From: knapp@spot.Colorado.EDU (David Knapp)
Subject: Re: Shameless attack on pro-choicers in general!
Organization: University of Colorado, Boulder
Date: Tue, 25 Aug 1992 22:40:23 GMT

In article <1992Aug15.231351.14657@csus.edu> chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
>In article <1992Aug14.022124.3457@ucsu.Colorado.EDU> knapp@spot.Colorado.EDU (David Knapp) writes:
>>In article <1992Aug10.161448.6148@csus.edu> chaneysa@nextnet.csus.edu (Stephen A Chaney) writes:
>>>
>>>This is supposed to be a devastating attack? Okay, Mr. Perez, get out
>>>your pen and paper, class is in session: 
>>>
>>>1) Not one single cell in the human body has genetic codes for other
>>>organs except for that organ which the given cell is a part of.
>>>Stomach cells only have stomach cells, with no provision for brain
>>>cells or arm cells.
>>>The zygote cell does, in fact, have within it, departments WRT
>>>his/her genes, that handle arm, leg, and stomach growth.  
>>>FACT: Not one cell in your body differentiates. Only the zygote can do
>>>that. This fact contradicts your first point. 
>>>2) Twins: The presence of twins produces the question of whether we
>>>have one human individual, or two, within the same zygote. DEFINITELY
>>>NOT ZERO. Triplets means we have three individuals growing out of one
>>>zygote. Quadruplets? FOUR individuals. All of whom are sitting in that
>>>one zygote, and growing out. They couldn't grow out unless they were
>>>there in the first place, at fertilization. 
>>>This contradicts your second point.  
>>>
>>
>>I thought you all might be interested to hear what a biology expert has
>>to say about Mr. Chaney's biological comments above.
>>
>>
>>Professor Purves' response to Mr Chaney's claims follows.
>>> 1) Not one single cell in the human body has genetic codes for other
>>> organs except for that organ which the given cell is a part of.
>>> Stomach cells only have stomach cells, with no provision for brain
>>> cells or arm cells.
>>> The zygote cell does, in fact, have within it, departments WRT
>>> his/her genes, that handle arm, leg, and stomach growth.  
>>> FACT: Not one cell in your body differentiates. Only the zygote can do
>>> that. This fact contradicts your first point. 
>>
>>Just about every statement in this paragraph is false.  Especially
>>the "FACT."
>
>So our professor here is claiming that 
>1) Stomach cells can differentiate and produce skin cells. 

I don't see where he said that. I think you are missing the fact that each
cell (every cell) in your body contains all the genetic code for every single
item in your body. What it takes to initiate differnentiation was not 
discussed and was not what you originally referred to.  Look above.

>2) Zygotes do not have the full DNA code for a human being to grow
>from one cell to an adult human. 

You're simply incorrect.  When I was uncertain about what I would say in 
regard to biology, I asked an expert. You might consider doing the same.
You are incorect in terminology too. The 'one cell' would be a blastocyst,
not a zygote.

>Or did David Knapp write this part? 

I thought my explanation of which quotes were his was quite clear. I'll ask him 
to comment on your response and I will post it if he allows it.


>>> 2) Twins: The presence of twins produces the question of whether we
>>> have one human individual, or two, within the same zygote. DEFINITELY
>>> NOT ZERO. Triplets means we have three individuals growing out of one
>>> zygote. Quadruplets? FOUR individuals. All of whom are sitting in that
>>> one zygote, and growing out. They couldn't grow out unless they were
>>> there in the first place, at fertilization. 
>>> This contradicts your second point.  
>>
>>This set of statements is hard to discuss, in that I cannot grasp
>>the concept of "individuals" "sitting in" a zygote and "growing out."
>
>If there weren't two individuals in there already, there would only be
>one that grew out. Simple enough? 

He, and I, both had difficulty understanding your english.


>>A person doesn't "grow out" of a zygote; the zygote DEVELOPS INTO a
>>person.  Biologically speaking, that is...
>
>An individual grows out of a zygote, and individual = person in the
>very basic sense. The only real proof we have of personhood is their
>distinct genetic identity.

Then you seem to be disagreeing with an expert. I'll take his word for it
over yours. Sorry.

>Now, all we have to do is find out whether or not the zygote contains
>twins rather than just one human life, and we have proof on paper of
>exactly how the zygote contains either one or two human lives that are
>growing out.  

Truly bizarre wording...

>>In the case of identical twins, the zygote (fertilized egg) divides;
>>the resulting two cells become separated; and each of those cells
>>DEVELOPS INTO a distinct person.  In a single birth, the products
>>of the first division of the zygote stay together and develop
>>(roughly speaking) into two halves of the resulting person.
>
>One question: Have you ever asked yourself _who_ does the growing? Is
>it: 
>
>1) An alien from outer space? 
>2) A dog? 
>3) A monkey (which the human fetus is confused as, quite often, by
>illiterate pro-aborts)?
>4) The individual that you see as a "baby" 9 months later? 


Why that is an *excellent* and worthwhile question, Steve.


>When you finally answer #4, you'll realize what we mean by personhood:
>personhood = whoever's directing that z/e/f to develop.

I was unaware that someone directed the development of a z/e/f.   Can you 
elaborate on how someone does this?

>It may be
>twins, which means two persons, or triplets, which means three - but
>whoever is directing that growth, is a human being and should be
>recognized by the law and given the right to continued existence. 

I am impressed that you see a connection between number of zygotes and
the number of individuals that will ultimately develop.  However, you are 
not relating your last statments to anything.


>>> 2) A zygote only needs nutrients and a non-hostile environment to 
>>> grow into a newborn baby. A newborn baby needs nutrients and a
>>> non-hostile environment to grow into an adult. 
>>> What is the difference? A zygote is proportionally inferior and far
>>> more vulnerable than a newborn, but a newborn is proportionally
>>> inferior and far more vulnerable than an adult. 
>>
>>A (human) zygote needs lots more than nutrients and a "non-hostile
>>environment."  While plants can be raised from single cells in vitro,
>>this cannot be done with a mammalian zygote.  Thus far, we can't
>>get from zygote to baby without the maternal environment.
>
>Care to give details? The mother gives nothing but nutrients to the
>z/e/f.

Again, you are simply incorrect.  The uterus provides thermal stability,
moisture, waste management, etc. Perhaps you should open a test tube
baby factory if you are such an expert on fetal development.

There were sevearl other biology experts who commented on your post before,
Prof. Purves was the only one I printed.  Those biologists universally thought
you were quite off the wall.


> And I stand by the word "nothing but" quite firmly and will
>claim responsibility for its having smashed this argument, or its
>being wholly disproven. 

Heck, you can invent your own 'reality', why not stand by something that
is completely wrong.

>>> 1) Ova and sperm are potential humans because they do not have the
>>> power to differentiate, until they fertilize. They aren't even growing
>>> or developing. The z/e/f does. A common person's view of what I'm
>>> saying, might be, "Feed all the chicken soup you want, to sperm, ova,
>>> skin cells, or warts, but they just won't differentiate." Can't say
>>> that about the z/e/f.
>>
>>Eggs and sperm do develop, in a biologist's terms.  Otherwise, you
>>are okay with this statement.
>
>Specification: differentiate. 
>
>>> 2) The question of identical twins can also be approached by asking,
>>> "Do we have one individual human, or two?" 
>>
>>Identical twins are obviously two individual humans.
>>
>>Me (David Knapp) again... 
>>
>>Below I ask Prof. Purves several pointed questions relating to Mr. Chaney's
>>assertions. My questions are denoted by >  His responses aren't denoted.
>>
>>
>>> Some direct questions are:
>>> 
>>> Do multiple births come from multiple eggs or from whacky things happening
>>> at early cell division stages.
>>
>>Identical twins derive from a single egg.  If the daughter cells
>>produced by mitosis of a zygote separate, you get identical twins.
>>Fraternal twins derive from two eggs, fertilized by separate sperm.
>>
>>> Is the same DNA in all cells?
>>
>>To a first approximation, YES.  There are exceptions.  For example,
>>eggs and sperm are haploid and have only half the genetic information
>>found in somatic (body) cells.  Mammalian red blood cells lack
>>nuclei at maturity and hence have NO nuclear DNA.  Those white blood
>>cells that give rise to the immune system splice out part of their
>>DNA as part of their differentiation to become specific for a
>>given antibody or T-cell receptor.
>
>Is he trying to tell us that stomach cells might accidentally mutate
>into zygotes? 

Where did you see that. You know, your 'arguments' are sounding an awful lot
like a guy named 'Kevin' that used to post here.

>>However, "stomach" and "brain" cells have the same DNA except for
>>chance mutations in individual cells that are not related to their
>>position in the body.
>
>In other words, they do not differentiate. 

What is the point? Look at the first paragraph where you state that:



>>>1) Not one single cell in the human body has genetic codes for other
>>>organs except for that organ which the given cell is a part of.
>>>Stomach cells only have stomach cells, with no provision for brain
>>>cells or arm cells.

Which is clearly wrong. Get a grip. You are wrong and you know it. You cannot
run from the fact that you are operating in a different dimension when it
comes to biology. Are you an affected individual or something?  I could smack
you in the face with a baseball bat and you would try to tell me that it
doesn't really exist. Get a clue, mate. Join the ranks of the awake.

>Send this message to your professor: 
>
>1) Is the zygote the same as a skin cell or a stomach cell? 

This is not what you said before. Hold a thought, man.

>2) Seeing as the zygote is a differentiating cell with the full human
>DNA, does any other cell in the body have that DNA code and can it
>differentiate? 
>3) What prevents a zygote from becoming a stomach cell or a skin cell?
>4) Why is it that stomach cells cannot produce skin cells, but that a
>zygote contains and grows out stomach, skin, brain and all other fetal
>and human (in general) body cells? 

I will pass these along to Dr. Purves.

>>> Does the DNA contain the 'code' for all body parts and functions? Is 
>>> the DNA in my brain cells different than the DNA in my stomach cells?
>>
>>Yes (first question).  No (second question).
>>
>>> When does a fetus get along enough to have brain activity begin? When 
>>> does myelination occur?
>>
>>"Brain activity" is not a single, simple thing.  Some parts of the
>>brain, such as the cerebellum and thalamus (for example) don't
>>specialize until the middle of the second month.  At about this
>>time, some reflexes are operative, and the brain may be regulating
>>some of the organs.  For this to happen, myelination has to have
>>taken place.
>
>Uh-oh. That means that by this standard (brain activity), abortion
>would be illegal somewhere in the 2nd month. Right before 90% of all
>abortions are actually done by D&C and suction curettage... 


So what? Were we discussing the current legal system? No. You fly off
on another tangent.



>>The events just described aren't really fetal events, but early
>>embryonic.  The term 'fetus' usually applies to an embryo at least
>>two months along in its development.
>>
>>> You can see where this is heading, but I need the facts, no hearsay.
>>
>>My remarks derive from standard books of introductory biology and
>>developmental biology.  I am not well informed on the last two
>>questions (concerning neural development), but I looked the material
>>up in outstanding textbooks.
>>
>>> Thanks for responding!
>>
>>You're welcome.
>>
>>(bill)
>>
>>Professor Purves' credentials below.
>>
>>B.S. Caltech 1956, Ph.D. Yale 1959.  Chaired biology departments at
>>UCSantaBarbara, UConn, and (now) Harvey Mudd.  Current textbook is
>>Purves, W.K. (Harvey Mudd College), Orians, G.H. (U. Washington),
>>and Heller, H.C. (Stanford).  LIFE: THE SCIENCE OF BIOLOGY, 3rd
>>edition.  Sinauer Associates and W. H. Freeman, Inc.  1992.  In
>>use at over 110* colleges and universities this fall term.  *(Includes
>>Harvard, Yale, MIT, Stanford, Michigan, Berkeley, UCLA...)
>>
>>From his assertation of Chaney's claims, and other experts I have talked 
>>to around the world about Chaney's claims, I, and presumably you, would
>>have to conlude that Mr. Chaney doesn't show much knowledge of biology.
>
>Or it means 
>1) You forged or misinterpreted the interview. 

Not at all. I will ask if he is willing to contact you. Go open a phone book
and see if he's there. I am quite willing to carry all of what I've quoted into
a courtroom.

>2) This professor comes from Berkeley. 

Which means what?

>>I would go so far as to say he is ignorant of some fundamental areas of 
>>biology which are quite important to understand if one is to make claims about
>>biological relations to abortion.
>
>Major mistake. Ask your professor to answer this: 
>1) Can stomach cells produce skin or brain cells, yes or no?

Now some new questions again, not at all the ones in your original post.
The same DNA is in every cell, man. The same DNA that makes a stomach
makes everything else. If differentiation starts in a cell, all the code
that is needed to form every other organ is in that cell, be it stomach or
brain.

>2) If the zygote can and does produce all these different cells, in
>addition to having his/her own determined gender at fertilization, what
>makes this happen? 

Too technical for me. I'll ask an expert. Why don't you do the same.


>3) Does the mother continue to contribute to the z/e/f's DNA? Meaning,
>does she add arms, legs, a head and other things that the z/e/f cannot
>produce him/herself? Yes or no?

That is  completely off the wall.

>4) What in the world is it in a z/e/f that runs his/her growth? Is it
>an alien or a human individual that is still there @ age 80? 
>
>Sounds like you are the one lacking any intellegence, Knapp. Either
>that or you're forging.  

You will have to accuse Dr. Purves of that because I printed his words.
I'll post his response to this if he lets me. In the mean time, do some
reading.  

-- 
David Knapp                                      University of Colorado, Boulder
Highly Opinionated, Aging  and                      knapp@spot.colorado.edu
Perpetual Student of Chemistry and Physics.
            Write me for an argument on your favorite subject.
Newsgroups: alt.whine