. . . when the sperm fuses with the egg.

Thanks for proving this subforum needs a moderator:)

Not that I will be in the running, but it will be cool when it gets a moderator anyway, which it certainly will, now.
Good work:)

subforum? You mean mainforum!

i've been dying to find a candidate for the handle 'Special-Ed'

As there is no moderator I WILL NOW JAM THIS SPAM SO FAR UP COOLSKILL'S NOSE THAT HE WILL LATER FIND IT'S NEGATIVE IMPRINTED ON HIS UNDERWEAR!

I don't really see what is wrong with the thread though. It raises a valid biological question. Does life start with the fusion of sperm and egg?

Who says it is a question. I believe he forgot to post the rest of his intended content and then forgot about the the thread alltogether.

This forum does need a moderator. This sort of threads are a rarity here, no moderater action is needed here, this place is civil on its very own.

Well you know, that could change at any time...

It's a pretty good question.

I was trying to fertilise some echinoderm eggs (with echinoderm sperm mind you) the other week and even though I got the sperm to fuse with the eggs they didn't divide, presumably the chromosomes didn't hook up. I don't know, even enucleated sperm can fuse with an egg, so maybe it takes a little more.

Was it of the same species? I know if there are any sort of incompatability the cell kinda crashes. (like a program written in cobol if you try to run it on basic) This could be one chromasome is missing or is the wrong shape. It could be because one of the gametes was damaged during preparation or was just "bad" to begin with.

This brings up a point. Are not the egg and sperm 'alive' at least as much as the bacteria they resemble? If so, does not life begin at their formation and not when they fuse?

You are murdering millions of sperm every day and one egg every month you don't have sex so grab your wife quick.

Originally posted by skyederman
It's a pretty good question.

I was trying to fertilise some echinoderm eggs (with echinoderm sperm mind you) the other week and even though I got the sperm to fuse with the eggs they didn't divide, presumably the chromosomes didn't hook up. I don't know, even enucleated sperm can fuse with an egg, so maybe it takes a little more.

maybe it is necessary to mature the egg or even the sperm.

Ahh lets see I’m not a developmental biologist would be nice if the one that’s actually here would sober up and actually try to reply in detail.
- the tail breaks off, this is why the sperm contributes not mitochondria to the next generation,
- The head swells and fuses with the egg nucleus
- Chromosome count is now diploid (46) over haploid (23) from each gamate.
- The cell begins to develop, specific genes are activated in specific order and rate of production, this is why cloning has so many problems.

Originally posted by spuriousmonkey
maybe it is necessary to mature the egg or even the sperm.

more detail

I think we matured our Patella vulgata sperm with a pH treatment, but I can't find my old master thesis. Sue me for not having a good memory.

Basically we cut open the sides of males and females, with the notification that you can't tell a male from a female before you cut them. You collect the eggs or the sperm. Then wash them in millipore filtered seawater. And I think you needed to give the sperm a pH treatment to mature them before they could fertilize the egg.

I imagine you might need to do something similar with echinoderms.

it is all described in Serras and Speksnijder, 1991. F-actin localization during trochoblast differentiation in patella vulgata embryos. Development 112, 833-845.

Fetus will send you a copy.

Originally posted by Neuromancer
Ahh lets see I’m to a developmental biologist would be nice if the one that’s actually here would sober up and actually try to reply in detail.
you forgot some things
for sea urchin:
- possibly first sperm attraction
- sperm contacts the jelly layer
- the acrosome reaction in which enzymes of the acrosomal process are released. They eat through the jelly.
-digestion of the layer
- binding of receptors to the vitelline envelope
- fushion of acrosomal process membrane and egg membrane.
- fast block to prevent polyspermy
- slow block

and I didn't go into detail
Originally posted by Neuromancer

- the tail breaks off, this is why the sperm contributes not mitochondria to the next generation,
- The head swells and fuses with the egg nucleus
- Chromosome count is now diploid (46) over haploid (23) from each gamate.
- The cell begins to develop, specific genes are activated in specific order and rate of production, this is why cloning has so many problems.


one of the reasons not to go into details is that there are many species specific differences which would make it impossible to turn generalizations into details. obviously

thank you its about time you listened to me. :rolleyes:

(sorry for the grammer error there)

By the way, is it possible for an ovum to be fertilized (or at least penetrated) by multiple sperms? Just asking.....

there are mechanisms in place to prevent it, but god once fertilized an egg without sperm, so why not multiple sperms fertilizing a single egg.

the egg will probably die soon though. It is usually not very beneficial to have extra copies of genes and the nuclear divisions will probably go alllllll wrong.

yes there is a mechanism to prevent more the one sperm entering at a time, the ovum membrane hardness very quickly after a sperm enters. Sometimes it does happen and the embryo dies, sometimes it even grows into a fetus but triploid feti are horribly disfigured freaks and none have survived long after birth.

Originally posted by Neuromancer
yes there is a mechanism to prevent more the one sperm entering at a time, the ovum membrane hardness very quickly after a sperm enters. Sometimes it does happen and the embryo dies, sometimes it even grows into a fetus but triploid feti are horribly disfigured freaks and none have survived long after birth.

I have...

you have what?

I have survived long after birth being a zilloid freak

so basically you just a talking 6 foot pile of purified chromosomes?
:eek: wow and I thought I was fuck up.

haha...Cool skill made quite a prosperous thread here. We should make him moderator of the biologyforum. He certainly knows what he is doing.

That an understatement! He would moderate so well it would seem like he does not even exist here! :rolleyes:

if I was moderator I would have deleted your post now...


good that we don't have one...

If I were a moderator I would deleted these last few posts, period.
http://www.theologyweb.com/forum/images/smilies/offtopic.gif

I lied...I wouldn't have deleted anything.

except all my own posts

Aahum anything more about sperm and ova then?

so fetus, what is the chemistry of sperm and ova like?

I don’t know I have not taken a class on development biology yet. If you want I could give you the generals on cell cycles operons and hormone syntheses.

I'm sure the moderator would delete those subjects because they are off topic.

Hei Fetus!

read 'developmental biology' by Prof Scot Gilbert! I recommend it because He HAS a spuriousmonkey tshirt!!!!!

I have the 6th edition of that book, and it is good, its very helpful! I took a course in Developmental Biology last semester! Very interesting!! Anyways, I would go along with Spurious's suggestion and read the text book, I found it very informative!

I do know this thread exists!
I just been caught up playing Pristontale.


Originally posted by Clockwood
As there is no moderator I WILL NOW JAM THIS SPAM SO FAR UP COOLSKILL'S NOSE THAT HE WILL LATER FIND IT'S NEGATIVE IMPRINTED ON HIS UNDERWEAR!
No you won't.

Originally posted by Clockwood
This brings up a point. Are not the egg and sperm 'alive' at least as much as the bacteria they resemble? If so, does not life begin at their formation and not when they fuse?
They are not alive until they fuse.

They are not alive until they fuse.
Why not?

don't listen to him. he's attempting to induce non-biological semantics into a biological topic for very transparent anti-choice sentiments. just ignore him. he's on my ignore list.

Wrong. Get a clue moron.

Hi Cool Skill:
I am a little confused about the "Special Ed." appellation.
I kind of expected a few replies to your original post , pro or con, with some support for their respective positions based in Biology. Haven't seen much though, so I thought I'd give this a shot. Spurious and some others hopefully will point out where I am off the mark.
I understand your position to be that the life of an individual organism, an individual, multicellular, eukaryotic, sexually reproducing organism, begins with the fusion of sperm and egg. I assume that you mean karyogamy.
If an individual, multicellular, eukaryotic organism is alive, then the life of that organism must have begun at some point in time. The question, the point of debate, is when.
I think that it all depends on what sort of life cycle is involved:
Consider organisms that produce spores by meiosis, such as fungi. A spore produced by meiosis divides mitotically, again and again, to form a multicellular mycelium. This multicellular mycelium is genetically identical to, and the direct descendant of, that spore. It seems that the life of that mycelium began upon the completion of meiosis.
Now, for organisms that produce gametes by meiosis, most if not all animals, then any multicellular organism is a direct descendant of the zygote, formed by karyogamy. So, I think that is a sound statement that you made: It's life began with the fusion of the sperm and egg nuclei. It's a little different in mammals than in, say, a sea urchin, I believe. It seems that sperm and egg nuclei do not fuse immediately in mammals. They both share a common spindle apparatus and divide mitotically first, and then they fuse. But, It seems that your point is still essentially correct. Spurious, or whoever wants to, please add your two cents.
For plants and some protists that have alternation of generations, the life of the gametophyte begins with the formation of the spore, and the life of the sporophyte begins with the fusion of the sperm and egg nuclei.
Am I wrong about this? If so, someone please add corrections or amend my statements here to make them correct. I realize that there are plenty of confounding factors with some species. The concept of an individual is not always clear with some plants and protists. Different fungal mycelia may fuse. Then, there's polyploidy etc. But I think that for the most part I'm fundamentally sound here. If not, please explain.

You pose a pretty good argument.
Indeed this thread is full of replies that were intended to attack cool skill rather than adress the actual topic. Typical hater behavior.
Life defined is not necessarily sentinent awareness.
The qualities of life that distinguish living organisms from dead organisms and inanimate matter is manifested in functions such as metabolism, growth, reproduction, and response to stimuli or adaptation to the environment originating from within the organism.
In the case of the human organism as well as the other members of the animalia, this topic addresses the point at which life begins.

Originally posted by cool skill

They are not alive until they fuse.

well...I think that they are certainly not 'viable' by themselves until they fuse. In that respect you could call them not alive.

Sperm cells and egg cells do interact and respond to their environment though. They would have a certain degree of 'awareness' of their environment. They need for instance to interact with each to fuse and respond to each other.

Irrelevant.
Cells can die just like hair and nails.
But they are not alive in the same sense a fused egg is.
Right?

nonsense! Every cell in your body is alive, it may not have the worth of the full and complete existance of a humen life to you but its still alive.

by the way hair and fingernails are not alive, they are just protein: Keratin proteins in fibrous or slab forms, it does not replicate on its own or produce it own metabolism.

Like yuh! That's why I mentioned it.

I disagree. Life does not happen ‘when the sperm fuses with the egg’ . A number of organisms reproduce without sperm. You may want to change your statement to ‘life happens when the egg is fertilised’.

Pacific Slender-toed Gecko Nactus pelagicus (83c)
Unlike the vast majority of geckos, the Pacific Slender-toed Gecko has thin, skink-like toes. Although very little is known of its ecology, this gecko is most commonly found under logs and litter on the forest floor and perhaps the slender toes means that it is mainly a terrestrial species. However, field observations indicate it does commonly climb on the lower branches of trees and shrubs. In addition to its peculiar toes, this gecko is peculiar in not having ‘smooth scales’, instead it has several longitudinal lines of bumps all down its back. Like all Fiji’s geckos this is a nocturnal species which is widely distributed through the Fijian islands. This is also an all-female species which reproduces through parthenogenesis.

In fact, there are hundreds of species that have no use for males, including other insects, lizards, snakes, and fish (although no mammals have discarded the male). The females reproduce by laying unfertilized eggs that contain copies of their own genes. http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2001/07/0702_wirefemalemites.html

Also your logic would mean that non-fertilised individuals of haplo-diploid would not be alive, and then what about embryo cloning?
Interestingly Dr. Michael West, president and CEO of Advanced Cell Technology Inc. of Worcester, Massachusetts said about stem cell cloning on the CNN's "Late Edition with Wolf Blitzer," "We're talking about making human cellular life, not a human life,"

"The females reproduce by laying unfertilized eggs that contain copies of their own genes."
So when does life begin for those geckos?
So for humans, and other mammals, life begins when the sperm meets the egg right?

It begins when a horny teen decides that he will pull out in time and all will be ok.

Actually pulling out in time reduces the chances of a pregnancy to 1/6 or 15% chance of pregnancy during a year of sexual activity using this method as compared to 90% from totally normal sex. Of course a condom reduces it to 1/45 or 2%.

I don’t see the need to tie ‘life’ to the constitution of DNA or RNA, after all viruses is not considered alive. Perhaps it would be better to say that life begins when the first division takes place? I find ‘life’ a somewhat unscientific concept, and one which is highly dependent on the current cultures values.

Do people agree that if life starts in a female mammal when her egg meets and greets a mammal sperm, that this would also be when life starts for a mammalian egg in a test tube?

An egg or sperm was never dead or not life. They were part of one life form, and the fusion of egg and sperm simply creates a new individual.

Viruses may not be 'alive', but they are 'life'.

I don?t see the need to tie ?life? to the constitution of DNA or RNA, after all viruses is not considered alive. Perhaps it would be better to say that life begins when the first division takes place? I find ?life? a somewhat unscientific concept, and one which is highly dependent on the current cultures values.

Do people agree that if life starts in a female mammal when her egg meets and greets a mammal sperm, that this would also be when life starts for a mammalian egg in a test tube?

nope viruses are not consider alive, I know you feel differently about it spuriousmonkey and so do many other scientist but the majority of the scientific community do not consider viruses alive.

I beg to differ. It is just your opinion that the majority of the scientific community considers them to be part of life.

I certainly haven't heard this statement yet from any virologist. And they should know.


nope viruses are not consider alive, I know you feel differently about it spuriousmonkey and so do many other scientist but the majority of the scientific community do not consider viruses alive.


And don't twist my words please.

Viruses may not be 'alive', but they are 'life'.

Well I heard it from mine (virology professor) the virus particles them selves are not alive, they can only come to life in the host. If you find a frozen insect, despite the fact that it can come to life when its warmed up is it alive while its frozen?

it is true then that europe is more openminded than the US.

See you in LA on friday.

Well I heard it from mine (virology professor) the virus particles them selves are not alive, they can only come to life in the host. If you find a frozen insect, despite the fact that it can come to life when its warmed up is it alive while its frozen?

Taking cool skill’s definition of life
metabolism, growth, reproduction, and response to stimuli or adaptation to the environment originating from within the organism.

My reason for taking the first division as life’s starting point was based on that being the point when reproduction and growth takes place.

I think there might be another high school requirement for life –feeding (nutrients). In which case life does not start until the egg is implanted. :confused: