Are fetus' humans?

[northcity4]

Actually, this works with any two eggs (provided they're not deficient). This is beause the only thing that differs from a gamete and a human being that is not quantitative is the sexual chromoses. You *absolutely* need an X. Since in half of the spermatozoids, there is no X, half of them are unable to reproduce. There are other problems that stops two X spermatozoids (or one X and one Y) from making a successful embryo. I have not yet read any article on fusing the information then implementing it in an ennuclied ova.

That is correct, which is why I used 'two eggs' as an example, as opposed to 'two sperms'.

Statistical clarification:
Assuming that a sperm has equal chances of being X / Y, there is a 75% chance for two sperms to contain sufficient genetic information for a human.
Two eggs always (100% chance) contain sufficient information.

Other restrictions:
Two eggs will never yield a male.
A proper cellular structure (e.g. that of an egg) is required. This is an additional requirement in the case of two sperms.
For both sperm+sperm and egg+egg, there is a notable lack of built-in mechanism for the introduction of genetic material into each other.

Here is a thought experiment:

Suppose we have invented a device that can hold exactly two gametes inside. The device is designed to always take the genetic material of one gamete and stick it into the other 1 minute after both gametes have been placed inside. There is no way to get the cells out after they have been put inside. Cells cannot die inside the device.

If fertilization was successful, the resulting cell is immediately transferred to a viable womb-like environment.

We have also invented a second device. When a female presses the button on this device, the (viable) egg she currently has in her body will be magically teleported into the first device.

Two questions:

1)
Suppose 50% of the females (Group A) are hypnotized from birth to always press the button whenever they have a viable egg. There is no way to break the hypnosis.
The other 50% (Group B) will never press the button, but are free to procreate normally (i.e. by having sex with a male).
Are the eggs of Group A any more 'human' than those of Group B?

2)
(this is essentially the other abortion thread, about 'abortion to save mother')
Suppose that pressing the button on the second machine will kill the female.
Is it 'right' to not press the button?

That is like saying are children born of rape victims any less human than a child born out of a good family? In this sense no, both are equal.

But I see your point for those who don't: if we procreate someone, does that make them human? Is their genetics enough to make them human in this case? I think we should take this question even farther to see if we can get an answer, similar to the limit comparison test in calculus. What if we could create humans? I don't mean procreate, I mean Frankenstein: take the chemicals that humans are made of, literally put together a human, shock it to life...is that thing human? I think for the case of genetics, all would be human, but something bothers me...something makes humans more than genetics and I am not talking about morals/feelings. Let me put it like this: some biologists have told me it's a miracle that life can be given to something purely out of chemicals.

Something to ponder: I have never really studied this, but what gives something life? I know sometimes we shock people in hospitals back to life, but after they are completely dead, what stops the medic from bringing that person back to life?

[OldTrees]

But I see your point for those who don't: if we procreate someone, does that make them human? Is their genetics enough to make them human in this case? I think we should take this question even farther to see if we can get an answer, similar to the limit comparison test in calculus. What if we could create humans? I don't mean procreate, I mean Frankenstein: take the chemicals that humans are made of, literally put together a human, shock it to life...is that thing human? I think for the case of genetics, all would be human, but something bothers me...something makes humans more than genetics and I am not talking about morals/feelings. Let me put it like this: some biologists have told me it's a miracle that life can be given to something purely out of chemicals.

What bothers you is that an example of X can have characteristics that are not necessary or sufficient conditions of being X. These characteristics are not part of the definition of what is X.

[northcity4]

1) When you say X, are we referring to the genetic X?
2) Sorry, but I am still confused on what you mean. Are you saying there are things about X that biologists are not seeing/discovered or are there things they have discovered, but it's not important as you said because it is not part of the definition? (definition I assume has the necessary meaning to be used)

[OldTrees]

But I see your point for those who don't: if we procreate someone, does that make them human? Is their genetics enough to make them human in this case? I think we should take this question even farther to see if we can get an answer, similar to the limit comparison test in calculus. What if we could create humans? I don't mean procreate, I mean Frankenstein: take the chemicals that humans are made of, literally put together a human, shock it to life...is that thing human? I think for the case of genetics, all would be human, but something bothers me...something makes humans more than genetics and I am not talking about morals/feelings. Let me put it like this: some biologists have told me it's a miracle that life can be given to something purely out of chemicals.

What bothers you is that an example of X can have characteristics that are not necessary or sufficient conditions of being X. These characteristics are not part of the definition of what is X.

1) When you say X, are we referring to the genetic X?

X means insert a noun here. Example "Human"

The members of the set Humans that we have observed have characteristics that are not necessary or sufficient conditions of being Human. In this example the characteristic I will highlight is 46 chromosomes. However there exist Humans outside the set we have observed that have more or less than 46 chromosomes. (Trisomy). Therefore having 46 chromosomes is not a necessary trait of being Human. Closely related primates tend to have 48 chromosomes. However a rare case of double Monosomy would have 46 chromosomes. Therefore having 46 chromosomes is not a sufficient characteristic of being Human. So the majority of humans have a trait that is not a sufficient or necessary condition of being human.

We have a tendency to try to incorporate these coincidental traits into definitions despite that being incorrect.

[northcity4]

Ok, understood, but I don't think that answered what is bothering me to be honest. To me, all that did was clarify my original question which in turn was hoping to answer why I was bothered. Do you still believe this is what bothers me or maybe you see something else?

[OldTrees]

Ok, understood, but I don't think that answered what is bothering me to be honest. To me, all that did was clarify my original question which in turn was hoping to answer why I was bothered. Do you still believe this is what bothers me or maybe you see something else?

I thought it was you trying to expand either the definition of Human or of Life. I think I was wrong.

A decent definition of life is "having signaling and self-sustaining processes". This is not miraculous. Materials used in non self-sustaining structures will become free to have more reactions. Materials used in a self-sustaining structure will remain a self-sustaining structure. Negative feedback systems tend to stay at the stable point.

We have made synthetic life: http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/918ef6ae-d5f4-11e1-a5f3-00144feabdc0.html#axzz2FBmkLM5r.

[northcity4]

Ok, understood, but I don't think that answered what is bothering me to be honest. To me, all that did was clarify my original question which in turn was hoping to answer why I was bothered. Do you still believe this is what bothers me or maybe you see something else?

I thought it was you trying to expand either the definition of Human or of Life. I think I was wrong.

A decent definition of life is "having signaling and self-sustaining processes". This is not miraculous. Materials used in non self-sustaining structures will become free to have more reactions. Materials used in a self-sustaining structure will remain a self-sustaining structure. Negative feedback systems tend to stay at the stable point.

We have made synthetic life: http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/918ef6ae-d5f4-11e1-a5f3-00144feabdc0.html#axzz2FBmkLM5r.

Correct. Though my problem is can we humans really take credit for making life? Isn't DNA/Genes more like a planogram and something else starts to make the 'thing' according to the planogram?


“Life evolved in a messy fashion through random changes over three billion years,” he says. “We are designing it so that there are modules for different functions, such as chromosome replication and cell division, and then we can decide what metabolism we want it to have. For instance, do we want it to live on sugar or sulphur or to turn carbon dioxide into methane?”---> this is a quote from the article. Here he is stating we 'design' as in designing the planogram, but what causes the planogram to be made?

[OldTrees]

We have made synthetic life: http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/918ef6ae-d5f4-11e1-a5f3-00144feabdc0.html#axzz2FBmkLM5r.

Correct. Though my problem is can we humans really take credit for making life? Isn't DNA/Genes more like a planogram and something else starts to make the 'thing' according to the planogram?

“Life evolved in a messy fashion through random changes over three billion years,” he says. “We are designing it so that there are modules for different functions, such as chromosome replication and cell division, and then we can decide what metabolism we want it to have. For instance, do we want it to live on sugar or sulphur or to turn carbon dioxide into methane?”---> this is a quote from the article. Here he is stating we 'design' as in designing the planogram, but what causes the planogram to be made?

Technically they created the DNA and the cell. So they created both software and hardware.

I do not understand what you mean by "What causes the planogram to be made?". Isn't the architect's desire and the natural laws of the universe the two causes of the architect's schematics?

[northcity4]

We have made synthetic life: http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/918ef6ae-d5f4-11e1-a5f3-00144feabdc0.html#axzz2FBmkLM5r.

Correct. Though my problem is can we humans really take credit for making life? Isn't DNA/Genes more like a planogram and something else starts to make the 'thing' according to the planogram?

“Life evolved in a messy fashion through random changes over three billion years,” he says. “We are designing it so that there are modules for different functions, such as chromosome replication and cell division, and then we can decide what metabolism we want it to have. For instance, do we want it to live on sugar or sulphur or to turn carbon dioxide into methane?”---> this is a quote from the article. Here he is stating we 'design' as in designing the planogram, but what causes the planogram to be made?

