• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Is a single celled human zygote an 'organism'?

Is a single celled human zygote an 'organism'?

  • Yes, a single celled zygote is in fact an organism

    Votes: 43 79.6%

  • No, a single celled zygote is not in fact an organism

    Votes: 11 20.4%
  • Total voters
    54
phattonez said:
You may be taking AP Biology, but you don't learn much about development from AP Bio. That said, calling it a parasite is irrelevant. What matters is that this is a human cell, and it is totipotent. It will develop to become a human. It is a human organism.
Click to expand...

The zygote being a parasite matters as much as calling it an organism; it doesn't in either case. If this was the basis for an arguement against abortion (which it seems to be geared towards) then it is slightly more relevant, but in that case, it's parasitical nature also comes back into play. And of course, the arguement evolves from there.
 
repeter said:
Actually, the last quote Ian brings up is quite interesting. There might in fact be something to be said about the science of this, because you don't seem to understand, science isn't black and white.
Click to expand...

Interesting to those who want to dodge the question, I suppose.

But believe it or not, the science is conclusive enough to base a decision on this one.

Ian's rogue Dr.'s defensiveness not withstanding.
 
MrFungus420 said:
No, it isn't.

It is a part of an organism (the mother) with the potential to become an organism.
Click to expand...

As is evidenced by the differing DNA and the need for both the mother's and the child's immune systems to ignore the presence of the other,....

right?

:::sigh:::
 
Chuz Life said:
As is evidenced by the differing DNA and the need for both the mother's and the child's immune systems to ignore the presence of the other,....

right?

:::sigh:::
Click to expand...

Which of those is not true after receiving an organ donation? Conception is the donation of sperm. Of course it will have a different DNA, part of it came from another person. And I already told you once, a zygote does not have an immune system. Sometimes I don't know why I bother trying to enlighten some of you.
 
In no particular chronological order...
Chuz said:
As is evidenced by the differing DNA and the need for both the mother's and the child's immune systems to ignore the presence of the other,....
Click to expand...
As is evidenced by chimera organisms, organ donors and microchimerism.

Right.

Chuz said:
But believe it or not, the science is conclusive enough to base a decision on this one.

Ian's rogue Dr.'s defensiveness not withstanding.
Click to expand...
You clearly believe it. You just can't show it. As for my 'rogue doctor' - that's an issue you would have to take up with allexperts.com. Do you plan on describing the 'rogue dictionary' soon, too?

Chuz (yes said:
As the polls show, Ian...

Most people know better.
Click to expand...
I actually read through the thread itself an noticed something, Chuz. The poll says what it says - but if you look at the responses of the people who have posted here, many of those who voted 'yes' have a definition for 'organism' that differs from both mine and your use of the term - more specifically, they have one that also calls a skin/blood/sperm cell an organism.

By their definition, a zygote is certainly an organism, as is a skin/sperm/blood cell. I'm with Tsunami on that one. It's only when you talk about 'capable of independent existence' (a concept which you seem to be refusing to talk about any more) that skin/sperm/blood cells no longer are classified as organisms. However with that addition, a zygote is also not an organism.

Either a zygote is not an organism, or the fact that it is an organism is irrelevant. You can't have it both ways.
Spud said:
it is not part of the mother, anymore than a person on life support is part of the machine
Click to expand...
Two Three possible responses.

Firstly, the mother is alive, so the ZEF can be part of her. Someone on life support is not a machine, so they cannot be part of it.

Secondly, the biological connection between a mother and the ZEF is faaaaaaaaaaar more complex than that between a patient and a life support machine, by an incredibly long way. See my definition of the placenta.

Thirdly, someone on life support is probably closest to being 'part of the machine' when they are permenantly brain dead, as at that point there is no 'person' left alive. At that point, very few people complain when the machine is switched off.
 
Last edited:
Chuz Life said:
Interesting to those who want to dodge the question, I suppose.

But believe it or not, the science is conclusive enough to base a decision on this one.

Ian's rogue Dr.'s defensiveness not withstanding.
Click to expand...

You might not like it because it would render your question irrelevant. For the sake of your arguement, you are willing to overlook it. I'm not, because it does in fact have validity.
 
Biologically speaking, a zygote is a human organism at the earliest stage of development. Period. There is no debate. That is simply a fact.
 
Biologically speaking, a zygote is a human organism at the earliest stage of development. Period. There is no debate. That is simply a fact.
Click to expand...
If it's a developing organism, then it will become an organism, which implies it's not an organism yet.

