Biological immunities are not "shelter". They are biological immunities to disease. Shelter does not provide this.
"Shelter" provides protection.... This would include protection from disease....
Therefor "immunity" is nothing more than a type of "shelter".
All living things need more than food and shelter.
Such as????
For any living thing to live it ONLY needs food and shelter.
The point was that you didn't have one to start with. Definitions change with technology. It's a fact of life.
The examples that you gave were not because of technology changed. They were examples of where we were WRONG in what we thought.
And we adjusted out definitions appropriately.
This is because we were WRONG.
The Earth was never flat...
The Sun was never the center of the Universe...
A fertilized egg is not bipedal. You just screwed yourself with your own need to be obtuse. I was willing to offer you that an egg is "human" but not anymore since bipedal is one of your requirements per your own definitions. So, lets take human off the table now. Since an egg is not bipedal, it is not human. That was your call, not mine.
1. Don't forget that the defintion included the scientific name (Homo sapien).
2. When it says "bipedal" it is refering to the typical or "normal" human.
If you honestly think this definition somehow proved me wrong.... PaaLease.....
A baby that is born with only ONE leg is no less human than a baby born with TWO legs.
Most of society DID accept that the earth was flat at one time. Every map from Greece and before showed an "abyss" at the edge of the map because it was believed you fell off at that point. Are you saying the ones who believed the world was round were wrong? Is your passion, perhaps, overriding your reason? Do you need a break from this exchange for a couple of days to pull your wits back together?
You MISQUOTED me. :naughty
Here is what you quoted me as saying
Most of society did not accept the fact that the Earth was flat.
Here is what I ACTUALLY said
Most of society did not accept the fact that the Earth was not flat.
I actually had to double check because I thought I easily could have mis-typed but somehow you MISQUOTED me.
Maybe you are the one who needs a break???
You didn't say a developing clam. You said a parasitic clam.
Same thing.
An adult clam sits on the bottom of the river wiggling it's body to stimulate the fish to "bite". When it does the clam spews the tiny immature clams into the mouth of the fish. These tiny clams clamp onto the gills of this fish where it MUST stay until it is mature.
It is not dependent on a singular fish for its survival...just a fish. My point stands.
Ah.... No it does NOT.
When an egg is fertilized it is dependent on whatever woman it is attached to.
JUST LIKE THIS CLAM.
This fertilized egg can be implanted into ANY woman. (basically)
And just like the parasitic clam if the embryo is removed before it is fully developed it will die.
By your logic, conjoined twins are not part of each other because both are living organisms.
Conjoined twins are a very unique situation.
Are they a "part" of each other or are they ONLY "attached" to each other?
To a certain degree I would say it depends on how much they are joined to each other.
In either case a fetus grows and is naturally removed from the mother.
No matter how much the conjoined twins grow they will never naturally seperate from each other.
You tell me????
Is a set of conjoined twins who are fused only at the hip a "part" of each other or are they only "attached"?
You have two unique individuals each with a unique personality.
The fertilized egg is part of the woman until it is viable on its own. If it can't live detached from that singular womb, then it is part of it. My point remains untouched.
But as I said before...
Unlike the twins the fetus will naturally seperate from the mother.
The twins won't no matter how long they grow.
Well thank you for being trite and trifling. The egg, attached to the womb, grows from that womb. Better now?
Not really. I would say that is poor way to word it.
The fetus does NOT "grow from that womb".
It grows IN that womb.
The way that you word it seems to suggest that somehow the womb becomes the fetus.
BTW.....
"The egg, attached to the womb....."
So is it "attached" or is it "part"????
And? That changes nothing about the fertilized egg needing that singular womb for survival.
Right.... Just like that clam needing that singular fish to survive.
Then prior to that point of development, it is part of that womb. My point stands.
Didn't you just say it was "attached"?
No it doesn't. The fetus serves a biological function which is symbiotic for the species. The fetus is the progeny of the "host". It is not parasitic at all.
But definition #2 only said
: an organism living in, with, or on another organism in parasitism
One organism living in, with, or on another organism.
A fetus IS an organism. The mother is another organism.
No, it doesn't. It serves an adequate return due to it being an offspring. Parasites are not offspring of their hosts.
Not the same thing.
The mother (the host) does NOT get a return from the fetus.
The species (Homo sapien) gets a return but the host itself doesn't really get a return.
By the time that the host might get any type of return the fetus is no longer in the mother....meaning that it no longer is parasitic.
Definition #3 said
: something that resembles a biological parasite in dependence on something else for existence or support without making a useful or adequate return
Your need to split hairs has just robbed you of more ground in this discussion. You are confessing, by this definition, that either the mother or the fetus is not human since the parasitic relationship has to exist between two or more kinds of organisms. Fine...the fetus is a parasite. Therefore, it has no protection and further (by the second part of your own definition) is usually injurious to the woman (host). She has a right to protect herself. Abortion issue settled. Thank you.
"Two or more kinds"....
Alright.....
1. Mature organism...
2. Immature organism...
There ya go. Two
kinds of organisms.
By law a person is typically ONLY allowed to kill another human IF their life is in danger....not just being harmed.
IF a person comes up and punches me in the gut I cannot kill that person even though they were causing injuries to me.
Abortion issue NOT settled.
Nice try though....
You are wrong here. A
tapeworm moves through infect feces, and sometimes blood or tissue, depending on the type of worm.
Try again.
What is passed through the feces is NOT the adult tapeworm.
That STAYS in the intestines.
You obviously didn't bother reading the very article that you linked to.
Eggs laid by the adult pass out in the faeces of the definitive host and are eaten by the intermediate host.
For your sake, we can stop here. You are obviously ill-equipped to handle this discussion and I feel to continue would be to embarrass you and that is not my intention. Perhaps looking through these forums a bit and doing some reading would help you...gather some information, collect your thoughts, and devise an approach that relies on your strengths. Then come back and we can continue.
Thanks for your concern. :rofl
But as I said before I think you are the one who could use a break.