Technically they created the DNA and the cell. So they created both software and hardware.

I do not understand what you mean by "What causes the planogram to be made?". Isn't the architect's desire and the natural laws of the universe the two causes of the architect's schematics?

Yes, you create the DNA and the cell. You may have put the cell together than inserted the DNA. I don't see where natural forces come in. For an engineer, he needs the parts (1-5) for a house. He takes the parts and puts them on the field where the house will be built along with a crew to build it. Now the crew is my 'unknown' atm. The parts represent the DNA (the parts tell you which side goes with which) and the field is the only place these parts can come together to form this house, hence the 'cell.' Now, that engineer could have made those parts, prepared the land, and told the crew how it needed to be built, but that engineer is by no means the creator of that house. He only designed it. From the article, my understanding is you throw in some DNA you have made into a cell...that's it. Did the scientists take neutron small tweezers and start piecing the parts together? Of course not.

Do you use enzymes?

Now, I am beginning to understand life in a cell more like a machine. Makes sense if enzymes/proteins are the elements running the cell. If we pieced together a human body, it would be a human like body...but dead. Is it the brain that gives a human life?

[OldTrees]

We have made synthetic life: http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/918ef6ae-d5f4-11e1-a5f3-00144feabdc0.html#axzz2FBmkLM5r.

Correct. Though my problem is can we humans really take credit for making life? Isn't DNA/Genes more like a planogram and something else starts to make the 'thing' according to the planogram?

“Life evolved in a messy fashion through random changes over three billion years,” he says. “We are designing it so that there are modules for different functions, such as chromosome replication and cell division, and then we can decide what metabolism we want it to have. For instance, do we want it to live on sugar or sulphur or to turn carbon dioxide into methane?”---> this is a quote from the article. Here he is stating we 'design' as in designing the planogram, but what causes the planogram to be made?

Technically they created the DNA and the cell. So they created both software and hardware.

I do not understand what you mean by "What causes the planogram to be made?". Isn't the architect's desire and the natural laws of the universe the two causes of the architect's schematics?

Yes, you create the DNA and the cell. You may have put the cell together than inserted the DNA. I don't see where natural forces come in. For an engineer, he needs the parts (1-5) for a house. He takes the parts and puts them on the field where the house will be built along with a crew to build it. Now the crew is my 'unknown' atm. The parts represent the DNA (the parts tell you which side goes with which) and the field is the only place these parts can come together to form this house, hence the 'cell.' Now, that engineer could have made those parts, prepared the land, and told the crew how it needed to be built, but that engineer is by no means the creator of that house. He only designed it. From the article, my understanding is you throw in some DNA you have made into a cell...that's it. Did the scientists take neutron small tweezers and start piecing the parts together? Of course not.

Do you use enzymes?

Now, I am beginning to understand life in a cell more like a machine. Makes sense if enzymes/proteins are the elements running the cell. If we pieced together a human body, it would be a human like body...but dead. Is it the brain that gives a human life?

The natural forces dictate what schematic will work for the architect's desires. If the laws of physics were different then the design would be different.

Yes, they used the organelles from a previous cell. However the monomers (food) they provided plus the DNA would create replacements for the initial infrastructure.
(Although it would be ridiculously expensive. An Organic Chemist could have created the initial infrastructure.)

A cell is very similar to a machine.
Multiple types of proteins are involved in unzipping DNA and transcribing mRNA monomers into a RNA polymer. Some of the RNA polymers are turned into Ribosomes. Some of the RNA polymers are escorted to the Ribosomes to be translated (result in the synthesis of a protein from amnio acid monomers). Some of the RNA polymers regulate gene expression. Some of the proteins are sent to the surface of the cell. Some of those proteins stay on the surface. Some of the proteins on the surface receive signals. Some of the proteins are expelled from the cell to act as signals. Each cell in an animal has a mechanism for Apoptosis (programmed cell death). Death can be the result of a cascade of signals/absence of signals that signals a cascade of Apoptosis.
Note: I had to oversimplify. You really should seek further study (Cell biology in this case) before you seek to make conclusions on this subtopic.

[northcity4]

We have made synthetic life: http://www.ft.com/cms/s/2/918ef6ae-d5f4-11e1-a5f3-00144feabdc0.html#axzz2FBmkLM5r.

Correct. Though my problem is can we humans really take credit for making life? Isn't DNA/Genes more like a planogram and something else starts to make the 'thing' according to the planogram?

