Keep The Reason wrote:Yeah, I'm not missing it, I just disagree its a salient point. It's still proto human even if it sits on a window sill and turns into a flakey crust.
Well, then as I said before, I disagree with your definition of "proto-human", as it is practically meaningless.
Now you're saying "emergent being" when up til now we're talking " proto-human". I agree it's not an "emergent being". I disagree that it is not "proto-human". You've changed horses midstream.
No, I've just better defined what it is I've been talking about all along. "Emergent being", "germinating human", "Proto-human", these are all the same to me. Any definition that includes a cellular state of humanity that has the capacity within itself to multiply and grow into a human being. That's what I've been talking about from the start. You introduced the idea that DNA is just as much a proto-human as a blastocyst and I absolutely reject that notion. DNA is a building block, which is very different from a living cell. A blastocyst is something entirely different from a cluster of chromosomes which have no mechanism whatsoever for making copies of itself, let alone producing cells that will eventually become organs. There are a vast array of proteins to be created and cells to be formed that DNA itself is incapable of accomplishing. And, the unfertilized egg is just as incapable. The combination is something different. So if that's your definition, then I'm just not interested in it because it simply makes no sense at all. You are equating two things that are not the same. But I'm not interested in arguing with you until my fingers fall off either. You can keep your definition if you like. It's useless to me. I have plenty of other terms that fit.
To get parochial, your definition is analogous to a set of blue prints constructing a sky scraper without the presence of a team of engineers, contractors, materials, government regulators, and utility hookups. Simply put; it ain't gonna happen.
You are aware that in cloning, the egg can be completely devoid of the "mothers DNA", yes? Dolly was cloned using an egg that was hollowed out. All the DNA came from 1 sheep. The egg itself had no "mothers DNA" in it. I concede that today we need both for humans, but that's likely a technical issue that we'll unlock at some point.
Only the nucleus is removed. Anyway, DNA is not
a living cell. If you can demonstrate that DNA can somehow reproduce itself and create new human cells while sitting in a petri dish, then I'll concede your point.
If the egg is merely a vehicle for splitting, well, I doubt that would likely matter in the very near future either. We'll likely figure out a way to do all of it artificially in short order. And then our ethics will have to flex again, which is the point.
Perhaps, but you are just speculating on yet another synthetic methodology. The method is not what I'm talking about at all; it's what comes from the method that matters. No amount of DNA you can pile up can create new living cells. So put it together however you like; once you've created a new living cell that wants to multiply and form into a human being, you've crossed that rubicon. At that point it becomes a developing human.
Once more, that means my fingernail DNA is as much protohuman as is my sperm, in fact, it's even closer to being human than my sperm since my sperm only has 1/2 the code and my fingernail has both sides (although the sperm itself has it's own DNA which is mine too, I think. I'll have to look into that.)
Yes, and that definition is essentially useless. And you've misinformed yourself about DNA. You only have your DNA in any of your cells. Sexual reproduction is a process of recombination of the DNA of two individuals. Cloning uses the DNA of only one individual and essentially fools the cell into thinking it's been fertilized. I know that's not scientifically accurate, but I'm no cloning scientist. But for a lay person; that's essentially what happens.
As to the method, I still argue its a moot point. Why is sexual intercourse "valid" as a mechanism, but a needle doing cloning is not?
Isn't that the same thing I just said?