Is a Human Zygote an Organism?

[fedor50]

Playing with definitions rather than actual knowledge again? As I already pointed out, there is no direct connection between mother and child...I pointed that out because it is fact. The connection between them is analogous to velcro where transfers between mother and child are made across membranes.

The velcro like tissue are called placental villi of various types...they do not form any sort of real connection to the mother...again, exchanges are across membranes.

Here is a rough diagram of what the arrangement looks like...as you can see...no direct attachment. This is, of course an extremely enlarged representation...again, the relationship is akin to, and analogous with velcro....transfers of nutrients and wastes between mother and child are carried out in the intervillous space across the membranes of the chorionic villi.

And here is a basic explanation of what they do:

http://www.embryology.ch/anglais/fplacenta/villosite05.html

I don't expect for you to understand the text or to be able to make heads or tails of the images...your entire quest has not b in to actually learn anything at all about human development..but to find some loophole that will ease your tortured conscience.

2. True (kinda). Blood does not directly circulate from the mother to the foetus and back - instead, nutrients and oxygen swop places with waste products from the foetus in the placenta. In fact, the placenta has to hide itself from the mother's immune system so that it isn't rejected. However, there is still a direct biological connection from the foetus to the mother at that point - the interchange is blood-to-blood, and the foetus is entirely reliant on that biological connection in order to survive

There is no direct attachment....the request of a yes or no answer only illustrates how little you actually know on the topic. There is a relationship akin to velcro...but no attachment such as that of a kidney to your bloodstream.

Again you dodge an easy yes or no question. I didn't ask if there was a direct connection, I asked if there was a BIOLOGICAL connection? Again, a simple yes or no answer will suffice.

 

[palerider]

2. True (kinda).

True...exacly....like it or not, the physical structures are what they are.

Blood does not directly circulate from the mother to the foetus and back - instead, nutrients and oxygen swop places with waste products from the foetus in the placenta. In fact, the placenta has to hide itself from the mother's immune system so that it isn't rejected.

Still more evidence that it is not part of her body...

However, there is still a direct biological connection from the foetus to the mother at that point - the interchange is blood-to-blood, and the foetus is entirely reliant on that biological connection in order to survive

Sorry, wishing it were so will never make it true...there is no direct biological connection between mother and child any more than there is a direct connection between two pieces of velcro...the pieces are, and always will be separate...

Again you dodge an easy yes or no question. I didn't ask if there was a direct connection, I asked if there was a BIOLOGICAL connection? Again, a simple yes or no answer will suffice.

I didn't dodge anything...the fact that you think there is a yes or no answer is just more evidence of how little you know about human development....Hell, the whole idea of a "biological connection" in the physical sense is more or less something that you more or less made up....a bad habit of yours...just making stuff up as if imagining could make it true. Biological connections have to do with relatedness and genetics...not the topic of human development. There is a biological dependence....but NO physical biological connection based on physical structures...nor is there any hard physical connection...there is some lose, informal contact, but no actual connection. Your failure to grasp the facts is just more evidence of your woeful unpreparedness to enter this conversation in the first place.

Why do you continue? Isn't it clear by now that you simply don't know enough about the biology of human development to adequately discuss the issue...and if you did, you would know that you can't use the science to support a pro choice position? You are all over the place failing at every turn. The sad thing is that after this discussion is over, you will try the same arguments on someone else and if you can trick them, then all will be right with you...you won't have even the smallest qualm at using a failed argument to try to trick someone else who may not know the biology as well as I do...that is because you are fundamentally dishonest. Are you aware of that fact about yourself? Does it bother you in the least?

 

[fedor50]

Why do you continue? Isn't it clear by now that you simply don't know enough about the biology of human development to adequately discuss the issue...and if you did, you would know that you can't use the science to support a pro choice position? You are all over the place failing at every turn. The sad thing is that after this discussion is over, you will try the same arguments on someone else and if you can trick them, then all will be right with you...you won't have even the smallest qualm at using a failed argument to try to trick someone else who may not know the biology as well as I do...that is because you are fundamentally dishonest. Are you aware of that fact about yourself? Does it bother you in the least?

Pale Rider, your entire position is based on the assumption that a zygote is a member of the species homo sapiens, because it presumes that a zygote is an organism and therefore must be a 'member' of a species, rather than simply having the DNA associated with a species (as a skin cell does, for example). My argument is that when something is capable of 'species membership' is a subjective view rather than an objective one.

The evidence for this is simple; this is ultimately a semantic argument about scientific terminology, not an objective argument that can be resolved with a test. I am not saying "A human being is X, does a zygote meet these qualifications?", I'm saying "what constitutes a human being/independant organism in the first place?"

