Searz wrote:
Humankind isn't "more evolved than the rest", it's just specialized towards thinking and using tools.
Do you think a human would have any chance against a most large predators without any tools?
Different species evolve to suit different needs.
This is absolutely true.
I was mainly talking about the evolvement of the brain though :P, which allows us to use these amazing tools :D
But yeah, without our Three Dimensional Maneuver Gear we will never be able to defeat titans :P
Change is gooooood
|
|
|
Je suis le bee ~ Meiyjhe ~ |
|
Want to advertise your guide, but don't know where? Click here for an opportunity of a lifetime!
Quoted:
An 8 weeks old fetus can't grow into a baby if left alone either - not to burst your bubble or anything but it's still directly reliant on the mother to give it "life support".
the same is true after birth, so I reject that argument. A newly born child could not survive on its own either
Thanks for the Signature MissMaw!
Pheyniex wrote:
we can conclude that until a child can sustain "itself", it isn't human.
either that or we are human from before such possibility exists.
Okay. Let's leave a 3 year old, or even an 8 or 12 year old on their own with no other person near them to even remotely help them survive. Let's see if they survive.
I expect that more often they will die than be able to sustain 'itself'.
Thus, basically that none of us are human until we are able to cook and look after ourselves, which would be at the age of what...? 16 for most? 14 at best? 12 at a miracle?
For utter hilarity, click >>here<<!
Searz wrote:
If we stretch the definition of 'human life' that far, we might as well stretch it all the way to a sperm. They're both just different stages of cells that have the potential to evolve into a human.
incorrect. A fertilized egg is much different than that of just sperm or an unfertilized egg. At this point the egg metabolically excretes waste and absorbs nutrients. To put it into perspective, hypothetically, if we found a fertilized egg on Mars, it would be heralded by the scientific community as life. It fits all the criteria for life. Yet, for some reason, on this planet, it's not considered life. Why?
Thanks for the Signature MissMaw!
There are all sorts of possible definitions for life and MRSNERG is not necessarily a standard. Viruses aren't life under it, but some feel they should be. What about prions? Life could be defined as the vessels through which DNA proliferates (what about RNA viruses?) however some broad definitions of life qualify entities such as the stars as living.
Mooninites wrote:
It fits all the criteria for life. Yet, for some reason, on this planet, it's not considered life. Why?
It actually is considered life, since all cells are forms of life. The main thing is just, it isn't "living". As long it is a fetus, it is part of the womans body. The mother directly feeds the cells by just eating herself, making it literally a part of her. That is the main reason, why a woman may choose to remove it, since, as long it is in the body of the woman, it is part of the woman.
That is probably also the main reason why some consider it is not "human life", since inside the belly, it is still part of the mother, which is quite understandable.
Change is gooooood
Picture by: Hogopogo
Want to advertise your guide, but don't know where? Click here for an opportunity of a lifetime!
You need to log in before commenting.
Humanity is not that special, it is just a bit more evolved than the rest, that is all.
Humankind isn't "more evolved than the rest", it's just specialized towards thinking and using tools.
Do you think a human would have any chance against a most large predators without any tools?
Different species evolve to suit different needs.