Stem cells nurture damaged spine: study

[palerider]

So then you are switching your argument aroujnd? You are no longer claiming that genetic completeness is a sign of a human being, but that the potential to become a person is a sign of human being?

Trophoblastic tumors are not genetically complete. Trophoblastic tumors are tumors and any 2nd year lab student can do a DNA test on one and tell you that it is not a human being but is a tumor. A trophoblastic tumor can be identified as a part of the mother's body while an unborn is identified as not part of the mother's body.

If you are going to argue science, it always helps to understand it.

 

[palerider]

an acorn contains the potential to become an Oak tree. I can't climb the limbs of an acorn, build a tree-house in an acorn, or rest in the shade of an acorn. And you certainly are not chopping down a mighty oak tree by removing an acorn from the ground. And I certainly dont hold the same moral obligations towards an acorn that I do an Oak tree.

You can't play chess or baseball with a newborn infant, but it is undeniably a human being.

An Acorn has the potential to become an Oak Tree, but it is not an Oak Tree yet.

An acorn is an oak tree that if allowed to grow will become a mature oak tree. An unborn is a human being that if allowed to grow will become a mature human being.

Get a new argument, this one is toast.

 

[palerider]

The zygote, has a long way to go before becoming a human being; it has none of the limbs, none of the organs, none of the central nervous system, none of the circulatory or respiratory systems; it is a single cell that contains the genetic blueprint of a future person.

The zygote has a long way to go to become a mature human being. Just as an infant does. It is already a human being and like all of us, simply needs time to mature.

 

[Fonz]

Which was in and of itself a dishonest characterization. It goes on to explain how "recent" discoveries have shown that fertilization doesn't happen all at once. I provided a reference to a text book printed in 1968 that clearly said that fertilization doesn't happen all at once and that a new human being doesn't begin to live until fertilization is complete. Those "recent" discoveries that your topics for discussion mentions happened in the 1950's.

And I've provided reference to a textbook that contradicts what you posted. Just because you disagree with it, doesn't mean its wrong. It only means you can't bear to even consider a new idea because of your already preconceived biases.

It means that it was nothing more than topics for discussion. It listed various views but presented nothing as fact. That is what the biology textbook is for.

No, there were scientific facts on that webpage.

You provided topics for discussion. We already have that.

No there were scientific facts on that webpage.

Incorrect. Research was done on somatic cells, which are not to be confused with stem cells.

Well Adult Stem Cells have been research since the 1960's.

It was topics for discussion. All the whining in the world isn't going to make it a medical text.

No, there were scientific facts in there. We've been over this already.

As I said. I have read both the medical textbook and the companion book. No where in the medical text does it suggest that the offspring of two human beings is EVER anything but a human being.

Besides not really believing you, since you've shown yourself to be a liar already. That really doesn't matter. Its pretty clear what its saying. You just seem to disagree with it. Not my problem.

Of course that would be your basis since the science doesn't support your view. If the science supported you, then you would not accept anything that contradicted established science.

Besides the fact that science can't solve everything. Science does support what im saying. As I said, it depends on which aspect of science you look. Its getting tiring repeating myself.

Human Embryology, 3rd ed.
Bradley M. Patten, (New York: McGraw Hill, 1968), 43.

"It is the penetration of the ovum by a spermatozoan and resultant mingling of the nuclear material each brings to the union that constitues the culmination of the process of fertilization and marks the initiation of the life of a new individual."

Which part of that seems to be less than definitave to you?

I've already been over this. What part dont you understand?

Pathology of the Fetus and the Infant, 3d ed.
E.L. Potter and J.M. Craig, (Chicago: Year Book Medical Publishers, 1975), vii.

"Every time a sperm cell and ovum unite a new being is created which is alive and will continue to live unless its death is brought about by some specific condition."

Or maybe you can tell me which part of that seems ambiguous.

I've already been over this. You sure are slow.

Opinion is not scientific fact, and I have never brought souls into the discussion. The constitution doesn't mention souls when it establishes that the lives of human beings are protected.

Embryos aren't human beings.

Science has a difinitive answer now which explains exactly why you have turned to philosophy. Since the science doesn't support you, you seek the teachings of necromancers and gypsys.

No it doesnt. But I've already been over this as well.

Those other arguments are not supported by fact. If no fact is present, then it is fine to seek a philosophical answer. But when fact is present, there is no denying it. You and the necromancers and gypsys can debate whether or not it is OK to kill an innocent human being for the purpose of medical research, but you can not effectively argue that you are not, in fact, discussing human beings.

I thought this was about law to you? According to the law, which is derived from morality and ethics, you are wrong.

 

[Fonz]

As I said, before a certain stage, a human being is capable of asexual reproduction. That argument has been put to bed long ago.

