Jump to content


 


Register a free account to unlock additional features at BleepingComputer.com
Welcome to BleepingComputer, a free community where people like yourself come together to discuss and learn how to use their computers. Using the site is easy and fun. As a guest, you can browse and view the various discussions in the forums, but can not create a new topic or reply to an existing one unless you are logged in. Other benefits of registering an account are subscribing to topics and forums, creating a blog, and having no ads shown anywhere on the site.


Click here to Register a free account now! or read our Welcome Guide to learn how to use this site.

Photo

Cloning


  • This topic is locked This topic is locked
48 replies to this topic

#1 yabbadoo

yabbadoo

  • Banned
  • 510 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Local time:01:04 AM

Posted 23 July 2013 - 02:28 AM

The science of cloning is already here, it is an established practical process. sheep have been cloned, pets have been cloned and other animals have been cloned. Great attempts are being made to clone a Mammoth, but the 12,000 year old DNA together with the contamination problem is causing a hold-up. I understand they have now got a workable sample.
 
Any living thing can be cloned - identical humans for specific tasks or qualities (the groupings of these are infinite), pets, animals, Mothers and Fathers, any relative or close friend, Presidents and other great characters of history - etc. etc. etc - ad infinitum.
 
If this science had been available in 1944,the Germans could have cloned Adolf Hitler, then comes Stalin, Mao Zedong and a whole line of desirable  and undesirable characters. We could even bring General Custer back.
 
Yes, there are a mountain of moral, ethical, religious and legal issues, but all these become irrelevant with regard to the country involved. There have always been and always will be countries who care nothing about others or International agreements or anything except their own policies. It is in this independent go-it-alone attitude that I post this subject. 
 
To describe all the known civilised issues connected with cloning is a waste of time here, we can all read those on the web in great detail. My aim here is to discuss the subject of unrestricted  cloning, the infinite benefits and disadvantages to science and our race.
 

 



BC AdBot (Login to Remove)

 


#2 Animal

Animal

    Bleepin' Animinion


  • Site Admin
  • 35,782 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Where You Least Expect Me To Be
  • Local time:05:04 PM

Posted 23 July 2013 - 09:07 PM

Two words. Generational Loss

A representation of what that means from a photographic standpoint.

JPEG_Generarion_Loss_rotating_90_(stitch

Image from: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generation_loss

The Internet is so big, so powerful and pointless that for some people it is a complete substitute for life.
Andrew Brown (1938-1994)


A learning experience is one of those things that say, "You know that thing you just did? Don't do that." Douglas Adams (1952-2001)


"Imagination is more important than knowledge. Knowledge is limited. Imagination circles the world." Albert Einstein (1879-1955)


Follow BleepingComputer on: Facebook | Twitter | Google+

#3 MissPlaced

MissPlaced

  • Members
  • 929 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:This side of the moon
  • Local time:08:04 PM

Posted 24 July 2013 - 04:48 AM

Yabbadoo,

 yes the technology is there..but it's flawed.....

yes you can clone a body...BUT you can't clone a soul.....

Respectfully

MissPlaced



You want to be great, Learn how to heal people, To hurt people is easy


Be Kinder then you have to be,you never know what battle someone else is fighting~~~
~~~~Martrys song~~~~~
~~~~My Deliverer~~~~~~

#4 georgehenry

georgehenry

  • Members
  • 441 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:New Romney, Kent, England.
  • Local time:01:04 AM

Posted 24 July 2013 - 09:39 AM

If the cloned subject has no soul, there is no problem about producing them. These souless creatures can be used as spare body parts repositories, and as free labour etc. They can be moulded into anything we want with no problems.


 yes the technology is there..but it's flawed.....

yes you can clone a body...BUT you can't clone a soul.....



#5 yabbadoo

yabbadoo
  • Topic Starter

  • Banned
  • 510 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Local time:01:04 AM

Posted 24 July 2013 - 04:27 PM

I sincerely highly respect the comments referring to "A Soul", but tried to make it  clear in my OP that I  wish to keep this subject entirely in a scientific mould and steer clear of all moral and religious beliefs.
 
Just to clarify and certainly not to promote any further discussion on the subject :-
 
"Everything Has a Soul"
 
In truth, not just human beings, but also every created form of life possesses a "soul." Animals have souls, as do plants and even inanimate objects; every blade of grass has a soul, and every grain of sand. Not only life, but also existence requires a soul to sustain it.
 
Please let it end there and concentrate entirely on the scientific issues of cloning. I have no desire to see the thread hijacked into a religious discussion.
 
Thank you kindly.
Yabba


#6 yabbadoo

yabbadoo
  • Topic Starter

  • Banned
  • 510 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Local time:01:04 AM

Posted 24 July 2013 - 05:02 PM

@ Animlal - post 2

 

Now THAT reply is extremely scientific and relevant.  It is a theme which many people including myself are/were not aware of.

 

What it suggests is successful cloning is time related, the shorter the time, the better the clone, the longer the time, the more chance the clone has of being degraded.

 

It is a serious factor that the cloning scientists must be well aware of and I thank you for posting it here.



#7 hispaladin

hispaladin

  • Members
  • 245 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Middle of a corn field
  • Local time:07:04 PM

Posted 25 July 2013 - 03:01 PM

@ Animal and Yabbadoo

 

Ok mainly at Animal

Does this refer to time from the original (meaning the longer you wait to make the clone the lower the quality) or does it refer to cloning a clone produces lower quality?  I was under the impression that it was the latter.  The problem that would quickly arise is that someone would clone a cow because it is an exceptionally good stock animal, produces lots of quality milk or whatever.  Then they would clone that one again because of the same reason.  quickly all the undesirable stock would be gone because no one ever breeds cows anymore cause you can get a guaranteed good cow by cloning.  Then by the time the degradation begins to become obvious it is to late to go back because all the clones are to far gone to successfully reproduce or at least to reproduce healthy viable offspring.

Yabba, you said it is a serious factor that cloning scientists must be well aware of.  While this is probably true we both know that the countries in question are not going to care about the long term effects of what they are doing and will most likely rely on everyone else to do it right to make up for them.  The problem is everyone will think this way and then no one does it right.  I see this right here in the heartland of the US with farming practices.  No one will see the damage they are doing and look at it and say either "We didn't do that" or "Oh well, its not my problem".  I work for a farming coop and I see this mentality all day long.  No one cares about the long term effects of what they are doing or even the short term effects because it is happening hundreds of miles away.

Please clarify if I have this wrong, this is just how I took it.


Edited by hispaladin, 25 July 2013 - 03:05 PM.


#8 hispaladin

hispaladin

  • Members
  • 245 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Middle of a corn field
  • Local time:07:04 PM

Posted 25 July 2013 - 03:14 PM

Also, without hijacking the thread on the whole "soul" debate.  As I understand cloning, you cannot clone a person and get "that" person back.  They may look like them but they will not have their memories or personality or anything else that goes along with the original.  So to say you could clone Hitler and have another Hitler on your hands would not quite be right.  You would have a person with the same DNA as hitler but not the "same" person.  My info is based on stuff I read probably 12 years ago so it could very well be wrong but what I read then was if you clone a dog that is a mut, you would get the exact same mix of breeds of dog, but it may not look exactly the same.  The pattern of the fur would be different ect.  So cloning people to resurrect the dead would not work but cloning someone to get a extremely rare DNA match for a organ transplant would be plausible.  Again my data is dated so it may not be accurate any more but there is what I have.  



#9 Animal

Animal

    Bleepin' Animinion


  • Site Admin
  • 35,782 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Where You Least Expect Me To Be
  • Local time:05:04 PM

Posted 25 July 2013 - 04:10 PM

Yes, my reference is subsequent copies degrade. i.e. a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy etc. The further down the line the copy is the more degraded from the original that you may not even be able to call it a true 'clone'. I can't fathom that a copy of a copy would be 100% unaltered in even the tiniest fraction from the original. The mere fact of making the copy would seem to introduce 'noise' at some level.

I'm not even going to touch the soul/spirit aspect. Nor the playing God/Mother Nature debate. My question/position is purely from a scientific and ethical point of view. How can we absolutely and undeniably know for a fact a copy of a copy of a copy is identical in every way to the original? If it isn't, can you say it's a clone? Then wouldn't it be just a reasonable facsimile of the original?

The Internet is so big, so powerful and pointless that for some people it is a complete substitute for life.
Andrew Brown (1938-1994)


A learning experience is one of those things that say, "You know that thing you just did? Don't do that." Douglas Adams (1952-2001)


"Imagination is more important than knowledge. Knowledge is limited. Imagination circles the world." Albert Einstein (1879-1955)


Follow BleepingComputer on: Facebook | Twitter | Google+

#10 yabbadoo

yabbadoo
  • Topic Starter

  • Banned
  • 510 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Local time:01:04 AM

Posted 25 July 2013 - 04:44 PM

We are of course dealing with a highly scientific aspect of genetic engineering and we mere footsloggers know little about it. But that does not prevent our discussing the matter.

 

Animal, my highly respected fountain of all knowledge, made a good point in his "copy" theory :-

 

"Yes, my reference is subsequent copies degrade. i.e. a copy of a copy of a copy of a copy etc. The further down the line the copy is the more degraded from the original that you may not even be able to call it a true 'clone'. I can't fathom that a copy of a copy would be 100% unaltered in even the tiniest fraction from the original. The mere fact of making the copy would seem to introduce 'noise' at some level."

 

I would clarify that cloning does not  conform to this, there is NO copy of a copy series degradation. That is a similar analogy to translation, where an original is translated and becomes a master copy. If we then retranslate the master copy back to the original language and then conduct a series of translations and re-translations from copy to copy, then after a number of these, the re-translation will be nothing like the original text. This is literary degradation as opposed to the pictorial degradation of Animals example.

 

With  cloning, the sample DNA is taken direct  from the original donor and genetically reproduced in the clone. There is NO degradation due to series copying  The clone is a perfect copy of the original, it is the master copy.

 

We have no normal examples of identical reproduction to quote in life. Even identical twins do not conform as they are the result of TWO independent people and TWO DNA`s.

 

​Cloning has already been done in livestock for breed perfection, quality, meat or wool purposes.

 

The point I cannot contemplate is whilst the DNA of the donor can produce an identical clone or replica in physical terms, I fail to see how the mental ability of the brain and consequent physical attributes can be genetically transferred. Not being a genetic scientist, I would not know.

 

If the genetic transfer is in fact total, including mental and physical attributes, then we have a whole new ball-park. The possibilities are infinite.

 

Example - A multi-million dollar winning race horse could be cloned  to provide a repetitive lucrative future for the owner or of course  criminals. The possibilities of cloning for a specific purpose are endless and quite frightening.


Edited by yabbadoo, 25 July 2013 - 05:01 PM.


#11 MissPlaced

MissPlaced

  • Members
  • 929 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Female
  • Location:This side of the moon
  • Local time:08:04 PM

Posted 26 July 2013 - 08:11 PM

@ Yabbadoo, point well taken and since I don't know science much less understand it, I leave your thread, not because i'm angry, i'm not..but because I have nothing of value to add to it.

 

RESPECTFULLY

MissPlaced



You want to be great, Learn how to heal people, To hurt people is easy


Be Kinder then you have to be,you never know what battle someone else is fighting~~~
~~~~Martrys song~~~~~
~~~~My Deliverer~~~~~~

#12 georgehenry

georgehenry

  • Members
  • 441 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:New Romney, Kent, England.
  • Local time:01:04 AM

Posted 28 July 2013 - 04:45 AM

Using cloning, the nature v nurture argument, could possibily be resolved.



#13 yabbadoo

yabbadoo
  • Topic Starter

  • Banned
  • 510 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Local time:01:04 AM

Posted 28 July 2013 - 07:56 AM

@ georgehenry

 

Like I have already stated, I can see how a visual identical  replica can be produced, but not the original character in mental and physical ability. I do not see how the original  brain function can possibly be transferred by DNA.

 

You can bring a perfect replica of Custer back, but he would most likely cut his leg off sheathing his sword and could not ride a beach Donkey.

 

Clones do of course take the natural cycle to reach purposeful adulthood. Animals in general a few years and humans over 20 years.


Edited by yabbadoo, 28 July 2013 - 07:58 AM.


#14 georgehenry

georgehenry

  • Members
  • 441 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:New Romney, Kent, England.
  • Local time:01:04 AM

Posted 28 July 2013 - 12:20 PM

As I said nature v nurture.



#15 hispaladin

hispaladin

  • Members
  • 245 posts
  • OFFLINE
  •  
  • Gender:Male
  • Location:Middle of a corn field
  • Local time:07:04 PM

Posted 29 July 2013 - 02:44 PM

"With  cloning, the sample DNA is taken direct  from the original donor and genetically reproduced in the clone. There is NO degradation due to series copying  The clone is a perfect copy of the original, it is the master copy."

My question is what are the chances that the degradation is simply to minute to detect(I would say the chances are quite high).  A single "generation" would show no signs what so ever and even a second or possibly a third.  The question would arise though of how long would you be able to keep the original DNA in a state that is functional to use?  Eventually time would take its toll and that DNA would no longer function.  Not to mention the fact that some would undoubtedly want to reproduce the success of the first generation clone but would not have access to the original DNA and would use the DNA from the clone.  This could spark the degradation.  My concern really would be that once this started to become common place no one would rely on good old fashion reproduction anymore as they would not be able to produce the "perfect" stock that they could get from a clone.  Eventually you would end up with a very limited gene pool and going back would not work due to inbreeding.

 

"We have no normal examples of identical reproduction to quote in life. Even identical twins do not conform as they are the result of TWO independent people and TWO DNA`s."

That is correct because in a sense life does not "reproduce" but rather produces an original every time.  While the offspring is similar it is never the same.  Cloning attempts (or succeeds) in reproducing life.  

 

I can see the benefits of cloning in certain situations.  Animals that are facing extinction.  Clone a few and create a new heard and let them grow and reproduce then allow the offspring to mingle back into the original group to bolster their numbers.  But cloning to recreate a "perfect" specimen sounds like a recipe for disaster to me.






0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users