Is a single celled human zygote an 'organism'?

phildozer9121 · Jan 28, 2010

Let me ask you, are sperm cells and egg cells alive?

If they aren't, then according to you, a living zygote comes from two non living things.

If they are alive, where did they come from?

More cells? where did they come from? Are they alive?

If cells are the building blocks of all life, where did the first cell come from?

You're trying to get an answer from science that isn't defined that way. Youre asking what number is half of infinity. It's not something that can be answered because it's not defined like that

Chuz Life · Jan 28, 2010

phildozer9121 said:
Let me ask you, are sperm cells and egg cells alive?

If they aren't, then according to you, a living zygote comes from two non living things.

If they are alive, where did they come from?

More cells? where did they come from? Are they alive?

If cells are the building blocks of all life, where did the first cell come from?

You're trying to get an answer from science that isn't defined that way. Youre asking what number is half of infinity. It's not something that can be answered because it's not defined like that

Uhhh No.

It doesn't work like that,...

I am not about to help you dodge my questions by answering yours.

spud_meister · Jan 28, 2010

a single celled zygote is an organism, even if it is a single cell.

from wiki

The cell is the basic structural and functional unit of all known living organisms. It is the smallest unit of life that is classified as a living thing, and is often called the building block of life. Some organisms, such as most bacteria, are unicellular (consist of a single cell). Other organisms, such as humans, are multicellular.

iangb · Jan 28, 2010

spud said:
a single celled zygote is an organism, even if it is a single cell.

spuds wiki article said:
Other organisms, such as humans, are multicellular.

Contradiction?

chuz said:
I am not about to help you dodge my questions by answering yours.[/wuote]It looked like the answers to his questions exposed the answer to yours...

Chuz Life · Jan 28, 2010

iangb said:
Contradiction?

chuz said:

I am not about to help you dodge my questions by answering yours.

Click to expand...

It looked like the answers to his questions exposed the answer to yours...

Have you had your eyes checked?

sazerac · Jan 28, 2010

At no point do humans have only one cell.

phildozer9121 · Jan 28, 2010

Chuz Life said:
Uhhh No.

It doesn't work like that,...

I am not about to help you dodge my questions by answering yours.

I've been answering your questions, why don't you answer mine.

What questions do you still have that I haven't answered. Humans are multi cellular organisms. yes, there are unicellular organisms, but their reproduction and growth is only comparable to that of a zygote to a certain, very limited point.

Human children, living things, are created by two parts that are very much NOT alive (sperm and egg combine to grow into child). The first cell on earth must have been created by non living parts. I know it's difficult to wrap your head around something that is so microscopic and out of the ordinary realm of perception.

Anti-abortionists always want biologists to say that life begins at conception, but the fact is that not only is it difficult (if not impossible) to tell when a group of cells can be called an organism from a biological standpoint, but its just plain irrelevant.

Chuz Life · Jan 28, 2010

phildozer9121 said:
Human children, living things, are created by two parts that are very much NOT alive (sperm and egg combine to grow into child). .

You and Ian being college students and all,... You guys surely have a cite or some other reference to support this claim.

Would you mind posting it?

I'm anxious to see how non living sperm and egg cells can unite and form annew child,...

repeter · Jan 28, 2010

Chuz Life said:
You and Ian being college students and all,... You guys surely have a cite or some other reference to support this claim.

Would you mind posting it?

I'm anxious to see how non living sperm and egg cells can unite and form annew child,...

Have you heard of how nonorganic amino acids formed the first living things when the Earth was relatively new? Same principle, different details.

The Mark · Jan 28, 2010

phildozer9121 said:
Human children, living things, are created by two parts that are very much NOT alive (sperm and egg combine to grow into child).

Of course those parts are alive.

Why would you think they are not?

Additionally, prove they are not, please.

CaptainCourtesy · Jan 28, 2010

Chuz Life said:
Have you had your eyes checked?

Moderator's Warning:

Stop the personal attacks.

iangb · Jan 28, 2010

Human children, living things, are created by two parts that are very much NOT alive (sperm and egg combine to grow into child).

I would say that they aren't alive in the same sense that a person is alive - they are alive on the cellular level, but not at the organism level, because they aren't organisms.