That doesnt answer the question. If its a human being, it must have a "soul". A soul can'not split into two. Two Human Beings can'not have the same soul.

And every reference that I have given has stated that upon the completion of fertilization a new human being exists.

And i've shown you scientific evidence that contradicts that.

Show me where individuality is a requirement to be a human being? Your argument is specious.

Have you read the definition of what a human being is? Perhaps you should.


Humans, or human beings, are bipedal primates belonging to the mammalian species Homo sapiens (Latin: "wise man" or "knowing man") in the family Hominidae (the great apes).[1][2] Humans have a highly developed brain capable of abstract reasoning, language, and introspection. This mental capability, combined with an erect body carriage that frees their upper limbs for manipulating objects, has allowed humans to make far greater use of tools than any other species. Humans originated in Africa about 200,000 years ago, but now they inhabit every continent, with a total population of over 6.5 billion as of 2007.

Like most primates, humans are social by nature; however, humans are particularly adept at utilizing systems of communication for self-expression, the exchange of ideas, and organization. Humans create complex social structures composed of cooperating and competing groups, ranging in scale from small families and partnerships to species-wide political, scientific and economic unions. Social interactions between humans have also established an extremely wide variety of traditions, rituals, ethics, values, social norms, and laws which form the basis of human society. Humans also have a marked appreciation for beauty and aesthetics which, combined with the human desire for self-expression, has led to cultural innovations such as art, literature and music.

Humans are also noted for their desire to understand and influence the world around them, seeking to explain and manipulate natural phenomena through science, philosophy, mythology and religion. This natural curiosity has led to the development of advanced tools and skills; humans are the only known species to build fires, cook their food, clothe themselves, and use numerous other technologies.

--
Perhaps you should lobby to change the definition of what a Human Being is PaleRider?

 

[Fonz]

You can't play chess or baseball with a newborn infant, but it is undeniably a human being.

you certainly are good at arguing semantics.

An acorn is an oak tree that if allowed to grow will become a mature oak tree. An unborn is a human being that if allowed to grow will become a mature human being.

Wrong again...here...let me show you a picture of an Oak tree:

OK, now heres a picture of an Acorn:

So do you see the difference?

Get a new argument, this one is toast.

IM sorry you cant tell the difference between and acorn and an Oak Tree.

 

[Fonz]

The zygote has a long way to go to become a mature human being. Just as an infant does. It is already a human being and like all of us, simply needs time to mature.

A zygote is not an infant. But we've already been over this.

 

[Coyote]

Trophoblastic tumors are not genetically complete. Trophoblastic tumors are tumors and any 2nd year lab student can do a DNA test on one and tell you that it is not a human being but is a tumor. A trophoblastic tumor can be identified as a part of the mother's body while an unborn is identified as not part of the mother's body.

If you are going to argue science, it always helps to understand it.

Trophoblastic tumors can be genetically complete. For example, in hydatidiform moles (also called a molar pregnancy), the sperm and egg cells have joined but instead of normal fetal development, the tissue that is formed resembles grape-like cysts. This would be a genetically complete human.

 

[Coyote]

I have already stated how long adult stem cells have been studied.

Perhaps you would like to explain exactly the difference between adult stem cells and embryonic stem cells and why treatment with adult stem cells is so often successful and treatment with embryonic stem cells ends in tragedy.

According to this - http://clearlyexplained.com/nature/life/cells/stemcells.html#history - adult stemcells have been since the early 1900's but the first embryonic stemcells were only isolated in 1998 if I am understanding this correctly. That means almost a century of research on one, and less then ten years on the other.

That doesn't seem long enough to even get to the point of clinical trials on humans....

 

[9sublime]

Then you haven't read anything that I have written. I have never brought emotions or intelligence into the discussion.

Well maybe you should start because its just as equally important as science in deciding if a foetus is alive or not.

And yes, you havn't taken much intelligence into this discussion.

 

[palerider]

And I've provided reference to a textbook that contradicts what you posted. Just because you disagree with it, doesn't mean its wrong. It only means you can't bear to even consider a new idea because of your already preconceived biases.

No. You provided a reference to a companion book to a textbook. A companion book written to generate discussion so that the students could learn to apply what they are learning as fact to the various views on the subject.

Feel free to buy the textbook and read. You will learn that the actual textbook does not in any way suggest that the offspring of two human beings is ever anything but a human being.

No, there were scientific facts on that webpage.

Where did those scientific "facts" suggest that the offsrping of two human beings is ever anything but a human being? There was some small discussion of various views, but the companion book didn't make a stand on any. That task is for the hard science of the textbook. Such companion books are to make the students aware that they are not learning in a vaccum and that there will be those who will disagree with scientific fact.