There certainly won't be any debate if you're not prepared to have one.
 
iangb said:
If it's a developing organism, then it will become an organism, which implies it's not an organism yet.

There certainly won't be any debate if you're not prepared to have one.
Click to expand...

An organism which is in the act of further 'developing' is already an 'organism.'

I think more and more people are starting to 'get it', Ian.

Even if you still refuse to.
 
Last edited:
An organism which is in the act of further 'developing' is already an 'organism.'

I think more and more people are starting to 'get it', Ian.

Even if you still refuse to.
Click to expand...
...adn we return to our impasse. Quite - if it as organism which is further developing, it is an organism, but if it is something which is developing into an organism, it is not.

As this thread most definitely shows, that depends on your definition.
 
iangb said:
If it's a developing organism, then it will become an organism, which implies it's not an organism yet.
Click to expand...

Is a caterpillar not an organism because it hasn't developed into a butterfly yet?
 
Is a caterpillar not an organism because it hasn't developed into a butterfly yet?
Click to expand...
I would agree that I wasn't precice enough in my above statement. It should have read "If it's developing into an organism, then this implies it's not an organism yet."
(Reasoning: To say that an organism is developing into an organism is technically correct and possible, but gramatically pointless.)

To use an old analogy; a pile of ingredients could be described as 'a cake in the earliest stages of development'.

in-post edit: Yes, I realise that Lakryte didn't specify what it was developing into; I was just showing that it's perfectly possible to make that statement and conclude that a zygote is not yet an organism
 
First of all, I apologize if what i'm saying has already been said, but I just want to jump in here and reading 12 pages of posts is incredibly exhausting.

In terms of what an organism is, I've consulted two sources:

Merriam-Webster
Main Entry: or·gan·ism

1 : a complex structure of interdependent and subordinate elements whose relations and properties are largely determined by their function in the whole
2 : an individual constituted to carry on the activities of life by means of organs separate in function but mutually dependent : a living being

And my biology class's text book, "biological science, 3rd Edition by Scott Freeman which states that an organism is, "a living entity that contains one or more cells"

and as this same book describes, all biologists agree life means that something is able to reproduce and metabolize.

Now, zygotes, as im sure everyone following this topic knows by now, is the combination of two haploid gametes to form one diploid cell. The question then becomes, is this diploid cell alive? Mechanics of reproduction and metabolism aside, we do know obviously that the zygotes replicate and divide, which requires energy. However, in our very same bodies, every single one of our somatic (diploid non sex cells) also divides and uses energy as the zygote does. As I'm sure everyone would agree, it's quite the stretch to say that every single one of the cells that make us up is its individual organism, therefore since zygotes are almost identical to the somatic cells, I would argue that a zygote is most certainly NOT an organism.
 
phildozer9121 said:
First of all, I apologize if what i'm saying has already been said, but I just want to jump in here and reading 12 pages of posts is incredibly exhausting.

In terms of what an organism is, I've consulted two sources:

Merriam-Webster
Main Entry: or·gan·ism

1 : a complex structure of interdependent and subordinate elements whose relations and properties are largely determined by their function in the whole
2 : an individual constituted to carry on the activities of life by means of organs separate in function but mutually dependent : a living being

And my biology class's text book, "biological science, 3rd Edition by Scott Freeman which states that an organism is, "a living entity that contains one or more cells"

and as this same book describes, all biologists agree life means that something is able to reproduce and metabolize.

Now, zygotes, as im sure everyone following this topic knows by now, is the combination of two haploid gametes to form one diploid cell. The question then becomes, is this diploid cell alive? Mechanics of reproduction and metabolism aside, we do know obviously that the zygotes replicate and divide, which requires energy. However, in our very same bodies, every single one of our somatic (diploid non sex cells) also divides and uses energy as the zygote does. As I'm sure everyone would agree, it's quite the stretch to say that every single one of the cells that make us up is its individual organism, therefore since zygotes are almost identical to the somatic cells, I would argue that a zygote is most certainly NOT an organism.
Click to expand...

So, at which point does it become an organism?

From the logic you are using, it seems it wouldn't be considered an organism until it is in fact not a zygote, but further along the developmental path.
 
