its that new york tap water
Poll
Do you believe in Cloning?
| Yes, clone anything | 66% | 66% - 58 | ||||
| No, clone nothing | 5% | 5% - 5 | ||||
| Yes, only simple life forms | 17% | 17% - 15 | ||||
| Only plants | 10% | 10% - 9 | ||||
| Total: 87 | ||||||
cant even drink mine tbhGunSlinger OIF II wrote:
its that new york tap water
Spoiler (highlight to read):
sulfuric well water doesnt taste gud
doesnt new yourk have the best tap water in the country. I heard it aint authentic new york style pizza unless you use new york tap water for the dough. supposedly thats the secret to ray's
New York does have the best tap water, that is correct. It tastes better than most bottled water tbh.GunSlinger OIF II wrote:
doesnt new yourk have the best tap water in the country. I heard it aint authentic new york style pizza unless you use new york tap water for the dough. supposedly thats the secret to ray's
And then punish the fucking coward bitch, it would be as close to geting back at the real thing but not quite, probably satisfy a lot of jews.....bet the jews want cloning to be fully legal.CruZ4dR wrote:
Heard of the scientists that wanted to clone Hitler so they could torture him to death? I'm not kidding.
Cloning can save humanity in possibly bad situations.
CruZ4dR wrote:
Yes to all. Cloning is a fact, mankind would be foolish not to take advantage of the possibilities. There's too much talking about ethics concidering the opposers are fairly outnumbered. Cloning is one step closer to life enhancements and cures for diseases like HIV and cancer.
Same DNA...whoop dee doo. Go nuts with clones and build your own Clone Army, if you will, so that one can protect their Empire with a storm of troopers.
Those who say we can beat HIV via cloning, please tell me how. Cloning wont help at all vs a virus that can mutate so fast that the genetic variation of the HIV virus in ONE infected person after 10 years is just as large as the genetic variation for one influenza strain in the world..
Since all humans detect virus and other pathogens in a similar but still different manner (MHC/HLA variation for those who know a bit more...) is very very stupid to narrow the genetic variation in the human just because of this. Less genetic variation = higher risk of getting WTFPWNT by a single super pathogen. To become "immune" to most diseases a species need more genetic variation, not less.
Further, if we clone a human this clone should of course have the very same value as a non cloned person. The clone have a unique personality just like everybody else. Since the clone should have the same rights as a 'normal' person I don't think its right to clone on the sheer basis that we don't know what will happen in 30 years ahead.
Everybody knows Dolly and I think most people also know that she died at the age of six, normal life span of a sheep is 12 years old. She also suffered early on from arthritis, a sickness often connected with age. Not all evidence point at the fact that Dolly was born with the genetic material of a 6 year old sheep but the events sure raise the question.
A human life cannot be experimented on, if we cannot guarantee the person a 'normal' life then we shouldn't clone.
Since all humans detect virus and other pathogens in a similar but still different manner (MHC/HLA variation for those who know a bit more...) is very very stupid to narrow the genetic variation in the human just because of this. Less genetic variation = higher risk of getting WTFPWNT by a single super pathogen. To become "immune" to most diseases a species need more genetic variation, not less.
Further, if we clone a human this clone should of course have the very same value as a non cloned person. The clone have a unique personality just like everybody else. Since the clone should have the same rights as a 'normal' person I don't think its right to clone on the sheer basis that we don't know what will happen in 30 years ahead.
Everybody knows Dolly and I think most people also know that she died at the age of six, normal life span of a sheep is 12 years old. She also suffered early on from arthritis, a sickness often connected with age. Not all evidence point at the fact that Dolly was born with the genetic material of a 6 year old sheep but the events sure raise the question.
A human life cannot be experimented on, if we cannot guarantee the person a 'normal' life then we shouldn't clone.
Ah... Facts... how they love to be distorted...Raga86 wrote:
Everybody knows Dolly and I think most people also know that she died at the age of six, normal life span of a sheep is 12 years old. She also suffered early on from arthritis, a sickness often connected with age. Not all evidence point at the fact that Dolly was born with the genetic material of a 6 year old sheep but the events sure raise the question.
wikipedia wrote:
On February 14, 2003, Dolly was euthanised because of a progressive lung disease.[10] A Finn Dorset such as Dolly has a life expectancy of around 12 to 15 years, but Dolly lived to be only six years of age. An autopsy showed she had a form of lung cancer called Jaagsiekte that is a fairly common disease of sheep and is caused by the retrovirus JSRV.[11] Roslin scientists stated that they did not think there was a connection with Dolly's being a clone, and that other sheep in the same flock had died of the same disease.[10] Such lung diseases are a particular danger for sheep kept indoors, and Dolly had to sleep inside for security reasons.
source
Oh yeah Wiki is the place to go...
Take a look at the review of "Somatic cell nuclear transfer: Past, present and future perspectives" by K.H.S. Campbell. Table 1. If i interpret it correctly is says that only 3,8% of all studies using in vitro cloning come out with no abnormalities. Thats a pretty low number. I could be wrong in the interpretation though...
Mind to address my other points as well Scorpion? And as I said, not all evidence point in the direction of the abnormal aging, only some. And dolly wasnt my main point either ^
Take a look at the review of "Somatic cell nuclear transfer: Past, present and future perspectives" by K.H.S. Campbell. Table 1. If i interpret it correctly is says that only 3,8% of all studies using in vitro cloning come out with no abnormalities. Thats a pretty low number. I could be wrong in the interpretation though...
Mind to address my other points as well Scorpion? And as I said, not all evidence point in the direction of the abnormal aging, only some. And dolly wasnt my main point either ^
Last edited by Raga86 (2008-03-15 07:08:09)
I was merely correcting an inaccuracy in you post. That's all.
I agree with you on your point about genetic variety and HIV.
But the question about the rights of a cloned person is moot.
There is essentially no difference in what you think 'human cloning' means and normal sexual reproduction - bar the fact that the person only has one parent - we are all, in a sense, 'clones' of our parents.
Would you ask the same question in reference to test-tube babies?
I agree with you on your point about genetic variety and HIV.
But the question about the rights of a cloned person is moot.
There is essentially no difference in what you think 'human cloning' means and normal sexual reproduction - bar the fact that the person only has one parent - we are all, in a sense, 'clones' of our parents.
Would you ask the same question in reference to test-tube babies?
Well I wouldn't say we are clones of our parents, we a 'random' mix of our parents DNA. Due to this randomness sequences that are repressed in our parents might be expressed the child. This can then either produce more beneficial or negative results, all random.
This mixing wont happen when you clone. As well as one shouldn't overestimate the power of the genes, one shouldn't underestimate it either.
Test tube babies are still done 'the old fashioned way' of a sperm fertilizing an egg and all the processes that take place naturally take place here as well, only in vitro.
So I would say that there are huge differances in cloning and normal sexual reproduction regarding the DNA.
This mixing wont happen when you clone. As well as one shouldn't overestimate the power of the genes, one shouldn't underestimate it either.
Test tube babies are still done 'the old fashioned way' of a sperm fertilizing an egg and all the processes that take place naturally take place here as well, only in vitro.
So I would say that there are huge differances in cloning and normal sexual reproduction regarding the DNA.
cloning is weaksauce tbh, what's the point of it?
no cloning it is immoral and not meant to be.
Define "meant to be".eaglecorps wrote:
no cloning it is immoral and not meant to be.
I think the majority of this forum lacks a proper understanding of why cloning isn't the cure-all science that it's said to be. Like the example of Dolly, clones live much shorter lifespans than their original creature. For example, if you cloned an 80 year old human, they'd probably live no longer than 20 years (because 100 probably a good guess as to the maximum age for most humans, although some people live longer). This is because of telomeres. Telomeres are the ends of chromosomes that get shortened through every cycle of cell reproduction. Eventually, cells reach the end of their telomeres due to many reproduction cycles and lose their ability to reproduce. This is the cause of many natural problems of old people such as bone fragility and some heart conditions. Before cloning can be useful, we need to master the genetic coding of an enzyme called telomerase.
Telomerase is an enzyme that lengthens telomeres through reverse transcriptase (turning the incomplete ends of telomeres which are similar to RNA into DNA). With the extension of telomeres comes the extension of the cell's ability to divide. There are two common instances when telomerase is activated: cancer cells and zygote formation. The exponential growth of cancer cells is made possible by telomerase. Without it, the cells would eventually die off and cancer would be much less deadly.
The more intriguing example of telomerase occurs post-sexual reproduction. Obviously, sperm and egg cells would have shortened telomeres because they don't get produced until puberty and usually not used to make babies until one's adulthood. However, it's pretty obvious that humans do not have shorter life spans as generations pass, in fact, humans tend to have longer lifespans than past generations. (but that's due to medical advances and not telomere extension) Somehow, telomerase gets activated in a zygote and extends the telomeres to a predetermined value, which is likely coded in DNA. The whole point of this post is that cloning with intentions for regular lifespans is useless without knowledge of telomeres.