Well Adult Stem Cells have been research since the 1960's.

And the ground has been broken. Protocalls for adult stem cells hardly vary from protocalls on embryonic stem cells. Embryonic stem cells are a dead end because their growth is too unpredictable. Several patients who were treated for parkinsons not so long ago died when the embryonic cells began to grow bone in the patient's brains.

Besides not really believing you, since you've shown yourself to be a liar already. That really doesn't matter. Its pretty clear what its saying. You just seem to disagree with it. Not my problem.

Still waiting for you to bring forward any evidence that I have lied. It is easy to call names but an entirely different matter to prove it. You call me a liar with such casual ease, one would think that it would be easy for you to prove it.

Besides the fact that science can't solve everything. Science does support what im saying. As I said, it depends on which aspect of science you look. Its getting tiring repeating myself.

There is no credible sceince that suggests that the offspring of two human beings is ever anything but a human being. I have challenged you repeatedly to bring some forward and the best you can do is a companion book to a medical text which argues against your point as much as it argues for it. In fact, it doesn't argue anything but simply lists various views including those that were put down decades ago.

I've already been over this. You sure are slow.

You are the one who is denying credible science. Exactly who is slow?

Embryos aren't human beings.

I have provided multiple references to medical textbooks that say that they are. To date, you have not provided a single piece of credible science that states that the offspring of two human beings is ever anything but a human being. It is clear that you are arguing from a position of faith since you clearly believe a thing that you can not prove.

I thought this was about law to you? According to the law, which is derived from morality and ethics, you are wrong.

Law that flies in the face of known science is bad law. Exactly of the same sort that allowed blacks to be exploited by saying that they also were not human beings.

 

[palerider]

you certainly are good at arguing semantics.

If you are going base your entire argument in semantics, then I had better be prepared to counter them hadn't I. And clearly, you are failing.

Wrong again...here...let me show you a picture of an Oak tree:

OK, now heres a picture of an Acorn:

So do you see the difference?

Yeah, I see a mature oak tree, and I see an immature oak tree. I also showed you a picture, with labels of what is on the inside of that acorn and obviously you didn't understand what you were seeing. There is no doubt that there is an oak tree inside of that acorn. In fact, in your picture, you can see it breaking through the shell. Do you believe that it is just orange goo inside of that shell that is magically transforming into a plant as it comes out? I believe you do. Your whole argument seems to be based on magical thinking.

IM sorry you cant tell the difference between and acorn and an Oak Tree.

What is truely unfortunate is that you are unable to think past something so thin as the shell of that acorn and acknowledge the truth of what is inside, even though I provided you a picture with nice little labels that were written at the 5th grade level. When you are given credible science at an appropriate level for your intelligence, to not accept it in favor of your magical thinking tells all that need be told about you.

 

[palerider]

A zygote is not an infant. But we've already been over this.

Yeah, a zygote is a human being that is considerably younger than an infant. Neither are mature human beings. The infant is only 9 months older than the zygote while the mature human being is almost 30 years older than the infant.

 

[palerider]

Trophoblastic tumors can be genetically complete. For example, in hydatidiform moles (also called a molar pregnancy), the sperm and egg cells have joined but instead of normal fetal development, the tissue that is formed resembles grape-like cysts. This would be a genetically complete human.

Nope. They are not genetically complete. If they were, they would be growing and developing into mature human beings. You have gloamed onto a bit of science that you don't understand and trying to torture it into supporting your postion. The fact remains that if you did a DNA test on either type of trophoblastic tumor, you would find the mother's DNA present while that is not true of an unborn.

 

[palerider]

According to this - http://clearlyexplained.com/nature/life/cells/stemcells.html#history - adult stemcells have been since the early 1900's but the first embryonic stemcells were only isolated in 1998 if I am understanding this correctly. That means almost a century of research on one, and less then ten years on the other.

Again, somatic cells are not stem cells. You demonstrate how much you don't know on the subject when you bring this sort of thing forward. And once again, the ground has been broken on stem cell research by those who study adult stem cells. The protocalls are nearly identical once the cells are separated. Embryonic stem cells are a dead end.

From your link:

Stem cell research has been around for almost as long as microscopes. Though it is only within the 1980s that more sophisticated genetechnology developments have allowed for the culturing (growing of cells) in laboratories.

If you classify peering into a microscope wondering what they were looking at research, then I suppose the study has been going on, but by your own article, serious research didn't begin until the 1980's. In the 20 years since, there is a long and still growing list of diseases that have been successfuly treated with adult stem cells. No disease, however, has been successfuly treated with embryonic stem cells even though the protocalls are nearly identical.