embryo form

anonymous asked:

I need non-biased scientific articles on life beginning at conception. Do you happen to have any? As many as you can please!

Of course!

My favorite is When Does Human Life Begin: A Scientific Perspective by Dr. Maureen L. Condic. (Link downloads a PDF)

If you want just some good quotes from biology and embryology textbooks, here you go:

A zygote is the beginning of a new human being. Human development begins at fertilization.”
Dr. Keith L. Moore and Dr. T. V. N. Persaud,
The Developing Human: Clinically Oriented Embryology

Human development begins after the union of male and female gametes or germ cells during a process known as fertilization (conception).
"Fertilization is a sequence of events that begins with the contact of a sperm (spermatozoon) with a secondary oocyte (ovum) and ends with the fusion of their pronuclei (the haploid nuclei of the sperm and ovum) and the mingling of their chromosomes to form a new cell. This fertilized ovum, known as a zygote, is a large diploid cell that is the beginning, or primordium, of a human being.”
[Moore, Keith L. Essentials of Human Embryology. Toronto: B.C. Decker Inc, 1988, p.2]

The development of a human being begins with fertilization, a process by which two highly specialized cells, the spermatozoon from the male and the oocyte from the female, unite to give rise to a new organism, the zygote.”
[Langman, Jan. Medical Embryology. 3rd edition. Baltimore: Williams and Wilkins, 1975, p. 3]

The development of a human begins with fertilization, a process by which the spermatozoon from the male and the oocyte from the female unite to give rise to a new organism, the zygote.”
[Sadler, T.W. Langman’s Medical Embryology. 7th edition. Baltimore: Williams & Wilkins 1995, p. 3]

“At the moment the sperm cell of the human male meets the ovum of the female and the union results in a fertilized ovum (zygote), a new life has begun…. The term embryo covers the several stages of early development from conception to the ninth or tenth week of life.”
[Considine, Douglas (ed.). Van Nostrand’s Scientific Encyclopedia. 5th edition. New York: Van Nostrand Reinhold Company, 1976, p. 943]

“Zygote. This cell, formed by the union of an ovum and a sperm (Gr. zyg tos, yoked together), represents the beginning of a human being. The common expression ‘fertilized ovum’ refers to the zygote.”
[Moore, Keith L. and Persaud, T.V.N. Before We Are Born: Essentials of Embryology and Birth Defects. 4th edition. Philadelphia: W.B. Saunders Company, 1993, p. 1]

“The chromosomes of the oocyte and sperm are…respectively enclosed within female and male pronuclei. These pronuclei fuse with each other to produce the single, diploid, 2N nucleus of the fertilized zygote. This moment of zygote formation may be taken as the beginning or zero time point of embryonic development.”
[Larsen, William J. Human Embryology. 2nd edition. New York: Churchill Livingstone, 1997, p. 17]

“Although life is a continuous process, fertilization is a critical landmark because, under ordinary circumstances, a new, genetically distinct human organism is thereby formed…. The combination of 23 chromosomes present in each pronucleus results in 46 chromosomes in the zygote. Thus the diploid number is restored and the embryonic genome is formed. The embryo now exists as a genetic unity.”
[O'Rahilly, Ronan and M�ller, Fabiola. Human Embryology & Teratology. 2nd edition. New York: Wiley-Liss, 1996, pp. 8, 29. This textbook lists “pre-embryo” among “discarded and replaced terms” in modern embryology, describing it as “ill-defined and inaccurate” (p. 12}]

“Almost all higher animals start their lives from a single cell, the fertilized ovum (zygote)… The time of fertilization represents the starting point in the life history, or ontogeny, of the individual.”
[Carlson, Bruce M. Patten’s Foundations of Embryology. 6th edition. New York: McGraw-Hill, 1996, p. 3]

“[A]nimal biologists use the term embryo to describe the single cell stage, the two-cell stage, and all subsequent stages up until a time when recognizable humanlike limbs and facial features begin to appear between six to eight weeks after fertilization….
”[A] number of specialists working in the field of human reproduction have suggested that we stop using the word embryo to describe the developing entity that exists for the first two weeks after fertilization. In its place, they proposed the term pre-embryo….
“I’ll let you in on a secret. The term pre-embryo has been embraced wholeheartedly by IVF practitioners for reasons that are political, not scientific. The new term is used to provide the illusion that there is something profoundly different between what we nonmedical biologists still call a six-day-old embryo and what we and everyone else call a sixteen-day-old embryo.
The term pre-embryo is useful in the political arena – where decisions are made about whether to allow early embryo (now called pre-embryo) experimentation – as well as in the confines of a doctor’s office, where it can be used to allay moral concerns that might be expressed by IVF patients. 'Don’t worry,’ a doctor might say, 'it’s only pre-embryos that we’re manipulating or freezing. They won’t turn into real human embryos until after we’ve put them back into your body.’“
[Silver, Lee M. Remaking Eden: Cloning and Beyond in a Brave New World. New York: Avon Books, 1997, p. 39]

8

25 September 1506

The death of Philip the Handsome

In September 1506, Queen Juana and King Philip traveled to the city of Burgos, where, within days, Philip became violently ill, allegedly because he overindulged in various banquets and festivities. Inevitably, because everything happened so swiftly, rumors of poison surfaced. In fact, his high temperature and fever give little clue as to what was wrong with him; in the days before antibiotics, the slightest infection could become life-threatening in a matter of hours. And sickness was rampant in Castile that autumn.  

Showing no signs of instability and brushing aside concern for her own health— Juana was five months pregnant at the time — she nursed him selflessly, never leaving his side, doing all she possibly could to save him, and always believing that he would recover. It was to no avail. Six days later, on  September 25, Philip died. He was just twenty-eight years old. On the day before Philip’s death, Cardinal Cisneros set himself up as the leader of a Regency Council and requested King Fernando to return to Castile. Juana and her lands, he proclaimed, needed her father. 

King Philip’s corpse was embalmed and taken from the palace of the Constables of Castile, popularly known as Casa del Cordón (The house of the cord), to the Monastery of Cartuja of Miraflores in Burgos. The heart was sent for burial beside his mother’s remains in Bruges. In his will Philip had asked, should he die in Spain, to be buried beside Queen Isabel I of Castile in Granada. He requested sixty thousand high and low masses, with two masses daily at his place of interment - a requiem mass ‘for my soul’ and a low mass ‘for myself and my predecessors’. He ‘desired and ordened’ that Juana be given her dower, or what she was owed by the marriage settlement.

Juana seems to have followed the same six-week Franco-Burgundian mourning protocol as for her mother. With Philip a lifeless corpse, her father safely in Italy, her six-year-old son and heir, Charles, being raised in his aunt’s care in northern European Flanders, her chance to take charge as Castile’s “proprietary ruler” had arrived. The evidence proves that, despite apparent inactivity between September and December, Juana received in audience, argued, weighed options and formed the embryo not only of a royal household but a court in the traditional sense.

On December 18, Juana canceled all the grants and offices with which Philip had shamelessly rewarded his followers, all of which, she said, had been handed out without her permission and to the detriment of both herself and of the state. Now she was ready to sign whatever documents were necessary for the government of her realms. Next, she tried to gather men around her to re-form a council similar to that of her mother, a council that reported to her and acted only upon her authority. Following the death of Philip, Juana clung to two political ambitions: to avoid a second marriage and to secure the inheritance of her offspring, particularly that of her eldest son in Castile.

Then, just before Christmas and in the depths of a bitterly cold winter, Juana made what proved to be a fateful move, one that would fuel a myth that has lasted to the present day. She ordered that Philip’s coffin should be escorted in a slow and solemn procession from the Monastery of Miraflores to Granada so that he could rest close to Queen Isabel. Philip had wanted that, and Juana wanted it for him. Thus it was that, accompanied by the prayers of monks, Philip’s candlelit cortège left the confines of the monastery for its last journey. Juana, now eight months pregnant, was at her husband’s side, but she could not go far. Within three days, she had to stop or risk losing her baby. In January 1507, in the town of Torquemada, Juana went into labor. The birth was difficult, but the child lived. Juana named her Catalina, presumably after her own sister, whom Juana had so recently seen in England. Although debilitated and weak, Juana was then itching to resume her interrupted  journey.

The legend started, and the legend spread, that she was a woman driven mad by grief, so distraught that she could not bear to be parted from Philip even by death and therefore would not allow his body to be laid into the pitiless earth at all but wanted it with her forever. It was said that she opened the coffin, that she kissed Philip’s decaying feet, that she allowed no woman except herself anywhere near the corpse. 

Pedro Mártir, the chronicler who was with Juana on her gruesome journey with Philip’s remains and was not a known supporter of the queen, made no mention of the alleged coffin-opening at all. In the event that Juana had opened the coffin, a possible cause might have been to be certain that the corpse was indeed Philip’s. He had wanted his heart taken back to Burgundy. Knowing his followers as she did, Juana might have steeled herself to check that they had not taken the entire cadaver. As for the exclusion of women from the immediate vicinity of Philip’s casket, that was in accordance with the monks’ rules; the only women allowed on monastic premises were royal. 

King Fernando of Aragon had decided to return to Spain and take up the burden of ruling Castile. Writing to his daughter Catalina, he vowed:

I am determined, with the help of God, to go to Castile during this spring, because the Queen, my daughter and your sister, continually sends and begs me very pressingly to do so, and all write to me that, after God, there is no other means to preserve those kingdoms from ruin and destruction except my return to them.… As they beg me very earnestly to go, and as the happiness of the most serene Queen, my daughter and your sister, and of those kingdoms greatly depend upon it, I have decided to give up my own comfort and to undergo all the labour of assisting her and her  kingdoms.

According to some historians, Fernando lied. Despite repeated supplications, Juana never summoned her father to help her govern Castile. It said that Juana could not rule herself because she was too devastated by Philip’s demise to do anything. Fernando returned to Castile in July 1507. His arrival coincided with a remission of the plague and famine, a development which quieted the instability and left an impression that his return had restored the health of the kingdom. 

Fernando and Juana met at Hornillos on 30 July. They first meeting “had given them both equal pleasure,” he enthused. Fernando went on to say that, following a series of discussions, Juana had agreed that he should do whatever he thought  necessary “for the peace and security of the kingdom.” Order, stability, happiness, and trade would revive; he would look after everything. 

On 17 August Juana summoned three members of the royal council and ordered them to inform the grandees, in her name, of her father Fernando’s return to power: “That they should go to receive his highness and serve him as they would her person and more.” She refused to sign the instructions – a last gesture of defiance – and issued a statement that she did not, as queen regnant, endorse the surrender of her own royal power. Nonetheless, she was thereafter queen in name only and all documents, though issued in her name, were signed with Fernando’s signature, “I the King”. 

In February 1509 Juana was escorted, with Philip’s body and her toddler daughter, to Tordesillas, a small town on the Duero River, about fifteen miles from Valladolid. Together with her attendants and household officials, all carefully vetted by Fernando, Juana was lodged securely within the castle while Philip’s corpse was entrusted to the nuns at the convent of St. Clare, which nestled beside its walls. Years later, Philip the Handsome was entombed at the Royal Chapel of Granada, where he remains today alongside his wife and his parents-in-law.



Sources:

Sister queens: the noble, tragic lives of Katherine of Aragon and Juana, Queen of Castile by Julia Fox

Juana I and the struggle for power in an age of transition by Gillian B. Fleming. The London School of Economics and Political Science. June 2011.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joanna_of_Castile

Ruby, Ruby, Ruby [19/52]

Asexual Awareness Week Fandom Challenge 2017

Sun 22nd, Day 1: Post about canon and headcanoned asexual/spectrum characters in books and comics.

For this occasion 19th aspec drabble of 52 aspec drabbles of 2017. All about Charlie Weasley (and dragons.) [Also on AO3]


“Do kurwy nędzy,” grumbled Darek. “Weasley, why the fuck you raised the alarm and I swear you better not answer that it’s about the Swed. Because if I stood up the beautiful Lana for another false alarm about the fucking Swed - I will feed you to that dragon myself. Maybe that will make her hatch the eggs faster. Who knows. It will be experiment.”

“For a person who dislikes speaking in English you talk a lot, you know?” asked Charlie with an apologetic grin.

“Pierdol się,” replied Darek darkly. Charlie still wasn’t that good with Polish swearing but he was learning fast and could recognize the various options for the common “go fuck yourself” well enough.