Personally, I think more research should go into finding the DNA code that determines the length of telomeres in zygotes and finding a way to modify it to perhaps double the length of telomeres. Imagine a human race living twice as long (assuming only natural causes are variables). Sure, this wouldn't help overpopulation at all, but if we could live that much longer, it would be a worldwide revolution. But to stay on topic, scientists should also find ways to lengthen telomeres of cells that are going to be cloned. Attempting to increase telomeric length of every cell in the human body would he hopeless, so that's out of the question. I would imagine that simply injecting a cell with telomerase would not work (because that sounds far too easy to have been overlooked). Without knowledge of how to control telomeres, I think cloning is useless.
Kind of, yes and no. In fact sexual reproduction is more dangerous than cloning.Raga86 wrote:
Well I wouldn't say we are clones of our parents, we a 'random' mix of our parents DNA. Due to this randomness sequences that are repressed in our parents might be expressed the child. This can then either produce more beneficial or negative results, all random.
This mixing wont happen when you clone. As well as one shouldn't overestimate the power of the genes, one shouldn't underestimate it either.
Test tube babies are still done 'the old fashioned way' of a sperm fertilizing an egg and all the processes that take place naturally take place here as well, only in vitro.
So I would say that there are huge differances in cloning and normal sexual reproduction regarding the DNA.
With cloning all you're doing is taking one persons DNA, implanting that into a cell, and then manipulating that cell to make it subdivide and grow.
With artificial reproduction all you're doing is taking two peoples DNA, implanting them into a cell, and then manipulating that cell to make it subdivide and grow.
With natural reproduction all you're doing is taking two peoples DNA, implanting them into a cell, and then manipulating that cell to make it subdivide and grow.
Now, the reason the later two are more dangerous, is exactly the fact you point out - there's two people's DNA going in to the result.
You never know whether that result is even going to be viable, let alone grow to live a full, healthy, lifestyle.
With cloning, you at least know the source DNA is viable - think about it - it comes from a real, living, adult cell.
Yep maybe sexual reproduction is more "risky" than cloning but only in the short run.
As you said, with cloning you take one persons DNA and implant it into a new cell. With sexual reproduction you use two persons DNA and form a new cell. And as you said, many sperm and egg combinations will never make it and there will be lots of failures. This is however also the greatest strength of sexual reproduction, to create diversity.
Bacteria and other organisms use clonal expansion to reproduce. This makes them very efficient at reproducing in enviroments that allow reproduction. However when someone, for example a fungi, invents something, antibiotics, that kills one bacteria it will kill them all. Bacteria survive because of their huge number and their mutation frequency in their genome. The mutation frequency and their numbers allows for that one lucky bacteria to have the right mutation and survive and begin to build up their numbers again. Until the next antibiotics is created by a mutated fungi and the circle goes on... Without the diversity in the bacterial genome all bacteria could be eradicated by one super potent antibiotic.
Humans however cannot have a high mutation frequency because we are a much more advanced species than a bacteria. We also cannot produce any huge numbers compared to bacteria, 6 billion might sound a lot but compared to the numbers of bacteria that really is nothing. So we have other ways to create diversity in our genome. And the two main processes to create diversity lies within the sexual reproduction. One being that it takes two persons with different genomes to create a new zygote and the other is how the gametes are made.
The thing with two persons and their different DNA mixing together and this results in greater diversity than if only one persons DNA was used is quite easy to understand.
The second thing about how the gamets are made is a bit more delicate. Read here. I know its wiki and that I said it was a bad source and if you want a better source I can find one for you but what it says here is well written and correct from what I can see....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meiosis
Look at the Pachytene part.
"The pachytene stage, also known as pachynema, from Greek words meaning "thick threads,"[1] contains the following chromosomal crossover. Nonsister chromatids of homologous chromosomes randomly exchange segments of genetic information over regions of homology. (Sex chromosomes, however, are not identical, and only exchange information over a small region of homology.)"
This means that you can get genetic variety here as well that was not in either of the parents but unique to the new zygote. This system however can fail and one is of the reasons why sexual reproduction fails more often than cloning. Nonetheless the benefits from this are tremendous. It's thanks to our genetic diversity that we can counter most illnesses present today. If it wasn't because of this diversity the human species could be totally eradicated during the black death caused by Yersinia pestis in the 14th century.
The species who prevails is the one with the greatest diversity in the species genome and to continually change this. Cloning makes us less diverse and this can, in the short run be a positive thing. In the long run when we have to counter pandemics and antigenic shifts in example the influenza I think its better to be as diverse as possible.
Good post about telomeres btw Havok!
As you said, with cloning you take one persons DNA and implant it into a new cell. With sexual reproduction you use two persons DNA and form a new cell. And as you said, many sperm and egg combinations will never make it and there will be lots of failures. This is however also the greatest strength of sexual reproduction, to create diversity.
