Notices
Results 1 to 15 of 15

Thread: sperm cell

  1. #1 sperm cell 
    Moderator Moderator AlexP's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    NY
    Posts
    1,838
    is a sperm cell considered a living thing?


    "There is a kind of lazy pleasure in useless and out-of-the-way erudition." -Jorge Luis Borges
    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2 Re: sperm cell 
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    34
    Quote 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.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, AB, Canada
    Posts
    120
    Yes. It is still a human cell.
    It is not so much that I have confidence in scientists being right, but that I have so much in nonscientists being wrong. --- Isaac Asimov
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Forum Freshman Jellybird's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    United Kingdom
    Posts
    66
    If all cells are considered living things, then yes.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Moderator Moderator AlexP's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2006
    Location
    NY
    Posts
    1,838
    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.
    "There is a kind of lazy pleasure in useless and out-of-the-way erudition." -Jorge Luis Borges
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Location
    Edmonton, AB, Canada
    Posts
    120
    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!)
    It is not so much that I have confidence in scientists being right, but that I have so much in nonscientists being wrong. --- Isaac Asimov
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    墨子 DaBOB's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2006
    Posts
    1,674
    Quote 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.
    Do not try and bend the spoon. That's impossible. Instead... only realize the truth. There is no spoon. Then you'll see that it is not the spoon that bends, it is only yourself. -Spoon Boy
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Freshman Tranquil's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2007
    Location
    Nimbrethil forest
    Posts
    23
    Quote Originally Posted by DaBOB
    Quote 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.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Forum Freshman Draculogenes's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    76
    Quote 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"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Forum Sophomore scientist-to-be's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cairo, Egypt
    Posts
    124
    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.
    In theory, there is no difference between theory and practice. In practice, however, there is.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Freshman taxpo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    KOSOVA
    Posts
    24
    Of course
    l=l0[1+α(t-t0)]
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Forum Freshman taxpo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Location
    KOSOVA
    Posts
    24
    Of course
    l=l0[1+α(t-t0)]
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Forum Freshman shiva108's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2007
    Location
    This Universe
    Posts
    27
    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
    shiva108
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    WYSIWYG Moderator marnixR's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Cardiff, Wales
    Posts
    5,810
    Quote Originally Posted by shiva108
    also If it dies then it must have lived
    too true - as any logical tautology must be
    "Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    M
    M is offline
    Forum Junior
    Join Date
    Sep 2006
    Posts
    282
    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".
    Reply With Quote  
     

Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •