(May 31, 2014 at 10:11 am)alpha male Wrote: I didn't fabricate anything. You brought it in: "Perhaps, but what is most important is that I demonstrated that DNA is not required for determination of personhood."
If such requirement is now irrelevant (although a few minutes ago it was the most important point), then restate your point.
Exactly. Me stating that DNA is not required for personhood is not the same as stating that you claimed it was, which was your contention.
Stating that DNA is not required for personhood shows that it is superfluous information and therefore cannot be construed as an indicator. It's also redundant since the conversation was already bounded by the criteria 'within humans'.