Bacteria and other organisms use clonal expansion to reproduce. This makes them very efficient at reproducing in enviroments that allow reproduction. However when someone, for example a fungi, invents something, antibiotics, that kills one bacteria it will kill them all. Bacteria survive because of their huge number and their mutation frequency in their genome. The mutation frequency and their numbers allows for that one lucky bacteria to have the right mutation and survive and begin to build up their numbers again. Until the next antibiotics is created by a mutated fungi and the circle goes on... Without the diversity in the bacterial genome all bacteria could be eradicated by one super potent antibiotic.
Humans however cannot have a high mutation frequency because we are a much more advanced species than a bacteria. We also cannot produce any huge numbers compared to bacteria, 6 billion might sound a lot but compared to the numbers of bacteria that really is nothing. So we have other ways to create diversity in our genome. And the two main processes to create diversity lies within the sexual reproduction. One being that it takes two persons with different genomes to create a new zygote and the other is how the gametes are made.
The thing with two persons and their different DNA mixing together and this results in greater diversity than if only one persons DNA was used is quite easy to understand.
The second thing about how the gamets are made is a bit more delicate. Read here. I know its wiki and that I said it was a bad source and if you want a better source I can find one for you but what it says here is well written and correct from what I can see....
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Meiosis
Look at the Pachytene part.
"The pachytene stage, also known as pachynema, from Greek words meaning "thick threads,"[1] contains the following chromosomal crossover. Nonsister chromatids of homologous chromosomes randomly exchange segments of genetic information over regions of homology. (Sex chromosomes, however, are not identical, and only exchange information over a small region of homology.)"
This means that you can get genetic variety here as well that was not in either of the parents but unique to the new zygote. This system however can fail and one is of the reasons why sexual reproduction fails more often than cloning. Nonetheless the benefits from this are tremendous. It's thanks to our genetic diversity that we can counter most illnesses present today. If it wasn't because of this diversity the human species could be totally eradicated during the black death caused by Yersinia pestis in the 14th century.
The species who prevails is the one with the greatest diversity in the species genome and to continually change this. Cloning makes us less diverse and this can, in the short run be a positive thing. In the long run when we have to counter pandemics and antigenic shifts in example the influenza I think its better to be as diverse as possible.
Good post about telomeres btw Havok!
Last edited by Raga86 (2008-03-15 18:24:54)
I believe in cloning organs. I will go as far as to say even it it means cloning a human vegetable of yourself to harvest an organ. Let me also add that I will bet anyone who is against it, will change their minds when/if their kid needs one.Bf2-GeneralArnott wrote:
What are you opinions on it?
Do you think cloning should be made legal for humans?
If so, why?
If not, why?
What are your thoughts/opinions on cloning and science such as this?
Inspired by my science class and that thread about the drones, which can be found here: http://forums.bf2s.com/viewtopic.php?id=72478
I believe in cloning organs. I will go as far as to say even it it means cloning a human vegetable of yourself to harvest an organ. Let me also add that I will bet anyone who is against it, will change their minds when/if their kid needs one.Bf2-GeneralArnott wrote:
What are you opinions on it?
Do you think cloning should be made legal for humans?
If so, why?
If not, why?
What are your thoughts/opinions on cloning and science such as this?
Inspired by my science class and that thread about the drones, which can be found here: http://forums.bf2s.com/viewtopic.php?id=72478
Yeah, I understand all that, but then when it comes to cloning who's really talking about creating 'clone armies' and the like?Raga86 wrote:
Yep maybe sexual reproduction is more "risky" than cloning but only in the short run....
The really great thing about cloning is you don't have to produce a whole living being - you can just reproduce certain tissues and/or organs.
Or could benefit from it themselves.lowing wrote:
Let me also add that I will bet anyone who is against it, will change their minds when/if their kid needs one.
(SHOCK! we agree on something lowing!)
Some of you guys watch way too many movies.
Well, yer right, but I opted for the more desperate scenario a parent could face.Scorpion0x17 wrote:
Yeah, I understand all that, but then when it comes to cloning who's really talking about creating 'clone armies' and the like?Raga86 wrote:
Yep maybe sexual reproduction is more "risky" than cloning but only in the short run....
The really great thing about cloning is you don't have to produce a whole living being - you can just reproduce certain tissues and/or organs.Or could benefit from it themselves.lowing wrote:
Let me also add that I will bet anyone who is against it, will change their minds when/if their kid needs one.
(SHOCK! we agree on something lowing!)
LOL, everyone always is blown away when they agree with me on something, am I really that bad??
In a word?lowing wrote:
LOL, everyone always is blown away when they agree with me on something, am I really that bad??
Yes.
Scorpion0x17 wrote:
In a word?lowing wrote:
LOL, everyone always is blown away when they agree with me on something, am I really that bad??
Yes.
Well, if I gotta be bad at least I am good at it.