Homo sapiens start life from one cell, the fertilized ovum…no bigger than the size of a sharp pencil point…
Is there anyone here that wants to challenge that
objective truth…
And please dont tell me that two ovums can stand on a pencil point…
But isn’t the ovum itself the result of a combination of 2 living cells?
Therefore wouldn’t human life begin in half lives, one in the egg and one in the sperm?
Both are technically living cells.
But then technically, it isn’t a homo sapien until it has all of the ingredients involved, a zygote.
A virus different than the sperm could infect the ovum or an extra virus, and the result might not be anything close to a homo sapien.
There is a point wherein we don’t call the mere collection of its parts, the same as its constructed equivalent.
We don’t call a garage full of auto-parts, a car.
I won’t even tell you that thousands of angels can dance of the head of a pin. 
Homo sapiens start from two cells–the sperm and the ova–but you know that. Nano seconds after the sperm cell penetrates the ova, it begins to divide. The result of this cell division leads to the zygote, which continues to divide to form the fetus. This is true for most life on earth. The process of cell division takes longer for some animals and a shorter time for others, Some animals are produced in what could be compared to a larval stage–not completely formed and very much dependent on its mother. Most need to be taught the rudiments of survival–a sea mammal has to be taught to go to the surface in order to breathe–a feline animal has to be taught play-fighting in order to learn how to bring down game–and so on.
I don’t have any desire to ‘challenge’ you, turtle, other than to ask you where you want your thread to lead?
are you really challenging the concept of zygote (fertilized ovum) to adult homo sapien…
Plenty of organisms have a longer haploid portion of their lifecycle and we consider them to be fully alive. Your current definition would argue that the sperm and ova aren’t alive (or at least aren’t human) which seems like a rather silly and arbitrary division.
“Objective” in what sense?
I wouldn’t call your description ‘absolute’ as it is comparative and fairly simplistic. And I don’t believe we have any universally definitive ideas about exactly where “life” starts or stops.
this statement is just a tiny bit of reality…you go from human zygote to human being…why is this so hard to accept…is this a fact…do we know this to be true…
Fixed that for you.
sure the self attracts these two gametes and begins contructing a body (again) that way.
Most of us would have to trust some set of authorities on this issue. Few of us have direct experience of the research that led to this or the competence to judge all the steps. So this word ‘know’ in your question is not an empirical knowing even if it is based on the empiricism of others.
how does that fix it-----
Because both the sperm and ova are alive and, by any biological definition, homo sapiens.
Its easy to refute this. If this cell were an isolated fact, it would not grow to become a human.
Homo sapiens’ one-cell start is part of an irreducible and extremely elaborate physiochemical context.
It is impossible to say anything objectively true about anything without including the totality of its environment/context. Since we have no total knowledge of any environment/context, objective truths are not accessible to us.
sorry X…you dont make you from a sperm…it lacks mitochondria…anyways my statement now is going from zygote to homo sap…i am not talking about ova and sperm…come on…
jake-----so you are saying there is no objective truth… what is your definition of the objective truth…
Actually, sperm cells do have mitochondria. They just don’t contribute a significant amount of mitochondria to the developing organism. That is because the ova is very very large compared to the sperm. If sperm didn’t have mitochondria, they wouldn’t be able to make ATP. If they didn’t have ATP, they wouldn’t be able to wave those little tails of theirs!
But you still haven’t presented an argument why the N phase of Homo sapiens isn’t Homo sapiens and that only the 2N phase counts.
Think about it.
X----you havent dealt with a sperm alone becoming you
…think about that…anyways that is not the issue…i have stated a fact…only one fact that most everyone would agree with…that is…a human zygote develops into a homo sap…yes or no…dont play around…
A human zygote only becomes a human most of the time.
It can really be any value of homo sapiens from zero upwards.
A zygote doesn’t develop into Homo sapiens, a zygote is a Homo sapiens – as are sperm and egg. Whether to be “human” is reducible to being a member of H. sapiens is another question entirely.
It is true that animals only attain multicellularity in the 2N phase of their lifecycle but does that mean that the N phase isn’t an animal? That would be a pretty wacky definition.
you are clever but a sperm is still a gamete…