Slashdot Mirror

First, your question was not "clarifying" in any sense of the word. It was "avoidance", pure and simple.

First, it was solely clarification.

No. I asked a question that has a simple answer, either YES or NO. You used some hand-waving to deflect from that, because the truth is hard to hear. I get it. You are not the first one to avoid the truth.

You deliberately used vague words

What part of "chick", "egg", or "species" is vague?

to set up a slam dunk against anyone who doesn't hold your specific belief.

Again, you are wrong. I'm trying to clear up a detail that many people can't accept. That detail is that an organism is indeed an organism. Whether it is a chick developing inside a calcium shell, or an oak tree shading the back yard, or even a human embryo inside its mother's womb. Each are separate organisms from the organism they descended from. This isn't disputable based on my beliefs, this is basic high school science lessons.

I was trying to clarify your meaning in the ambiguity you deliberately laid.

And since there was no ambiguity, you have to make some. Good for you.

Clarifying your deliberately obtuse question is "avoidance" of falling into your trap. That's why you are so objectionable about this.

And you are still trying to pretend my question was not very clear. Maybe listing the definition of "organism" would help you out.

From http://www.biology-online.org/...

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.

Notice it doesn't provide any qualification for where the organism is, or its dependence on others for food or protection.
But, please feel free to post an alternate definition from a more scientifically rigorous site.

Second, I doubt if scientists who work with birds would agree with your definition of "not a chicken yet".

Second, your incorrect opinion is not fact.

Quite right. I stated what I consider to be a likely case. But if you know scientists that work with birds, please have them post below.

Third, cut hair is simply cast off cells from an organism, not a complete and independent organism on their own. That is why I can't understand why people keep comparing the two.

You choose to not understand. Both are separate instances of the species. One is an incomplete section, and the other "complete", but they are both human or chicken.

No. Cut hair, or toenail clippings, or saliva, or even your missing appendix are not "instances of the species". They are parts of an organism, but are not organisms in their own right. Unlike a chick inside an egg.

Suddenly an organism is not an organism because it hasn't made some magical trip down a birth canal, or here pecked through a shell, and so it is no more a separate organism than your long-removed appendix or hair on a barber shop floor. The lack of logical consistency in that argument is appalling.

And I find your lack of logical consistency appalling.

Oooooh. Touché. I didn't see that one coming.

Fix your own logical inconsistencies before trying so hard to search out others.

The only logical inconsistency you are claiming to find in my post is a strand of hair is in the exact same classification as a complete organism. I'll stand by my assertions.

And let me reiterate a point I made in another post on this subject, I am not against abortion. I am against bad, even downright stu

http://www.biology-online.org/...

Already covered for some time.

And plants DO engage in carbon dioxide release type respiration. They do it at night, when they are not photosynthesizing, and are metabolizing stored sugars.

They also excrete through structures called stomata, found on the undersides of leaves, and in the grooves of stems.

Yep. It's how you act when no one is watching that determines your true character.

Yes, we're all watching now, but at least Biology-Online has fired the guy.

Well, the bastard has been fired: http://www.biology-online.org/biology-forum/about34647.html Good riddance.

Citation needed. "Race" is obviously a simplification, but to deny there's no genetic difference between someone from China, someone from Africa, an aborigine from Australia, and someone from Germany is not only wrong but ridiculous. Furthermore, people from those different groups of people absolutely have recognizable genetic trends: i.e., two people from Germany will be much more similar genetically than a person from Germany and a person from China.

There are real differences among various populations spread around the world.
But they don't rise to meet the biological definition of race.

The biological context of the term race is only widely accepted when used to refer to a subspecies arising from a partially isolated reproductive population and thus share a considerable degree of genetic similarity.

If they're 0.000000312 kilometers per hour how fast is that "scale speed"? If they were the size of a car, how fast would they be traveling?

If a "Adult bone marrow stem cells" is ~ 25 microns = 25E-6m
http://www.biology-online.org/biology-forum/about154.html?hilit=Stromal

If an average car is 4.12m
http://wiki.answers.com/Q/What_is_the_average_length_of_a_car

Then 4.12/25E-6=x/(0.000000312km/h)

x=0.0514176km/h

That's funny, I remember reading about lead and arsenic limits in soil. I also found this article about the dangers of dioxin in soil. Lead, arsenic, and dioxin were all listed in the contaminants of diesel exhaust.

But hey, you do have that signature, so I guess everything I've just said is invalid.

After millions of years of natural selection, I find it unlikely that any advantage will be big enough to cause a significant difference over such a short time.

You don't need millions of years to notice significant evolutionary changes. Darwin's Finches is a great example of significant evolutionary changes, in just 2-3 generations or every few years.

Keep in mind that organic does NOT = life, just a precursor to life. Organic molecules/matter are generally just molecules containing carbon and hydrogen making a chainlike skeleton of atoms, with oxygen and/or nitrogen depending on if it is a protein. (Source). This DOES back up the hypothesis that organic molecules can form just as well outside of early earth, as in. It'll be interesting to hear just what the molecules were, but I doubt this will spawn any new theories about the extra-solar genesis of life on earth. It doesn't take special space-dust to provide organic compounds in the early earth - just the atoms from the life cycle of stars spreading heavier elements.

Ryan Fenton

No, we are largely made out of water.

"Water is the most common molecule in the human body. Fully 87% of human body atoms are either hydrogen or oxygen."

http://www.biology-online.org/9/1_chemical_composi tion.htm
http://www.eurekah.com/abstract.php?chapid=541&boo kid=51&catid=44