“You see, I’m quite sure I saw a crack.”

“Was it on your skull? Because there will be one.”

“Darek,” Charlie pleaded.

It was just the two of them left. Well, two of them and Katka, the intern from Slovakia who barely spoke English and was not only inexperienced but still full of - generally quite healthy - fear of dragons. It made her unsure at best and unreliable at worst.

They were stuck in Ukraine for over a month now. The giant poster in their small cabin that used to count down the days to the planned hatching was now displaying in disturbingly bright red “-27 days to the hatching!” The charmed tiny drawings of fireworks were getting paler and paler.

Keep reading

THE ULTIMATE ANSWER TO WHETHER OR NOT BREASTS ARE SEXUAL ORGANS

Do they produce haploid gametes (either sperm or ovum) that can fuse to ultimately form an embryo? No.
Do they transport gametes? No.
Do they house the fetus during pregnancy? No.
Are they involved in the reproductive system of mammals? No.
Well what do you know, looks like they aren’t fucking sexual organs.

My therapy💖

Somethings get lost in translation but this scripture brings me peace💖

Psalm 139: I2-14
In this version verse 15 -16 says in secret i was formed, my embryo have seen Your eyes


Salmo 139 : 12-14
Aun las tinieblas no encubren de ti,
Y la noche resplandece como el día;
Lo mismo te son las tinieblas que la luz.

13 Porque tú formaste mis entrañas;
Tú me hiciste en el vientre de mi madre.

14 Te alabaré; porque formidables, maravillosas son tus obras;
Estoy maravillado,
Y mi alma lo sabe muy bien.

15 No fue encubierto de ti mi cuerpo,
Bien que en oculto fui formado,
Y entretejido en lo más profundo de la tierra.

16 Mi embrión vieron tus ojos,
Y en tu libro estaban escritas todas aquellas cosas
Que fueron luego formadas,
Sin faltar una de ellas.

17 !!Cuán preciosos me son, oh Dios, tus pensamientos!
!!Cuán grande es la suma de ellos!

18 Si los enumero, se multiplican más que la arena;
Despierto, y aún estoy contigo.

usagitsukinoisacrybaby  asked:

Can a characteristic evolve more than once in a species? Or maybe a better question is HAS a characteristic evolved more than once in a species? Eg; if heaps of the male widow birds with the longest tails died due to increased predation (or something) and the females had to mate with less impressive specimens leading to shorter overall tails in young.

This is an interesting and complex question.

A fellow named Dollo says no, and in 1893 he proposed a law- Dollo’s Law, in fact- that stated that once lost, genetic traits could not be regained via evolution. We’ll discuss how well Dollo’s Law has held up a bit more further down.

A trait can absolutely appear more than once in a species. In fact, certain traits go in and out of style all the time in some species based on changing environments.

Keep reading

About chapter 700+7 from a medical standpoint (spoilers, obviously)

The last time i did this was for chapter 699, about what messures could be taken to heal/regrow Naruto’s and Sasuke’s arms.
I’ll be brief now ‘cause i have to go to the hospital early and later a Radiology exam. (So yes, i have a base for saying what i’m gonna say about Genetics).

