Answer: NO. Life comes from their synergistic combination, not from either one or the other standing alone. They call this process: fertilization, or conception. Not till fertilization does life exist. But once it occurs, it irrevocably specifies the "blueprint" of a living individual human being, from that inception (fertilization, conception) till natural death.
And not coincidentally, that is the very thing the United States Constitution undertakes to protect, preserve, and defend.
Or do you see this issue differently?
You can haveing living DNA and dead DNA.. On dead DNA whats missing?..
Is DNA machinery? or more than that?..
Really? I would never have known.
"Not till fertilization does life exist. But once it occurs, it irrevocably specifies the "blueprint" of a living individual human being, from that inception (fertilization, conception) till natural death.
You missed my point. I was talking about the idea that it is impossible, because science has not defined when life starts, to make a decision on when life starts. AG was very clear in our discussion of what defines life that the continuum fallacy does not exist and had been debunked right here on FR. She in fact claimed that a pro-evo poster here invented that fallacy.
I find it very interesting that Sopater is using logic that was debunked by AG and others.
"And not coincidentally, that is the very thing the United States Constitution undertakes to protect, preserve, and defend.
The constitution protects the rights of a sperm and an ovum in their holy union? I never knew that.
The constitution undertakes to protect, preserve and defend life, but was the definition of life when the constitution was written the same as yours?