Is a Human Zygote an Organism?

[noday8]

"FALSEHOODS" not "Fatherhoods"

 

[palerider]

Reference the work and research of a biologist. Or find a biology dictionary that defines the words the way that you use them. That is what I have been asking from you. I do not want to hear the opinions of a philosopher, theologian nor a politician about biology.

It really doesn't matter to me what you "want" The fact is that a bioethicist is perfectly qualified in the science to make such a statement. It is only your abject ignorance of the topic that keeps you in the discussion at all.

What has become abundantly clear is that your ignorance on the topic is so broad that you don't even know how to find the information that you don't know...you present a classic example of not even knowing what you don't know.. But here...I have taken some time to find you some actual biological reference material....as if that is going to change your mind...You have made up your mind and no amount of actual information will ever change it...you are a typical pro choicer trying to defend the indefensible.

http://www.sf-encyclopedia.com/entry/clones

A clone is a group of individuals comprising the asexually produced offspring of a single individual. A pair of identical twins is a clone because the twin cells are produced by the asexual fission of the fertilized ovum

http://www.sonoworld.com/Fetus/page.aspx?id=283

Conjoined twins, structural anomalies

Richard Jaffe, MD, Cynthia Porterfield, DO, Nevenka S. Gould, MD
Address correspondence to Richard Jaffee, MD, Department of Obstetrics and Gynecology, University of Illinois at Chicago, 840 South Wood Street, Chicago, IL 60612-4324, Ph: 312-996-7300, Fax: 312-996-4238, ¶Dept. of Pathology, Humana Hospital, and Department of Pathology, University of Illinois at Chicago.

Introduction
Monozygotic twinning is a rare event that occurs due to fission of the fertilized ovum at the earliest stages of embryogenesis1. Monozygotic twinning includes a spectrum of syndromes whose features depend on the time of fission. Depending on the timing twinning will result in two separate embryos, and the fetal sacs may be either dichorionic-diamniotic, monochorionic-diamniotic or monochorionic-monoamniotic, with the latter occurring with later fission1,2. Late or incomplete splitting leads to conjoined twinning, which occurs when the embryonic disk has already formed1,2.

Here...from the Journal of the Royal Microscopical Society

http://www.archive.org/stream/journalroyalmic04londgoog/journalroyalmic04londgoog_djvu.txt

The authors go on to say that these experiments of theirs are in agreement with our present embryological knowledge, according to which the head of the spermatozoon, as male pronucleus, becomes fused with thefemale pronucleus of the ovule at the time of fertilization. Consequently, each new element which arises from the fission of the fertilized ovum must always possess a share, both of the maternal and paternal plasma, and of the properties inherent in them. With regard to the practical importance of these experiments, it is suggested that by carefully selecting dogs which have acquired immunity to rabies, this disease might eventually be extirpated.

While this particular segment is speaking about dogs...feel free to provide some credible evidence that the early development of dogs, or even most mammals is significantly different from human beings.

And this certainly isn't new knowledge...here is a paper from Twin Research in Psychiatry speaking to the fission of a blastocyst from back in 1938.

http://eliotslater.org/index.php/psychiatry/genetics/222-twin-research-in-psychiatry-1938

At present there is little certain knowledge of the mechanism by which twins are produced. The commonly held opinion is that dissimilar twins are binovular and have arisen from the accidental production of two ova at the same time while similar twins are uniovular and have arisen from a single ovum by fission of the blastoderm, plural gastrulation, or by fission of the embryonic axis. In an interesting paper Curtius and von Verschuer (1932) investigated the frequency of twin‑parenthood in the families of 931 twins......


It is commonly assumed that similar twins are identical in respect of their hereditary equipment. This cannot by any means be taken as proven. It is an admitted theoretical possibility that in the division of the fertilized ovum there might be an unequal division of the chromosomes. Such an event has been shown to occur in the reduction division in Drosophila, resulting in individuals with more or less than their proper quota of chromosomes, or in other cases with a fragment of a chromosome being additional to the normal quota in one individual, deficient in another. There is no cogent reason why this should not also occur in the somatic division, and in man. Furthermore somatic mutations are known to occur in a variety of different organisms, and if such a mutation were to occur in one of the two cells produced by the primary fission of the fertilized ovum it would produce a true hereditary difference in the two resulting monozygotic twins. These theoretical possibilities are, however, of little practical importance : for even were they shown to occur in man, they would be events of such rarity that statistical results obtained by the examination of large numbers of twins would be little affected by them.

Principle and Practice of Pediatric NeurosurgeryDOI: 10.1055/b-0034-98061 page 269

The causal factor(s) that contribute to craniopagus remain(s) unclear with various embryologic theories proposed for both "incomplete fission" and "fusion" types. Although incomplete fission of a fertilized ovum was presumed to be the cause of conjoined twins, more current understanding of embryology suggests that the fusion of identical twin embryos during early development is likely the cause.

BOSTON UNIVERSITY GRADUATE SCHOOL Thesis THE BIOLOGY OF TWINNING Submitted byMiriam Earle James

human twins might arise by some sort of early fission process that probably starts in the ectoderm. The observations of a number of reliable scientists on the earliest known human embryos indicate that the amnion arises as a hollow ball of ectoderm - which furnishes the mechanism essential for ectodermal outgrowths from which the primordia of twins could arise.....

Genetics The Science of Life Cloning, Susan Schaffer: Rutledge Taylor and Francis Group :

Page 5: A clone is a cell or organism that is genetically identical to the cell or organism from which it was made. Cloning is a form of asexual reproduction because all of the deoxyribonucleic acid (DNA) comes from the same parent......

Then on page 7 the text goes on to say:

• An identical twin is a natural clone
• Cloning is a form of asexual reproduction that does not require two parents to produce young

You might then go and look at this presentation on the topic of cloning and asexual reproduction:

https://prezi.com/6kfzhy-0mjid/asexual-reproduction/

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11684762

Cloning is a natural mode of asexual reproduction for many organisms, which results in nearly identical copies of cells or organisms. In animals, including humans, identical twins are an example of natural cloning.

And on and on it goes. Cloning is a form of asexual reproduction...twins are natural clones....a human being is capable of asexual reproduction for a very short time..and it is the result of fission.

There is this process known as critical thinking where one takes the known facts and is able to draw a coherent rational conclusion from them...you clearly need to be spoon fed and then have whoever feeding you tell you what to think about what you were fed....this whole tangent resulted from me stating that for a short time, human beings are capable of asexual reproduction....I have provided credible biological references to support that statement. The fact that you can't wrap your mind around the fact that the act of a cell or cells dividing to form two beings where there once was one is, by definition, fission, then I can't help you.

The undeniable fact is, and remains that for a short period of time, human beings are capable of asexual reproduction...go out on google and search for the terms "natural clone" "twins" "asexual reproduction" and for Pete's sake, try to actually think for yourself.

And again, your claim that a bioethicist is not qualified to state that fission is fission is nothing more that a logical fallacy known as a circumstantial ad hominem....a bioethicist is more than qualified to make the statement.

 

[palerider]

Can't find a biologist that calls a cluster of human proembryo cells that are dividing within the process of cleavage described as fission when a twinning event happens nor when scientists clone? Really shocking to you isn't it. I could not either.

Of course I can...and did. And no..I am not shocked. Unlike you, I do have quite a bit of higher education in biology.

Here is my original thought. When a cluster of cells in which the cells get smaller and smaller generation after generation (cleavage) undergoes a twinning event and creates two clusters of cells in which the cells get smaller and smaller generation after generation (cleavage), I would not believe that to be fission in which a cell grows and then splits. Also even after the blastocyst divides it still does not grow in mass until it takes in nutrients from the mother to be. That is not fission, it is the continued process of cleavage.

Clearly, your "original" thought is wrong. As the more than adequate references I provided state...the process is, in fact, fission...and as I stated for a short time human beings are capable of asexual reproduction.

Just my original thought. I could not even find a biologist that discusses your and many other philosophers fatherhoods describing human twinning as fission.

Because your understanding of the topic of the biology of human development is so thin that you lack the requisite knowledge to even know how to go about looking up what you don't know. In short, you know so little that you don't even know what you don't know.

 

[palerider]

You can heat a bag of marbles or cut it and it will open for you then the marbles within it will come out. Lol. Just playing.

The way you explain reaction to stimuli does not seem scientific. That is why I want you to reference the work of biological scientists.

And again..your knowledge is so small that you apparently don't even know what stimulus is, or what a reaction is. You are just one more in a long line of pro choicers attempting to defend the indefensible with the usual litany of logical fallacies, ignorance, misunderstanding, and plain old dishonesty.

 

[noday8]

What has become abundantly clear is that your ignorance on the topic is so broad that you don't even know how to find the information that you don't know...you present a classic example of not even knowing what you don't know.. But here...I have taken some time to find you some actual biological reference material....as if that is going to change your mind...You have made up your mind and no amount of actual information will ever change it...you are a typical pro choicer trying to defend the indefensible.

http://www.sf-encyclopedia.com/entry/clones

A clone is a group of individuals comprising the asexually produced offspring of a single individual. A pair of identical twins is a clone because the twin cells are produced by the asexual fission of the fertilized ovum

Really??? From the Encyclopedia of Science Fiction???

You might then go and look at this presentation on the topic of cloning and asexual reproduction:

https://prezi.com/6kfzhy-0mjid/asexual-reproduction/

"
GALLERYFEATURESSUPPORT
GET STARTED
LOG IN
PRICING
NEW!
Branded Themes
FREE Limited time offer"


"The presentation software for when it matters"
Prezi.com??? Anybody could create a presentation on that website.

BOSTON UNIVERSITY GRADUATE SCHOOL Thesis THE BIOLOGY OF TWINNING Submitted byMiriam Earle James

Genetics The Science of Life Cloning, Susan Schaffer: Rutledge Taylor and Francis Group :

Are these your biologists? Susan Schaffer and Miriam Earle James? Where are the links for their sites that show their biological science work and research? The rest of the links are from a science fiction website, a presentation software website and the medical field. I am asking for a biologist which you say you offered but is a lie unless one of the 2 names that have no link to their work are a biologist. ???

In the medical fields fission has multiple definitions and that is what you are using. You have entangled the different definitions within your argument. I have come to believe that you are purposely doing so.

fission in Medicine
fission fis·sion (fĭsh'ən)
n.

1. The act or process of splitting into parts.
2. The amitotic division of a cell or its nucleus.
   
3. An asexual process of reproduction in which a unicellular organism divides into two or more independently maturing daughter cells.
   
4. A nuclear reaction in which an atomic nucleus, especially a heavynucleus such as an isotope of uranium, splits into fragments, usuallytwo of comparable mass, with the evolution of from 100 million toseveral hundred million electron volts of energy.

Do you notice that number three says unicellular organism?

Clearly, your "original" thought is wrong. As the more than adequate references I provided state...the process is, in fact, fission...and as I stated for a short time human beings are capable of asexual reproduction.

fission
(ˈfɪʃən)
n
1. the act or process of splitting or breaking into parts
2. (Biology) biology a form of asexual reproduction in single-celled animals and plants involving a division into two or more equal parts that develop into new cells
3. (General Physics) short for nuclear fission

This website has biology right next to the biological definition. Even you can not miss it. Do you notice that it says single celled animals and plants?

 

[palerider]

Really??? From the Encyclopedia of Science Fiction???

As I said...you are a typical pro choicer attempting to defend the indefensible and no amount of fact will ever change your mind....You pick and choose sources to complain about and ignore sources that are beyond reproach which say the same thing....intellectual dishonesty at its worst.

