• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Clones - not the same person.

D

DonNiggera

Senior member
If we were to clone a human, they would have to start out from birth right?

Well, it's not like they would be the exact same person. They would have different thoughts, morals, and depending on their diet, they may not even look the same. It depends on how the "clone" grows up, lives, works, studies. Unless told, it would never know it was cloned, seeing as it was actually born by the mother.

So, instead of giving natural birth, they could clone the father's genes, or mothers, and simply use that for the baby. Eliminating the chance for a birth defect.

 
We can only think of starting a clone from birth. To "birth" a clone at a later stage, you'd have to generate every cell (cloned) in the right position; short of a StarTrek-brand teleporter, that's a very difficult thing to do.

Fathers and mothers don't have "full" genes in most of the body due to a shortening in DNA replication. Basically, an enzyme or protein or something "rides" the DNA in both directions to clone it, and when it gets to the end it sits on the last few nucleotides and can't clone those, so our DNA gets shorter as we get older. Although we don't actually lose important genes, cloning people from shortened DNA is generally not a good idea.

Secondly, there's something called the "maternal effect". The example they always gave in class was a snail: If the mother has a clockwise swirl in the shell and the offspring has genes for a counterclockwise swirl, it will still develop a clockwise swirl. It's magic!

Most birth defects aren't caused by poor gene inheritance. Although it may happen occasionally, most of my sperm are healthy little buggers and carry a full half of my chromosomes. Genetic defects occasionally occur after the fusion of gametes, but usually aren't lethal (birth marks are genetic defects). What you would be eliminating by "controlled" cloning would be inheritance of poor or misfunctional genes. Ex: Albinism is a recessive genetic disease, you can carry it but not show it. To prevent your children from having albinism, you prevent the defective gene from appearing by only taking the correct gene. There is research being done in generating controlled recessor genes that would "turn off" broken genes. If you mean "test tube babies", I don't think it can be done, but go ahead and try to prove me wrong. 😛

You are absolutely correct about the "...exact same person" paragraph. Identical twins are a good example: they are relatively identical genetically. They look the same, but typically act completely different by the time they learn to speak. I know these two "identical" girls; one spent time in the sun, the other curled her hair or something, and now they look noticeably different. I think one has bigger boobs too, but I have no proof of that.

Why do you ask? Wondering about your background and why you never met your parents? j/k 😛
 
Good points you got there indeed. We discussed it in biology, and in workplace readiness... The teacher Brother Huggins from WR said that it was against the bible's teachings, and wondered if they would even have a soul.

I posted cuz there was another post about cloning and what could go "wrong" or something like that, so I just posted to show that it's not true...
 
Its classic "nature vs. nurture". It would be interesting though to clone Hitler and have him raised up by black parents in the "hood". He'll probably end up like Eminem😀
 
No soul? Whatever. Do identical twins and 5 kittens per litter share the same soul? And was my soul cut off when I was circumsized? And what's a WR? 🙂

You're right, though ... it's not the most impossible thing. We just dunno how to do it perfect yet. I didn't see the other thread, but I'm sure their mentioning that Dolly the sheep is having all sorts of problems, but the first computer I ever built practically exploded!

And, in my opinion (and everything forthcoming is completely opinion), personality is generally not determined by genetics or "clones". Cloning Hitler or cloning Bill Clinton wouldn't affect whether, after being raised by black parents, they'd act like Eminem. It can affect things due to lethal genetic defects, mental retardation, extra fingers (polyploidy), sickle cell anemia, and the fact that a white german raised by black parents in the "hood" would probably get his ass smeared all over the blacktop. Getting picked on for being different certainly has made me more likely to blow up the world than otherwise!


--Ed
 
Personality IS determined to some extent by genes, how much is the big debate. Psychologists generally agree its more like a 50/50 split between "nature"(genes) and "nurture"(environment). Identical twins seperated from birth still exhibit similar behavior even though they grew up in different places. But, at the same time, each develops unique behavior that can only come from the environment they grew up in.
 
I'm glad to see a thread like this appear from time to time 🙂

Most physical properties are already determined in the DNA of the developing embryo. Limbs, organs etc. will develop the same way in twins who originate from the same fertilized egg. The peripheral nervous system and some parts of the CNS are hardwired as well. However, the CNS isn't totally hardwired. The development of certain parts depends totally or to some extent on the environment and sheer luck.

If you would cover the eyes of a newborn child so that no light would reach the retina and this situation would be maintained until the child would be 15-20 years old, the child would have really limited vision (shades) or would be blind. The visual cortex develops itself and starts functioning after birth.

The frontal lobe, where is assumed that the personality of a person is located, develops much in the same way. The personality of a twin is therefore just as different as that of two sisters/brothers who are not twins. However, since other parts of the brain do influence personality and those parts are (nearly) identical for twins, to others it might seem like they're quite similar in personality. This doesn't have to be the case, though.

A clone and a twin is the same thing, except that a clone doesn't have to be of the same age as the cloned person.

I would like to add a tiny bit of information about the state of cloning: with our current knowledge of embryogenesis (the development of an organism out of just one stemcell), flaws in the DNA of the clone are unavoidable. The clone will therefore have more genetical defects than the cloned person and will suffer from physical and mental problems and illness.

It's no wonder that most scientists advise against cloning until we know more about the developing organism.
 
Good points you got there indeed. We discussed it in biology, and in
workplace readiness... The teacher Brother Huggins from WR said that
it was against the bible's teachings, and wondered if they would even
have a soul.

I posted cuz there was another post about cloning and what could go
"wrong" or something like that, so I just posted to show that it's
not true...

This guy is teaching!? No wonder the world is so screwed up. I hope this isnt who Bush wants to give federal funding to.

Identity is continuity, not similarity. Clones are not identical. If I were to replicate you (Star Trek style), the two of you would not be the same person an hour later.
 
Its like you get a cake from someone and you realy like it and you ask whats in it. You get a list of everything that is needed to make the cake and the amount that is needed, nothing more, you dont have a clue how to go on from there.

Same thing with cloning.

(this metaphore is going to be sooo trashed by you people 🙂)
 
Czar, actually, thats a pretty good analogy. Especially because it leaves room for error. Say you don't bake the cake enough, because you were in a hurry. Well, no one will like that cake very much. Thats the problem with cloning. It's a good idea in theory, but it's so difficult, we're bound to see some "cakes" no one would ever want to "eat." What do we do with those cakes?

Anyone ever read "Frankenstein?" Seeing the Boris Karlof version doesn't count 😉.
 


<< Anyone ever read &quot;Frankenstein?&quot; Seeing the Boris Karlof version doesn't count 😉. >>

I read the book. The movie is just trash and in no way reflects the opinion of Mary Shelley.

Anyway, regarding the origional topic: I fully agree that more research is necessary (required) before we can even start thinking about cloning Humans.

Creating a 'monster' like Frankenstein did is extremely unlikely, since those clones will possess no supernatural powers. They'll be ordinairy Human beings. Nothing different from twins, except for the wide age-gap between both 'twins'.

Of course, if we decide not to let the child develop in a womb, but put it in a growingchamber instead so that we can control every single stage of embryogenesis, we can create 'more perfect' Humans.

Ain't science beautiful? 🙂
 


<< Creating a 'monster' like Frankenstein did is extremely unlikely, since those clones will possess no supernatural powers >>

The monster really didn't have any supernatural powers, he was very powerful, but I attributed that to his being built from the ground up. I think creating a &quot;monster&quot; is VERY likly with cloning w/o extensive testing first. We could end up with all manners of mistakes, and then what do we do with them? It's the same thing Frankenstein faced, it's still a life, even if it is a horridly disfigured one

The more recent movie adaptation of the book is pretty good. DeNiro made an excellent monster, and it followed the path of the book fairly well.
 
Of course, clones would be individual people. Just look at &quot;identical&quot; twins. Certainly many have similar characteristics and interests but many are also very different.

Many times, they are mirror images of one another. For instance, the Bryan twins (pro tennis players), one is right handed and one is left handed. One is actually a better tennis player (higher ranking in singles). But they make a great doubles team.

Twin studies are very useful in determining what a clone would be like compared to the &quot;original&quot;.

The main problem with cloning right now (in animals) is that many of the offspring have various genetic or other problems. Until the failure rate can be decreased, it probably shouldn't be tried in humans.

There are so many ways to have children now, I don't think cloning is really necessary.

I'm sure though that one day it will happen.

Jason
 
To clone a human is like to clone a PC.

Sure, when they're new they are identical, but after years of use stuff changes, programs are loaded, hardware is swapped, the case is dusty.

To make an exact clone of a living being of a certain age, you would need to somehow transfer memory. Something I don't see happening in the next 100 years at least.
 
&quot;...so our DNA gets shorter as we get older. Although we don't actually lose important genes, cloning people from shortened DNA is generally not a good idea.&quot;

Sensor
Telomerase activity happens ANY time the DNA molecule is duplicated. This means that the gametes that were used to make you and every single one of us were also made from &quot;shortened DNA&quot;. If one were to follow the logic above, humans and pretty much every other organism on earth would be long gone.
 
Actually, the DNA is not shortened in certain parts of an organism. Specifically, gametes and (I believe) the liver don't shorten our DNA during mitosis, otherwise you're right -- life would be pretty futile. 🙂

I really like the cake analogy. It's true -- given the ingredients, you don't know what you get because you can make it differently. Maybe you bake it too long, maybe you mix it too little.

Here's a question, though: why would you want to clone a human? It's pretty obvious we won't see any &quot;6th Day&quot; type cloning (popping a full-grown clone w/ memory in 1 hour), so what's the point of embryonic cloning, aside from &quot;I-can-do-it&quot; pride? Wouldn't it be more efficient and practical to repair genes on a small scale than to try to find &quot;perfect&quot; stock DNA and clone babies from it? Besides, I'd be a little uneasy with having my wife give birth to a child who I didn't &quot;contribute&quot; to, if you know what I mean. 😉

--Ed
 
Sensor, the use of cloning?

It's not a good choice for reproduction, unless the 'natural' way is not possible for every couple on this planet.

A possible application of cloning would be growing new limbs and organs to replace lost or damaged parts. Since it's the patient's own tissue, it will not get rejected, so no extra medicines are needed. There'll never be a shortage of organs etc. either.

Cloning an organism in order to get more 'copies' which can be used in experiments or studies would be another realistic application.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top