Are babies alive? (Fetus')

Different55 · Before February 2015

Jabatheblob1 wrote:

Fetus' can't react in their environment considering they can't even feel things for a chunk of their cycle.

He gave you a link. Read it.

They also can't live on their own. Meaning if they were given the opportunity to then they wouldn't even survive. Making them dead.

Where is this written? Nowhere. And how can something dead die? Because fetuses can die. And in order to die, you need to be... (finish the sentence)

The reason why people die and are able to be revived is because they are helped by a machine. Something that brought their heartbeat back which returned blood flow to the brain and helped them survive. Making them able to live on their own again. If they hadn't been helped they would suffer from brain damage and wouldn't be alive. Do you agree with that? If the brain is dead are you dead? But the tricky part is you're still having blood circulate everywhere through your body. Everything is alive but your brain. Are you dead or alive?

I, the body of Different55, am alive. I, the person Different55, am not. If my brain dies, it takes me with it. But my body lives on to vegetate another day!

Jabatheblob1 · Before February 2015

1. No. Rather not read something that is pointless to read.
2. Given the opportunity to survive. Survive meaning to be alive and stay alive.

Can your body move and react to your environment without a brain?
Let alone can you reproduce?
Can you ingest?
Can you do anything on your own?

GKAbyss · Before February 2015

evolution is a very long term thing vs mutations which are short term.
If the video is correct in it being evolution, then a fetus cannot evolve.
Evolution is over many generations, not during the lifetime of a single individual.

I pointed out an article mentioning that they respond to stimuli, I do not know if this is your argument or not, but an organism does not have to be conscious or be able to sense anything when responding to stimuli.
If that article is incorrect, please tell me.

Are all the individuals of the portuguese man o war dead because they cannot survive on their own?
Coral is unable to survive without zooxanthellae.
Do you mean if any organism cannot survive without its mother or whatever it needs in an egg, then it is not alive?

If you are brain dead, then you are alive. Many organisms do not even have brains eg bacteria.
I am currently reading your most recent post.

update:
You cannot argue something i post without reading it.

when brain dead:
My cells im betting will be able to metabolise glucose.
ill be composed of cells
Im betting i will continue to grow/develop, i doubt my cells will stop reproducing.
IDK about response to stimuli yet
I guess i'd still be able to reproduce, unless gamete production stops
i cant evolve
i undergo homeostasis?? If I am unable to undergo homeostasis, then alright.

Based on those, I am not alive during brain death.
However, I still believe that those factors are not for determining life of an individual.
I'd think that if my body continues to survive, whether or not it is through the use of an external whatever, like a machine, then I am still alive.

Something lacking the ability to think does not stop something from being alive, eg bacteria, plants

Something having to rely on a machine does not stop it from living eg negative pressure ventilator
Another example may be someone with a synthetic heart.
I would think that both of those are alive, and based on those two factors not altering the status of life or death, then someone brain dead is therefore alive.

Last edited by GKAbyss (Oct 30 2014 12:42:28 am)

Different55 · Before February 2015

Jabatheblob1 wrote:

1. No. Rather not read something that is pointless to read.
2. Given the opportunity to survive. Survive meaning to be alive and stay alive.
Can your body move and react to your environment without a brain?
Let alone can you reproduce?
Can you ingest?
Can you do anything on your own?

1. TIL anything not aligning with the opinions of jaba is not worth reading.

Nowhere is it written in any links that you have posted that I need to do any of that for myself.

Jabatheblob1 · Before February 2015

Evolution is shown in every single human being in the whole world. When two people have a kid it is a example of evolution. Sexual reproduction produces mutations between the genes of the two parents causing the offspring to inherit dominant traits upon the rest of the species. Since those two people were able to reproduce shows that they are the dominant organisms of that species. Since they were able to get to the stage of reproduction without dieing. This is how evolution works. It uses different environmental features and gene pools to get different mutations among species. This happens until another species is created.

Given this does happen over thousands of years we most likely will not notice many things other than height differences and skull shape and possibly teeth composure.

