A Human Embryo is to the Baby He or She Becomes, That a Caterpillar is to the Butterfly It Becomes
It is an intentional tactic on the part of some who push for the instrumental use of nascent human life to make the sophistical argument that human embryos are not really organisms until they implant in a uterus. Ironically, these advocates make this bogus claim in the name of boosting science. But this is anti-science because it is utterly inaccurate from a biological perspective. But the point is to tie opponents down with endless and circular debates about what constitutes a living human organism so that the real discussion about whether and when it is appropriate to use human life instrumentally can be avoided.
I am really tired of dealing with this over and over again, but will make this one last foray into the issue: Let's look at the caterpillar that becomes a butterfly. It is the same animal when it is a worm-like creature with many legs that it is later after it has metamorphosed into a beautiful butterfly that can fly. The butterfly isn't a different individual member of that species. It is the same member of that species--it is just in a different stage of development with different capacities. When it is a caterpillar, it can eat leaves but it has no wings. Still, it has the developmental potential to fly. It isn't any less a member of its species of butterfly when it is a caterpillar than after it leaves the cocoon.
Similarly, when it comes to being an individual member of the human species, an embryo, is a fetus, is a neonate, is a pre-pubescent, is a pubescent, is an old man like me. During my nearly sixty years, I have never ceased being the same individual member of the species Homo sapiens I was when my life began upon completion of the fertilization process. My voice is deeper than it was when I was five. I had more hair and it was dark brown when I was 20, I had more neural cells when I was 30. My genes were expressing differently when I was seven than they are today. But I did not become a different organism. I have, since I was at the one-cell stage, been the same organism. Nor did my implantation in my mother's womb make me a different organism than in the week or so when I was in her fallopian tube.
That is basic science that is beyond dispute from a purely scientific perspective.
posted by Wesley J. Smith @ 2:19 PM
71 Comments
71 Comments:
Where did all those human exceptionalism arguments go, if we're no different from insects when rhetoric demands it?
The human exceptionalism comes in at this point:
It is not immoral to kill either a butterfly or a caterpillar; they are the same species, at different stages.
To rephrase: it's not immoral to kill a butterfly at any stage.
Now, why would it be immoral to kill a later stage of human, but not an early stage? Why would so many fight so hard to insist that an early stage isn't even the same species? Isn't a human? Isn't a person?
How hard is it to see that Wesley is employing an analogy?
Caterpillar:Butterfly :: Embryo:adult.
I think this is another way of saying that we have a human nature and at no point do we ever change from one kind of being/thing to another.
This nonsense about being a pre-embryo and then an embryo is a ruse/tactic to make it seem like no harm is being done and there's no unique, whole human life there to be destroyed. What happened to the power of the arguments of personhood theory? Why are supporters of ESCR working so hard to establish this new term? I suspect that personhood theory isn't working well enough. Do too many people instinctively know that it's arbitrary and unfair. I have to guess that there's something out there that isn't working with personhood theory that makes advocates of ESCR and abortion come up with this pre-embryo terminology. It's amazing that the word embryo must be connoting so much humanity that we the term pre-embryo is concocted. I hope this all suggests that there's no power in saying it's a human non person and is therefore disposable etc.
To me this whole fight over whether a term like pre-embryo can be invented to keep us from the concern that must be coming from killing human embryos shows that people think humans are exceptional beings.
History Writer. That's pathetic. Listen to Gregory L. Ford. It was both an analogy, as well as the statement of scientific fact.
It kind of blows my mind that these people would even try to use implantation as the start of an "organism." I mean, it would make more sense biologically if they tried to use the end of the fertilization process or even, if they really wanted to push it, the first cell division (as evidence that fertilization had taken place successfully and that there was now a fully zipped-up genome) as a marker for being an "organism." I'm not saying at all that I would agree with this, especially the second of these, and they still couldn't do any of the research they would want to do prior to that time, but they could make some _stab_ at a biological defense for reserving the term "organism" in that way. Implantation is entirely a matter of location. It does not correspond to any biologically essential change in the embryo itself. It's just dumb.
I wonder how many people, especially non scientists who favor research using human embryos, realize that the entire genetic makeup is complete in the first cell.
In other words, using Wesley as the example again, he has no more (or no less) DNA at almost 60 then he did when he was a one cell embryo; "totally and fully human from cell number one."
Now it's implantation? Does anyone else see this as "argument by bizarre definition"?
My guess would be that the purpose of the implantation definition would be to ensure that embryos created for research and grown in a lab setting or artificial wombs never qualify as "human", never having made their mother "pregnant". Heck, given sufficient incubation technology, you could raise a cloned fetus to term and it could become an adult never having made his or her mother "pregnant".
The whole argument is surreal. People seem to be deciding first what they want (ESCR, fetal tissue harvesting, abortion), then choosing a definition of "human" that puts the embryos/fetuses/babies they don't want on the wrong side of it, then coming up with some sort of argument as to why their definition of human is sensible and not self-serving.
In my time reading this site, I've seen pseudo-religious arguments for formation of a circulatory system being the dividing line, the formation of a nervous system, the development of rational thought that takes place *after* birth, and now implantation. I even got exposed to Nancy Pelosi bringing up the cutting edge of Thomas Aquinas' thirteenth century biology to make a point. Half of these arguments make medieval Scholasticism look downright sensible.
I've seen "embryo" swapped out for "pre-embryo" and "blastocyst", and "personhood theory" treating humanity like some kind of prize awarded by a panel of judges at a quiz show. It's starting to become genuinely disorienting.
SparkVark: You made my day. That is precisely the purpose of SHS, to let people SEE.
I really like this analogy. It's great on a scientific level, but I've always seen butterflies as a metaphor for the goodness inherent in each person and the potential each person has to positively impact the world through his or her life.
SparcVark,
"Now it's implantation? Does anyone else see this as "argument by bizarre definition"?"
Part of my understanding of this redefinition is to avoid admitting that hormonal contraception may cause the termination of a pregnancy. A debated mechanism of most hormonal contraceptives is thinning of the endometrium, making it more difficult for the blastocyst to implant, thus possibly causing the loss of a pregnancy and an abortion. The idea that hormonal contraception may induce an early abortion can be avoided if pregnancy is redefined to be at implantation.
However, it is not clear that hormonal contraception in fact acts in this way. One physician pro-lifer and defender of human exceptionalism Serge from the LTI blog has done a lot of reading and work on this question and has concluded that it is very, very difficult to know whether or not hormonal contraception has this effect, even though it is listed on many birth control pills. I'm very much against all forms of contraception, but an honest look at the evidence to me looks like Serge is correct.
It's the simplicity of this argument that makes its point so strongly, which is why it needs to be repeated, even when we feel like we've said it until we are blue in the face.
And then do it all over again.
There will always be people who live life looking for loopholes to exploit. They cling to the letter of the law as if there is no spirit to the law. Nothing like that comes without expense, however, and in this case the cost is human life.
And in my opinion it was a false analogy that made no distinction between pre- and post-implantation. There IS a difference between people and bugs. THAT'S what was pathetic. And even more pathetic is the ongoing attempt by non-scientists to demean scientific accuracy in order to accommodate an agenda.
And in my opinion it was a false analogy that made no distinction between pre- and post-implantation. Then it's up to you to show how that is false.
How is something less the same species depending on what it is eating? Location? Abilities?
And even more pathetic is the ongoing attempt by non-scientists to demean scientific accuracy in order to accommodate an agenda.Indeed, which is why this attempt to re-define the start of a distinct organism for political expediency is so abhorrent.
For those of you interested in the science, I found this lucid and persuasive White Paper written by Maureen Condic: http://www.westchesterinstitute.net/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=351:white-paper&catid=64:white-papers&Itemid=113
Big Problem - this site doesn't state what the definition of an organism is.
If so, I'd like to see it formalized.
Never have...Still waiting.
http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/Organism
Organism
Definition
noun, plural: organisms
(Science: Biology)
An individual living thing that can react to stimuli, reproduce, grow, and maintain homeostasis. It can be a virus, bacterium, protist, fungus, plant or an animal.
Supplement
Word origin: Greek organon = instrument.
Related forms: organismic (adjective), organismal (adjective), organismically (adverb).
Synonym: living thing, living being, individual.
Sorry Foxfier
your definition doesn't work here, I used the exact same argument that was refuted by Wesley.
IPS cells meet all of these requirements and still this blog refuses to acknowledge that they are organisms
IPS cells:
- are Individualized (they contained the complete human genome)
- can react to stimuli (they will do react tothings at different temperatures, environements etc..)
- they do reproduce (undifferentiated cells divide and multiply)
- grow (diffentiate when fed properly)
- Maintain homeostasis (cell cultures can be maintained for long periods of time)
Numerous times this blog has not accepted that definition of organism as described. Further, it has never put forth a definition of organism to justify its rejection. This is a void reason for someone who portends to be so visionary about the future of Science.
Just pops saying I told you so, and that isn't good enough.
Its went down here.
http://www.wesleyjsmith.com/blog/2009/03/obama-no-clones-not-really.html"IPSCs aren't even part of organisms since they are human constructs created in the laboratory" - Wesley
An opinion based on WHAT?? NOTHING! He never defined what he meant by organism!
Anybody else here capable of defining an organism??
IPSC don't reproduce; they can be induced to split, which is not the same.
They can be used to fuse with an egg--theoretically-- which would result in a new organism, which would enable them to become
As per the name, IPSC are cells; they are units of an organism, and can become very different cells that make up the more mature form of that organism.
http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/Pluripotent_stem_cell
You really shouldn't try to blame our host for your ignorance of biology. It just makes you look silly.
Foxfier,
Do you understand very basic concepts of asexual mitosis?
Please educate yourself on this 8th grade biology subject before calling me names.
It's an elementary asexual reproduction method incurred by many organisms.
IPS cells undergo Mitosis to replicate themselves in culture.
It most certainly is reproduction.
FACT!
Furthermore they are not Units of an organism, one IPS cell has the capacity to generate an entire creature given the proper feeding and shelter.
This is a concept that is not in your antiquated history books, because the concept and technology are so new.
Your link explains nothing as many simple cells are considered organisms. FACT.
And yet no one still can provide a basic definition of what an organism is, especially the blog host, yet bases his foundational premise of life on this preconception that eludes description.
Lets have it!!
Dark Swan: It is replication, not reproduction.
Are you the sort who holds to the theory that nothing can be defined? Once that is true, there is no way to think critically. Once wse can’t think critically, we can have no ethical norms.
So, how do you define organism Dark Swan?
Better question-- do you?For starters, mitosis is asexual by definition; it results in cells identical to the original cells. Talking about "asexual mitosis" is like talking about a "wet liquid water."
http://biology.clc.uc.edu/courses/bio104/mitosis.htm
You seem to have problems with the concept of a cell culture.
Here's an explanation of what it involves:
http://www.scq.ubc.ca/cell-culture/
Please educate yourself on this 8th grade biology subject before calling me names. Most eighth-graders can get the difference between "organism" and the cells of which they are made.
PS-
I didn't call you names, I called you ignorant.
It's curable, if you're willing to try.
So, how do you define organism Dark Swan?
Do you always answer a question with a question Wesley?
Provide yours and I'll provide mine.
Our host uses the basic biology one.
Which is why he's wondering what yours is, and where it might be from.
Wesley lets just discuss definitions. Start with an organism.
I have posted my definition of organism that agrees with Foxfiers definitoin several times in other topics, you often refer people to your search tool, now you can use it. You are the one who disagreed with the definition provided in this and in the other blog I linked to earlier in the post.
I will be overjoyed to actually discuss definition.
"Dark Swan: It is replication, not reproduction."
Define the difference between replication and reproduction.
Else the process of cloning is only replication and a human clone is merely replicated as well and no reproduction occurs.
Here is every occurrence of "dark swan" and "organism" in the past year.
http://www.wesleyjsmith.com/blog/2009/03/unlimited-appetite-more-pressure-from.html
http://www.wesleyjsmith.com/blog/2009/03/hubris-and-endarkenment-in-science.html
http://www.wesleyjsmith.com/blog/2009/03/obama-no-clones-not-really.html
http://www.wesleyjsmith.com/blog/2009/02/american-journal-of-bioethics-review-of_02.html
http://www.wesleyjsmith.com/blog/2008/12/benefit-of-animal-research-diabetes.html
http://www.wesleyjsmith.com/blog/2008/11/charo-appointed-to-obama-team-as.html
http://www.wesleyjsmith.com/blog/2008/06/adult-stem-cells-new-plastic-surgery.html
http://www.wesleyjsmith.com/blog/2008/04/new-reproductive-cloning-technology-or.html
You can get a direct link to a comment by clicking on the date beside the poster's name.
Here is the link to where I quote the biological definition of cell.
Please provide a link to where you defined "organism," Dark.
For ease of clicking through, here's the posts as links:
March 09 March 09 March 09 Feb 09 Dec 08 Nov 08 June 08 April 08
http://www.wesleyjsmith.com/blog/2009/03/obama-no-clones-not-really.htmlTry reading the posts FF
At March 12, 2009 , Blogger Dark Swan said...
"Actually IPSCs aren't even part of organisms"(Wesley)
What? If you don't consider IPs part of an organism then placing them in an egg couldn't make a person.
I'l ask again. Do you deny these IPs cells are alive?
That they feed?
That they reproduce?
That they carry all of the genetic information needed to pass on to the next generation?
These are primary qualifications for the definition of organism
"I called you ignorant." FoxfierWhich is funny ff because you would flunk jr. high Science with your bogus assertions.
"IPSC don't reproduce; they can be induced to split, which is not the same. " - foxfierWRONG. IPS cells asexually reproduce via mitosis in culture! The same as the mouse ES cells divide in culture!!!
Our host uses the basic biology one. FoxfierNo he doesn't. Wesley rejected this definition of organism when I pointed out that IPS cells meet these requirements, yet he concludes they are not organism, but will not provide a basic definition of organism on which he bases his premise. I agree with the definition you posted.
So step off and let Wesley answer his own questions - if he will.
It is not my job to try to support your assertions, Dark Swan. I spend enough time looking up basic biological concepts to enlighten you, I'm not going to look up your concepts as well.
You said:
At April 22, 2009 , Dark Swan said...
Wesley lets just discuss definitions. Start with an organism.
I have posted my definition of organism that agrees with Foxfiers definitoin several times in other topics, you often refer people to your search tool, now you can use it. You are the one who disagreed with the definition provided in this and in the other blog I linked to earlier in the post.You respond by linking to this definition:
I'l ask again. Do you deny these IPs cells are alive?
