Which has fuck all to do with it being a H. sapiens.
Basically, what is your argument here? Beyond stupid talking points.
Mine is that when we are discussing non-human species, we routinely include both the N and 2N stage of the lifecycle as living members of that species. Why shouldn’t we do the same for H. sapiens?
I want to restate the challenge…
Is there objective truth in biology???
Is there such a thing as objective truth???
Does the above statement represent objective truth???
I think you need to define “objective truth” as you are using it. From what I can tell thus far, you might consider any description an “objective truth” so long as it corresponds to something tangible or observable.
Depends on your ontological framework.
Depends on the philosophical framework you are placing the field of biology within. However, if we assume naive realism and take biology itself as a sort of closed set, yes, there can be said to be “objective truth” within it.
No, it does not for the reasons I’ve stated.
good post X…you still have not answered my question…can a living human sperm ever become a living breathing homo sap----yes or no…you are driving me nuts…
It is already a living H. sapiens. Can it become an adult H. sapiens? Of course, by becoming 2N when it joins with an egg.
it cant be…what if there is no egg around…
Then that particular example of H. sapiens will live out its entire life in the haploid phase. Nothing too shocking there, happens all the time.
where in the www did you come up with this theory…please tell me…
It isn’t a theory. That is just how life is defined. We don’t think of a mycelium that never sprouts a mushroom as not being alive or not being a fungus, do we?
is this your own theory or is there anyone else that you woud refer to…
Google any protist. Google any fungus. Heck, check out bacteria and archaea – with very few exceptions, those guys are just N throughout their entire lifecycle. Why should animals be treated differently?
X----this is the original topic…it only is stating an objective truth about a homo sapien zygote
…nothing else…
But it is wrong.
You know, turtle, you are reacting to Xunzian by becoming stiff. If you flow with his posts, you have a supporter. He is not arguing that there are no objective truths, he is saying that your assertion was incorrect. To support your main position, you could ask him if one of his statements - I would choose one of the earlier ones in the thread - is an example of an objective truth.
so you have challenged that statement you drunken master…
how about if the statement is changed to------
the human zygote is alive and can develop into an adult homo sapien…then will you be on board…
moreno you are very good observer…i will be paying attention to you…
I believe that we can approach objectivity by including as much context as we can. In order to do that, we lose perspective. What we know becomes less meaningful than the fact that we know it.
For example, what is so human about the notion of the fertilized ovum? Does it tell us anything about the humanity of the cell? I think not, it is limited to a description of an occurrence that we perceive from the outside, in the context of causality leading to procreation. We assume that this cell is a human. I contend that it is not the cell which is human at that point, but that inside a human has started a new process of becoming-human.
I think that a cell is not conscious at conception. Homo Sapiens begins to live at the point where enough material has been accumulated into the zygote or embryo to becomes conscious.
See - that is why it matters so much what kind of names we give to things -
for objective truth to exist our terms must be both objective and all-inclusive.
Objectivity (not truth) can exist only if the values are non-inclusive, such as in mathematics. We can safely say that x+x = 2x, because we have defined the terms x, +, = and 2 in order for them to mean precisely that.
Not so with ovum, since we’ve not created it. We don’t know the totality of how it fits in the totality of the process of which is it part, we only a certain function that we perceive in a certain progression of stages we have defined, which proves to be consistent and seem to reveal objectivity - but the objectivity is only of progression of what is assumed to be content, not of content itself.
What I’m trying to say is that, if we belief your example statement to be true, then we have redefined the term “homo sapiens”, no longer meaning “knowing hominid” but “that which comes into being when an egg cell is fertilized.”
Are we thereby closer to the truth? Or have we just changed what we aim to define?
A more objective statement would be: the natural procreation of genes is activated by an occurrence we call fertilization and conception.
As objectivity is approached the definitions of the terms become more evidently dependent on each other: fertilization is a term to meant to imply procreation. This then is mathematics, so we can replace the terms with symbols: now, they are objective, and no longer designate anything that belongs exclusively to homo sapiens.
The objectivity of homo sapiens is reduced to his genetical makeup -
but, and this is the contradiction of the “superman”, the idea that we may evolve beyond man, what does the evolutionary term “homo sapiens” mean, if it is to designate by definition the one making the definition? This is been a strange move - we have named ourselves and as a consequence we’ve become something different. We stand aside from the evolutionary process, as we see that it has all led up to us. But we must get involved with it again.
A more objective statement would be:
what I understand as - and assume to be understood so by you - procreation occurs by what I understand as - and assume to be understood so by you- fertilization (of x by y, which are…).