From: ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer)
Subject: Re: Walking down to the student center last night
Organization: Netcom San Jose
Date: Sun, 11 Oct 1992 01:35:35 GMT

William.A.Hall.Jr.@dartmouth.edu (William A. Hall Jr.) writes ...
>In article <1992Oct9.193450.21632@netcom.com>
>ray@netcom.com (Ray Fischer) writes:
>> Clearly you yourself haven't made it to your biology class yet or you
>> would have known this is incorrect.  The genetic makeup is selected in
>> roughly three stages.  First, a subset of the mother's genes are
>> selected for the egg.  Then a subset of the father's genes are
>> selected for the sperm.  Then, at the beginning of conception, one of
>> the available gene subsets from the father (the spermatozoa) merges
>> with mother's gene subset.
>
>Excuse ME, Mr. Fischer, but evidently YOU haven't made it to YOUR first
>Biology class. I've already had two years of college-level Bio and one
>year of Anatomy & Phys!

Then you shouldn't have claimed a person's genetic makeup was
determined at conception.

>The subsets don't *merge*. To say that implies that the genetic
>information from each simply melds together in a rich, thick,
>multicultural stew. What does occur is that one allele from the father

I did not make or intend that implication.  The two subsets merge into
one larger set.

>and one allele from the mother are present in the baby (which allele it
>is from that parent's gene pool is random -- which is why two parents
>can have one child with brown eyes and another with blue eyes).
>Sometimes the effect between the two alleles is such that one is
>dominant over the other; other times, the effects of the two together
>can produce another effect (combined) on the child.

>"To suggest that a person is determined by their genes is exceedingly
>naive at best..."
>
>There is no doubt whatsoever that up to 95% of a person's physical
>characteristics are determined by his/her genetic makeup, and,
>furthermore, most experts believe his/her POTENTIAL (note I didn't say
>ABILITY, but POTENTIAL) for intellectual success is determined at
>conception as well. You create the genetic blueprint for an individual
>at conception.

Physical characteristics are by no means the sole determinant of a
"person."  By some measures (such as this forum, e.g.) one's physical
characteristics are irrelevent.

Potential is irrelevent.  Actuality counts.  There is an enourmous
difference between what potential a person may have and what is
actually realized.  As an example, consider trying to spend much of
the $7 billion you can potentially earn (after all, Bill Gates did
it).

>And if you don't think life begins at conception, WHERE does it begin?

Maybe the question is wholly meaningless?  Maybe human life began 3.5
billion years ago?  Maybe the real issue is when are we going to
recognize the personhood of an individual?  Currently the (legal) age
of personhood is birth.  Should this be changed?  Why?  Will the
benefits of changing this point outweight the costs?

>Some abortion supporters say it happens after "4-5 months". How exact
>is that?? There are only two places where life can commence, in my
>opinion: conception and birth. (And if you say life begins at birth,
>then a baby is dead when it is in the womb, but -- seconds later --
>when it is outside of the womb, it is ALIVE! And what if it is still
>attached to the umbilical cord, but outside the womb? Is it dead or
>alive then? Or is it half-alive???????)

These last few questions are getting inane.

>"And it's tens of thousands of ova and billions of spermatozoa, 
>not millions (as anyone who's taken Biology 101 should know)."
>
>Sorry, but you're wrong again. It is millions of sperm and only about
>400 ova, sir. A woman's ova are created at birth, and number about only
>*400*. (That's why women go through menopause!) Now who's the one who
>didn't take Bio 101??????????? (Anyone who did should know
>that!!!!!!!!!!!)

Yes, I know ova are created before (not *at*) birth, but I suspect 
it's more than 400.  And the typical ejaculate contains 50-100 
million sperm, and there are still some left over and more being 
produced all the time.  Further, I was responding to a post that
referred to millions of ova and sperm, which is clearly wrong on both
counts.

-- 
Ray Fischer                   "Convictions are more dangerous enemies of truth
ray@netcom.com                 than lies."  -- Freidrich Nietszsche
Newsgroups: alt.rush-limbaugh,alt.politics.elections,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,talk.politics.misc,talk.abortion