“Life evolved in a messy fashion through random changes over three billion years,” he says. “We are designing it so that there are modules for different functions, such as chromosome replication and cell division, and then we can decide what metabolism we want it to have. For instance, do we want it to live on sugar or sulphur or to turn carbon dioxide into methane?”---> this is a quote from the article. Here he is stating we 'design' as in designing the planogram, but what causes the planogram to be made?

Technically they created the DNA and the cell. So they created both software and hardware.

I do not understand what you mean by "What causes the planogram to be made?". Isn't the architect's desire and the natural laws of the universe the two causes of the architect's schematics?

Yes, you create the DNA and the cell. You may have put the cell together than inserted the DNA. I don't see where natural forces come in. For an engineer, he needs the parts (1-5) for a house. He takes the parts and puts them on the field where the house will be built along with a crew to build it. Now the crew is my 'unknown' atm. The parts represent the DNA (the parts tell you which side goes with which) and the field is the only place these parts can come together to form this house, hence the 'cell.' Now, that engineer could have made those parts, prepared the land, and told the crew how it needed to be built, but that engineer is by no means the creator of that house. He only designed it. From the article, my understanding is you throw in some DNA you have made into a cell...that's it. Did the scientists take neutron small tweezers and start piecing the parts together? Of course not.

Do you use enzymes?

Now, I am beginning to understand life in a cell more like a machine. Makes sense if enzymes/proteins are the elements running the cell. If we pieced together a human body, it would be a human like body...but dead. Is it the brain that gives a human life?

The natural forces dictate what schematic will work for the architect's desires. If the laws of physics were different then the design would be different.

Yes, they used the organelles from a previous cell. However the monomers (food) they provided plus the DNA would create replacements for the initial infrastructure.
(Although it would be ridiculously expensive. An Organic Chemist could have created the initial infrastructure.)

A cell is very similar to a machine.
Multiple types of proteins are involved in unzipping DNA and transcribing mRNA monomers into a RNA polymer. Some of the RNA polymers are turned into Ribosomes. Some of the RNA polymers are escorted to the Ribosomes to be translated (result in the synthesis of a protein from amnio acid monomers). Some of the RNA polymers regulate gene expression. Some of the proteins are sent to the surface of the cell. Some of those proteins stay on the surface. Some of the proteins on the surface receive signals. Some of the proteins are expelled from the cell to act as signals. Each cell in an animal has a mechanism for Apoptosis (programmed cell death). Death can be the result of a cascade of signals/absence of signals that signals a cascade of Apoptosis.
Note: I had to oversimplify. You really should seek further study (Cell biology in this case) before you seek to make conclusions on this subtopic.

Don't worry, this part I have studied. Let's also not forget we are talking about this because someone earlier asked about if a procreated human is just as human from natural born baby. From other posts you have stated, you said 'Homo-Sapien' is not enough to define human or you said it doesn't matter (please remind me). Basically I think I was unclear. When I said something bothered me as I did in the Fetus thread, I was referring to what makes this thing human? Trees how would you respond to the post about procreation and human worth? If we started cloning people (like the futuristic movies or star wars) can we honestly say they are worth as much as people not cloned? If you say yes,ins't that saying only genetics define a human?

[OldTrees]

Don't worry, this part I have studied. Let's also not forget we are talking about this because someone earlier asked about if a procreated human is just as human from natural born baby. From other posts you have stated, you said 'Homo-Sapien' is not enough to define human or you said it doesn't matter (please remind me). Basically I think I was unclear. When I said something bothered me as I did in the Fetus thread, I was referring to what makes this thing human? Trees how would you respond to the post about procreation and human worth? If we started cloning people (like the futuristic movies or star wars) can we honestly say they are worth as much as people not cloned? If you say yes,ins't that saying only genetics define a human?

I did not mean a general biology college class. I meant a Cell Biology college class. (Junior biology level rather than Freshman non biology level)

I said Homo-Sapien is enough to define Human but not enough to define Moral Personhood. My position is there are a bunch of characteristics that people are trying to add onto the definition of human when they should be examining those characteristics individually rather than try to obscure both the characterisitic and the definition of Human.

Since I use Homo-Sapien as my definition of Human there are possible cases where Humans would be born to almost-but-not-quite Humans and cases where almost-but-not-quite Humans would be born to Humans.

However I see no inherent relation between being a Homo-Sapien and having Moral Personhood. I would refer to the ability to Reason, capability to Suffer or a similar trait as the necessary/sufficient condition of Moral Personhood.

Summary: Genetics determines humanity but humanity is not what makes it immoral to murder you.