Well, according to you a single human organism (a single zygote) can become two human organisms (monozygotic twins). That indicates that the zygote has undergone asexual reproduction - it has split in two. According to you, humans can undergo asexual reproduction.
Well, according to you a single human organism (a single zygote) can become two human organisms (monozygotic twins). That indicates that the zygote has undergone asexual reproduction - it has split in two. According to you, humans can undergo asexual reproduction.
It is simply a phenomenon knowing as twinning. The zygote came about from the union of a sperm from the father and an ovum from the mother. Call it asexual reproduction if you insist. But, you still haven't proved that a zygote is not a human organism. Now, tell me, does cloning of Dolly's belated twin negate Dolly as an organism of the sheep species?
Of course not. So, why would twining of a zygote negate the zygote as a human organism?
You don't really understand what a chimera twin is, I think - when this occurs, there is no 'dead twin' which is mysteriously missing some body parts. There is simply a single individual, made from two ZEFs which have fused during pregnancy.
Try again?
If there were two fused zygotes developing into two fused embryos and then onto two fused fetuses, then there will be two conjoined twins, not a chimera.
Trying again isn't going to help you if you insist to prop up your abortion cause at whatever cause it takes, even to deny scientific fact and logic.
Both examples show that one zygote will not necessarily result in one individual, and that one individual does not necessarily originate from one zygote. This emphasises that a zygote is not an individual.
Your argument failed miserably. So, tell me: Is Dolly not an individual sheep now just because it now gave rise to two identical individual sheeps?
No, a primary oocyte is not a diploid organism. Nor is a primary spermatocyte. In retrospect, I can see how your reasoning would lead you to such a conclusion - but this is flawed reasoning leading to a flawed conclusion, nothing more. A primary oocyte is as much an individual organism as a zygote is.
Of course not. I didn't say they were. I said the "mature individual" i.e. an adult of reproductive age is a diploid organism.
The primary oocyte or the primary spermatocyte at mitotic phase and before meiosis is a diploid germ cell belonging to the mature individual. Therefore, it is a diploid germ cell but not a diploid organism.
To say that: "A primary oocyte is as much an individual organism as a zygote is" is just a display of a complete lack of knowledge of basic biology on your part.
For one thing: a primary oocyte or spermatocyte is destined to differentiate into an ovum or a sperm.
And nothing more. If the ovum is not fertilized it will simply die as an unfertilized egg and goes out the body. If the sperm failed to find an ovum after ejaculation into the vaginal or if the man did not have ejaculation for several days, the sperm disintegrates and the body just absorbed it into the system.
A zygote, however, will grow and develop according to the blueprint instruction contained in the DNA in the course of its human development from a single cell organism to a multi-cellular organism of the same individual.
For another thing: a primary oocyte or a spermatocyte has the same identical chromosomes/DNA profiles from the source. For the primary oocyte, the source is the woman. For the primary spermatocide the source is the man. So, therefore, the primary oocyte or spermatocyte is just a cellular part or component of the host, i.e. the woman or the man.
But, the zygote is neither the cellular part or component of the host, i.e. the woman being now the mother and the man now being the father. What the zygote is, is that it is a newly formed human organism, a human offspring if you will, that has its unique DNA profiles that came about from the contribution both from the mother and the father but never identical to either of them. In other words, it is a host of itself with its own unique human chromosome/DNA makeup that is unlike anybody else in the family or in this planet.
OK, I'm calling bullcrap on that one. No way did you just happen to quote two medical textbooks you've got lying about in a way which just happens to exactly mirror those found on a pro-life page (or one of it's various clones around the internet)
I'm asking for context because quote mining is unfortunately common practice of those with an agenda to spread. And if you'd come to me saying that there were over 8 million webpages saying "the earth is flat then I'd want, indeed, to know some of the context of those pages.
And, as discussed elsewhere, a scientific definition is not an objective scientific fact, any more than Pluto is 'objectively' a dwarf planet.
There are things known as standard for reference in citation guidelines that every professional and scientist adheres to when referencing a source. Even a small error in punctuation such as a period, colon or semi-colon that are in wrong places or the order of data misplaced would cause your article to be returned for correction before acceptance for publication. There are various formats you follow, such as the AMA or the APA styles depending on which discipline your writing falls into.
Now, why don't you learn something about referencing citation before you waste time jumping all over the places. Here are two links for you to study on:
http://www4.samford.edu/schools/pharmacy/dic/amaquickref07.pdf
How to Write Citations and Bibliographies in APA Style: Memorial University Libraries
But, enough of this personal attack already. So, shall we move on or do you still want to attack my credibility even though your personal attack has no basis because the references are given for you to check out and verify for yourself your so-called "quote mining" in the medical texts from any medical libraries.
So, now you want to pull out the "scientific definition is not an objective scientific fact" card? This is not just a scientific definition pulled from thin air. This is a scientific established fact based on decades if not centuries of scientific studies, lab research, scientific observation and handling. So, if science is not objective, what else do you have that is more objective than science?
Yeah, I'm sure you want to demand context for the fact that the earth is round and not flat. Why not also ask for the context for a mathematical fact that 1 + 1 = 2?
Things always wind down to silliness when it come to abortion.