The problem with describing something in terms of biology, is it's rarely clear cut. There is no point in time or devopment when you can point and say, there, right there is the exact moment in time when this ceases to become a cluster of cells that make up an organism, and is now a plant. If we are to use texts from biology, an organism is something living that can reproduce and create its own energy. When does, a human posses this ability? we lack the mechanisms to reproduce until puberty, but I dont think that anyone is going to say that a 5 year isn't an organism. In my reckoning, something does not become an organism until the system of cells can run by themselves.
 
phildozer9121 said:
The problem with describing something in terms of biology, is it's rarely clear cut. There is no point in time or devopment when you can point and say, there, right there is the exact moment in time when this ceases to become a cluster of cells that make up an organism, and is now a plant. If we are to use texts from biology, an organism is something living that can reproduce and create its own energy. When does, a human posses this ability? we lack the mechanisms to reproduce until puberty, but I dont think that anyone is going to say that a 5 year isn't an organism. In my reckoning, something does not become an organism until the system of cells can run by themselves.
Click to expand...

Does that mean birth? When the child is seperated from the mother, and functions on its own? I'd think that a fetus is a living thing though, and I'm sure that the sperm and egg cells are organisms as well, and the zygote is a living thing...
 
well thats the problem isn't it? a living "thing" means different things depent on who your asking. Obviously the average person is going to say that because a zygote will probably eventually become a baby, then the zygote too must be a living organism. Biology can't give you an answer though, just like it can say whether a virus is technically living or not. because life is so vague and can challenge our previous notions of what it is to be, there is no yes or no black or white answer. It's completely opinion. I dont see a cluster of cells spawned by a zygote to be any more an organism than the cluster of cells on the back of my hand
 
phildozer9121 said:
<smoke and mirrors snipped for brevity> therefore since zygotes are almost identical to the somatic cells, I would argue that a zygote is most certainly NOT an organism.
Click to expand...

Almost identical?

Why don't you list the differences for us?
 
phildozer9121 said:
well thats the problem isn't it? a living "thing" means different things depent on who your asking. Obviously the average person is going to say that because a zygote will probably eventually become a baby, then the zygote too must be a living organism. Biology can't give you an answer though, just like it can say whether a virus is technically living or not. because life is so vague and can challenge our previous notions of what it is to be, there is no yes or no black or white answer. It's completely opinion. I dont see a cluster of cells spawned by a zygote to be any more an organism than the cluster of cells on the back of my hand
Click to expand...

Is an amoeba and organism, Phil?

Also, (per your first remark) are zygotes alive,... and if not,.. please explain to the rest of us how something like a human child can come from something that isn't even alive.

You say you are studying Cellular Biology in Illinois?

You might want to review some of your high school classes on the subject before your embarass yourself any further.

Embryology
The study of the development of the ZYGOTE is called EMBRYOLOGY. The zygote gets its instructions for its growth from the DNA that it inherits from its parents. Zygotes are living organisms and, therefore, must obtain oxygen and food and eliminate wastes. The manner in which the zygote reads the instructions from the DNA is not understood, though EMBRYONIC INDUCTION, a phenomenon in which tissues influence the differentiation of adjoining cells, has been demonstrated in many species.​

Course author: Caroline D. Cantrell, B.S., The University of Chicago, M.S. Memphis State University, Tennessee Merit System, Career Ladder III
 
Last edited:
Good call chuz, I forgot that Caroline D. Cantrell, B.S., The University of Chicago, M.S. Memphis State University, Tennessee Merit System, Career Ladder III and her review website was the ultimate authority on biology now. would you call the handlebars of a bike a bike? no. if you bought all the parts for a bike and wanted to assemble them into a bike, you certainly wouldn't say that the pile of parts you're looking at is a bike, but then at what point in construction do you think, "there, now that's a bike". I'm sure you have an agenda that depends on calling a zygote a living organism, but biologists dont come straight out and call a zygote an organism because it's just not clear cut.

And yes, I am a biology student at Illinois, thank you for asking.

What do you do?
 
phildozer9121 said:
Good call chuz, I forgot that Caroline D. Cantrell, B.S., The University of Chicago, M.S. Memphis State University, Tennessee Merit System, Career Ladder III and her review website was the ultimate authority on biology now. would you call the handlebars of a bike a bike? no. if you bought all the parts for a bike and wanted to assemble them into a bike, you certainly wouldn't say that the pile of parts you're looking at is a bike, but then at what point in construction do you think, "there, now that's a bike". I'm sure you have an agenda that depends on calling a zygote a living organism, but biologists dont come straight out and call a zygote an organism because it's just not clear cut.

And yes, I am a biology student at Illinois, thank you for asking.

What do you do?
Click to expand...

You didn't answer my question,... how does a human child come from something that is not alive?

Secondly, do you not see how desperate and pathetic it looks that you have to discredit and ridicule sources rather than to refute them?

As far as what I do?

I'm just a punk ass college student looking for free _ _ _ _ from the gubmint and looking forward to my Obummer care medical benefits!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom