[genegenie]

quote:Originally posted by bezoar

I like the Bill Hicks line.  I can think of a few people I'll use it on soon.  Thanks.

And as far as eggs carrying memory, ya think that's why women have better memories than men?

I think it's why women are better than men, period. (haha, joke fellas)

Science is organized knowledge. Wisdom is organized life.

[tweener]

I just finished reading a book "The Stone Canal" by MacLeod where the technology was advanced to a point where they could completely copy a persons brain patterns, store them, make complete clones (in a couple of weeks) and transfer the brain patterns into the cloned body.  Or they could make machines that could hold the brain patterns and function just as a person would.  It was an interesting concept, though the overall book was a little flat.

Back to this topic, I feel that cloning is just simply making a copy of the DNA and growing a new body.  It does not imply that the new body will be the same person or not have a soul or any such thing.  The new person is a person in their own right and will NOT be the same as their "parent".  Their environment will be completely different in the whole of their life, so they will be a different person.  Identical twins are clones of one another, and they (usually) share as close to the same environment as is possible.  Yet, they are distinct people.

This leads me to something else I read tonight in another thread (written by Quantumcat) that a person will always make the same choice under the same circumstances.  I don't buy that.  The only way that would hold true is if the brain were in the same state when all external circumstances were the same.  This is not possible.  I think that people will react differently to an ambiguous situation because they will always be in a different "state of mind".  A clone would always have a different state of mind than their twin.

Now, given all that, I'm all for "theraputic" cloning that can help cure disease, provide a person with a transplantable organ etc.  I don't strongly favor reproductive cloning because (as Jay said) there are plenty of people.  However, some couples that cannot naturally conceive children might really benefit (at least psychologically) from a cloned offspring.

As for the evolution argument, I don't buy that.  The human population is so large, and our technology so advanced, that natural selection plays no role in our gene pool.  Evolution only really works to change a species when the species is isolated into very small groups for several generations at a time.  This has not been the case with humans for several thousand years now.

I don't think that we as a society are ready for being able to "design" our offspring.  My worst fear is that everyone would want the same traits and thus we would end up more homogeneous than we already are.  Just like everyone going to WalMart and getting the same one or two choices for any product.

Wow, I guess I got started on that one huh?


----
John

[Ylide]

John, is it really cloning if both parents contribute genetic material to the child?  It's more like artificial insemination meets testtube baby at that point.  Formally, a clone is a genetic duplicate of the parent...a child made via an artificial genetic cross would be genetically distinct.  

To address your other point, your experiences and environment dictate your behvior far more than your genetics do.  You may be genetically predisposed to certain behavior (XYY males, homosexuals, etc) but a good deal of your mental development comes during childhood.  You will develop within the parameters of what your genetics allow for, (a downes syndrome kid isn't going to be doing any higher mathematics) but for a normal person, that's a VERY broad range.  

A normal (i.e. not retarded, not genius) can vary from impulsive, uneducated to refined, wise, and intelligent, to street-smart, fast-talking, and crafty.  It's all in the way you're raised and what things happen to you during impressionable years.  Things like illness, poor parental support, even social ostracization can inhibit mental development of a person during childhood years.  

I also agree with you that natural selection no longer plays a role in our society.  When morons hurt themselves doing things like jump onto 20 foot railings on a skateboard, smoking copious amounts of methamphetamine, or driving drunk and still survive because of the emergency medical support they receive from others, we are DEFINATELY not weeding out the unfit.  In fact, our society is oddly configured in that those who SHOULD be progenators of most of the offspring (the more educated and less violent members of society) are the ones spewing out the fewest kids.  



This message brought to you by The Council of People Who Are Sick of Seeing More People

[tweener]

Jay,
If you are taking my statement "Identical twins are clones of one another,..." to mean that they are not clones, you're right.  What I meant is that they share identical DNA, just like a clone.  Neither one is really a clone because both parents contributed DNA, but compared with each other they are as close to a clone as we can get right now.

I was kind of rambling.


----
John

[Ylide]

No, I was referring to your statement:

"However, some couples that cannot naturally conceive children might really benefit (at least psychologically) from a cloned offspring."

It's not really cloning if each parent contributes one set of chromosomes.  It's related technology of course, but not really cloning in the formal sense.



This message brought to you by The Council of People Who Are Sick of Seeing More People

[Quantumcat]

Well, twins aren't clones, because one wasn't made from the other, but they share genetic material like a clone, because both parents gave exactly the same genes to them as the other ... And they already do artificial baby-making now don't they? they take an egg and a sperm and introduce them ...  then in a few weeks implant it in the mother. At least that's what I thought.

Am I dead? Am I alive? I'm both!

[tweener]

Jay,
In talking about couples benefit from a cloned offspring, I meant that the offspring would be a clone of one of them (or maybe someone else).  They would still have a child to raise, which is presumably what they wanted.  I know that they wouldn't both contribute DNA or it wouldn't be a clone.  Then it would be in-vitro fertilization.  And, if I remember correctly, IVF caused almost as much hoopla when it was new as cloning is causing now.  

I just hope that the conservatives (aka religious fanatics) can't bully their way on this issue.  Someone in some country will press ahead, and I think it would be better to lead the way rather than follow.  But we (the USA) seem to be following more and more lately.

And QC you are absolutely right!


----
John

[Ylide]

Ah, thanks for clarifying, John.  I was misinterpreting what you were saying.  

The Bible-thumpers always manage to muscle their way into any research that involves the creation of human life.  They have the market cornered on divinity and they'll eat their shoes before they'll mankind demonstrate the ability to make life as their God supposedly did.



This message brought to you by The Council of People Who Are Sick of Seeing More People

[tweener]

I wish they would eat their shoes.  They are usually too busy trying to shove them down someone else's throat.


----
John

[chris]

Definition of "Clone" (from Google online dictionary)

1. A segment of DNA contained within a cloning vector.
2. An organism derived from a founding individual by asexual means that is genetically identical to the founding individual.

Technically speaking I would argue that identical twins are "clones" because a single fertilised embryo - the founding individual - splits to give rise to a second genetically identical individual. Twins therefore fit the definition.

It is worth bearing in mind that the present-day clones that we have been creating are not actually genuine clones. There are subtle differences between these specimens and a pair of twins.

All clones start with an enucleated egg (an egg from which the nucleus has been artificially removed). The reason for doing this is that egg cells contain the necessary machinery (mitochondria) for making energy in the new cells. But more significantly, eggs also contain specially primed cytoplasm (the liquid part of the cell) that can re-activate the developmental programme in DNA that guides embryonic development. This programme is shut off in adult cells and for good reason - because it shares some of the same mechanisms as cancer - rapid and invasive cell growth. We don't yet know the identity of many of these chemical factors that can re-awaken DNA that has been shut-off, which is why we need to rely on eggs to do the job for us.

Now, if the egg you use to make your clone is one of your own then you can expect to produce a genuine clone of yourself. But if, as frequently is the case, the egg you use is not one of your own - then the result will not be a geunine clone - because the mitochondria in each of the clone's cells will be derived from the original egg, and mitochondria contain their own genetic material.

To change the subject completely, you are absolutely right to question the role of DNA in guiding your behaviour and development. Our brains are products of our experiences with the best example being 2 identical twins separated at birth and raised in different countries. One would grow up speaking say French, and the other German or English. This is an example of how 2 genetically identical individuals would behave differently due to different life experiences.

I have covered much of this, and some more belt-and-braces cloning considerations in this article :

http://www.thenakedscientists.com/HTML/articles/article/chrissmithcolumn.htm

Chris


"I never forget a face, but in your case I'll make an exception"
 - Groucho Marx

[tweener]

Chris, it is good to see you posting again!

----
John - The Eternal Pessimist.

[bezoar]

I'll second that!  Missed you Chris.  Good to have you back.

[christianchick]

i think it should be banned only because of the natural desire in man to always want more, and because i want identity theft to stay with my credit card and ss#, not with my entire self

i have been here longer yet you seem to be more advanced...

[Quantumcat]

WHat the heck?

Am I dead? Am I alive? I'm both!

[MayoFlyFarmer]

its far fetched, but it does make sense

This is a signature.... AND YOU WILL LIKE IT!!