By analogy; is Pluto a planet? The 'scientific' answer is currently 'no', but ten years ago the 'scientific' answer was 'yes'. That doesn't mean that Pluto has changed somehow, it just means that the question "what constitutes a planet?" has been refined - showing that the definition is a subjective one, not an objective one. 'Organism' is exactly the same - different fields (embryology, immunology, stem cell research, and so on) all define 'organism' in slightly different ways, to suit their purposes. 'Organism' is a subjective definition.

My long-running challenge has been for someone to provide a definition of 'organism' to test - so far every single one I've ever seen has either included things that aren't organisms (sperm cells, skin cells, transplanted organs), not included things which are organisms (chimera individuals, sterile organisms), not included a pre-viable foetus (any definition which includes 'maintain homeostasis', for example) or be so convoluted as to be unciteable.

When I say 'organism is subjective' I mean "every scientist defines organism in their own way - and you are just picking one version of organism and calling it The Definitive Definition, when it's actually just as biased/subjective as the rest of them".

But this debate is dragging on endlessly so how about you and I put an END to this debate RIGHT NOW:

I have asked this question to other pro-lifers and scientists and I have yet to hear a remotely intelligent answer. Here it is...

Can you quote the ONE KEY THING which you feel proves that a zygote is an organism?

 

[fedor50]

I didn't dodge anything...the fact that you think there is a yes or no answer is just more evidence of how little you know about human development....Hell, the whole idea of a "biological connection" in the physical sense is more or less something that you more or less made up....a bad habit of yours...just making stuff up as if imagining could make it true. Biological connections have to do with relatedness and genetics...not the topic of human development. There is a biological dependence....but NO physical biological connection based on physical structures...nor is there any hard physical connection...there is some lose, informal contact, but no actual connection. Your failure to grasp the facts is just more evidence of your woeful unpreparedness to enter this conversation in the first place.

You still do not get it Pale Rider...

Say I kill a man and take his liver. I then preserve that liver. That liver has specific human DNA that no other living thing on earth has. Is that liver a member of the human species? No. It is clear that having specific DNA is not enough to make something a member of the corresponding species. The liver is not a biologically autonomous human individual. Neither is a zygote. So yes, the zygote is human. No, it is not an individual human being.

And before you say it...

Yes, the liver is living. Yes, it has specific DNA. And yes, the liver may be growing. But like a zygote, it is not a human individual.

The primary difference between the zygote and the liver is that the zygote is a potential human individual. Does that make the zygote an ACTUAL human individual? No. Potential and actual are NOT the same thing.

Even more; how do you qualify 'unique'? The DNA in the cells in your body will differ very slightly due to copy errors during mitosis, even ignoring those cells which have massive differences, like red blood cells and sperm cells. Your body is full of different cells that have their own unique DNA, but you are not multiple organisms, any more than a chimera individual is multiple organisms (which, by the way, is also a flaw for you). Turning that on it's head; identical twins are multiple organisms, even though their DNA only differs by the same fractional amount that the DNA inside your own body differs - either you have lots of different 'unique' DNA, or they collectively do not.

But of course, I have already given you an opportunity to put me in my place. All that you must do is...

Quote the ONE KEY THING which you feel PROVES that a zygote is an organism and which would ONLY apply to organisms and NOT non-organisms.

Succeed and you become a pro-life hero. FAIL and you end up like every other pro-lifer that I've debated who was unable to adequately defend their position.

 

[palerider]

Pale Rider, your entire position is based on the assumption that a zygote is a member of the species homo sapiens, because it presumes that a zygote is an organism and therefore must be a 'member' of a species, rather than simply having the DNA associated with a species (as a skin cell does, for example). My argument is that when something is capable of 'species membership' is a subjective view rather than an objective one.

And you have been proven wrong over and over. We come into existence as members of species homo sapiens sapiens. We do not undergo some sort of metamorphosis during our development in which we become humans...if we do not become human, then we have always been human. The fact that you are unable to differentiate between an organism and parts of an organism has no bearing on what is....it only reflects the limitations of your own knowledge.

Can you quote the ONE KEY THING which you feel proves that a zygote is an organism?

This is where your argument fails... You are operating under the assumption that a zygote is a fixed thing...when it is not..zygote is a stage of development...not a thing we are. To say that you were a zygote is like saying that you were a toddler...you are no longer a toddler, you moved on past that stage just as you moved on past being a zygote after your first cell division. You have always been a human being...from the time you were in the zygote stage....you have always been an organism capable of everything organisms are capable of...each stage you have passed through has been just that....a stage.

You came into existence as a human being...you then began to develop and developed through stage after stage which could be called by any number of names, but fundamentally you were a human being....at the zygote stage you were a human being at the zygote stage...as a blastocyst, you were a human being in the blastocyte stage.....as an embryo you were a human being at the embryonic stage...and on and on through stage after stage till you reached where you are now and you are still developing towards other stages...you have always been a human being no matter which stage of development you were in at any given time. You lack the requisite understanding of biology to have this discussion in any real way. You are as yet, unable to differentiate between being a thing...and being a thing in a particular stage of development.

