Miscarriage: Murder!

[Beckwin]

human vs. a human

that's dishonest

[Beckwin]

Tons of single-cellular organisms maintain homeostasis - bacteria, fungis, etc. - what is your basis for questioning whether a multi-cellular human organism in zygote form can?

Single cellular organisms also respond to stimuli.

A 2 year old girl is not able to reproduce in her current state of development, but she's still an organism.

Anything else? It seems like the argument is "it's really small, it couldn't possibly do the same things that trillions of other single-cellular and microscopic multi-cellular organisms do!" I don't understand that logic.

would the zygote be able to maintain homeostasis if disconnected from teh mother? no, so I think in a sense, it's the mother maintaining homeostasis, not the zygote. and you're right, bacteria can do it. and they do it alone.

and do we know that early/zygote cells can respond to external stimulus? and yes again, bacteria can do it.

[archibaldcrane]

would the zygote be able to maintain homeostasis if disconnected from teh mother? no, so I think in a sense, it's the mother maintaining homeostasis, not the zygote. and you're right, bacteria can do it. and they do it alone

Would the bacteria residing in my abdominal lining be able to maintain homeostasis without the exact conditions that my body provides to it for its entire lifespan?

No, it's my body providing it.

Kind of.

Sort of.

But not really. That's not really what's meant by homeostasis. A zygote, like many single and microscopic multi-cellular organisms, can only survive in a very limited, controlled environment. It's how we've evolved as humans, it's how everything evolves. Remember, we're talking about "internal processes" - those which occur inside the organism. The mother for a zygote, or my intestines for a bacterium, regulate environmental temperature, ph-levels, food sources, etc. etc. etc. - those are not "internal processes of an organism".

Do you think that a zygote would perform measurably differently on "tests to determine whether it 'responds to stimuli'" than other microscopic multi-cellular organisms?

And remember, for the first few days of a newly minted human organism, when it's only one, two, four, eight, sixteen cells - it's not particularly "attached" to the mother - it hasn't even implanted in the uterine lining yet, it's just floating around in the fallopian tubes down to the uterus. In many ways, at that point, it's not much different from the bacteria in my stomach - it's alive, it grows, it 'takes' nothing from its host to do so, and if you altered the environment in which it was growing much, it would die.

It's as alive as that bacteria is, it is a unique organism, species: homo sapiens sapiens.

[zoobernut]

human vs. a human

that's dishonest

And you have uncovered everything with regards to Archi's argument on this matter.

[Plow]

Lactogenesis Stage 1 occurs during pregnancy when the gland becomes sufficiently differentiated to secrete small quantities of specific milk components such as casein and lactose.

You're right, they're all there and just growing. Definitely no differentiation occurring.



I can't believe people are willing to make themselves look this oblivious in order to try to win a stupid semantic argument by fitting shit to their customized definitions, and still being wrong.


http://mammary.nih.gov/reviews/lacta...001/index.html


Not going to bother with the other ways it continues developing. Read up if you want to act informed.

[Beckwin]

are there bacteria that can only live in intestines? it begs the question: how the fuck did they get there?

[Plow]

high rate evolution...

[archibaldcrane]

are there bacteria that can only live in intestines? it begs the question: how the fuck did they get there?

We're fucking crawling with millions of "local flora". I'm pretty sure that babies are born without any (might be wrong) but they rapidly accumulate beneficial bacteria and such from the environment.

It's kinda cool.

http://www.textbookofbacteriology.net/normalflora.html

I think most of our local flora comes from exterior non-human sources, so they can obviously survive in a number of environments.

Interesting example:

(12) Bifidobacteria are Gram-positive, non-sporeforming, lactic acid bacteria. They have been described as "friendly" bacteria in the intestine of humans. Bifidobacterium bifidum is the predominant bacterial species in the intestine of breast-fed infants, where it presumably prevents colonization by potential pathogens. These bacteria are sometimes used in the manufacture of yogurts and are frequently incorporated into probiotics.

[ZarakiKujata]

We're fucking crawling with millions of "local flora". I'm pretty sure that babies are born without any (might be wrong) but they rapidly accumulate beneficial bacteria and such from the environment.

It's kinda cool.

http://www.textbookofbacteriology.net/normalflora.html

I think most of our local flora comes from exterior non-human sources, so they can obviously survive in a number of environments.

Interesting example:

Babies get most of their intestinal flora from vaginal births.

[archibaldcrane]

Babies get most of their intestinal flora from vaginal births.

Interesting - does getting a C-Section harm that development?

[ZarakiKujata]

Yes very much so. Vaginal births and the lactic bacteria in breast milk are two big sources for babies according to an article I read in a bio class.

[archibaldcrane]

Here we go: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gut_flo..._human_infants

Infants born by caesarean section may also be exposed to their mothers’ microflora, but the initial exposure is most likely to be from the surrounding environment such as the air, other infants, and the nursing staff which serve as vectors for transfer.[14] The primary gut flora in infants born by cesarean delivery may be disturbed for up to 6 months after birth whereas vaginally born infants take up to 1 month for their intestinal micro flora to be well established.

[Beckwin]

We're fucking crawling with millions of "local flora". I'm pretty sure that babies are born without any (might be wrong) but they rapidly accumulate beneficial bacteria and such from the environment.

It's kinda cool.

http://www.textbookofbacteriology.net/normalflora.html

I think most of our local flora comes from exterior non-human sources, so they can obviously survive in a number of environments.

Interesting example:

so do you see a difference between bacteria and zygotes?

[archibaldcrane]

so do you see a difference between bacteria and zygotes?

There's a ton of differences between them...but I'm just using bacteria as another example of a tiny tiny organism that does all the things that organisms do despite their miniscule size, just like a zygote does.

[kuronosan]

I might've been incorrect to use the term organism:



I dunno if an early zygote/fetus/whatever is capable of maintaining it's own homeostasis. I'll let the bio/med guys clear that up though. And at the earlier stages, I don't think there's much in the way of response to stimuli. Definitely do not possess ability to reproduce in their current stage of development.

After about the 8th month a natural born baby without any additional medical support is capable of surviving on its own. Between the 5th and 8th months, they will more than likely die without medical support and still may even with it. Before the 5th month, they will most definitely die.

So no. A zygote or a fetus before it has almost completely matured is not capable of maintaining homeostasis. If it was, it wouldn't need its mother to have a placenta to transfer blood and nutrients.

are there bacteria that can only live in intestines? it begs the question: how the fuck did they get there?

There are normal flora in every open orifice from the nasopharyngeal cavity, to the ear, to the trachea, to the anus, even the urethra.

You get them mostly from your mother during birth and placental development. The rest are acquired over time.

[archibaldcrane]

After about the 8th month a natural born baby without any additional medical support is capable of surviving on its own.

Um...a carried to term perfectly healthy superbaby isn't capable of surviving on it's own. Human babies are pretty damn helpless compared to other animals.

Keep trying to tear apart what you think "homeostasis" means.

[Beckwin]

dude if you think homeostasis refers to acquiring food, you're wrong. I'm pretty sure it's about the biological processes... carried-to-term babies do not need assistance with aspiration, normal temperature regulation, nutrient processing, etc.

There are normal flora in every open orifice from the nasopharyngeal cavity, to the ear, to the trachea, to the anus, even the urethra.

You get them mostly from your mother during birth and placental development. The rest are acquired over time.

it was mostly a rhetorical question to highlight that they're capable of some independent living in order to get in your body.

[archibaldcrane]

it was mostly a rhetorical question to highlight that they're capable of some independent living in order to get in your body.

The problem is that you think that matters as far as being classified as an organism. Zygotes and fetuses and the like successfully live and thrive in the womb by living off the placenta. You see this as a weakness or some sort of inhumanity or something - they're doing what they are supposed to do, what human organisms (and other mammals) have evolved to do over hundreds of thousands of years.

They're just really really young humans.

[zoobernut]

Archi at the time of conception when all you have is a single cell with complete DNA before it starts dividing. What is the difference between it and a single stem cell? How is it a human but a single stem cell not a human?

Do you think just because it could become a human eventually means that at that moment that single cell is a human?

[archibaldcrane]

Archi at the time of conception when all you have is a single cell with complete DNA before it starts dividing. What is the difference between it and a single stem cell? How is it a human but a single stem cell not a human?

Because they behave completely fucking differently in the same environment. And do you know why they behave completely differently over the days, weeks, and months that follow, even if both are placed perfectly in the fallopian tube of a mother?

Because one is an self-contained, alive, human organism, and the other is just one of millions of single cells from another human organism.

If they were the same, then a stem cell would multiply, find a vaginal wall to implant in, etc. etc. - but that's not what it would do, because it's not a human organism in the first hours of life.