Reacting to stimuli is different than reacting to an environment. I can cause a reaction of nervous tissue and muscles from electrical impulses but that's involuntary actions and just reactions upon different electrical systems in my body. That doesn't show that i can react and move out of the way of a falling tree in order to survive. That's the point of reacting to an environment is to survive. Survive in order to reproduce and make more offspring.

@Different: It's in the video atilla posted.

Different55 · Before February 2015

Must have missed that.

Still, a YouTube video isn't exactly the most credible source when looking for answers. Who made that video? Why are they in any way qualified to say what is and isn't required for life? Nobody else has those requirements for living things.

Jabatheblob1 · Before February 2015

I didn't post the video. I simply just pointed out the same thing i've been saying this whole time. I can cite the college biology textbook that's sitting right next to me if you like.

GKAbyss · Before February 2015

That is not evolution because evolution is by definition over many generations.

Jabatheblob1 · Before February 2015

Evolution is based off of the change in offspring letting the dominant ones survive. Natural selection. Such that mutations allowing certain animals able to survive. Also the reason why the first land creatue was so successful was because it arose from a world where the only living creatures were those in the water. Once that creatue climbed out and was able to feast on the mass food on land, he was able to flourish. Make new offspring with the others. Also why, whales, and dolphins come from land. They have the same limbs that show they arose from a common ancestor. An ancestor that moved it's spine up and down when moving rather than side to side like a fish.

GKAbyss · Before February 2015

Evolution is based off of survival of individuals, but it is the change over generations, not the survival of individuals/natural selection.

If it is a question of whether the organism contributes to evolution then I suppose that would include every member of a group that evolves.

Last edited by GKAbyss (Oct 30 2014 12:59:11 am)

Jabatheblob1 · Before February 2015

Yeah.... You know not quiet sure my professor explained it briefly i can look it up though.

Different55 · Before February 2015

Jabatheblob1 wrote:

I didn't post the video. I simply just pointed out the same thing i've been saying this whole time. I can cite the college biology textbook that's sitting right next to me if you like.

I know who posted that video. It was Atilla! In the kitchen. With the butter knife.

Go ahead and cite it and post some quotes. It seems odd that a textbook would say something like that when the opinion is not shared with anything else I've seen so far but I've seen stranger things in textbooks.

Jabatheblob1 · Before February 2015

Here you go: Textbook If you want to buy the book then go ahead. Read it from cover to cover or just look it up on the internet.

GKAbyss · Before February 2015

I looked at my textbook and I'm basically completely certain that those factors are for determining life vs abiotic factors, not whether an individual is alive.

my textbook mentions evolution being over generations, and when addressing the question of what life is, the textbook compares it to cars and rocks.

There is also the issue of reproduction, which people cannot do initially. This would render them dead.

Last edited by GKAbyss (Oct 30 2014 1:13:06 am)

Jabatheblob1 · Before February 2015

You're reading what makes a single cellular or unicellular organism alive. Look at the functions of life.

GKAbyss · Before February 2015

Where I am looking, it is showing pictures of giraffes.

Different55 · Before February 2015

Jabatheblob1 wrote:

Here you go: Textbook If you want to buy the book then go ahead. Read it from cover to cover or just look it up on the internet.

Golly, mister, thanks a lot!

TIL posting an entire text book is "citing your source." Clearly I've been wasting valuable time on essays finding and writing page numbers instead of just listing the whole book/magazine/newspaper/paper as my source. After all, if they really wanted to look at my source, they should be dedicated enough to read the whole thing for themselves.

Jabatheblob1 · Before February 2015

lol idk i don't know your textbook. I know that unicellular organisms or prokaryotic cells have different rules than those of eukaryotic i believe.

GKAbyss · Before February 2015

It is comparing dogs and plants vs cars and rocks.

It does not mention cells.
In fact, the factor that in your list was called composed of cells is order on mine.

The others are evolutionary adaption
regulation (homeostasis basically)
energy processing (metabolism basically)
growth and development
response to environment
reproduction

I, again, think there is something wrong with applying this to individuals with reproduction on there.

I think what we should be looking for is not the biological definition of life, but the medical definition of life, if there is one.

Last edited by GKAbyss (Oct 30 2014 1:33:26 am)

Jabatheblob1 · Before February 2015

Even taking reproduction out of the picture fetus' (back on topic) can't react to environmental struggles and survive, react and such idk if you know what i mean, i'm really tired.

GKAbyss · Before February 2015

I am saying that the list does not apply to whether an individual is alive. Reproduction cannot just be removed to justify using the list.

I am pointing out the problem with reproduction being there, and I still think evolution, to show that that list cannot be applied to medical definitions of life vs death.

In my text book and in that video, the living things are not compared to dead things, they are compared to abiotic things like rocks and gamecubes.

Last edited by GKAbyss (Oct 30 2014 1:44:34 am)

Jabatheblob1 · Before February 2015

Fine. Are fetus' abiotic or living? It's the same argument. And reproduction is also used in classifying species. If an organism can not reproduce it techinically not considered a species. Because. It is not a living organism since it doesn't effect the spceies as a whole. Since. It can not reproduce. I'm gonna go to bed because i think i am just rambling and not making sense.

GKAbyss · Before February 2015

Fetuses are living because humans are living.
I'm pretty sure that the biotic vs abiotic refers to not a single time in an organisms life, because of reproduction, and populations over generations, because of evolution.

Last edited by GKAbyss (Oct 30 2014 1:56:56 am)

Different55 · Before February 2015

Jabatheblob1 wrote:

Fine. Are fetus' abiotic or living? It's the same argument. And reproduction is also used in classifying species. If an organism can not reproduce it techinically not considered a species. Because. It is not a living organism since it doesn't effect the spceies as a whole. Since. It can not reproduce. I'm gonna go to bed because i think i am just rambling and not making sense.

You sound like you're trying to say human fetuses aren't human or something.

Jabatheblob1 · Before February 2015

Because they aren't classified as a species. Same thing as when you cross a horse and a donkey. That animal does not fit in a species because it can not reproduce. Agajn given we like to give humans an excuse and don't like to apply the definition of species to ourselves.

Official Everybody Edits Forums

#101 Before February 2015

Re: Are babies alive? (Fetus')

#102 Before February 2015

Re: Are babies alive? (Fetus')

#103 Before February 2015

Re: Are babies alive? (Fetus')

#104 Before February 2015

Re: Are babies alive? (Fetus')

#105 Before February 2015

Re: Are babies alive? (Fetus')

#106 Before February 2015

Re: Are babies alive? (Fetus')

#107 Before February 2015

Re: Are babies alive? (Fetus')

#108 Before February 2015

Re: Are babies alive? (Fetus')

#109 Before February 2015

Re: Are babies alive? (Fetus')

#110 Before February 2015

Re: Are babies alive? (Fetus')

#111 Before February 2015

Re: Are babies alive? (Fetus')

#112 Before February 2015

Re: Are babies alive? (Fetus')

#113 Before February 2015

Re: Are babies alive? (Fetus')

#114 Before February 2015

Re: Are babies alive? (Fetus')

#115 Before February 2015

Re: Are babies alive? (Fetus')

#116 Before February 2015

Re: Are babies alive? (Fetus')

#117 Before February 2015

Re: Are babies alive? (Fetus')

#118 Before February 2015

Re: Are babies alive? (Fetus')

#119 Before February 2015

Re: Are babies alive? (Fetus')

#120 Before February 2015

Re: Are babies alive? (Fetus')

#121 Before February 2015

Re: Are babies alive? (Fetus')

#122 Before February 2015

Re: Are babies alive? (Fetus')

#123 Before February 2015

Re: Are babies alive? (Fetus')

#124 Before February 2015

Re: Are babies alive? (Fetus')

#125 Before February 2015

Re: Are babies alive? (Fetus')

Board footer