This is a continuation from a popular thread. Previous posts have been split off. Nonsence .. once the zygote splits .. into two zygotes .. these are both in the same envelope of tissue. This envelope containing the two zygotes , as with the initial zygote .. will eventually become a child. The problem with your definition .. is you claim the "zygote" will become the child .. which is patently false. The zygote is one of billions of cells that make up the child. The at least 32 to 128 cells after the zygote .. are exactly the same as the zygote .. and each have the ability to create " a human" 32 cloned humans in fact. These cells are the buliders of the human .. the zygote is not "a human" I never claim that humans come from something other than this organism. With out the building blocks .. there would be no building. The zygote .. and all the cells after .. are the building blocks of the human. The human is created out of billions of cells .. zygotes and the specialized cells that come later.
Oy vey,... No offense intended,.... but I give up. You don't actually think that our "personhood" is "bestowed" upon us by others, do you? In my view, if you are a human being,... you are a person (like the dictionaries indicate.)
Yes and that is not in dispute. What is disputed is whether the resulting two cells after the first division are two or one organisms and how can the difference be established? And yours?
I don't know what you are talking about. I have no reason to avoid questions. But I do find the charge ironic coming from you,.... would you like me to link to the numerous points that you have so far failed to respond to?
I already addressed this once,... if the two cells are within the same structure (body) they are simply two cells that comprise that body. If the body is divided,... and the two cells (split zygotes) are now existing apart from one another,... they would be two (see twinning). No real challenge in that. It's just a matter of simple observation.
OK thanks, but humor me a bit more. Please explain which body is being divided to accommodate the two new organisms. Is there something else besides the single cell that divides and then the two resulting cells?
Cell division is more than a mathematical division. When a cell divides,.. the original cell remains. Just like when an amoeba (single celled organism) divides,... the original amoeba doesn't disappear and two new ones appear. Rather the original cell divides itself leaving two cells,... one being the original and the other a new cell. As a side note,... this (cell division) is one of the many indicators which proves that a new life begins at and by conception. Each time a cell divides, it stresses the chromosomes in the cell. Each time a cell divides is one fewer time that it can divide. This is a huge factor in how we "age." And not just with coincidence,... our aging of course would begin when our lives do.
How can it? If the original would remain that would mean that the original "created" a replica of itself, and we all know that that is not the case. But even IF we are to take your version of events, that still leaves the question whether the two resulting cells are two organisms as in forming twins or a single organism that will result in one embryo? How do we tell and I do not mean at some later point but then and there? Also, technically cells can divide an infinite number of times. I do not understand your reference at the limitation you are implying.
The DNA in the nucleus splits in two .. half goes to one of the two new cells, half goes to the other.. not sure if we can say that the "original cell" still remains .. two clones are what remain
The DNA which originated and as contained in the zygote formed at and by conception.... The human zygote which you concede is an organism (that makes it a human organism).... that DNA (genetic material) is passed on to all the new cells created by way of cleavage (cell division). That you continue to assert that the zygote is one organism,... and the cells it creates with the first division are another,... and the embryo is yeat another and so on,.... is IGNORANT of the biological fact that it's always the same organism, regardless of what stage it is in. The reason the Medical Dictionary define "metamorphosis" as; "a marked and more or less abrupt developmental change in the form or structure of an animal (as a butterfly or a frog) occurring subsequent to birth or hatching..." is specifically because during pregnancy,.... the drastic changes in shape form and fucntion are normal and expected for a newly created life / organism. It is dishonest to claim it is less than what it is,... simply because it doesn't meet your arbitrarily set standards. I challenged you to provide credible sources to support your claims that a zygote is one organism created at conception,... and the blastocyst is another and the embryo is yet another... etc. We are still waiting for those references. All the life cycle info I have found so far indicates as most of us have been saying. That it is one and the same organism from the moment of conception, on.
If an apple could divide itself in half,... would both the halves created not contain the matter that composed / comprised the original apple? You know that they would,.... And if those two divided again? And again? The DNA (if nothing else) tells you that it's always the same apple,... from the first division on.
Big difference between the zygote and the apple .. with the apple you have two halves an apple .. when the zygote devides you have two new zygotes/ cells .. call it what you will .. two times exactly the same organism you had initially.
Where did the matter (DNA esp.) contained in the "two new cells" come from? Why do you avoid answering so many of my direct questions?
The dispute is not whether the DNA changes, clearly it does not. What is in contention is whether the two cells resulting from the division are still one organism or two. It is undeniable that when "twinning" takes place two organisms exists. You are still conveniently avoiding addressing this aspect. So please answer the question, are the two resulting cells one or two organisms and why?
I have given you three or four references .. below is one .. with pictures. The zygote in the picture .. is a cell .. with its own membrane ..outside that membrane is another envelope. You must be including the outer envelope in your definition of zygote .. but there is nothing human about that envelope on the outside. The zygote is the cell .. inside the envelope. The zygote is a single celled organism .. the blastocyst is a multi-cellular organism ... Mitosis .. by definition creates two organisms .. If we clone you .. is that clone not an organism ? We can take just one cell from the blastocyst .. put just the nucleus of that cell (containing the DNA) into another cell ... and create a new organism ! http://www.jci.org/articles/view/23549/files/pdf I have cited a reference .. please cite one scientific reference/link that defines mitosis of the zygote as anything other than what have posted ..
Holy mackeral .. the cell makes it .. this is standard DNA replication .. which is happening in your body right now ??? Dude ... your question is simplistic .. the answer to which is to be found in every biology textbook .. even those written by pro-lifers ??? To humor you: First the DNA inside the nucleus divides .. the DNA splits into two .. halves .. then the new DNA is replicated .. this ends up with two equal DNA 92 chromosomes as opposed to 46 .. (each new strand containing 46) In the parent cell .. after replication you have two nuclei .. .. then cleavage happens giving two separate cells .. and you have two identical organisms. A video of DNA replication: http://www.wiley.com/college/pratt/0471393878/student/animations/dna_replication/index.html And what are you talking about ... I have answered all your questions .. it is you that is a dodger. Your claim that through mitosis the parent cell does not transform into two identical clones is absurd ?
How come -If a woman kills (i.e. ends the life of) the homo sapien developing inside her, then it's not wrong. but, -If a mugger shoots a pregnant woman in the stomache and kills her and the unborn human inside her said mugger could be charged with double homicide? Perhaps it's me, but this does not seem to add up... Regards, LM
Yah! It's not like males are needed to create life! They are in no way connected to the child in the least bit way! It's not like fathers are an actual thing. Yes, its not about giving a child a happy and balanced upbringing and caring about life (or a chance for life), its all about the male agenda and control.