'Life' is a weird and not-well-defined term; especially when talking about the life of an organism. A human corpse on full life support will be composed almost entirely of living cells, but will be legally dead.

phildozer9121 · Jan 28, 2010

Chuz Life said:
You and Ian being college students and all,... You guys surely have a cite or some other reference to support this claim.

Would you mind posting it?

I'm anxious to see how non living sperm and egg cells can unite and form annew child,...

They are cells created by your body through meiosis. I cite any modern biology text book you may care to reference. Just because something is a cell doesn't mean its an organism. When something is biologically alive, it must metabolize and reproduce. gametes (sperm and egg) cannot divide by themselves and therefore are not an organism. They combine to form a zygote.

two cells are coming together to create a new cell with dna from both parents. that cell divides through mitosis, as do the rest of the cells in your body, and through the miracle of biology out comes you. When do those cells cease to be cells and become the multicellular organism that is a human? whenever that fetus is able to digest and metabolize its own food. and is able to grow.

It's biology dawg

Chuz Life · Jan 28, 2010

repeter said:
Have you heard of how nonorganic amino acids formed the first living things when the Earth was relatively new? Same principle, different details.

Again, repeter (you voted yes in the poll, remember?),... I would like to see some reference materials where scientists have determined that semen and egg cells are "non-organic amino acids" and are not in fact,... alive.

Chuz Life · Jan 28, 2010

iangb said:
I would say that they (zygotes) aren't alive in the same sense that a person is alive - they are alive on the cellular level, but not at the organism level, because they aren't organisms.

iangb said:
As your poll on this forum (and others) shows, that is by no means a consensus opinion.

iangb said:
This is simply not true. 'Biological fact' is simply what the scientific consensus states at the time - and there is no scientific consensus on the matter.

iangb said:
You haven't posted much evidence that directly supports your claims (certainly none on the 'scientific consensus'),

iangb said:
So far, you haven't produced any evidence on the 'scientific consensus' and all you have provided on 'a zygote is an organism' is three links, in another thread on a different forum,...

iangb said:
I'm looking forwards to the time when UEA releases all it's raw data. However, the massive worldwide scientific consensus on the truth of global warming is not based singly on the figures produced by a single department of a single university in a single country. There is a wealth of other data (the majority of IPCC, for example!) that also indicates global warming exists and is man-made and is not from UEA.

iangb said:
I was arguing that a ZEF is only an 'organism' (by dictionaries and scientific consensus) after birth,...

iangb said:
There is no scientific consensus on whether a zygote is an organism or not...

iangb said:
As I've said elsewhere - you have some people who consider a zygote an organism, I have some people who cosider it not to be. What you don't have is evidence that a scientific consensus exists, nor that such a consensus favours your claim over mine, nor even that this is a scientific question at all,..

iangb said:
I (have said that I) accept that some (in fact, probably several) scientists consider a zygote to be an organism. That still ain't a consensus, though.

You haven't posted anything from a medical dictionary that unequivocally supports your position...

iangb said:
I'm saying that a single celled zygote is not even an organism - by scientific consensus, at least -

iangb said:
,... 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.

<snip>

,... 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.

CONSENSUS

1.majority of opinion: The consensus of the group was that they should meet twice a month.
2.general agreement or concord; harmony.

The Poll results on this subject (as of right now) are three to one against your position, Ian. What percentage does it take to have a consensus? A majority? A Genereal agreement?

I know, I know,... you specified a "scientific consensus."

What's say we have a contest? I'll post as many links to as many scientific sources that define a zygote as an organism,... and you provide as many as you can find where scientists say they are not.

(I've posted several, already)

At the end,... we will see which of us can support the notion of a "scientific consensus."

Deal?

repeter · Jan 28, 2010

Chuz Life said:
Again, repeter (you voted yes in the poll, remember?),... I would like to see some reference materials where scientists have determined that semen and egg cells are "non-organic amino acids" and are not in fact,... alive.

Okay, heres the thing. I told you in my previous post, that it is the same principle; that it is possible for nonorganic materials to produce a living thing.

If you would like to call them specifically amino acids, go right ahead, but thats definitively wrong.

And in the poll, I was asked whether a zygote is an organism. As pointed out previously in this thread, and as of yet completely unrefuted, it was pointed out there is a difference between an organism and a living thing.

As for the point concerning semen and egg cells being nonliving, if we stipulate that a living thing has to respond to stimuli, reproduce, grow and develop, and maintain homeostasis as a whole being, then sperm cells and egg cells are not living things.

You can reference any biology text book for that.

Chuz Life · Jan 28, 2010

repeter said:
Okay, heres the thing. I told you in my previous post, that it is the same principle; that it is possible for nonorganic materials to produce a living thing.

If you would like to call them specifically amino acids, go right ahead, but thats definitively wrong.

Repeter,... you are the one who stated amino acids,... not me.

Quote;

repeter said:
Have you heard of how nonorganic amino acids formed the first living things when the Earth was relatively new? Same principle, different details.

__________________________________________

repeter said:
And in the poll, I was asked whether a zygote is an organism. As pointed out previously in this thread, and as of yet completely unrefuted, it was pointed out there is a difference between an organism and a living thing.

Your registered vote indicates that you believe a zygote is in fact an organism. Remember?

repeter said:
As for the point concerning semen and egg cells being nonliving, if we stipulate that a living thing has to respond to stimuli, reproduce, grow and develop, and maintain homeostasis as a whole being, then sperm cells and egg cells are not living things.

I see,...

"If we define something so as to exclude that which we want to exclude,.... then those things we excluded won't fit the definition and,..... no harm no foul." Right?

Got it.

repeter said:
,... if we stipulate that a living thing has to respond to stimuli, reproduce, grow and develop, and maintain homeostasis as a whole being, then sperm cells and egg cells are not living things You can reference any biology text book for that.

Yeah,... no....

I would like for you to provide the source to back this claim of yours up.

repeter · Jan 28, 2010

Chuz Life said:
Repeter,... you are the one who stated amino acids,... not me.

Quote;

Perhaps you misunderstood, but I was referring to the Early Earth example. The principle behind that example is what is in play in the current issue.

Chuz Life said:
Your registered vote indicates that you believe a zygote is in fact an organism.

My registered vote, under the circumstances and criteria given, was what I believed. Seeing as there is a lot more to the question of zygotes then the question of whether they are organisms, which they quite obviously are, the question is in fact irrelevant which you haven't seemed to been able to grasp as of yet.

Chuz Life said:
"If we define something so as to exclude that which we want to exclude,.... then those things we excluded won't fit the definition and,..... no harm no foul." Right?Got it.

Yes, seeing as you don't like the fact that the stipulations given, you decide to simply ignore them, and carry on in blissful ignorance. How about you tackle the issue of the stipulations being included in the arguement?

Chuz Life said:
Yeah,... no....

I would like for you to provide the source to back this claim of yours up.

I don't feel like properly citing it as a source, so here it is: AP Biology 8th Edition, by Campbell and Reece.

Chuz Life · Jan 28, 2010

repeter said:
Perhaps you misunderstood, but I was referring to the Early Earth example. The principle behind that example is what is in play in the current issue.

As of yet, you have failed to provide anything in the way of proof to support the claim that "zygotes" are formed by the uniting of "non living" "inorganic" (amino acid) sperm and eggs,...

I'm still waiting.

repeter said:
My registered vote, under the circumstances and criteria given, was what I believed. Seeing as there is a lot more to the question of zygotes then the question of whether they are organisms, which they quite obviously are, the question is in fact irrelevant which you haven't seemed to been able to grasp as of yet.

Obviously(?) ,.... Ian and Phil do not seem to agree with you.

repeter said:
Yes, seeing as you don't like the fact that the stipulations given, you decide to simply ignore them, and carry on in blissful ignorance. How about you tackle the issue of the stipulations being included in the arguement?

I see you have completely missed the point I was making.

repeter said:
I don't feel like properly citing it as a source, so here it is: AP Biology 8th Edition, by Campbell and Reece.

Again,... I'll wait for you to find a proper cite.

repeter · Jan 29, 2010

Chuz Life said:
As of yet, you have failed to provide anything in the way of proof to support the claim that "zygotes" are formed by the uniting of "non living" "inorganic" (amino acid) sperm and eggs,...

I'm still waiting.

Have you missed everything I've said? :doh

Chuz Life said:
Obviously(?) ,.... Ian and Phil do not seem to agree with you.

Yeah, I'm not Ian and Phil though.

Chuz Life said:
I see you have completely missed the point I was making.

Just returning the favor.

Chuz Life said:
Again,... I'll wait for you to find a proper cite.

Haha, it'll take some time to find one that you'll except :roll:

Lakryte · Jan 29, 2010

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.

No debate is necessary. An organism is a living being that has (or can develop) the ability to act or function independently. A human zygote is a human organism at the earliest stages of development. It is not developing into an organism, it is an organism that is continuing to develop into its full self. Babies and children are developing, but that does not automatically imply they are not organisms.

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

The pile of ingredients is not analogous to the cake in its earliest stages of development, but rather to the sperm and egg. When they unite the "cake" or zygote (which is the organism) is brought into being.

phildozer9121 said:
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.

Of course every cell in the human body is not an individual organism, hence the fact that humans are multicellular organisms. However, a zygote is a new organism. Its DNA is NOT identical to the somatic cells of either the mother or the father. (the claim you made is untrue).

Tsunami · Jan 29, 2010

phildozer9121 said:
Human children, living things, are created by two parts that are very much NOT alive (sperm and egg combine to grow into child). The first cell on earth must have been created by non living parts. I know it's difficult to wrap your head around something that is so microscopic and out of the ordinary realm of perception.

I don't know how you got three people to thank you for a post saying human egg cells are not alive. They do react to stimuli, hardening the zona pellucida when a sperm enters. They do develop, from germ cells to oogonia to oocytes, etc. They are part of a system that maintains homeostasis. They can reproduce through fertilization or parthenogenesis.

Your criteria for life is too specific. Living organisms can be made up of living parts that do not fit all of these criteria independently. Egg and sperm cells are both living parts of the human organism.

Lakryte said:
Of course every cell in the human body is not an individual organism, hence the fact that humans are multicellular organisms. However, a zygote is a new organism. Its DNA is NOT identical to the somatic cells of either the mother or the father. (the claim you made is untrue).

It is true that new DNA begins after fertilization, during the first mitosis. But if you define an organism by DNA that makes identical twins a part of the same organism. So I don't think DNA can be the defining characteristic.

spud_meister · Jan 29, 2010

iangb said:
Contradiction?

how's that a contradiction, a single human skin cell is still an organism, even if i is part of a greater whole, amoeba are still organisms, and they're only a single cell, it is because of the actions of individual cells that a human can function, you can respond to stimuli, because the sensory neurons in your skin fire electro-chemical signals to the nerve cells in your brain. it is individual cells working as a whole that hadle everything your body does.

Chuz Life · Jan 29, 2010

repeter said:
Have you missed everything I've said? :doh

I don't think so,... but it wouldn't hurt for you to provide a summary of what you said,... just so we are both clear on what you said.

repeter said:
Haha, it'll take some time to find one that you'll except :roll:

A-c-c-e-p-t.

Chuz Life · Jan 29, 2010

Lakryte said:
No debate is necessary. An organism is a living being that has (or can develop) the ability to act or function independently. A human zygote is a human organism at the earliest stages of development. It is not developing into an organism, it is an organism that is continuing to develop into its full self. Babies and children are developing, but that does not automatically imply they are not organisms.

The pile of ingredients is not analogous to the cake in its earliest stages of development, but rather to the sperm and egg. When they unite the "cake" or zygote (which is the organism) is brought into being.

Of course every cell in the human body is not an individual organism, hence the fact that humans are multicellular organisms. However, a zygote is a new organism. Its DNA is NOT identical to the somatic cells of either the mother or the father. (the claim you made is untrue).

If you would be so kind as to post here and on all the other forums I frequent,... with posts as clear and concise and brilliant as this one is,... I would retire in peace.

This was spot on and far better than I could ever dream of wording it!

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

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

More options

phildozer9121

Member

Chuz Life

spud_meister

Veni, vidi, dormivi!

iangb

Lurker

Chuz Life

sazerac

phildozer9121

Member

Chuz Life

repeter

The Mark

Sporadic insanity normal.

CaptainCourtesy

I'm a Jedi Master, Yo

iangb

Lurker

phildozer9121

Member

Chuz Life

Chuz Life

repeter

Chuz Life

repeter

Chuz Life

repeter

Lakryte

Tsunami

Puer Aeternus

spud_meister

Veni, vidi, dormivi!

Chuz Life

Chuz Life