral question. Same as asking when death occurs. it used be to when the heart stopped, but then we learned how to keep the heart going. Now, it is brain death. And we can use the same criterion of brain activity for when the human lifespan *starts*. The answer would then be about 6 months into pregnancy.

Yes, in the same way skin cells are. As a small part of a human being's makeup.

No, NOT in the same way skin cells are! They are the haploid stage of our life cycle. They are independent, genetically distinct individuals. That is the *science*. Skin, liver, heart, are are diploid cells and are part of the diploid stage of our life cycle (called somatic cells). They *also* have a full 46 chromosomes of the diploid stage.

Any portion of a human being that does not make up the whole. A single celled zygote has constituent parts like a nucleus, cell membrane, etc.

How is that relevant to being a human being? There are NONE of the characteristics usually assigned to being human. Most importantly, there is no brain and thereby no brain activity.

To comprise the entirety of the existence of a human being.

Again, that is a philosophical or moral question, not a scientific one. Human life continues *through* conception, alternating between diploid and haploid stages. That is why it is called a life cycle.

What do you mean when you say a 'human being'? Scientifically, both the haploid and diploid stages are *completely human* and are *individuals*.

I suggest you read the article on ploidy:

Ploidy - Wikipedia

What part of rejecting the concept of personhood with respect to the value of human, or any other creature, life is difficult to grasp?

Because then you miss the whole point. Personhood is the philosophical and moral issue. It is NOT a scientific question. You are confusing the two. Then question of when there is a human being is a philosophical one that is essentially equivalent, as you use it, to the question of personhood.

I don't reject the personhood of sperm and ova because I don't utilize the term at all.


By the criteria of embryology, by the criterion of being a new member of the homo sapiens species. A sperm is not a homo sapiens. An ovum is not a homo sapiens. A zygote is.

WRONG. The sperm and egg *are* homo sapiens! They are certainly NOT canis familiaris! The cells are homo sapiens. They have genetic individuality.

Except when they are briefly a single celled organism, and when they don't have complex consciousness because their developmental stage has not, or possibly never will, reached that point.

By this argument you reject all your prior arguments about sperm and ova, which is nice, at least.[/QUOTE]

I should have said 'human beings'. No human being is single celled, but that is a philosophical and not a scientific question. There are many human individuals that are single celled, including zygotes and also sperm and eggs.

You want the science. Humans, like all animals, go through a multicellular diploid stage and a single celled haploid stage. Both human. They are 'complete individuals' genetically. The *only* difference between the unfertilized egg and the fertilized one is that the fertilized on has 46 chromosomes as opposed to 23 (assuming typical genetics. Down's syndrome will have one more).

If you want to consider the zygote a 'human being', then you also have to consider the unfertilized egg a 'human being', which means you also have to consider sperm to be 'human beings'. UNLESS you *arbitrarily* decide that human being only applies to those with 46 chromosomes (or 47, or 45). That is the science. The next step is philosophical: where do you want to draw the line?

My point of drawing the moral line is when the neurons in the brain start to make the connections that can lead to pain sensation, and eventually consciousness. That happens about the 6th month of pregnancy. Before that, I don't consider the embryo or fetus to have the same moral standing as after. I base this on exactly the same criteria as used to determine death at the end of life.

You want to talk about a 'whole organisms'. The sperm and eggs qualify scientifically by any criterion that you can used for a zygote except number of chromosomes.