Life from non life?

A single sperm lacks 50% of human DNA. Similarly each egg lacks 50% of human DNA.
Nope. Are you trying to say the sperm only has 50% of the DNA that the resulting human being has? If so, yes of course.
 
As a matter of interest, do you know if the mitochondrial DNA, which is exclusively in the egg, comes as a separate package or is it part of the female 50%?
Both eggs and sperm have mitochondria. However, in sperm the mitochondria are in the tail to provide energy for swimming, not in the head. Normally only the head enters the egg, not the tail, so only the female mitochondria are present in the zygote. Biology being occasionally sloppy there are a few, very few, instances of mitochondria from sperm getting into the zygote. See here for an overview.
 
Both eggs and sperm have mitochondria. However, in sperm the mitochondria are in the tail to provide energy for swimming, not in the head. Normally only the head enters the egg, not the tail, so only the female mitochondria are present in the zygote. Biology being occasionally sloppy there are a few, very few, instances of mitochondria from sperm getting into the zygote. See here for an overview.
Thanks. That's really interesting, And obvious now I think of it, since the sperm needs a source of energy .
 
Both eggs and sperm have mitochondria. However, in sperm the mitochondria are in the tail to provide energy for swimming, not in the head. Normally only the head enters the egg, not the tail, so only the female mitochondria are present in the zygote. Biology being occasionally sloppy there are a few, very few, instances of mitochondria from sperm getting into the zygote. See here for an overview.
Yes, and? Are you trying to say the sperm only has 50% of the DNA that the resulting human being has? If so, yes of course.
 
Yes, and? Are you trying to say the sperm only has 50% of the DNA that the resulting human being has? If so, yes of course.
Actually slightly less than 50%, because normally the mitochondrial DNA in the sperm does not end up in the zygote. The egg has slightly more than 50% because it includes the mitochondrial DNA for the zygote.
 
Not for me.
Then not for you only.
I as a human being have human skin for example.
God made man from the dust of the earth. That is what men are. You seem to be claiming to be something else.
There is a distinction.
Only in your mind. A sperm is not a man, is it?
I cant be any clearer than that
It is clear that you don't know that you are a man.You think you are a word that was invented in the 13th century.
Can you distinguish between the ford and the paint>
The paint is not Ford, is it? The Ford is not paint is it? In the same way, sperm is not a man.
 
Actually slightly less than 50%, because normally the mitochondrial DNA in the sperm does not end up in the zygote. The egg has slightly more than 50% because it includes the mitochondrial DNA for the zygote.
You previously said "A single sperm lacks 50% of human DNA. Similarly each egg lacks 50% of human DNA." But even though you still havent said, I assume you mean the sperm only has 50% of the DNA that the resulting human being has
 
Then not for you only.
Ok so why did we misunderstand each other?

God made man from the dust of the earth. That is what men are. You seem to be claiming to be something else.
No, I dont see what you are trying to say. The skin is human, its human skin, but its not a human being.

Only in your mind. A sperm is not a man, is it?
But that is what I am saying, a sperm is not a man, but it is a man's sperm

It is clear that you don't know that you are a man.
I have said nothing of the sort.
You think you are a word that was invented in the 13th century.
but identifies someone with XY chromosomes, male anatomy and male reproductive organs, right?
 
Ok so why did we misunderstand each other?
I understand you full well
No, I dont see what you are trying to say.
that is because you are blind to what i am saying
The skin is human, its human skin, but its not a human being.
No the skin is skin. It is the skin of a man. Your word games are not working here.The word human was invented in the 13th century. Are you saying that there were no humans before the 13th century?
But that is what I am saying, a sperm is not a man, but it is a man's sperm
And you are a man because God made man. So a sperm is not a man and a man's sperm is not a man.
I have said nothing of the sort.
The implication is clear. Do you agree that you are a man, that God made man and that the word human was invented in the 13th century?
but identifies someone with XY chromosomes, male anatomy and male reproductive organs, right?
All mammals have an XY chromosomal sex determining system. What is your point?
 
I understand you full well

that is because you are blind to what i am saying
or you are talking complete nonsense. And despite claiming it you obviously do not understand what I am saying.

No the skin is skin. It is the skin of a man. Your word games are not working here.The word human was invented in the 13th century. Are you saying that there were no humans before the 13th century?
No, the skin of a human being is obviously human skin.

And you are a man because God made man. So a sperm is not a man and a man's sperm is not a man.
never said it was. You are arguing with yourself

The implication is clear. Do you agree that you are a man, that God made man and that the word human was invented in the 13th century?
what implication? The words human and human being are used.

All mammals have an XY chromosomal sex determining system. What is your point?
the point is what I wrote, not what you responded with.
 
or you are talking complete nonsense.
Nope...
And despite claiming it you obviously do not understand what I am saying.
I showed you that i understand
No, the skin of a human being is obviously human skin.
In fact, it is the skin of a man. But it (the skin) is not a man. Only in your word games will your manipulation work. There is no mention of human in the bible. This is a bible discussion forum. The bible says God made man. Are you speaking about "man"?
never said it was.
Unless you are saying there is a difference between a human (man) and a human being (man), you are saying a sperm is a man.
BMS said:
Of course the human egg and sperm are human. They combine to make a human being.

That is why I said ..."then your crap is human" Crap comes out of a human and an unused egg comes out of a human.
You are arguing with yourself
Nope I am arguing with your nonsense, you think there is a difference between a human and a human being.
what implication? The words human and human being are used.
You are trying to make them not mean the same thing. A human is a human being and a human being being is a human. You are trying to make human skin into a human when human obviously refers to human beings.
the point is what I wrote, not what you responded with.
The point is that what you wrote is exposed as nonsense by what I responded with.
You said
no they are fully human.
If a sperm is fully human, then your crap is fully human.
You are confusing them with human beings
What is the difference between a human and a human being? Human= man. Human being = man.
 
Ok

I showed you that i understand
obviously not since I didnt understand you

In fact, it is the skin of a man.
A man is a human being, so it is the skin of a human being
But it (the skin) is not a man.
Again, I agree
Only in your word games will your manipulation work.
what word games, I have just once again agreed with you.
There is no mention of human in the bible. This is a bible discussion forum. The bible says God made man. Are you speaking about "man"?
More specifically (Genesis 2, God's image is a man and a woman.
But ok, the words human being and human are not really Biblical

Unless you are saying there is a difference between a human (man) and a human being (man), you are saying a sperm is a man.
Nope. I am saying what I have written, kindly address that

Crap comes out of a human and an unused egg comes out of a human.
I agree, a human as in human being

you think there is a difference between a human and a human being.
no. there isnt. But a human being has human skin
 
This is a bible discussion forum.
Not strictly. This thread is is the Secular section, hence there are some of us non-Christians here. For strictly Bible discussions you need to be somewhere in the specifically Christian sections.
 
Not strictly. This thread is is the Secular section, hence there are some of us non-Christians here. For strictly Bible discussions you need to be somewhere in the specifically Christian sections.
I didn't say strictly, did I?
 
good
obviously not since I didnt understand you
Your not understanding has nothing to do with me understanding.
A man is a human being,
Therefore, a human being is a man. They both mean the same thing.
so it is the skin of a human being
the skin of a human is not a man, therefore it is not a human.
Again, I agree
Do you actually agree that the skin is not a human? While the skin may belong to a human, it is not a human. It is the same with crap. The crap may belong to a human, but it is not a human.
what word games,
The one that i am exposing.
I have just once again agreed with you.
really? then you agree that a man's skin is not a man.
More specifically (Genesis 2, God's image is a man and a woman.
Wrong...there is a male man and a female man..
Genesis 1:27
So God created man in his own image, in the image of God created he him; male and female created he them.
But ok, the words human being and human are not really Biblical
But you are using them to refer to a man are you not?
Nope. I am saying what I have written, kindly address that
I am addressing what you have written
I agree, a human as in human being
which is referring to man (male and female)
no. there isnt.
then there is no difference when you say "man" either.
But a human being has human skin
A human being has skin. A human has skin. A man has skin. The skin is not human, it is skin. A human being has crap. Is the crap human?Or is the crap, crap?
Can you define human?
 
I didn't say strictly, did I?
No, rossum said it, and rossum was right in saying "Not strictly. This thread is is the Secular section, hence there are some of us non-Christians here. For strictly Bible discussions you need to be somewhere in the specifically Christian sections."
 
Back
Top