What was wrong with the paper from sonoworld? It was written by MD's and Doctors of Obstetrics....you don't think they are qualified?

What precisely was your objection to the Royal Microscopical Society...you think they aren't qualified"

The medical textbook Principle and Practice of Pediatric NeurosurgeryDOI: 10.1055/b-0034-98061 page 269 didn't suit you?

Do you notice that number three says unicellular organism?

How many cells do you think a zygote has? You seem to be so obtuse that unless a source uses precisely the words you have in your mind which are based on an obvious ignorance of the topic you won't accept...the problem is that biological sources are not going to be dumbing themselves down to that level...self protection by sheer stupidity...you must be so proud.

The fact that those sources stated exactly the same thing as the sources you so stupidly rejected based on nothing more than fallacious logic should give you a clue...but then, you aren't interested in getting a clue are you? You are interested in defending a position that you know is wrong and one for which you won't be able to face yourself if you ever accept the truth of it.

Cutting and pasting dictionary definitions which you don't understand just underscores your ignorance on the topic. You lose....sorry. Live with it...or deny it....or whatever you people do to try to alleviate your own self loathing.

 

[noday8]

So you are telling me that throughout this whole argument that you never tried to make the point that a blastocyst asexually reproduces through the process of biological fission? You are lying.

And when biological scientists clone a blastocyst they use the word scission not fission.

The medical field uses fission in its general definition which is just another word for division, splitting, cleavage, breaking, or severance of ANYTHING or ANY GROUP. You have intentionally intertwined the definitions for the sake of your argument.

And a medical doctor is not a biologist that is in the mindset to only use the biological definition when referring to the biological science of describing the growth differentiations of the formation of an embryo or embryos.

A zygote is not a single-celled organism. It is a single cell in the beginning of human biological morphogenesis.

You have obviously lost the argument and it was a very bad move for you to describe the twinning of a human blastocyst as binary fission. You lose.

 

[palerider]

So you are telling me that throughout this whole argument that you never tried to make the point that a blastocyst asexually reproduces through the process of biological fission? You are lying.

I provided perfectly credible sources that state exactly that....and sources across the board that say the same thing....what you don't seem to get is that it is common knowledge among people with even a rudimentary knowledge of developmental biology.

And when biological scientists clone a blastocyst they use the word scission not fission.

Sorry guy....the medical textbook said fission....sonoworld said fission....the Royal Microscopical Society said fission...and any number of actual textbooks on the topic of cloning say fission...your denial of the facts does not alter the facts.

The medical field uses fission in its general definition which is just another word for division, splitting, cleavage, breaking, or severance of ANYTHING or ANY GROUP. You have intentionally intertwined the definitions for the sake of your argument.

Deny deny deny deny....deny all you like...the fact remains that for a short while human beings are capable of asexual reproduction via fission...I provide plenty of sources that say precisely that....your failure to grasp or understand doesn't alter the fact. You have lost the point...sorry.

And a medical doctor is not a biologist that is in the mindset to only use the biological definition when referring to the biological science of describing the growth differentiations of the formation of an embryo or embryos.

Sorry guy...logical fallacy. The papers, and textbooks, and even the thesis I referenced were peer reviewed by people who were imminently qualified to determine whether or not the word fission was used in the correct context. Claiming that a person can not know biology simply because he or she isn't a biologist is just stupid...especially when those I referenced have had more than adequate biological education to know whether fission is the proper word. How much more of this humiliation are you going to endure? I get it...you are going to deny because it is what you must do.

A zygote is not a single-celled organism. It is a single cell in the beginning of human biological morphogenesis.

A zygote is an organism...and when it is a single cell, it is a single celled organism..then it proceeds to become a multicellular organism.

You have obviously lost the argument and it was a very bad move for you to describe the twinning of a human blastocyst as binary fission. You lose.

Again...I provided across the board up to and including peer reviewed published papers and textbooks on the topic and they all said that twinning of human blastocysts is the result of fission..you lose and you are a liar. I understand why but pity you for your character flaws.

Just for fun...here are some more published, peer reviewed papers that state that twins result from fission...Read or not...deny or not...the facts remain.

From the National Institute of Health
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2900119/

Two contradicting theories exist to explain the origins of conjoined twins. The older and most generally accepted theory is fission, in which the fertilized egg splits partially. The second theory is fusion, in which a fertilized egg completely separates, but stem cells (which search for similar cells) find like-stem cells on the other twin and fuse the twins together. However, rather than ‘fission’ or ‘fusion’, the defect leading to conjoined twins may well be a coalescence by overlapping of closely contiguous twin embryonic axis formative fields within a single embryonic disc (Potter, 1952 Willis, 1962; Beckwith, 20032–4 It is likely that future understanding of embryonic induction and organizational centers may radically change how we envision the initial development of this complex anomaly.

From Practical Management of Labor, Nagrath, Singh, page 132 under the heading of uni0vuolar twin

twinning occurs during binary fission of zygote

From A Dictionary of Genetics, Robert C King, Pamela Mulligan, William Stansfield, page 367

polyembryony - formation of multiple embryos from a zygote from its fission at an early developmental stage.

Here from the Encyclopedia of Molecular Biology, edited by Johno Kindred, page 683: Do tell me your objection to this text....

monozygotic - arising from the

same zygote and therefore genetically identical. Monozygotic twins develop from a single fertilized ovum through fission occurring shortly after fertilization.

The timing of monozygotic twinning: a criticism of the common model, Cambridge University Press, page 5

The increase of MZ twinning linked to the practice of IVF has provoked a great interest in identifying the etiologic factors, in particular those responsible for the more frequent MC DA placentation. Many potential causes have been suggested for the fission of the ICM in two: a fissure in a hard and rigid pellucida can provoke an atypical hatching, with the result of an split ICM within an trophectoderm (see Note 37), or of two separate complete blastocysts

From The Biological Basis of Heredity glossary of terms

monozygotic twins
identical twins. Twins that come from the same zygote and are, subsequently, the same genetically in terms of their nuclear DNA. Any differences between monozygotic twins later in life are mostly the result of environmental influences rather than genetic inheritance. Fraternal twins may look similar but are not genetically identical. Monozygotic twins may not share all of the same sequences of mitochondrial DNA. This is due to the fact that the mitochondria in a cell may have somewhat different versions of DNA, and the mitochondria can be dispersed unequally when a zygote fissions. Female monozygotic twins can also differ because of differences between them in X-chromosome inactivation. Subsequently, one female twin can have an X-linked condition such as muscular dystrophy and the other twin can be free of it.

Room Pub Med Canada
Early Prenatal Diagnosis of Thoracopagus Twins by Ultrasound
Mahmoud Alkhateeb,1 Mahmoud Mashaqbeh,1 Sami Magableh,2 Rafiq Hadad,3 Quteiba Nseer,4 and Abdelkhaleg Alshboul5

Conjoined twins being the most extreme form of monozygotic twinning, occur in about 1% of monozygotic twins. It is proposed that the origin of conjoined twins is at the primitive streak stage of the embryonic plate (15–17 days), and results from an error in blastogenesis due to incomplete fission of a single zygote.

From Biomed Central Cases Journal

Early prenatal diagnosis of conjoined twins at 7 weeks and 6 days’ gestation with two-dimensional Doppler ultrasound: a case report M Zeki Taner1, Mertihan Kurdoglu2*, Cagatay Taskiran1, Zehra Kurdoglu3, Ozdemir Himmetoglu1 and Sevim Balci4 Page 2

http://www.biomedcentral.com/content/pdf/1757-1626-0002-0000008330.pdf

The incidence of conjoined twinning is 1 in 50,000 to 1 in 100,000 births in the world [4]. Conjoined twins, being the most extreme form of monozygotic twinning, occur in about 1% of monozygotic twins. It is proposed that the origin of conjoined twins is at the primitive streak stage of the embryonic plate (15-17 days), and results from an error in blastogenesis due to incomplete fission of a single zygote [5].

And I could go on and on....do I expect for you to ever admit that you are wrong? Of course not...but at this point I have provided enough credible sources, peer reviewed books and papers, including a dictionary of molecular biology stating that identical twins are the result of fission that any intellectually honest person would concede the point....You however don't strike me as intellectually honest...you strike me as someone trying to defend an indefensible position who is willing to deny any and all evidence that might bring you face to face with the reality of that position.[/quote]

 

[palerider]

Pretty much the response I expected.

 

[palerider]

Just for fun I looked up scission in the science dictionary...clearly you didn't...

scission - A separation, division, or splitting, as in fission.

 

[dogtowner]

Just for fun I looked up scission in the science dictionary...clearly you didn't...

scission - A separation, division, or splitting, as in fission.

Oddly enough in goof old English we have multiple words that mean the same thing. We borrow words from other languages quite a lot. The sc version originated in old french the f version elsewhere.
Sometimes there are differences other times it's just autumn vs fall.
This one is just autumn / fall.

 

[palerider]

Oddly enough in goof old English we have multiple words that mean the same thing. We borrow words from other languages quite a lot. The sc version originated in old french the f version elsewhere.
Sometimes there are differences other times it's just autumn vs fall.
This one is just autumn / fall.

Just another failed pro choice argument as are all pro choice arguments. One simply can not rationally defend the indefensible so all of their arguments are doomed to failure. noday8 predictably tucked tail and left rather than face the reality of his position....they all do. One can only deny the facts in public so long before he starts to just look stupid...even pro choicers get that and invariably leave before being forced to look the reality of their position straight in the eye.

I am sure he will pop up somewhere else making the same arguments that lost here. They all do. They are driven to have someone...anyone...join in their position with them as if having someone else in on it somehow makes it right.

 

[dogtowner]

Just another failed pro choice argument as are all pro choice arguments. One simply can not rationally defend the indefensible so all of their arguments are doomed to failure. noday8 predictably tucked tail and left rather than face the reality of his position....they all do. One can only deny the facts in public so long before he starts to just look stupid...even pro choicers get that and invariably leave before being forced to look the reality of their position straight in the eye.

I am sure he will pop up somewhere else making the same arguments that lost here. They all do. They are driven to have someone...anyone...join in their position with them as if having someone else in on it somehow makes it right.

It would be refreshing if they could admit to themselves that:
A. It's ok to not want a baby to have to take care of so just throw it away
B. Since I know I get stuff wrong better not make me have to be responsible same goes for everyone so it's not ok to throw away adults (capital punishment)
C. I want what I want. Period.

 

[palerider]

It would be refreshing if they could admit to themselves that:
A. It's ok to not want a baby to have to take care of so just throw it away
B. Since I know I get stuff wrong better not make me have to be responsible same goes for everyone so it's not ok to throw away adults (capital punishment)
C. I want what I want. Period.

That brings them face to face with how shallow they actually are...and even the shallow apparently don't want to have to face the fact that they are shallow.

 

[palerider]

So noday8...your whole self justification for your pro choice position rested on your belief that identical twins are not the result of fission? What the hell does that have to do with anything? You did exemplify the entire pro choice argument in fine form. Rather than discuss the overarching fact that abortion kills a living human being for the convenience of another...you attempted to narrow the argument down to a single irrelevant point that you believed you could win and therefore feel good over winning a point that had nothing to do with your position on abortion at all.

And like most pro choicers your knowledge of biology was terribly small and you never even had a chance of winning that small point...the fact is that right down to the cellular level, the pro choice argument fails and yet you hold it. Is running away clapping your hands over your ears and yelling LA LA LA LA at the top of your lungs to avoid admitting the truth really an effective strategy for defending your position to yourself?