Americans Becoming More Pro-Life

[Zeppy]

One can still use that argument on men. After all, they don't have two X-chromosomes like a real person would.

One is almost completely ignored.

Males and females have about the same amount of genetic information.

[Blakk Metal]

There are 7 recorded cases of such.

Link?

Look it up on google.

[Tlaceceyaya]

So people with detrimental haploidy syndrome are not human beings?

You made up that condition. There is no such thing as a haploid human.

By your argument, neither are people with Down Syndrome.

People suffering from Down syndrome lack no genetic material; they have a third 21st chromosome (extra genetic material).

Actually, I did not make it up. It's simply very rare, as there are only seven recorded cases.

And by your argument, then, peoples with Down syndrome are 1/46th more human than everyone else.

[Blakk Metal]

You made up that condition. There is no such thing as a haploid human.


People suffering from Down syndrome lack no genetic material; they have a third 21st chromosome (extra genetic material).

Actually, I did not make it up. It's simply very rare, as there are only seven recorded cases.

And by your argument, then, peoples with Down syndrome are 1/46th more human than everyone else.

WORSHIP THE SUPERHUMANS! WORSHIP!

[Christian Democrats]

Link?

Look it up on google.

No, it would be impossible for someone to survive with only 23 chromosomes.

[Zeppy]

Link?

If you like reading scientific articles

Trying to find one that involves humans.

[Tubbsalot]

No, it would be impossible for someone to survive with only 23 chromosomes.

Yes, as you know from your extensive education in genetics and physiology.

[Christian Democrats]

Link?

If you like reading scientific articles

Trying to find one that involves humans.

Yes, I know that frogs can be haploid. So can flies and some other creatures.

Humans cannot be haploid.

[Tubbsalot]

Humans cannot be haploid.

I've noticed a persistent issue with your thinking, and it's that you seem to believe that things are true merely by virtue of your having stated them.

Why can't humans be haploid? Explain the mechanism by which this is forbidden, please.

[Blakk Metal]

Look it up on google.

No, it would be impossible for someone to survive with only 23 chromosomes.

https://www.google.com/search?q=detrime ... y+syndrome

Humans cannot be haploid.

I've noticed a persistent issue with your thinking, and it's that you seem to believe that things are true merely by virtue of your having stated them.

Why can't humans be haploid? Explain the mechanism by which this is forbidden, please.

IMAAAAAGINAAATION...

[Christian Democrats]

No, it would be impossible for someone to survive with only 23 chromosomes.

https://www.google.com/search?q=detrime ... y+syndrome

A link to a Google search isn't a source. Also, notice that the fourth result is a link back to this thread.

[Blakk Metal]

https://www.google.com/search?q=detrime ... y+syndrome

A link to a Google search isn't a source. Also, notice that the fourth result is a link back to this thread.

Read the previews from the results.

[Tlaceceyaya]

https://www.google.com/search?q=detrime ... y+syndrome

A link to a Google search isn't a source. Also, notice that the fourth result is a link back to this thread.

That's because it's rarely ever mentioned. However, there IS, indeed, mention of it elsewhere on the internet.

[Christian Democrats]

A link to a Google search isn't a source. Also, notice that the fourth result is a link back to this thread.

Read the previews from the results.

I already did. Everything on there is nonscientific and cites Wikipedia, which is often inaccurate. Wikipedia lacks a citation.

[Blakk Metal]

Read the previews from the results.

I already did. Everything on there is nonscientific and cites Wikipedia, which is often inaccurate. Wikipedia lacks a citation.

So do you. And Wikipedia, unlike you, has less of a reason to make up bullshit.

[Christian Democrats]

I already did. Everything on there is nonscientific and cites Wikipedia, which is often inaccurate. Wikipedia lacks a citation.

So do you. And Wikipedia, unlike you, has less of a reason to make up bullshit.

I'm not the one on whom lies the burden of proof. I don't need to try to prove a negative.

[Madoka Kaname]

This thread has arrived at Pedantism.

[The Steel Magnolia]

As much as I really hate to admit it, as I'm adamantly Pro-Choice, CD is right in that so far there hasn't been a scientific source offered up yet.

[Tlaceceyaya]

So do you. And Wikipedia, unlike you, has less of a reason to make up bullshit.

I'm not the one on whom lies the burden of proof. I don't need to try to prove a negative.

Clicky.

[Torcularis Septentrionalis]

As much as I really hate to admit it, as I'm adamantly Pro-Choice, CD is right in that so far there hasn't been a scientific source offered up yet.

It almost makes me what to become a biologist, produce a fetus with Detrimental Haploidy Syndrome, and study it hardcore.
But I'm shit at biology.
Someone else do this and write a book like, now.

[Christian Democrats]

I'm not the one on whom lies the burden of proof. I don't need to try to prove a negative.

Clicky.

Thank you for providing a copy of the Wikipedia article, which has no source, on a different site.

No one has proven that humans can be haploid.

[Blakk Metal]

Clicky.

Thank you for providing a copy of the Wikipedia article, which has no source, on a different site.

It is not a Wikipedia article.

No one has proven that humans can be haploid.

We've proven frogs can be haploid, therefore humans can too.

[Christian Democrats]

Thank you for providing a copy of the Wikipedia article, which has no source, on a different site.

It is not a Wikipedia article.

No one has proven that humans can be haploid.

We've proven frogs can be haploid, therefore humans can too.

Go to Wikipedia, where the same article exists. The article to which you provide a link is a copy-paste from Wikipedia.

Frogs and humans are different species. It is possible for some types of frogs to be haploid but not humans.

[Christian Democrats]

A defective human somatic cell can be haploid, but an entire human being cannot be haploid.

Hypothetically, a haploid cell resulting from an error in the first division of a zygote would lead to a spontaneous abortion almost immediately thereafter because a human being cannot be haploid.

Therefore, it is fallacious to equate human gametes with unborn humans because gametes are haploid, whereas unborn humans, like born humans, have full sets of genetic information (give or take a little because of the potential for genetic defects). Human beings, born and unborn, are diploid creatures.

[Tlaceceyaya]

Clicky.

Thank you for providing a copy of the Wikipedia article, which has no source, on a different site.

No one has proven that humans can be haploid.

It is not a copy of it. It is unrelated to wikipedia.