From: YP Fun (ypprotection@yahoo.com)
Date: Tue May 14 2002 - 16:11:51 MDT
--- Harvey Newstrom <mail@HarveyNewstrom.com> wrote:
> I don't know why, but there seems to be a tendency
> to talk about
> reproduction in this group instead of genetics. DNA
> makes us human.
> Sexual activity has nothing to do with it. Celibate
> priests, gays, old
> people, young people, eunuchs, transgendered people,
True. Perhaps the test should be whether the DNA
of one individual may be recombined with another,
but understand that if an indivdual does not
reproduce, within the limits of our current
technology, they are a genetic dead end.
> sterile people and
> sexually inactive people are still human. Sexual
Actual sexuality and preference has nothing to
do with this test. The reason this test was devised
was to distinguish the difference between two species
that have been separated by a physical barrier.
Biologists, needed to determine if the species
were the same.
To be fair if two evolutionary descendents of
a single species may not mate, then their
genetic lines may never converge.
Some species may have the ability to
mate but their chromosomes have evolved
(or via human intervention has altered) such
that they can no longer produce children.
> preferences, sexual
> activity and reproduction have almost nothing to do
> with DNA, genetics
> and evolution. I don't know why this is so
The "ability" to mate is more significant than
the actual mating process. Until all reproductive
processes occur in a petri dish, mating will be
significant component of evolution.
For many species the mating ritual consumes
enormous amounts of resources.... for some
parents having children means death (black widow
spider, salmon).
> Specifically, the above argument contains the
> logical fallacy known as
> "denial of the antecedent". If A implies B, it is
> invalid to disprove A
> in an attempt to disprove B. If mating proves
> species inclusion, it is
> a mistake to disprove ability to mate in an attempt
> to disprove species
> inclusion. Mating can prove species inclusion. Not
> mating proves
> nothing.
I disagree, if two individuals/animals cannot
**theoretically** have children (recombine their
DNA by any means and produce an offspring) then
they are not of the same species.
That is not the same as "you have to have sex" to
be human.
YP
=====
Please Copy... Ideas deserve to be free.
------------------------------------------------------------
We must respect truth and logic, no matter what they unveil.
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
LAUNCH - Your Yahoo! Music Experience
http://launch.yahoo.com
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5 : Sat Nov 02 2002 - 09:14:05 MST