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.
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.
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.
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 an organism...and when it is a single cell, it is a single celled organism..then it proceeds to become a multicellular organism.
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/
From Practical Management of Labor, Nagrath, Singh, page 132 under the heading of uni0vuolar twin
From A Dictionary of Genetics, Robert C King, Pamela Mulligan, William Stansfield, page 367
Here from the Encyclopedia of Molecular Biology, edited by Johno Kindred, page 683: Do tell me your objection to this text....
The timing of monozygotic twinning: a criticism of the common model, Cambridge University Press, page 5
From The Biological Basis of Heredity glossary of terms
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
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
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.