 

[fedor50]

And you have been proven wrong over and over. We come into existence as members of species homo sapiens sapiens. We do not undergo some sort of metamorphosis during our development in which we become humans...if we do not become human, then we have always been human. The fact that you are unable to differentiate between an organism and parts of an organism has no bearing on what is....it only reflects the limitations of your own knowledge.

That is not an answer to my question. In fact, all you did was make an assertion and avoided my question completely.

Can you provide a definition of organism that does not include things which clearly aren't organisms (sperm cells, skin cells, transplanted organs), and does include things which clearly ARE organisms (chimera individuals, sterile organisms).

This is where your argument fails... You are operating under the assumption that a zygote is a fixed thing...when it is not..zygote is a stage of development...not a thing we are. To say that you were a zygote is like saying that you were a toddler...you are no longer a toddler, you moved on past that stage just as you moved on past being a zygote after your first cell division. You have always been a human being...from the time you were in the zygote stage....you have always been an organism capable of everything organisms are capable of...each stage you have passed through has been just that....a stage.

You came into existence as a human being...you then began to develop and developed through stage after stage which could be called by any number of names, but fundamentally you were a human being....at the zygote stage you were a human being at the zygote stage...as a blastocyst, you were a human being in the blastocyte stage.....as an embryo you were a human being at the embryonic stage...and on and on through stage after stage till you reached where you are now and you are still developing towards other stages...you have always been a human being no matter which stage of development you were in at any given time. You lack the requisite understanding of biology to have this discussion in any real way. You are as yet, unable to differentiate between being a thing...and being a thing in a particular stage of development.

Pale Rider, what is it that makes a zygote an organism that does not make a skin cell, or a stem cell, or a red blood cell an organism. What is THE one factor that separates the zygote cell (according to you an organism) from the other cells (according to you non-organism)?

Just simply saying that a zygote is an organism does not answer my question. Can you provide a definition of organism that would apply to a zygote (an organism) but not any other non-organism type of cell?

Honestly, if you cannot answer this question, then the debate is finished. I would have proved my point.

If you are unable to provide a definition of organism that applies to everything that is clearly an organism and does not apply to everything that is clearly a non-organism then I shall declare myself the winner.

 

[palerider]

You still do not get it Pale Rider...

Say I kill a man and take his liver. I then preserve that liver. That liver has specific human DNA that no other living thing on earth has. Is that liver a member of the human species? No. It is clear that having specific DNA is not enough to make something a member of the corresponding species. The liver is not a biologically autonomous human individual. Neither is a zygote. So yes, the zygote is human. No, it is not an individual human being.

Again, failure on your part...failure because you are unable to differentiate between a human being...and a part of a human being....unique DNA is not what makes you a human being.

Being a zygote is a very brief stage of a human being's development. Zygote is nothing more than the name of a temporary stage we pass through in our development...we are only zygotes for a matter of hours...then we can be called something else for some hours and then we can be called something else for a while and then something else and something else and something else as we continue to develop...the hard fact that you can't seem to grasp is that we are human beings no matter which stage of development we happen to be at....we come into being as human beings and then simply develop from one stage to another to another to another and so on.

Till such time as you gain a real, in-depth understanding of biology, and human development...and get past only reading enough to jump from one failed argument to another, you are doomed to failure....and when you have a firm grasp of biology, you will no longer think that you can make any sort of pro choice argument based on the biological sciences. It simply can't be done.

 

[fedor50]

Again, failure on your part...failure because you are unable to differentiate between a human being...and a part of a human being....unique DNA is not what makes you a human being.

Being a zygote is a very brief stage of a human being's development. Zygote is nothing more than the name of a temporary stage we pass through in our development...we are only zygotes for a matter of hours...then we can be called something else for some hours and then we can be called something else for a while and then something else and something else and something else as we continue to develop...the hard fact that you can't seem to grasp is that we are human beings no matter which stage of development we happen to be at....we come into being as human beings and then simply develop from one stage to another to another to another and so on.

Till such time as you gain a real, in-depth understanding of biology, and human development...and get past only reading enough to jump from one failed argument to another, you are doomed to failure....and when you have a firm grasp of biology, you will no longer think that you can make any sort of pro choice argument based on the biological sciences. It simply can't be done.

Pale Rider, it is obvious that you have now completely gave up on rationally defending your position. I find funny and hilarious that you are unable to answer ONE very simple and basic question...

Here it is one more time, lets see if you dodge it again:

Can you provide a definition of organism that does not include things which clearly aren't organisms (sperm cells, skin cells, transplanted organs), and does include things which clearly ARE organisms (chimera individuals, sterile organisms)?

All I want you to do is provide me with a definition of the word organism that would ONLY apply to actual organisms and would NOT apply to any non-organisms.

Can you answer that simple question? Like I said, I am expecting you to dodge the question again because you are clearly someone who does not like having their beliefs CHALLENGED.

 

[palerider]

Pale Rider, it is obvious that you have now completely gave up on rationally defending your position. I find funny and hilarious that you are unable to answer ONE very simple and basic question...

Typical...the explanation has gone beyond your ability to understand so you claim that it is I who has given up. I gave you an answer, that you didn't like it, or couldn't understand it is not my problem...the problem lies entirely with you and your twisted misunderstandings of basic biological functions.

Can you provide a definition of organism that does not include things which clearly aren't organisms (sperm cells, skin cells, transplanted organs), and does include things which clearly ARE organisms (chimera individuals, sterile organisms)?

What in the hell are you talking about. Science provides a perfectly clear, understandable definition of organism, that doesn't include sperm cells, skin cells, transplanted organs etc. already...why do I need to make one up?

An individual form ofl ife that is capable of growing, metabolizing nutrients, and usually reproducing. Organisms can be unicellular or multi cellular. They are scientifically divided into five different groups (called kingdoms) that include prokaryotes, protists, fungi, plants, and animals, and that are further subdivided based on common ancestry and homology of anatomic and molecular structures.

That seems like a straight forward, accurate description of an organism to me....the fact that you can't square it with things that are organisms and are not organisms due to your very limited biological knowledge, again, isn't my problem....it is your own failing. Accept it and try to do something about it...I would suggest trying to get a firm grasp on the basics of biological reproduction rather than trying to make everything you read fit into your existing misunderstandings.

All I want you to do is provide me with a definition of the word organism that would ONLY apply to actual organisms and would NOT apply to any non-organisms.

No....all you want is to be able to make your misunderstanding and obsessions fit into the actual biological definitions that science has already provided.

The only dodge happening in this conversation is the one that has been happening since the beginning...you are dodging biological reality....you are trying to make actual biology fit into your twisted version of it.

Lets try this fedor50.. and since it is a discussion of science, stick to the scientific names. Can you name an organism that is called blastocyst? Can you name an organism that is called embryo? Can you name an organism that is called fetus? Can you name an organism that is called infant? Can you name an organism that is called child? Can you name an organism that is called adolescent? Can you name an organism that is called adult?

Of course you can't because there are no organisms that are named any of those things. An organism must have a taxonomic name and words like blastocyst, embryo, fetus, etc., are not taxonomic names. Neither is the word zygote. Multicellular organisms pass through those developmental stages but no organism is taxonomically named after that stage.

Porpoises are taxonomically named Delphinidae Phocoenidae...at specific stages in their development, they are called zygotes, embryos, fetuses, etc. At any stage of their development, their species is Delphinidae Phocoenidae...never zygote, or embryo or fetus. They are properly called Delphinidae Phocoenidae at every stage of their development. There is simply no getting around that fact...it is written in stone. No rational person with even the smallest grasp of biology would dispute that fact.

House cats are taxonomically named Felis Catus...at specific stages in their development, they are called zygotes, embryos, fetuses, etc. At any stage of their development their species is Felis Catus...never zygote, or embryo, or fetus. They are properly called Felis Catus at every stage of their development. There is simply no getting around that fact....it is written in stone. No rational person with even the smallest grasp of biology would dispute that fact.

Human beings are taxonomically named Homo Sapiens...at specific stages in our development, we are called zygotes, embryos, fetuses, etc. At any stage of our development, our species is Homo Sapiens...never zygote, or embryo, or fetus, or infant, or child, or toddler, or adolescent, or teenager, or adult, or old geezer....we are Homo Sapiens from the time we come into existence, through all of the stages of our development, and even after we die. We are always Homo Sapiens for the entire span of our lives because we can be nothing else. There is simply no getting around that fact...it is written in stone. No rational person with even the smallest grasp of biology would dispute that fact.

Zygote is not a life form that is unworthyof a taxonomical name because it is not an organism....zygote is a developmental stage that all multicellular life forms who do have taxonomical names pas through...just as embryo is not a life form that is unworthy of a taxonomical name because embryo is not an organism...embryo is just a name that we use to describe a developmental stage of an organism...ZYGOTE is not a thing....Zygote nothing more than a name given to an organism at specific stage in i t's development...

REPEAT...ZYGOTE IS THE NAME GIVEN TO THE STAGE OF DEVELOPMENT...NOT THE ORGANISM ITSELF, as is blastocyst, embryo, fetus, etc. The organism is whatever its taxonomical name says it is through all stages of its development for the entire span of its life and even after it dies.

You once passed through a stage of development called infant...you were called infant, but during that stage of your development you were not infant, you were Homo Sapiens passing through the infant stage of your development. Infant is not a name of an organism....infant is a developmental stage of an organism called Homo Sapiens. Zygote is the name given to a developmental stage of all multicellular organisms including Homo Sapiens.

And I could go on through every species of multicellular animal known to man repeating the hard, undisputable facts over and over and over again and it is my bet that you still would not be able to grasp the fact....more likely you would not be willing to grasp the fact because you don't want to grasp the fact. You know that as soon as you actually understand the facts and accept them for what they are, then you are in the position of being in favor of killing human beings for reasons that rarely rise above convenience and you can't bear that.

Hell, look at the nature of your argument...you only concentrate on zygotes and refuse to discuss abortion beyond that stage of development because you know full well that once past that stage even you can't twist and distort the facts enough to make something other than living organisms out of them. You completely ignore the fact that human beings are never aborted at the zygote stage...Your entire pro abortion argument is centered on a thing that never gets aborted in the first place. you don't find that fact psychologically telling? I damned sure do and I have had far more than just the basic psychology courses that damned near every college student takes in the first or second year. I am a dentist and live and breathe psychology every day of my life. You are afraid and you are broadcasting that fear on every channel..and if there is one profession that will teach you to know fear when it is presented in all its disguises, it is dentistry.

You are afraid fedor50...and pathologically so. Accept it or not...probably not. Your unwillingness to understand the biological facts of pre natal development may be a psychological condition resulting from some internal need to protect yourself from yourself. You hold a position that if you were able to look at it rationally would simply be unacceptable for whatever reason so you may be actually unable to learn and understand the biological facts of pre natal development.

My best guess would be that somewhere along the line you had some involvement in an abortion decision and could not comfortably live with the knowledge that you actually had a hand in the death of a real human being...perhaps some afterlife/judgment sort of thing weighs on you heavily. Well face it, if you ever had any hand in an abortion decision, it was not a zygote that was being aborted...it was by any twisted definition you care to give, it a multicellular, growing organism that was statistically already developed far enough along to feel the pain of being dismembered and killed.

 

[fedor50]

Typical...the explanation has gone beyond your ability to understand so you claim that it is I who has given up. I gave you an answer, that you didn't like it, or couldn't understand it is not my problem...the problem lies entirely with you and your twisted misunderstandings of basic biological functions.

It is not twisted misunderstandings, it is simply me trying to find some consistency. Different scientists use different definitions of the word organism. Some of them include an organism being capable of performing homeostasis which a zygote most certainly isn't capable of doing. Why should we stick only to using the definition of organism that YOU provided?

What in the hell are you talking about. Science provides a perfectly clear, understandable definition of organism, that doesn't include sperm cells, skin cells, transplanted organs etc. already...why do I need to make one up?

An individual form ofl ife that is capable of growing, metabolizing nutrients, and usually reproducing. Organisms can be unicellular or multi cellular. They are scientifically divided into five different groups (called kingdoms) that include prokaryotes, protists, fungi, plants, and animals, and that are further subdivided based on common ancestry and homology of anatomic and molecular structures.

That seems like a straight forward, accurate description of an organism to me....the fact that you can't square it with things that are organisms and are not organisms due to your very limited biological knowledge, again, isn't my problem....it is your own failing. Accept it and try to do something about it...I would suggest trying to get a firm grasp on the basics of biological reproduction rather than trying to make everything you read fit into your existing misunderstandings.

Correction: You have only provided ONE of the MANY definitions of the word organism, which kinda proves my point. You are correct, according to this definition of organism, a human zygote is certainly and undoubtedly an organism. But according to several OTHER definitions of the word organism, a human zygote is NOT an organism.

For example, many definitions of the word organism describe an organism being capable of homeostasis, which is human zygote certainly cannot do. It relies on the woman to help perform homeostasis.

So according to the definition provided above, a zygote is certainly an organism BUT... according to several OTHER definitions of the word organism, a zygote most certainly isn't one.

My question to you would be why should we rely on the definition of organism that you provided when science has MULTIPLE different definitions of the word?

This is WHY I say that whether or not a human zygote is an organism is SUBJECTIVE because depending on WHICH definition of the word organism that you use, a zygote CAN be an organism but it also may NOT be one depending on which definition of the word organism that we use.

Unless of course, you can tell me WHY all of science should only use THAT definition of the word organism that you provided and discard all of the others?

No....all you want is to be able to make your misunderstanding and obsessions fit into the actual biological definitions that science has already provided.

The only dodge happening in this conversation is the one that has been happening since the beginning...you are dodging biological reality....you are trying to make actual biology fit into your twisted version of it.

Lets try this fedor50.. and since it is a discussion of science, stick to the scientific names. Can you name an organism that is called blastocyst? Can you name an organism that is called embryo? Can you name an organism that is called fetus? Can you name an organism that is called infant? Can you name an organism that is called child? Can you name an organism that is called adolescent? Can you name an organism that is called adult?

Of course you can't because there are no organisms that are named any of those things. An organism must have a taxonomic name and words like blastocyst, embryo, fetus, etc., are not taxonomic names. Neither is the word zygote. Multicellular organisms pass through those developmental stages but no organism is taxonomically named after that stage.

Porpoises are taxonomically named Delphinidae Phocoenidae...at specific stages in their development, they are called zygotes, embryos, fetuses, etc. At any stage of their development, their species is Delphinidae Phocoenidae...never zygote, or embryo or fetus. They are properly called Delphinidae Phocoenidae at every stage of their development. There is simply no getting around that fact...it is written in stone. No rational person with even the smallest grasp of biology would dispute that fact.

House cats are taxonomically named Felis Catus...at specific stages in their development, they are called zygotes, embryos, fetuses, etc. At any stage of their development their species is Felis Catus...never zygote, or embryo, or fetus. They are properly called Felis Catus at every stage of their development. There is simply no getting around that fact....it is written in stone. No rational person with even the smallest grasp of biology would dispute that fact.

Human beings are taxonomically named Homo Sapiens...at specific stages in our development, we are called zygotes, embryos, fetuses, etc. At any stage of our development, our species is Homo Sapiens...never zygote, or embryo, or fetus, or infant, or child, or toddler, or adolescent, or teenager, or adult, or old geezer....we are Homo Sapiens from the time we come into existence, through all of the stages of our development, and even after we die. We are always Homo Sapiens for the entire span of our lives because we can be nothing else. There is simply no getting around that fact...it is written in stone. No rational person with even the smallest grasp of biology would dispute that fact.

And I could go on through every species of multicellular animal known to man repeating the hard, undisputable facts over and over and over again and it is my bet that you still would not be able to grasp the fact....more likely you would not be willing to grasp the fact because you don't want to grasp the fact. You know that as soon as you actually understand the facts and accept them for what they are, then you are in the position of being in favor of killing human beings for reasons that rarely rise above convenience and you can't bear that.

I focus on the human zygote because my argument does not directly deal with abortion but rather your claims that it is an OBJECTIVE FACT that a human zygote is an organism.

I would argue that you are mistaking what a zygote will one day become (an organism) for what a zygote actually is (a non-organism)

I have listed SEVERAL medical textbooks which all agree with me and explicitly state that an organism develops from a zygote. This statement can only be factually correct unless it means that a zygote is not yet an organism but rather will eventually develop into one.

Your only rebuttal has been to essentially call of those medical textbooks bias and twisting the facts. So you are happy to cite medical textbooks whenever they agree with you but you are quick to call them bias and twisting the facts whenever they disagree with you. That doesn't seem like something a rational person squarely looking at the facts would do.

I have made my arguments, I have supported it with scientific FACTS, and I feel that I have adequately proved that a human zygote is NOT objectively an organism.

 

[palerider]

It is not twisted misunderstandings, it is simply me trying to find some consistency. Different scientists use different definitions of the word organism. Some of them include an organism being capable of performing homeostasis which a zygote most certainly isn't capable of doing. Why should we stick only to using the definition of organism that YOU provided?

Of course they are...hell you can't grasp the most basic facts....You can't wrap your mind around the fact that zygote is the name we give to a particular stage of development...not that it is the actual name of a thing that doesn't warrant a taxonomical classification.

Correction: You have only provided ONE of the MANY definitions of the word organism, which kinda proves my point. You are correct, according to this definition of organism, a human zygote is certainly and undoubtedly an organism. But according to several OTHER definitions of the word organism, a human zygote is NOT an organism.

I am correct according to any rational definition of an organism. And again, you are hopelessly confused with regard to zygotes...zygote is a name we give to a stage of multicellular organism development. Zygote isn't a species...it is a stage of development that all multicellular organisms go through.

For example, many definitions of the word organism describe an organism being capable of homeostasis, which is human zygote certainly cannot do. It relies on the woman to help perform homeostasis.

Is a human being capable of homeostasis? Of course we are. Zygote, again is not the name of a thing that doesn't deserve taxonomical classification...it is a stage of development in multicellular species that certainly do warrant taxonomical classification. Human beings are capable of homeostasis...zygotes are the earliest stages of human beings. Your definition doesn't say that an organism must be capable of homeostasis in every stage of its development...just that it must be capable....human begins are capable...zygotes are just a temporary stage of development for human beings and all other multicellular organisms.

My question to you would be why should we rely on the definition of organism that you provided when science has MULTIPLE different definitions of the word?

Human beings, at any stage of development are organisms by any scientific definition. Zygote is a stage of development...not an end destination....all definitions say capable and human beings are capable. You seem to think that once we divide we become human beings....we were human beings before...a simple cell division does not make us something else...it just makes us more mature than we were before. You are wrong and there is no getting around it.

Zygote is a stage of development in an organism....not the organism itself....just like child is a stage of development in human beings...not human beings themselves. We call a human being at a certain level of development a child but child is not what the organism is...human is what the organism is. We call all multicellular organisms zygotes at their earliest stages...they are still whatever species they belong to...zygote is just the earliest stage of development.

This is WHY I say that whether or not a human zygote is an organism is SUBJECTIVE because depending on WHICH definition of the word organism that you use, a zygote CAN be an organism but it also may NOT be one depending on which definition of the word organism that we use.

You say it because you have a twisted, misunderstanding of basic biology driven by some psychological factor that demands that you justify the killing of unborns by calling them something other than human beings.

I focus on the human zygote because my argument does not directly deal with abortion but rather your claims that it is an OBJECTIVE FACT that a human zygote is an organism.

You focus on zygotes out of fear...nothing more.

I would argue that you are mistaking what a zygote will one day become (an organism) for what a zygote actually is (a non-organism)

A zygote of species homo sapiens is a homo sapiens at its earliest stage of development....it can be nothing else.

I have listed SEVERAL medical textbooks which all agree with me and explicitly state that an organism develops from a zygote. This statement can only be factually correct unless it means that a zygote is not yet an organism but rather will eventually develop into one.

Did you develop from a child...or were you a child. Answer the question. The same for any stage of development that you pass through for your entire life span.

Your only rebuttal has been to essentially call of those medical textbooks bias and twisting the facts. So you are happy to cite medical textbooks whenever they agree with you but you are quick to call them bias and twisting the facts whenever they disagree with you. That doesn't seem like something a rational person squarely looking at the facts would do.

Those medical texts were talking about ethical and social conundrums...not hard biological fact. Weasel words don't change anything. The hard biological fact is that you are a human being from the time you come into existence because it is not possible for you to be anything else.

I have made my arguments, I have supported it with scientific FACTS, and I feel that I have adequately proved that a human zygote is NOT objectively an organism.

No you haven't... You have presented some scientific facts that don't make your argument and then run them through that blender you call a brain and what comes out the other side bears little resemblance to the original scientific fact. You are desperate to not be responsible for killing human beings for little more reason than convenience and I am not going to absolve you nor give you any reason to think that human beings aren't being killed.

 

[palerider]

Tell you what fedor50...you bring your definitions forward one at a time and I will show you that you have not provided any proof to support your claim and prove that you have distorted what they said beyond recognition in your desperation to make human beings into something other than human beings.

 

[fedor50]

Tell you what fedor50...you bring your definitions forward one at a time and I will show you that you have not provided any proof to support your claim and prove that you have distorted what they said beyond recognition in your desperation to make human beings into something other than human beings.

Well, here is Wikipedia's definition of the word organism Pale Rider:

"An organism is an individual living thing that is capable of response to stimuli, reproduction, growth and development and maintenance of homeostasis as a stable whole. - Wikipedia

This definition is obviously flawed since a zygote is NOT able to maintain homeostasis as a stable whole. Contrary to what you believe Pale Rider, capable means having the CURRENT ABILITY to maintain homeostasis as a stable whole. Capable does NOT mean having the potential to do something in the future but rather can that thing (a zygote) perform homeostasis NOW.

After implantation, a ZEF is not capable of maintaining homeostasis ‘as a stable whole’ until viability – up until this point, the woman’s body and the placenta must act to maintain homeostasis:

”The placenta is an essential organ for maintaining fetal homeostasis”
~Essential neonatal medicine (Sunil Sinha, Lawrence Miall, Luke Jardine), p2.

The definition also says that an organism must be capable of growth. Biologically,‘growth’ means ‘ a normal process of increase in size of an organism as a result of accretion of tissue similar to that originally present. ’ A zygote is not capable of growth until implantation, since it does not absorb anything until this time and so cannot get any larger:

”It will be recalled that cleavage does not result in overall embryonic growth; there is a progressive reduction in cell size, so that a morula of some 500 cells is no larger than the zygote”
~Preimplantation Mammalian Embryos in Vitro: Recent Studies, Volume 1 (Shuetu Suzuki), p202

 

[fedor50]

BTW Pale Rider, what is your opinion on the recent gay marriage law getting passed by the supreme court?

 

[palerider]

Well, here is Wikipedia's definition of the word organism Pale Rider:

"An organism is an individual living thing that is capable of response to stimuli, reproduction, growth and development and maintenance of homeostasis as a stable whole. - Wikipedia

This definition is obviously flawed since a zygote is NOT able to maintain homeostasis as a stable whole. Contrary to what you believe Pale Rider, capable means having the CURRENT ABILITY to maintain homeostasis as a stable whole. Capable does NOT mean having the potential to do something in the future but rather can that thing (a zygote) perform homeostasis NOW.

And there it is....that blender of a brain of yours takes in information, twists it all out of context and regurgitates what you wish it said, and not what it actually says.

CAPABLE of response to stimuli....CAPABLE of reproduction....CAPABLE of growth and development and CAPABLE of maintenance of homeostasis as a stable whole.

DEFINE CAPABLE - having the ability or capacity - predisposed to; inclined to

Do I need to go on? Do you know what capacity means? How about predisposed, or inclined. Zygote is not a permeant state of the organism called a human being. Human beings are organisms from the time they come into existence....you have grabbed on to a term for a very early stage in the life of a human being and twisted what it is into some sort of thing that is unrelated to being a human being....

You din't answer my earlier question. If you expect answers from me, then I have every right to expect answers from you whether you like answering them or not.

Did you come from a child....or were you a child?

After implantation, a ZEF is not capable of maintaining homeostasis ‘as a stable whole’ until viability – up until this point, the woman’s body and the placenta must act to maintain homeostasis:

And again, your blender of a brain has mangled what the definition actually said and spit out what you wish it said. You have left out a key word in the definition...CAPABLE. Is a human being capable of maintaining homeostasis? Is the human being in the zygote stage predisposed, or inclined to develop to a point where it can maintain homeostasis? Is a human being in the earliest stages CAPABLE of developing to a stage where he or she can maintain homeostasis?

You can't drop the word capable and demand right now...you can't separate the zygote stage from the rest of our development. We are human beings developing through stages called zygote, blastocyst, embryo, fetus, child, and on and on. Zygote isn't a thing unrelated to human beings that never develops beyond that stage...zygote is a developmental stage of human being and every other multicellular life form.

”The placenta is an essential organ for maintaining fetal homeostasis”

~Essential neonatal medicine (Sunil Sinha, Lawrence Miall, Luke Jardine), p2.

So the unborn in the placenta maintains homeostasis...the placenta allows it to do so. It states clearly as possible that it does maintain homeostasis it uses the placenta to do so...what do you use to maintain homeostasis?

The definition also says that an organism must be capable of growth. Biologically,‘growth’ means ‘ a normal process of increase in size of an organism as a result of accretion of tissue similar to that originally present. ’ A zygote is not capable of growth until implantation, since it does not absorb anything until this time and so cannot get any larger:

A human being is capable of growth...as evidenced by the progressing stages of our development. A child is capable of being an adult...but it isn't an adult at this moment...it must grow to become an adult...zygote is not a permanent state....even if it were, your case would still fail because growth is clearly not a requirement to be an organism unless you are prepared to state, and prove that no single celled life form is an organism. Are you saying that none of the single celled life forms on earth are organisms?

It will be recalled that cleavage does not result in overall embryonic growth; there is a progressive reduction in cell size, so that a morula of some 500 cells is no larger than the zygote”

~Preimplantation Mammalian Embryos in Vitro: Recent Studies, Volume 1 (Shuetu Suzuki), p202

Again...capable of growth... Is a human being capable of growth? Is a human being at the zygote stage of development capable of growing and developing given time and nutrients? You, in your desire to prove a point that really has nothing to do with anything have improperly separated zygote from human...you have some how twisted the facts in your mind till you are unable to see that you...yourself...personaly were once a zygote. You didn't come from a zygote as if a zygote were something separate from you and you emerged from it somehow, leaving the zygote behind to remain something other than an organism....you WERE a zygote...and you grew....and you developed...and you progressed through stage after stage of growth and development to grow into what you are today.

You can't leave a key word out of a definition and demand something that the definition does not. The definition says capable...human beings are capable of growth, development, homeostasis....you are living proof. You were a zygote...you were that tiny organism and you grew and developed and here you are.

The word is CAPABLE...it means that it can...not that it can right now...not that it is right now....it means that it can given time, nutrition, and a satisfactory environment.

You live by the definition...you die by the definition. Read them for what they say...not for what you wish they said...or what you want them to say...Each and every word in a definition is there for a reason...you can't leave out words...or ignore words and still have the same definition. It says what it says for a reason....CAPABLE OF does not mean doing a thing right now..CAPABLE MEANS CAPABLE and the definition includes that word for a reason.

That definition fails to demonstrate that a human being at the zygote stage is not an organism...Try again if you like.

NOTE: I wil be out of town this weekend...going down to the coast of NC to see if I can get shark bit....seems that everyone else can lately. I may not have an opportunity to answer your next attempt till monday. Happy holiday.