That they feed?
That they reproduce?
That they carry all of the genetic information needed to pass on to the next generation?Which is not:
An individual living thing that can react to stimuli, reproduce, grow, and maintain homeostasis.A similarly formated version of your offered definition would be:
Something alive that eats and reproduces with genetic information being passed down.
Your claimed definition lacks reaction to stimuli, growth, and maintaining homeostasis.
Dark Swan: It is replication, not reproduction.
. - Wesley
Wesley, It's apparent your not clear about what your saying and providing false data.
Replication in the biological context is the act of creating a new dna molecule via polymerease while conserving the original, so you have 2 dna after replication.
Then the cell itself undergoes other molecular processes to separate the dna molecules into 2 separate cells - this is the asexual process of mitosis
Replication is PART of the process of Reproduction.
Replication occurs during interphase before cell division occurs.
The act of asexual mitotic division is separate and what causes IPS cells to proliferate in culture as they do.
So do you care to revise your assertion?
Which is funny ff because you would flunk jr. high Science with your bogus assertions.Projection, from someone who follows it up by displaying sheer ignorance of what a cell culture entails-- despite a very nice, clean, official explanation of what is involved being provided:
Animal or plant cells, removed from tissues, will continue to grow if supplied with the appropriate nutrients and conditions. When carried out in a laboratory, the process is called Cell Culture. It occurs in vitro (’in glass’) as opposed to in vivo (’in life’). The culture process allows single cells to act as independent units, much like a microorganism such as a bacterium or fungus. The cells are capable of dividing, they increase in size and, in a batch culture, can continue to grow until limited by some culture variable such as nutrient depletion.(copied from link above, bolding my own)I agree with the definition you posted.See prior post. At best, your linked definition is incomplete.
This comment has been removed by the author.
Here is every occurrence of "dark swan" and "organism" in the past year... Foxfier
For ease of clicking through, here's the posts as links:
March 09 March 09 March 09 Feb 09 Dec 08 Nov 08 June 08 April 08... Foxfier
It is not my job to try to support your assertions, Dark Swan. I spend enough time looking up basic biological concepts to enlighten you, I'm not going to look up your concepts as well...Foxfier.
ahh you just attempted to find my concepts and your obviously a blind squirrel who cant find a nut that was in the thread you even posted. Your blatant contradiction is entertaining, your misunderstanding of basic Science - not so much.
This comment has been removed by the author.
You seem to be busy confusing mitosis with fission. The first is for cells in multi-cell organisms-- like us-- and the other is for single-cell organisms, like a bacterium.
Quote:
Unicellular life forms replicate for continuance of the species (a bacterium, for example), while sometimes providing biomass for organisms higher up on the food chain. Cells of multicellular life forms replicate during the creation and maturation of the organism from an embryo or larvae, for the growth of and repair of tissues, and for the creation of sex cells (gametes) such as sperm and egg cells.
The manner in which cells replicate, however, differs with various classes of life forms, as well with the end purpose of the cell replication. For example, some unicellular life forms replicate by simple splitting of the cell into two cells, a process known as binary fission. Sometimes bacteria meet and form an intercellular bridge and exchange genes, a process called conjugation.
Cell that comprise tissues in multicelled organisms typically replicate by an organized duplication and spatial separation of the cellular genetic material, a process called mitosis.
Still waiting for wesley to explain how replication is akin to cellular division whereas mitosis (reporduction) isn't.
When do we get to the simple stuff, my orginal question still hasnt been answered.
Whats the SHS definition of an organism????????
Cell that comprise tissues in multicelled organisms typically replicate by an organized duplication and spatial separation of the cellular genetic material, a process called mitosis..
Too bad Wesley does not agree with you ff, he just stated IPSc (ES cells also correlated) cell division (in human presumably) is not accomplished via mitosis (reproduction) - read his last post in this thread.
Most cells that divide can not give rise to a living creature - In theory IPS cells can! Thus they are a wholly contained organism, given other stated preconditions espoused by the blog owner.
Dark Swan: Once again, I think you are a troll playing with people. The idea that because a cell might theoretically be able to become an organism after some manipulation, makes it NOW an organism is beyond ridiculous. A thing is what it is now. If it becomes something different, then it is that thing.
You challenged another's definition of organism. You first.
If you are really interested, read my book Conumer's Guide to a Brave New World. Or read some of the work of the President's Council on Bioethics. But you are not really interested. You are just playing games.
1) Your reading comprehension needs some work.
2) So does your mind reading-- my purpose in letting you find your definition is to be sure I wasn't putting any words in your mouth.
3) Your insults, too, while you're at it.
4) I'd point out your spelling, but I use tools to fix mine so I'll pass.
You have run into a logical fallacy known as the fallacy of definition.
In the defintion from Biology-Online.org, reproduction has a specific meaning, distinct from replication.
