Thread: sperm cell

is a sperm cell considered a living thing?

Originally Posted by Chemboy

is a sperm cell considered a living thing?

Probably. It's a cell, cell's are alive.. it moves (via flagellum) which require energy (ATP) produced by the cell.

Yes. It is still a human cell.

If all cells are considered living things, then yes.

ok, so here's what i'm thinking, and it might be a bit of a stretch, but i'll go for it anyway. A sperm cell is a living thing, and its only real purpose is to carry genetic information that will be used to create a new living thing. All a virus really does is carry genetic information that will be used to create more viruses. So, in that way, viruses are like living things. I'm aware that there are other things that must be considered when considering whether something is living or not, but fact is, sperm cells and viruses are similar in a way... They both are just transmitters of genetic info, with no other purpose for existence (as far as I know)... So, that's just something that came to me, so I thought i'd share it.

If you were to read Richard Dawkins The selfish gene you would come to understand that we are all just machines to house genes!

(although i do not exactly agree with him on that point, he makes a great argument!)

Originally Posted by Chemboy

ok, so here's what i'm thinking, and it might be a bit of a stretch, but i'll go for it anyway. A sperm cell is a living thing, and its only real purpose is to carry genetic information that will be used to create a new living thing. All a virus really does is carry genetic information that will be used to create more viruses. So, in that way, viruses are like living things. I'm aware that there are other things that must be considered when considering whether something is living or not, but fact is, sperm cells and viruses are similar in a way... They both are just transmitters of genetic info, with no other purpose for existence (as far as I know)... So, that's just something that came to me, so I thought i'd share it.

One flaw. A sperm cell combines with a egg cell of the same speices. A sperm cell can't create a human by invading any random cell. It is specifically structured to penetrate an egg cell.

Whereas a virus can't replicate on it's own but must a host cell which it invades.

Not a bad thought though.

Originally Posted by DaBOB

Originally Posted by Chemboy

ok, so here's what i'm thinking, and it might be a bit of a stretch, but i'll go for it anyway. A sperm cell is a living thing, and its only real purpose is to carry genetic information that will be used to create a new living thing. All a virus really does is carry genetic information that will be used to create more viruses. So, in that way, viruses are like living things. I'm aware that there are other things that must be considered when considering whether something is living or not, but fact is, sperm cells and viruses are similar in a way... They both are just transmitters of genetic info, with no other purpose for existence (as far as I know)... So, that's just something that came to me, so I thought i'd share it.

One flaw. A sperm cell combines with a egg cell of the same speices. A sperm cell can't create a human by invading any random cell. It is specifically structured to penetrate an egg cell.

Whereas a virus can't replicate on it's own but must a host cell which it invades.

I do agree. It is similar to that of virus in reproduction. But sperm can produce ATP and virus cannot (correct me if Im wrong), thats why it is cell-dependent "non-living organism". So according to me, can cannot decide who is right . . .

Not a bad thought though.

Originally Posted by Chemboy

ok, so here's what i'm thinking, and it might be a bit of a stretch, but i'll go for it anyway. A sperm cell is a living thing, and its only real purpose is to carry genetic information that will be used to create a new living thing. All a virus really does is carry genetic information that will be used to create more viruses. So, in that way, viruses are like living things. I'm aware that there are other things that must be considered when considering whether something is living or not, but fact is, sperm cells and viruses are similar in a way... They both are just transmitters of genetic info, with no other purpose for existence (as far as I know)... So, that's just something that came to me, so I thought i'd share it.

Very true, but as sigmafactor stated, we are all essentially just transporters of genetic info... all life on earth. The only difference between a sperm cell and a somatic cell is that it has half of the genetic material, give or take. Still it cant' replicate itself, but i believe that lots of other cant' either.

Dabob, it looked like you were trying to argue against the point, but actually supported it. Viruses can usally only attack one type of cell, and in a lot of cases, of only one species. Sperm cells are similar in this regard, but can occaisonally cross the species boundary. Horse + Donkey = Mule.

I think it comes down to "it's a cell that came from another living cell"

When a sperm cell, and an egg cell fuse together, they form a single cell called a zygote, so sperms allow reproduction by meiosis. As for the virus, it attacks the cell, replicates its OWN genetic material, and then leaves. The sperm cell has a spiral mitochondrion around its flagellum which produces ATP by respiration, to allow movement , and has a cytoplasm in wich all the regular metabolic reactions characterizing "life" occur. In this sense, when a sperm and an egg fuse together, they are like partners, since both cells are living, and both are contributing genetic material. but in the case of a virus, the cell to which a virus joins, is more like a host, since it does not contribute any genetic material, but rather its energy and reactions are used by the virus to allow it to reproduce. A virus , then, is non living since it cannot perform, on its own, the reactions needed to supply energy for any lively processes.

Of course

Of course

If it moves on its own, in fact swims!, its not just Living but a complete living entity by it self.

also If it dies then it must have lived

Originally Posted by shiva108

also If it dies then it must have lived

too true - as any logical tautology must be

This goes back to the old question of the definition of the term "life", which has been extensively discussed in other threads. Although this is an ongoing debate (what isn't?) I think that a sperm cell is not even close to being called "alive" by biologists. Robot-like motion is certainly not sufficient to determine "life".