Now you killed your own argument. Thank you for that! There can only be two zygotes if two separate people exist. Even you say they do not, so there ya go. A zygote is one singular human being.
It cannot, therefore the two subsequent cells the zygote grows into are not zygotes, regardless of whether or not they are genetically identical to the zygote.
If that were true, which of course it is not, it would mean that at least one of the twins was NEVER a zygote. Of course that in is conflict with your assertion, made several times, that 'we all were zygotes at one time' not that that fact is relevant in any way.
Wrong! http://speech-language-therapy.com/mbc.htm Mono meaning; alone, only, sole, single. Identical twins develop from a single zygote. Fraternal twins develop from two separate zygotes.
Twinning is not an exception is reality and can take place after any and all conceptions. But of course since you can not explain or address the issue, now you dismiss it in your typical evasive manner.
A clone, "by definition" is not the first cell. It has to come from another. The two cells after the first mitotic division are clones of the parent cell. Each one of these two cells has the same capability as the parent zygote, totipotency - the ability to create a human. Since the ability to create a human is the only significant difference that separates the zygote from any other cell, the clones of the zygote are of equal status to the parent zygote.
No on is claming that that zygote is not the first cell. You are wrong again and you are trying to avoid admitting that fact by responding to an imaginary comment. The two cells after mitosis are clones of the parent zygote and therfor shold have equal status should they not ?
but we are getting off topic... here are a couple of more of the horribly disfigured 'drudges'....mere 'breeders'... so sad to see the wasted lives...forced to struggle with bodies ruined and wracked with permanent damage.
I weep for the poor women...bodies destroyed by the very nature that created them... so decrepit and pitiful...
my heart swells with pride!! look at her! crouching down like that with all that pelvic floor damage...her Depends are working OVERTIME!
OUCH!! I can't even imagine the PAIN with that 'third degree tear' and all! double ouch! what guts! (literally! ) Kristin Armstrong
Another mere drudge, unable to function in life with all the damage (I bet you anything there are ....are....*sniff*....(oh I can barely say it...).... *DEEP GULP* I bet she has STRETCH MARKS!!!! Parvin Mokhtare
that's silly! don't you know that pregnancy is a horribly disfiguring disease? please pay attention! these women are NOT fine! they are SUFFERING!! they have stretch marks for God's sake, man!! PELVIC floor disorders!! TEARING!! their stomach muscles are misshapen and weak...they can barely stand!
Are you trying to say that pregnancy DOESN'T cause stretch marks, pelvic floor disorder, tearing, or weakened stomach muscles?
no no!! I am agreeing with you! all mothers are WRECKS!! they all need to be in hospice or something!! poor drudges!
But no one ever said all mothers are wrecks. That's just another fabrication you've pulled out of the air. Pregnancy damages women's bodies in varying degrees. That's the reality.
no no, as you point out yourself, ALL mothers are damaged goods...YOU don't qualify it, you don't say "some mothers experience problems"; no you just run around using inflammatory language to imply all women that dare to make a decision other than the one YOU approve of (killing their offspring) are all 'drudges' and 'brood mares' and 'less than' your own post complaining about MY posts is a perfect example...you didn't say "Pregnancy damages some womens' bodies to various degrees"...
Can pregnancy cause stretch marks, pelvic floor disorder, tearing, or weakened stomach muscles? Is there a risk for them in ANY pregnancy?