One refers to an organism-- the mentioned "individual living thing"-- making offspring, the other refers to a part of an organism making copies, AKA cell replication.
You asserted:
IPS cells undergo Mitosis to replicate themselves in culture.
It most certainly is reproduction.to which Mr. Smith responded:
It is replication, not reproduction.
a cell might theoretically be able to become an organism after some manipulation, makes it NOW an organism is beyond ridiculous.
Funny, when the possibility of the worst possible applications of future genetics are posed by the blog host is you pretend its ethics, but when an opposing view comes into play its trolling. How biased.
I suppose developing an ES or IPS cell in an artificial womb would be of no consequence to you??
The likelihood of ES cells and IPS cells being capable of developing a person via artificial womb is as likely as your designer babies that you preach against - more likely actually as the science of understanding how to manipulate a genome is less understood than understanding how an organism matures.
Your explanation that cells don't reproduce via mitosis is bad Science.
You challenged another's definition of organism. You first.No, I agreed with anothers definition and asked for yours. Many times.
I already stated my position over a month ago, I then restated I agreed with the terms posted by ff in this blog, you just ignored it.
I'll restate it agian.
An organism is capable of response to stimuli, reproduction, growth and development, and maintenance of homeostasis as a stable whole.
All of these conditions are met by the IPS and ES cells, which I described above. Do I need to restate that again too?
Now, Whats your definition of an organism?
I am not playing games. I am trying to get a definition of what an organism is so we can intelligently discuss differences in opinion, which you seem unwilling to provide. Its a simple question, just define it!
In the definition from Biology-Online.org, reproduction has a specific meaning, distinct from replication.
Foxfier
FF the definition of Embryo from the Biology-online.org that you keep quoting says:
.
"Embryo
(Science: embryology, gynaecology) in animals, those derivatives of the fertilized ovum that eventually become the offspring, during their period of most rapid development, i.e., after the long axis appears until all major structures are represented.
in man, the developing non-organism is an embryo from about two weeks after fertilization to the end of seventh or eighth week. The embryo cannot be considered an organism, it is biologically impossible. ".
So are you saying that an embryo is not an organism either? Or do you pick and choose which definition you believe?
Your so full of contradiction. BTW the replication defintion refers to DNA copying itself, not to IPS cells dividing. I already explained this earlier. Your failure to comprehend that basic difference shows your misguided perception of the very concept we are discussing.
Again with your inability-- actual or faked-- to understand basic definitions; things that basic reading comprehension should make clear.
Many times.
I already stated my position over a month ago, I then restated I agreed with the terms posted by ff in this blog, you just ignored it.I say again-- have yet to link to a definition that matches the one I offered; if you continue to claim so, you are a liar.
To claim you did is to claim that, by saying "ice" you describe all forms of H2O.
I agree with Mr. Smith-- you are playing games; barring a sudden surge on your part to go back and answer challenges, I'm done.
Talk about "argument by bizarre definition". Yikes.
By the way, Biology Online is wiki-style and editable. Turns out the most recent change to "embryo" was to add the weird, oddly insistent definition that the embryo was not an "organism".
My own definition would include the rule of thumb that something should not be considered an organism if it is a part of a larger organism. Thus, the organs in my body, some of which can grow new cells, respond to stimuli, etc. etc., are not organisms because they are an integral part of a larger organism.
But this is an example of what I find so frustrating. It's pretty clear that you're not really looking for a definition of "organism" as such, Dark Swan. Your end goal is to support embryonic stem cell research, so you're looking to play a game of "gotcha" with Wesley and anyone who agrees with him. You want us to agree that IPSCs are "organisms" so that you can accuse us of hypocrisy.
Stem cells are not, in and of themselves, organisms. My problem with ESC research is not what the cells are, but that they are created by taking human beings in a very early stage of development and destroying them, whether those human beings were originally created for reproductive treatments or for the more sinister purpose of being destroyed for research.
I do not expect everyone to agree with my moral precepts and conclusions, but when people try to change the definitions of words and play fast and loose with commonly understood biological concepts, I get frustrated. There's a serious lack of basic honesty by a lot of players in this debate, and that is sickening.
Thank you, Spark, you've much more patience than I do.
FF - You have posed no question I have not answered.
something should not be considered an organism if it is a part of a larger organism..
Sparc, I agree, and that is part of the point. IPS cells will have the same capacity to give rise to a human being as ES cells or human clones that actually don't exist either.
So its OK for you to consider me a murder advocate for supporting cloning that doesnt exist, but I cant raise questions about life myself? What is the purpose of this forum? To all nod in agreement with Wesley?
Who has tried to change the definitions of words? I have agreed about the definitions proposed by both FF and common definition sites.
How can we have a meaningful discussion, how can this blog be of any relevance if we can not define the terms we are using to base our concepts, even if we disagree?
I fulfilled my end of the bargain, still waiting for that simple answer I posed in my first post....
FF - You have posed no question I have not answered.Which is not what I said.
I said you have not answered basic challenges, such as:
defining, or finding a place here, on the boards, where you have defined, organism in a manner that includes response to stimuli, reproduce, grow, and maintain homeostasis.
Shown you have an understanding of what "mitosis" is, and explained why you consider it the same as sexual reproduction.
Shown that you understand the concept of "cell culture" and that not a way to turn a skin cell into a distinct organism.
I'm sure others can find more, that's just a quick selection.
How can we have a meaningful discussion, how can this blog be of any relevance if we can not define the terms we are using to base our concepts, even if we disagree?If you had any intent on having a meaningful discussion, and believed this, you wouldn't be so intent on refusing to define your own terms.
Foxfier,
did you pay attention to the very first response I posted to you in this very thread?
It said:
Sorry Foxfier
your definition doesn't work here, I used the exact same argument that was refuted by Wesley.
IPS cells meet all of these requirements and still this blog refuses to acknowledge that they are organisms
IPS cells:
- are Individualized (they contained the complete human genome)
- can react to stimuli (they will do react tothings at different temperatures, environements etc..)
- they do reproduce (undifferentiated cells divide and multiply)
- grow (diffentiate when fed properly)
- Maintain homeostasis (cell cultures can be maintained for long periods of time)
Hello?????
Sparc, I agree, and that is part of the point. IPS cells will have the same capacity to give rise to a human being as ES cells or human clones that actually don't exist either.But I don't think they do. Left to themselves, stem cells, whether from an embryo, an adult, or regressed via induced pluripotency, will not develop into a new person if nourished and protected. To the best of my knowledge, they just reproduce to form other stem cells, much like liver or nerve cells can be cultured.
This is why the stem cell "lines" existed that were acceptable for federally-funded research under President Bush's attempt at a Solomonic decision. As I understand it, ESCs and IPSCs are effectively the same cells. Again, it's not what ESCs *are*, but how they are *acquired*, that I have a problem with. If there were a method of procuring ESCs that did not cause harm to the embryo they came from, I would reconsider my opposition to them.
You've been on and on about this oddball definition of "organism", and I for one don't have any idea what your working definition of "organism" is. Again, I think you're trying to play "gotcha" with those of us who oppose ESC creation and research more than you are trying to nail down an accurate definition.
Shown you have an understanding of what "mitosis" is, and explained why you consider it the same as sexual reproduction.. FF
I've said mitosis is asexual reproduction numerous times in this thread.
Sexaul reproduciton is acheived via Meosis.
I've stated this basic high school knowledge ad nauseam to you. If you fail to digest this then I cant help you any further.
Wesley stated that cells multiply by replication. That is inaccurate in that replication is only part of the reproductive process.
"cell culture" is not reserved only for non-organisms. Bacteria culture is a simple example of a cell culture of organisms.
and FF I thought you were done responding to my "ignorant" "Silly" "trollish" scientific facts, as y'all have so eloquently defined them...
So Wesley, Ive answered every question I can, can you make good on your end?
Sexaul reproduciton is acheived via Meosis.
I've stated this basic high school knowledge ad nauseam to you. If you fail to digest this then I cant help you any furtherYou. Are. Incorrect.
Grossly so.
Meosis is the way that a specific type of cell is produced-- gametes.Sexual reproduction is how animals reproduce-- a system which uses gametes.
Mitosis is cells splitting into identical cells.This is how animals grow.
and FF I thought you were done responding to my "ignorant" "Silly" "trollish" scientific facts, as y'all have so eloquently defined them...I have called you ignorant, told you that your constant inability to show basic reading comprehension makes you look silly, and the word "troll" never left my fingers on this entire string of responses.
I will, however, now consider you a liar.
Left to themselves embryos are not viable either, they must be located in a womb.
I don't agree that ES/IPS Cells could not give rise to a fully capable human being. If you think they can form organs, what stops them from forming every organ?
All they need is an artificial womb. Which is likely to occur in the near future, the same as these cloned human embryos that do not exist yet.
In order to discuss these issues intelligently you have to define your terms, which the blog host has failed to do.
I have stated and supported an acceptable definition on organism 2 times in this thread and linked to another thread that also discussed the same topic, which the host avoided answering in as well.
Looks like when the rubber hits the road this blog is up in smoke.
FF, do a search and you will see Wesley said I was being trollish, and I said "y'all" alluding to all who have baselessly attacked me in this thread.
In the meantime please refrain from responding to me. I have no time for your incapacitates. Unless your offering a sincere apology.
Left to themselves embryos are not viable either, they must be located in a womb.Left to yourself, without oxygen in a usable form and amount or food, you are not viable.
Left to yourself, without oxygen in a usable form and amount or food, you are not viable..
True. ES cells, IPS cells, Embryos, Fetus, all have something in common.
They all
- are Individualized (they contained the complete human genome)
- can react to stimuli (they will do react tothings at different temperatures, environements etc..)
- they do reproduce (undifferentiated cells divide and multiply)
- grow (differentiate when fed properly)
- Maintain homeostasis (cell cultures can be maintained for long periods of time)
You prove my point very well.
How can ESCs or IPSCs form a human being? My understanding is that they produce more stem cells, but can be chemically altered to convert to (say) heart tissue cells or bone marrow cells.
I was unaware that they could be chemically (or otherwise) altered to become a new embryo.
Spark Vark: Pluripotent stem cells can become any differentiated tissue in the body, in theory. It hasn't been done in vivo. TOTIPOTENT cells are capable of becoming another embryo. ESCs and IPSCs are not totipotent.
But totipotent cells are just cells UNLESS AND UNTIL they actually became a different thing. The same would be true of a pluripotent cell, or a differentiated cell. It is what it is at the moment.
Some sophists say that all our cells are now akin to embryos because of SCNT, that is, they can be used with an egg to asexually reproduce. But that would not make them like an embryo, it would make them like a sperm, which is just a cell.
This is all mind you know whating.
the difference between totipotent and pluripotent stem is fairly easy to understand.
A Totipotent cells produce 2 distinct layers
1 a trophoblast which is food and shelter - essentially a tiny womb.
2 an inner cell mass - a nucleus that contains the pluripotent cells that feeds off the trophoblast
This innercell mass initially forms a blastocyst - which are pluripotent stem cells which contain all of the cells that will actually compose the organism. These later 'differentiate' into germ layers which make various parts of the organism.
In ESCr prior to differentiation these cells are removed leaving behind the disregarded trophoblast.
If these ES cells were to be fed properly they would continue to develop an increasingly complex organism through differentiation.
To feed this cell mass you can do it in culture, or you could re-inject the cells into an entirely different egg (called a blast injection which is often used in mouse line creations) and it would produce the same genetic organism. The specific trophoblast or material from which it feeds is inconsequential to how the organism develops as long as some form of placental material is there to feed from. You don't care where your food was made as long as you have food!
This is why surrogate mothers can host another womans baby.
My point is that since ES cells contain all the lifeforce to grow an organism regardless of what source is feeding it the proper nourishment then it is the essence of what we consider an organism and independent life itself.
This a very real concept. And since ES cells and IPS cells should be virtually indistinguishable its an important topic to discuss.
Wesley just said "totipotent cells are just cells", but in other forums he has claimed that these cells are zygotes, which constitute a person in his mind, soI'm not following his logic. It may also soon be possible to create totipotent cells from ordinary skin cells, and would these be considered viable life?
This is the reason I have strived in vain to get a reasonable discussion on what constitutes an organism from this forum.
You seem to be missing the point of why ESCR is disliked, while IPSCR is not.
One involves killing a human to take their body parts-- said stem cells.
The other involves turning cells that don't require murder to acquire and can be taken without causing harm into things that can act like the other cells which cannot be gained without human death.
These cells, in and of themselves, are not organisms; they are pieces of the multi-cellular organisms known as homo sapiens.
The heart of a murdered child is not the child itself-- that doesn't make the removal of a heart from a child any less immoral.
To feed this cell mass you can do it in culture, or you could re-inject the cells into an entirely different egg (called a blast injection which is often used in mouse line creations) and it would produce the same genetic organism.
Not exactly accurate; you scrape out everything inside of the egg, the cell, "trick" it into becoming dormant, put that in the egg, and shock it in hopes of making the two fuse.Basically, you alter the cell, then try to trick the cell into thinking that it's part of the egg so the two will combine. This is not an "environment."
For starters, the mitochondrial DNA of the new organism would come from the egg that was used.
This is the reason I have strived in vain to get a reasonable discussion on what constitutes an organism from this forum.
I'm starting to suspect that your definition of "reasonable discussion" means "everyone agrees with me."
Wesley:
Very interesting. By those definitions, while inducing adult cells to become *pluripotent* stem cells is simply changing their type, inducing them to become *totipotent* stem cells is cloning by another method. Of course, I've never heard of induced totipotent stem cells, nor do I know whether that will ever be possible.
Still, interesting wrinkle. I'm glad we have the chance to hash all this out before it becomes a fait accompli.
Foxfier:
Maybe it's because it's so late, but the idea of a clone retaining its "source's" cellular DNA and the egg donor's mitochondrial DNA strikes me as particularly odd/sinister. Like something out of a horror novel.
I could care a less what you suspect ff.
but if you feel the need to get the last empty words to validate yourself - go for it.
The point will remain, all I asked for this entire time was Wesley's definition of an organism.
He asked me to first provide mine, which I obliged, and he welched on his end, showing a lack of integrity.
Maybe it's because it's so late, but the idea of a clone retaining its "source's" cellular DNA and the egg donor's mitochondrial DNA strikes me as particularly odd/sinister. Like something out of a horror novel. Given the results it can have, and that they've been talking about using animal eggs for human clones... it is creepy.
To quote you:IPS cells:
- are Individualized (they contained the complete human genome)
- can react to stimuli (they will do react tothings at different temperatures, environements etc..)
- they do reproduce (undifferentiated cells divide and multiply)
- grow (diffentiate when fed properly)
- Maintain homeostasis (cell cultures can be maintained for long periods of time)
that is an attempt to describe IPSCs, not a definition of organism.
Evidence that you did not consider it a definition at the time can be offered by your production of an, at best, incomplete definition later on when pressed for your own definition.
Dark Swan: I can quote Wikipedia too. "In biology, an organism is any living thing (such as animal, plant, fungus, or micro-organism). In at least some form, all organisms are capable of response to stimuli, reproduction, growth and development, and maintenance of homeostasis as a stable whole. An organism may either be unicellular (single-celled) or be composed of, as in humans, many billions of cells grouped into specialized tissues and organs. The term multicellular (many-celled) describes any organism made up of more than one cell." We should add that an organism is self-repairing and self regulating.
We are also speaking specifically of a human organism, which is different from a single cell bacteria. A single cell human organism has the ability to integrate its body systems for the good of the whole and the ability to develop itself to a mature human organism with only adequate food and proper environment--which is why it isn't a single cell for long. It develops steadily toward the mature whole.
A stem cell is only a stem cell. In the case of a human organism, it is a body part of the whole, it isn't a whole--and this remains true if the organism is killed and the stem cell maintained in a line, after which it divides, replicating itself but not reproducing the organism from which it was derived. The cells will divide, but they will never develop into the mature oranism as would be true if they were human organisms.
Similarly, a skin cell is only a skin cell. I don't kill any organisms when I brush my teeth in the morning. I destroy miniscule parts of the organism that is me.
You also misuse terms such as "reproduction." A cell dividing is not reproduction in the sense of how a human organism reproduces. We produce sexually--and thank goodness for that. Cells reproduce, if you want to use that term, asexually by dividing into two daughter cells. Now, simple single cell bacteria do this, but we are not single cell bacteria. We are complex. Thus, using your definition, as applied to human life, it is not an organism.
In humans, cells divide and change as genes express, toward building a complex whole. Biologically, we are the totality of all of this. Not so our cells.
As I recall, at other times you have denied that a human embryo is a human life or a human organism. But you say a stem cell is an organism.
Games being played. I choose not to.
Thank you for you comment Wesley. This is the type of discussion I prefer to engage.
We should add that an organism is self-repairing and self regulating. - Wesley
That is a fair assumption of an organism.
Self Regulation is handled in the same manner, whether you are dealing with an embryo or ES/IPS cells. All rely on transcription and the resulting molecules to achieve the next step of development.
A rose smells as sweet given any other name. That is the Transcription of DNA will react to factors with the same regulation regardless of where the DNA is located - in an embryo or an ES/IPS cell culture.
Regulation between ES cells and embryos yield the same results. Artificial wombs could generate the same molecules as a trophoblast to yield the same development of the "organism".
Its not reasonable to consider one an organism but not the other based on capacity for self regulation.
Self Repair is implied as an attribute of homeostasis
Self Repair also occurs in the same manner regardless of whether a cell is operating in an embryo or as ES/IPS cells in culture.
All will strive to achieve a stable phenotype. A large portion of embryos do not achieve stability In Vivo and die in the process of development. So if Self Repair is a precondition for definition of an organism then the human Embryo does not always meet this condition and can not be defined as an organism by your definiton.
Once stability is achieved the organism is capable of responding to damage with self repair in a robust manner since it has developed many paths to recover from damaged states. Often a damaged embryo does not repair itself completely which can lead to birth defects.
Are you willing to state that a single ES/IPS cell does not have the capacity to develop into an entire organism?
You are mistaken if you think that an ES cell can not give rise to an entire organism, but rather, only body parts as you have stated.
Lets get the facts in order before discussing the ethical implications of the facts.
Wow. Look what happens when I miss one day.
I suspect that HistoryWriter is DELIBERATELY missing the point of Wesley's analogy. Analogies used to be part of the SAT. Here's a good example:
Kitten:cat::puppy:dog.
The sentence we use to connect them would be "a kitten is a young cat just as a puppy is a young dog." That doesn't mean that a cat is a dog, HistoryWriter. It means that the first two words have the same relationship as the second two do.
An animal is a caterpillar before becoming a butterfly, just as a human being is an embryo before becoming an adult. That doesn't mean that human beings are caterpillars (though I shall point out that I don't believe in killing either one).
HistoryWriter's point is correct.
The whole question of when it becomes a human life is beside the point; what is significant is that we should not be messing with this stuff. We show lack of respect for life at one end of the spectrum of life, we show it at the other, and in between as well. It's none of our business when life begins; we're lucky to have it and should act with sense accordingly, and if it's not designed to be seen in the open, we should leave it the hell alone. Very simple.
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home