First off, about Shin and the Shins being clones…Orochimaru is right about him being exceptional. Someone who has no negative reaction to transplants or whose organism responds perfectly to it is Exceptional. Why? Because transplants in the real world are a messy subjects. What about parent/child transplants? Still messy, why? Because you don’t match your parent a 100%, heck, not even a 50% really. Why? Because when a new being is formed (the process from being two cells to multiplying them until you are an embryo) a recombination of genes hapens, meaning you don’t actually match the gene structure of your parents that way, but you can match allels (small strands of dna chains that contain your gene information).
The interesting concept that this chapter brought, was about DNA and transplants. So shin uses his own clones to transplant the exact replica of whichever organ he messed up and “live forever”? Probably? I don’t know, he’s messed up.
About the DNA test. At a first glance of that screen, i noticed that it was a 100% match. And that does mean Karin is involved, but not in the way many are thinking.
What was in her desk, is a piece of umbilical cord. This piece of flesh contains information of before the embryo was fully formed. Meaning, there are what we call Stem Cells (in my country the translation is Mother Cells, ain’t it nice for the drama this chap?). What it entails is that these particular cells can be used to produce whichever cell/tissue/organ the person is missing. In actuality, these cells are used to that purpose… Transplants.
So what does Karin have to do with this? Well, she had an umbilical cord that matched a 100% (according to the graphics) with Sarada’s DNA (that came from an epitelial sample, what Suigetsu did with the Q-tip in her mouth). If it matched Sarada in a 100% it obviously means, that cord is Sarada’s.
Remember that Sarada wasn’t born on Konoha since there are no registers or info in the Konoha Hospital. What if for whatever reason, Karin was involved in the birth? Sakura can’t help in the giving birth process if she’s the one in labour…
But why would Karin keep her DNA? Genetics ands transplants. Sarada is an Uchiha, meaning Sharingan, meaning eventual blindness, meaning she might need new eyes but there are no more uchihas… Why not grow new eyes on a lab with her Stem cells?? It can be done.
And why would Karin have her own Umbilical cord if she was your regular bullied kid when she was a child? Before Orochimaru and science was a thing in her life… Because is not her but Sarada’s. Everyone was surprised about it being a possibility, but Suigetsu wasn’t even sure that sample was Karins.
I would expand more on the topic but i gotta run right now. Maybe later today i will expand more on genetics. 'Till then, hang on people!

Two competing theories seek to explain the rare phenomenon of conjoined twins. 

The first and oldest theory is known as fission, in which the first cell divisions of the fertilised egg do not result in complete separation of the twins to begin with.

A more recent and more widely accepted contradicting theory, fusion, asserts that two separate embryos form but are rejoined as groups of similar stem cells on either body find each-other and fuse the twins together. 

It’s curious how radically different and symmetrical theories like this can exist. 

anonymous asked:

Ok, so i heard you can't have kids, my mom had the same thing. What you can do is frickle frackle and form the embryo, then put it in someone else's uterus so they give birth to it but it has your genetics and stuff.

Not if you’re infertile you can’t :/

deadbison  asked:

If there's evidence that tetrapods had body part growing abilities right up to the amniotes split, what happened with amniotes that made us all lose this miraculous ability? I for one would love to be able to grow a finger back after playing too many games of 5 finger fillet.

We don’t know for sure yet. It’s an important subject of biomedical research, though, because of the obvious benefits to humans.

One proposal is that the ability to regenerate limbs is linked to the timing of development in embryos. Amniotes start forming their limbs early on, and their development is linked to temporary embryonic structures that later disappear – while amphibians develop their limbs later on in a more “self-organizing” manner, independently of the presence of those same structures. It may be that amniote limbs are “locked out” of the ability to regenerate later in life because of their growth relying on interactions with something that just isn’t there anymore.

It also seems to have something to do with the immune system, and differences in the presence and absence of certain genes.

imhorribleatnamingthings-deacti  asked:

Why shouldn't people fear suffering and dying, and why shouldn't people do what it takes to avoid suffering and/or dying, even if that means getting an abortion? No woman should have to feel as though she's obligated to remain pregnant, no matter how harmful or traumatic that is for her as a person. Fetuses shouldn't be able to take a woman's body hostage and force her to act as an incubator. After all, no other human being has the right to use another human being's body against their will.

Who is responsible for creating the child? Is it the child? It is not the child’s responsibility because the child is not a self-acting agent. Regardless of circumstance, the child is brought into existence due to the actions of the parents and therefore bears no legal responsibility for any consequences of those actions. The freely acting agents whose actions are responsible for creating the child, regardless of circumstances, must be responsible for the consequences of those actions.

A baby does not take a woman’s body hostage. The one taking the woman’s body hostage is the actor whose actions have created the child. This can be both parties via mutual consent. This can be both parties through implied consent vis a vis acceptance of the risk inherent in contraception (whose manufacturers are legally obligated to display or publish results showing effectiveness of their products or techniques). This can be from one actor where in the second actor was an unwilling participant. The baby has no capacity as an actor until it assumes legal age and is therefore incapable of responsibility in this situation, this is default. The responsibility is, therefore, conferred to the next of kin which in this case is the parents who contributed the genetic material to create the child.

Now that we have clearly established that the child is in no way responsible for its actions inside the womb, it must therefore be the case that a child is not “using” the mother’s body.

Now that that business is through we can move on to the more complicated biological issues with your arguments. Sexual reproduction is common in the entire living world and is a cycle of death and rebirth through the production of a fruit seed which will inexorably grow, given the right conditions and environment, into the next generation of the creature or plant that was the progenitor of the seed. A “fetus” does not “use” the mother’s body. The womb is a specifically designed organ that is built to produce offspring and it produces a lining monthly for humans and at longer intervals for most mammals. From conception the embryo is dependent on that body however it is the mother’s body that grows blood vessels that service the umbilical cord and placenta. A human being consists only of what is within its own skin. The placenta forms out of the “shell” of the egg which is what the mother’s body produced. The internal contents of the egg, not the egg itself are what becomes the child. Therefore it is not the child that is occupying the mother’s body as a parasite but the mother’s womb is actively carrying, growing blood vessels into the placenta to engage in a type of osmosis feeding of the child in the womb. The baby is not a parasite by any definition biologically nor philosophically. No material from the mother’s body is taken from the mother’s body into the placenta as a form of sustenance. The baby and mother exchange waste products and nutrients through an osmosis reaction between the placenta wall blood vessels and the blood vessels in the umbilical cord. There is no shared blood between the mother and the child, her blood does not enter the placenta. Furthermore, it is the mother’s body that grows the vein network in the uterine lining in order to provide this connection to the placenta.

In conclusion, we are left with these facts and my conclusions in light of these facts.

1. The child is a non-actor until achieving a level of development at which it can make well-informed consent and thus reaches an age of “responsibility.” Therefore, the child cannot be responsible for any consequences of its birth and attribution of blame for those consequences to the child is wrong from all ethical standpoints. Individuals who treat children like this often cause them to go into depression or live stunted lives due to inadequacy. Therefore, there is a moral responsibility not to blame the child for things outside of its control along with a logical requirement by any ethical code of conduct to not hold people responsible for anything outside of their area of responsibility or control.

2. Offspring are genetic family members and members of the same species as their parents. The female parent of child in viviparous reproduction produces an environment inside the womb during estrus that provides the necessary network of blood vessels in the uterine lining in order to make contact with an embryo and form an osmotic bridge between the mother’s body and the umbilical cord that connects to the placenta wall in order to transfer nutrients and oxygen directly into her offspring’s blood stream and to carry out waste carbon dioxide and other respiratory system byproducts to be exhausted from her body. Viviparous species produce eggs that have no nutritional content and consist of a single cell. Therefore, sexual reproduction in viviparous species is carried out through nutrient exchange between the mother and child. Because the female body provides these things of its own accord, and because the child takes no action of its own nor does another species invade and deposit offspring there, it is impossible to define a child as a parasite.

In light of these argumentatively established statements, I would like for you to review these and consider them when re-crafting your argument if you should wish to continue.

Yours truly,

-The Blue Queen

“Oh you’re pro-life? But you eat eggs, don’t you? That’s the same thing!”

Unless you’re eating fertilized chicken eggs with a half-formed chicken embryo inside it, (in which case…wtf that’s creepy af), please don’t use this argument.

5

Leopard gecko embryo development:

1) Egg at Day 3 Possibly infertile. Notice it is completely yellow and there is no veining whatsoever. I hang onto these eggs until they start to mold or shrivel up, or until two weeks past the due date.

2) Day 2 Fertile. Notice the red ring known as the Bullseye. This is the embryo just beginning to form.

3) Week 2. The bullseye has grown and the veins are spreading out to the rest of the egg.

4) Week 3. The embryo has filled up a large portion of the egg. The space that used to be yellowy-pink and transparent was the yoke, and it is now nourishing the growing embryo, decreasing in quantity as the baby grows.

5) Week 4.5-5. About ready to hatch. The egg is no longer transparent. There is very little, if any, yoke left. The baby has filled up all possible space in the egg, which is why it appears opaque. This egg has a bit of yoke left at the end, so it probably has a few days left before hatching. If you get the light at the right spot, sometimes you can see a pattern, or even see the baby moving inside the egg.