Pale Rider, I did not want to publicly EMBARRASS and EXPOSE you on this forum but you have left me absolutely NO CHOICE...
Why lie when anyone reading your posts knows that you have been wishing desperately that you could do just that since our conversations began...and anyone reading our conversation knows that you haven't even come close...in fact, you have failed miserably on every point...and my bet is that you will continue to do so since you are in the wrong at the foundation of your argument. Your only strategy is to try to get as far away from that foundation as possible in an effort to hide that inconvenient fact.
fedor50 said:
Earlier in our argument, you gave me THIS scientific definition of what constitutes an organism..
First off, it wasn't "my" definition...the definition is available through any number of science and common dictionaries. We have been through this already...word games are not a rational basis for a scientific argument...word games may work out for legal arguments on occasion, but not for biological fact. For example:
Oxford dictionaries defines organism as : An individual animal, plant, or single-celled life form.
American Heritage Dictionary defines organism as: An individual form of life, such as a bacterium, protist, fungus, plant, or animal, composed of a single cell or a complex of cells in which organelles or organs work together to carry out the various processes of life.
Dictionary.com defines organism as: a form of life considered as an entity
The online Medical dictionary defines organism as : An individual form of life, such as a plant, an animal a bacterium, a protist, or a fungus; a body made up of organs, organelles, or other parts that work together to carry on the various processes of life.
The science dictionary defines organism as:
An individual form of life that is capable of growing, metabolizing nutrients, and usually reproducing. Organisms can be unicellular or multicellular. They are scientifically divided into five different groups (called kingdoms) that include prokaryotes, protists, fungi, plants, and animals, and that are further subdivided based on common ancestry and homology of anatomic and molecular structures.
And the list could continue ad nauseum....While they vary somewhat, they all say essentially the same thing which you, in your blindness, madness, stupidity..whatever invariably fail to miss.
fedor50 said:
Your failure immediately begins before you even got started. Any single cell in our body constitutes an individual form of life. A sperm cell for example has its own individual life. So your definition already has you stirring in the WRONG direction.
Your failure begins far before that...you seem not to understand the difference between alive, and a form of life. Most of the cells in your body at any time are, in fact, alive, but none of them could be construed by any rational, thinking person to be forms of life...are your individual cells carrying out the processes of life, or are they parts of a whole who are making contributions to the processes of life? Which kingdom would a taxonomist put a brain cell in? All organisms are divided into groups called kingdoms...which kingdom would a skin cell be placed in? See how miserably that line of thinking fails? The failure goes deeper than that, but I am pressed for time this morning.
fedor50 said:
But let us continue dissecting your failure and misunderstanding about human biology...
Again logic has completely left your brain. Single cells in our body ARE already capable of growing, metabolizing nutrients, and usually reproducing.
Again, are single cells in your body carrying on the processes of life, or are they contributing to the processes of life for a larger entity? Are they alive, or are they individual entities? If they are individual entities can you provide any taxonomical identification for them? By bet is not...you, in your zeal are ignoring the facts and trying to torture simple terms into having meanings that they do not possess.
Don't believe me?
fedor50 said:
They state explicitly that some single cells in our body grow, metabolize nutrients, and sometimes reproduce.
Again...are they alive, or are they an individual form of life...are they carrying out the process of their own lives, or are they contributing to the process of life in a larger entity...and more importantly, can you provide any identifying taxonomical information on these individual cells that would be proof positive that science views them as individual life forms rather than mere parts of a life form.
fedor50 said:
Again Pale Rider, this is simply me tearing apart the definition of organism that YOU provided. If you don't like the implications, you're going to have to provide a more better one. OR your definition is flawed...
You making an ass of yourself is more like it...your failure is so deep that I am surprised that you continue to even show up. I am guessing that it is only your abject ignorance that prevents you from seeing the magnitude of your failure and thus being to embarrassed to continue.
fedor50 said:
Also please do not say that these cells are part of a larger system because that would miss the ENTIRE point. Your definition says nothing about that.
As you can see, any number of sources say what I already provided...different words, but I suppose the authors expect that their definitions are being read by rational people who have some inkling of the topic...clearly you don't.
fedor5o said:
It only says and I quote: "An individual form of life" which is a qualification that any single cell in my body would meet.
And let me guess...in your demented zeal, you never considered, or bothered to look up or research what might qualify as an individual form of life. You didn't even wonder if science had taxonomically identified skin cells and brain cells, and epithelial cells as individual forms of life. You never once considered the difference between being alive and being a form of life. Your argument is so shallow that you should be embarrassed. Is this really the best you can do? Never mind...of course it is as you have proven over and over
fedor50 said:
1) If you apply your definition 'on a cellular level' then every single cell in my body (with a few exceptions) is an organism, as the meet all of the requirements 'in some form'.
Already addressed...no need to repeat.
fedor50 said:
2) Newly transplanted liver cells meet all of those qualifications (especially with a still-living donor). And cells with foetal DNA often continue to be made inside the woman even after birth (microchimerism) - so those cells also meet the same qualifications.
Already addressed...alive, or individual life forms? If they are individual life forms, then kindly provide taxonomical identification which is available for all known forms of life.
fedor50) A single cell is capable of responding to stimuli said:
So again, lets see the taxonomical identification for these individual cells...what sorts of animals are they? Absolutely pitiful feedor...absolutely pitiful.
fedor50 said:
As you can see Pale Rider, the scientific facts and arguments support MY point of view.
I have no doubt that in your mind they do...and more's the pity. I might retain some respect for you if I believed that you were just playing a very poorly educated devil's advocate in this discussion, but clearly you aren't...you actually believe the tripe you are shoveling....and your knowledge of the topic is exactly as shallow as you present it to be.
fedor50 said:
Would you like to try again?
Try what?...to humiliate you further? I am sure that you will provide a new opportunity soon. I suggest that you take the time to learn the difference between alive, and being a form of life....
The bottom line is that all known forms of life have taxonomical classifications...from the largest whale, to the smallest single celled organism...there are people who do nothing but that sort of work...if it is a life form, and if science has found it, it will be identified taxonomically. Here is a fun project for you...visit, or send an email to a taxonomist and suggest that your muscle cells, are individual life forms and that they should be identified as such. Perhaps they can give you an answer as to why individual cells are alive, but not life forms that will penetrate that seemingly impenetrable shield of ignorance you have surrounding you.
If you find such taxonomical evidence that individual cells are in your body are in fact, individual life forms, then by all means present it...if you don't, then drop this ridiculous line of "thought" and move on...pull up your big boy panties and admit failure and try something else.
By the way fedor...can you point out anything in the links you provided that would suggest that the author of the article in any way suggested that a single cell in a multicellular organism constituted an organism in and of itself? Was there anything there that suggested such a thing or did you just come up with that profoundly idiotic thought all on your own?
[/quote]