• 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
The Mark said:
Those are opinions as too what defines the word "organism".

As opinions, they neither prove nor disprove whether a zygote is or is not an organism.
Click to expand...

A dictionary isn't proof of biology, but it does prove that this poll is meaningless and that my choice doesn't conflict with my previous statement. It also proves you were wrong when you said both cannot be true.
 
Tsunami said:
Yes, a single celled zygote is in fact an organism when you define it as "1. living thing: a living thing, e.g. a plant, animal, virus, or bacterium"
Click to expand...

Tsunami said:
No, a single celled zygote is not in fact an organism when you define it as anything including the words "individual", "whole", "complete", etc.
Click to expand...

A creature in the zygote stage of its life most certainly is an individual organism; genetically unique; living a seperate life from all others, complete given the stage of life it is in and indeed 'viable' in the respect that it is capable of maintaining it life.

Your incessant whining to the contrary not withstanding.
 
Tsunami said:
A dictionary isn't proof of biology, but it does prove that this poll is meaningless and that my choice doesn't conflict with my previous statement. It also proves you were wrong when you said both cannot be true.
Click to expand...

How does it disprove my statement?

It seems obvious to me that a zygote cannot be both an organism and not an organism.

Some persons, depending on differing opinions of what defines the word "organism", may then disagree on whether or not a zygote is an organism.

That doesn’t make a zygote both an organism and not an organism.

It just means there are differing opinions on the question.
 
Chuz Life said:
A creature in the zygote stage of its life most certainly is an individual organism; genetically unique; living a seperate life from all others, complete given the stage of life it is in and indeed 'viable' in the respect that it is capable of maintaining it life.

Your incessant whining to the contrary not withstanding.
Click to expand...
We've been over this multiple times. It is not an individual because it is not capable of independent existence; it is not genetically unique because of twinning; it is not separate because it is a parasite; it is incomplete because it hasn't fully developed; it is not viable in the sense of surviving outside of the womb; and it is not capable of maintaining its life apart from the mother.

The Mark said:
How does it disprove my statement?

It seems obvious to me that a zygote cannot be both an organism and not an organism.
Click to expand...

There are multiple definitions of the word, so there are multiple right answers to the poll. If you stipulate a single definition then they cannot both be true, but then the poll would be unnecessary.
 
it is an organism, it lives, it absorbs nutrients from the mother, and eventually undergoes cell division
 
Tsunami said:
There are multiple definitions of the word, so there are multiple right answers to the poll. If you stipulate a single definition then they cannot both be true, but then the poll would be unnecessary.
Click to expand...

The poll did not ask for definitions of the word organism, it asked "Is a single celled human zygote an 'organism'?"

Obviously, that is a matter of which definition of the word organism you agree with.

And thus both poll selections could be selected by someone with the belief that they were correct in their vote.

But all of that has no bearing whatsoever as too whether a zygote is an organism or not an organism.
 
The Mark said:
The poll did not ask for definitions of the word organism, it asked "Is a single celled human zygote an 'organism'?"

Obviously, that is a matter of which definition of the word organism you agree with.

And thus both poll selections could be selected by someone with the belief that they were correct in their vote.

But all of that has no bearing whatsoever as too whether a zygote is an organism or not an organism.
Click to expand...

The definition of organism is all that matters. You say it like there is some universal truth in the matter. This isn't something provable or even philosophical, this is semantics. Just like with all of Chuz Life's polls, the distinction between answers is insignificant.
 
Last edited:
Tsunami said:
The definition of organism is all that matters. You say it like there is some universal truth in the matter. This isn't something provable or even philosophical, this is semantics.
Click to expand...

True.

I suppose I was disagreeing with your statement "there are multiple right answers to the poll".

I think it would be better to say "there are multiple answers to the poll".

Since all answers would be opinions, none of them could be provable as “true”, or for that matter, “false”.

Thus there are no right or wrong answers to the poll, only answers.
 
Tsunami said:
The definition of organism is all that matters. You say it like there is some universal truth in the matter. This isn't something provable or even philosophical, this is semantics. Just like with all of Chuz Life's polls, the distinction between answers is insignificant.
Click to expand...

The Mark said:
True.

I suppose I was disagreeing with your statement "there are multiple right answers to the poll".

I think it would be better to say "there are multiple answers to the poll".

Since all answers would be opinions, none of them could be provable as “true”, or for that matter, “false”.

Thus there are no right or wrong answers to the poll, only answers.
Click to expand...

I can hardly wait to hear back from some of the universities on this one.
 
Chuz Life said:
Just so, I hope you (and everyone else) understands that a zygote is not a parasite.
Click to expand...

biologically it can be considered a parasite. Since the conventional thinking is that a zygote is a good thing, because it means a child, that fact is overlooked and ignored.

The point I'm trying to make, is its as much a parasite as an organism.
 
repeter said:
biologically it can be considered a parasite. Since the conventional thinking is that a zygote is a good thing, because it means a child, that fact is overlooked and ignored.

The point I'm trying to make, is its as much a parasite as an organism.
Click to expand...

The difference in reality is the fact that all parasites are 'organisms' to the same degree (either you are one or not) and all 'organisms' have aspects which could be (in some opinions) considered to be 'parasitic.'

The question in my poll has nothing to do with the parasitic nature of a 'zygote.'

The question is about whether or not a zygote is an 'organism.'

Either it is, or it is not.
 
Last edited:
Chuz Life said:
The difference in reality is the fact that all parasites are 'organisms' to the same degree (either you are one or not) and all 'organisms' have aspects which could be (in some opinions) considered to be 'parasitic.'

The question in my poll has nothing to do with the parasitic nature of a 'zygote.'

The question is about whether or not a zygote is an 'organism.'

Either it is, or it is not.
Click to expand...

Yes, and alongside that ideology is the rest of the big screw-ups you can make. Life is not black and white, there are many different shades.

Biology has lots of intricacies along with it as well. As I'm taking AP Biology right now, I can tell you, its not easy understanding all the fine details.

I think it'd be best to wait and see what the universities have to say. They're as close as you can get to being official.
 
repeter said:
Yes, and alongside that ideology is the rest of the big screw-ups you can make. Life is not black and white, there are many different shades.

Biology has lots of intricacies along with it as well. As I'm taking AP Biology right now, I can tell you, its not easy understanding all the fine details.

I think it'd be best to wait and see what the universities have to say. They're as close as you can get to being official.
Click to expand...

Did you miss that some of the links I posted in my first few threads are from universities?
 
Chuz Life said:
Did you miss that some of the links I posted in my first few threads are from universities?
Click to expand...

No, I saw those, but I'd also like to hear from them in the letters you sent before I make my mind up.
 
repeter said:
No, I saw those, but I'd also like to hear from them in the letters you sent before I make my mind up.
Click to expand...

You should also know I encourage everyone to do some research of their own. The facts aren't going to change.

Also,... what the hell?

You already voted in the affirmative.
 
Last edited:
repeter said:
biologically it can be considered a parasite. Since the conventional thinking is that a zygote is a good thing, because it means a child, that fact is overlooked and ignored.

The point I'm trying to make, is its as much a parasite as an organism.
Click to expand...

its not a parasite, parasites are of a different species to the host organism.

from wikipedia:
Parasitism is a type of symbiotic relationship between organisms of different species where one organism, the parasite, benefits at the expense of the host.
Click to expand...
 
phattonez said:
But what is the defining moment? By quoting the Constitution, you claim that it is basically which side of the vagina that you're on. But this argument is absurd because a baby that maybe was born 5 days ago was still viable. Even if born a few months early that are still viable with an incubator (are people on respirators necessarily dead?). So, we can see that the claim that just "being born" is absurd. This is not when we get our rights. So it must occur at some point in the womb. The onus is on you to prove when that is because it cannot be at birth.
Click to expand...

When you consider the fact that the moment of biological conception is in fact a 'birth,.......'

It can.

In this thread, you have already acknowledged that a zygote is an organism.

Correct?

Well, you tell me,... "when did that organism come into being?"

Conception;
5. origination; beginning:

Born
b. Brought into existence; created:
 
Last edited:
repeter said:
Yes, and alongside that ideology is the rest of the big screw-ups you can make. Life is not black and white, there are many different shades.

Biology has lots of intricacies along with it as well. As I'm taking AP Biology right now, I can tell you, its not easy understanding all the fine details.

I think it'd be best to wait and see what the universities have to say. They're as close as you can get to being official.
Click to expand...

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.
 
Chuz Life said:
When you consider the fact that the moment of biological conception is in fact a 'birth,.......'

It can.

In this thread, you have already acknowledged that a zygote is an organism.

Correct?

Well, you tell me,... "when did that organism come into being?"

Conception;
5. origination; beginning:

Born
b. Brought into existence; created:
Click to expand...

The organism came into being at conception. I think you simply misread my post. I agree with you on abortion.
 
Since this was aimed at me by name, I may as well make a reply. Please note, though, that a fair proportion of this will be copy-pasted from elsewhere; other threads where I have given Chuz the same information and have been ignored for it. I can't see this thread changing all that much, but...

*******************************

First, I would say that the question "Is a zygote an organism" is not even a scientific one. The question deals almost exclusively with semantics - it shows how people use the word, not whether the word is applied appropriately or not. However, as arguments from authority go there is legitimacy to be had from a scientific consensus, so we shall push ahead with the term itself.

Based purely on dictionary use - arguably the most legitimate of authoritative sources, a zygote is not an organism. This can be shown from the following chain (bold always added by me):
Organism
An individual form of life, such as a plant, animal, bacterium, protist, or fungus; a body made up of organs, organelles, or other parts that work together to carry on the various processes of life.
Individual.
5. Biology.
a. a single organism capable of independent existence.
Viability
2 Physiology.
a. physically fitted to live.
b. (of a fetus) having reached such a stage of development as to be capable of living, under normal conditions, outside the uterus.
Click to expand...
In short, pre-viability a foetus cannot live outside the womb, which is a requirement for it being biologically 'individual', which is needed for it to be an organism. Further evidence to back up this line of reasoning comes from the placenta later on in pregnancy...
Placenta
The vascular organ in mammals except monotremes and marsupials that unites the fetus to the maternal uterus.
Unite
1. to join, combine, or incorporate so as to form a single whole or unit.
Click to expand...
...and the frequent phenomena of microchimerism, which shows that DNA is largely irrelevant to this issue (even ignoring twinning issues, which I might come back to later) and that the mother/foetus often exchange cells:
Microchimerism
the most common form is ... whereby immune cells ... from a fetus pass through the placenta and establish cell lineages within the mother. Fetal cells have been documented to persist and multiply in the mother for several decades [1] After giving birth, about 50-75 % of women carry fetal immune cell lines. Maternal immune cells are also found in the offspring ... though this phenomenon is about half as frequent as the former .[2]
Click to expand...
Judging by these references, a zygote is at best equivalent to an organ, at worst equivalent to a blood cell. The fact that it has different DNA is irrelevant - a transplanted heart would have this just as much, and many of the blood cells in your body have no DNA in them (hence my use of them as an example). The only thing which makes a zygote significantly different is the fact that it will one day develop into an organism if the right conditions are met - but then, so will a sperm cell (again, if the right conditions are met) and this also does not make the zygote an 'individual', just different from the other parts of the mother. In fact, that a zygote is defined this way...
Zygote
1. The cell formed by the union of two gametes, especially a fertilized ovum before cleavage.
2. The organism that develops from a zygote.
... broadly : the developing individual produced from such a cell
Click to expand...
...implies that the single cell itself is not an organism, nor an individual.

Even more backup for this line of reasoning (zygote =/= individual) comes from a consideration of reproduction:
Reproduction
Biology. the natural process among organisms by which new individuals are generated and the species perpetuated.
Reproductive cycle
The cycle of physiological changes that begins with conception and extends through gestation and parturition.
Click to expand...
If reproduction generates new individuals, and only ends at parturition (birth) then a zygote is definitely ruled out.

Moving on from this line... many of Chuz's sources disagree with the dictionary use shown above. However, the vast majority of them only show scientific opinions, not the consensus which is needed to get a definition into a widely used dictionary as I have been using. The problem with relying on individual people/sites is that to argue based on such sources naturally biases the argument towards false positives - it's far more likely that someone will consider a zygote to be an organism and use that on their website than for someone to consider a zygote not to be an organism and post it - after all, a zygote is not a great many things, why should 'not an organism' be specifically listed unless an agenda is present, making for an easy dismissal of the source? Most of the places to be found where a scientist states that a zygote is 'not an organism' are when they have been directly asked the question - as such, I present two such cases, just to show that not all scientists agree with Chuz's sources.

"a zygote is not an organism.
...
I don't know any biologist who would classify a single cell from a Homo sapiens as a Homo sapiens. Even a zygote, which may have the *potential* to become a Homo sapiens, but is not an organism by any stretch of the imagination, is not considered an individual Homo sapiens by any members of the scientific community that I know.": Dr Krempels PhD, allexperts.com (x2)

"a zygote is not an organism": Dr Wolpe PhD, email exchange. [NB: This exchange was with Chuz Life himself, who emailed Dr Wolpe in a manner similar to his university emails in this thread following a debate with me on another forum. Dr Wolpe's disagreement with Chuz appeared to have little effect on Chuz's stance, though he did post the reply]
Click to expand...
...and just to be complete, an expert agreeing with my opening statement.
"[Whether a zygote is an organism or not] isn't a topic of concern in the scientific community. In fact, it isn't even really science! Science is testable and falsifiable; my view is neither. This does not make it a religious view, however; consider the fact that neither is your position in this argument! It is philosophy and semantics; taxonomy with some deep thoughts, if you will!": Dr Kalstrom, allexperts.com.
Click to expand...

...I think that's probably enough for now.
 
Last edited:
iangb said:
Since this was aimed at me by name, I may as well make a reply. Please note, though, that a fair proportion of this will be copy-pasted from elsewhere; other threads where I have given Chuz the same information and have been ignored for it. I can't see this thread changing all that much, but...

*******************************

First, I would say that the question "Is a zygote an organism" is not even a scientific one.
Click to expand...

Fail.

As the polls show, Ian...

Most people know better.

You claim that the dictionary is the greatest authority, yet you dismiss the definitions that you disagree with and you then go on to distort and twist others to suit your agenda.

"Independent existence" means "exists apart from" as in the life a zygote is living is a seperate life from that of the mother's. "Independent existence" does not mean "does not depend upon another for anything." As by using your twisted logic, none of us are completely capable of "independent existence."

I would like to thank Rivrrat and Phat for their intellectual honesty. As for our exchange (Ian) ,... I think you have helped me to my point that a "human individual's life biologically begins at conception" better than I could have without you.

That you chose to stay in denial along with a few other holdouts doesn't suprise me in the least.

I'll still be posting any responses I get from the Universities. I'm anxious to see what they have to say anyway.

Beyond that, You've helped refine my points for my other venues and I appreciate it.
 
Last edited:
Fail.

As the polls show, Ian...

Most people know better.
Click to expand...
If you can show that your 40-person voluntary-response poll of a political debate forum is representative of the scientific community and free from bias, you might have a point. However, I doubt that's going to happen.

Your claims of failure do not make it so; especially given the minimal amount of detail you have responded with.

You claim that the dictionary is the greatest authority, yet you dismiss the definitions that you disagree with and you then go on to distort and twist others to suit your agenda.
Click to expand...
Could you name me any dictionary definitions I have dismissed? As to 'twisting' - that is a matter of opinion; and is certainly something that you could equally be accused of. If you have any examples of 'twistings' (other than the one soon to be discussed below), feel free to list them and we can argue over my justifications.

"Independent existence" means "exists apart from" as in the life a zygote is living is a seperate life from that of the mother's. "Independent existence" does not mean "does not depend upon another for anything." As by using your twisted logic, none of us are completely capable of "independent existence."
Click to expand...
I never said 'independent existence' means 'does not depend upon another for anything' - that's your straw man. Furthermore, your own definition is tautological; you are claiming that the zygote is seperate from the mother because it is an organism, a definition it fits because it lives a life seperate from the mothers. A ZEF cannot do as you claim, it cannot live ('exist') apart from the mother.

As for my definition; I was taking something 'capable of independent existence' to mean something that, if biologically seperated from all other organisms, would still live. A ZEF is biologically reliant on the mother for it's survival; her lungs breathe for it, her heart transfers oxygen and nutrients to it (or at least, to the placenta which unites the two), her immune cells often protect it. A newly born baby may rely on external support, but not in such a basic way - and not from one unchanging person; it's viability at which this changes.

I would like to thank Rivrrat and Phat for their intellectual honesty. As for our exchange,... I think I've made my point that a "human individual's life biologically begins at conception" better than I could have without you.

That you chose to stay in denial along with a few other holdouts doesn't suprise me in the least. I'll still be posting any responses I get from the Universities. I'm anxious to see what they have to say anyway.
Click to expand...
It's just a shame that you can't actually consider the points I've made, only say they are wrong without explaining why (apart from one).

Out of interest; which universities did you ask?
 
Last edited:
Chuz Life said:
Fail.

As the polls show, Ian...

Most people know better.

You claim that the dictionary is the greatest authority, yet you dismiss the definitions that you disagree with and you then go on to distort and twist others to suit your agenda.

"Independent existence" means "exists apart from" as in the life a zygote is living is a seperate life from that of the mother's. "Independent existence" does not mean "does not depend upon another for anything." As by using your twisted logic, none of us are completely capable of "independent existence."

I would like to thank Rivrrat and Phat for their intellectual honesty. As for our exchange (Ian) ,... I think you have helped me to my point that a "human individual's life biologically begins at conception" better than I could have without you.

That you chose to stay in denial along with a few other holdouts doesn't suprise me in the least.

I'll still be posting any responses I get from the Universities. I'm anxious to see what they have to say anyway.

Beyond that, You've helped refine my points for my other venues and I appreciate it.
Click to expand...

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.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom