------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stephen Ratcliff - 01:26am Jun 9, 1997 ET (#100 of 1108)
Can anyone tell me what this Ruben guy is talking about? He is going way too far with his run-ons, and I just can't follow that post.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Vladimir V. Zhenov - 11:29am Jun 9, 1997 ET (#101 of 1108)
Look at this problem from another side : what kind of attitude would be to those cloned people in the future? How will society treat them? I guess this is what we got to think about ...
------------------------------------------------------------------------
nikhilesh natraj - 11:47am Jun 9, 1997 ET (#102 of 1108)
really encourage cloning because it is the only solution to organ transplantations. the ethical sides should not hinder this phenomenon. as far as i am concerned, it is just one more step and link connecting us to the years of the future, the years beyond 2000. of course, it should not get out of hand, but that it is not so important. the fact is that cloning has provided a way to solve most of our modern biological problems. it should be respected and not misused. one should always remember that we are dealing with something big here, higher than us, more powerful and the fact that we are replacing the supreme one, the creator. Nikhilesh
------------------------------------------------------------------------
JT Smith - 01:59pm Jun 9, 1997 ET (#103 of 1108)
Religious groups and their leaders (ALL) have always feared science because the scientist may disprove their fiction.
For example, human cloning has just got to rub the Jesus-freaks the wrong way. How about it??? Hey, if I am cloned, is my "soul" duplicated??? Hey, does my clone not have a soul (like the "lower" animals)?
No science should be influenced by religions!!! Your days are numbered, as it stands the religions that are left have had to change their "rap" quite a bit over the past 2 hundred years as science has made leaps and bounds and caused them general embarassment!!!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Catherine Merrill - 03:36pm Jun 9, 1997 ET (#104 of 1108)
I was deeply saddened by JT Smith's comment on religion and science. I am a college student intending to pursue a degree in genetics, yet my Catholic faith remains strong. It is possible for science and religion to co-exist. As to cloning human beings, I am opposed. I favor the use of cloning techniques to generate organ replacements, etc, but creating an entire new human is unethical and immoral. Only one in this universe has the right to give (and take away) life, and that is God the Father.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tan Yun Fee - 03:48pm Jun 9, 1997 ET (#105 of 1108)
Human history seems to be complicated comparing to my believe in Buddha whereby Buddha once mention' " A day on heaven represent 18 years cycle of human life."Sometime in the history, mankind hoped that he could create a living replica of its ownkind for some reason just like in the movi titled'The Fifth Element'.The only question that wandering in my mind is that maybe in the future, those wo are born to be special a bit may open up stalls with banner hanging up written 'FRESH TISSUE FOR SALE' OR 'SPECIAL CREATURE WITHOUT HAND, HUMAN' WORST ' SEX SLAVE FOR SALE , SPECIAL CLONE COMBINATION OF MAN AND WOMAN'.I thought somebody up there send us into this world to face up challenge to decide our priority entering heave but this is insulting!My mum once told me that one day we'll turned up into starfish.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Stephen Kapolka - 04:46pm Jun 9, 1997 ET (#106 of 1108)
I don't see what the big deal is. Cloning just seems to be a more expensive and complicated way of doing what people have been doing since the beginning. Identical twins are treated as seperate people already, how could a clone be fundamentally different? I think the *real* issue, which has been touched on a bit here, is that of genetic engineering. Imagine a world where people (at least those that could afford it) could improve their offspring (or even themselves) in ways that would make them, in some way, better than everyone else. What would we do with a group of people that really *are* better looking, more athletic and much more intelligent that then the average person? And I don't mean by just a little, but *much* more. Every one an enhanced super Einstein with fashion model looks and a triatheletes' physique. What would they do with the rest of us? I think this is where the debate should be, cloning appears, to me, to be a sidetrack in the real debate.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Doctor Colossus - 07:47pm Jun 9, 1997 ET (#107 of 1108)
Don't be afraid! Anything is possible. Science is our friend. The human spirit will not tolerate injustice for any prolonged period. Understanding is good. A clone of a human is a human. Genetic alteration will help us live on Mars and beyond.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Frans de Calonne - 08:18pm Jun 9, 1997 ET (#108 of 1108)
Besides all the religious and ethical issues around the cloning of humans (or any living thing for that matter), there are also biological issues.
By cloning a species you are introducing two elements in a species' ability to survive that can have far ranging consequences in the future.
By cloning a species you: 1) Effectively stop the evolution process of a species. 2) Lose genetic diversity in a species.
By stopping the process of evolution, you could be keeping genetic traits in a species that are detrimental to its long term survival. Further more, by not having a species evolve to adapt to its environment, you could also be endangering its chances of survival. Think of the increased levels of UV radiation due to the depletion of the ozone layer. It is through natural selection and evolution that a species will become more resistant to the effects the UV radiation allowing it to survive in a new(ly created) environment.
By limiting the diversity of a species, you are increasing the chances that a new disease will bring that species to extinction.
Whether cloning humans, sheep or crops of lettuce you are always putting all your eggs in one (or at best a limited) 'genetic' basket, which is always a dangerous move.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kurt Schoedel - 08:50pm Jun 9, 1997 ET (#109 of 1108)
People with religious views such as Stephan Kapolka have the right to practice those views, of course. But they do not have the right to impose those views on others like myself who are not owned by any god. Since I am not a religious person, religious values cannot be applied to me. By definition, I am a morally sovereign entity. For religious people to assume that there laws and beliefs apply to me is to commit "intellectual colonialism" against my beliefs and my life-style. Intellectual colonialism is just as unacceptable as its racial counterpart was in the 19th century.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Charlie Audritsh - 10:48pm Jun 9, 1997 ET (#110 of 1108)
I think President Clinton has the right intentions here (and I'm a die-hard Republican). He seems to be saying "Let's research this thing more, and not go off half cocked and try to clone people until we know what we are dealing with". Hopefully a (global) ban on cloning humans would accomplish that. I could not possibly disagree more with Sen. Bond, saying that "human cloning is wrong, period." This is a premature answer to a question that has barely been asked, and jumps the gun on exactly what needs to be determined. I agree with previous posts suggesting that clones may be no different than twins, and that society needs to think about how to regard them. I think they'll be people just like you and me, deserving of full equality and human rights.
This technology holds out great promise for tissue and organ generation, as well as the genetic engineering possibility of correcting genetic defects. However, the prospect of genetically engineered superhumans forming a class "superior" to the rest of us does seem like a legimate threat -- this will be a moral issue we'll have to deal with along the way. I think we'll have plenty of time for that, because I just have to believe that engineering people to be "enhanced super Einstein fashion models" will be a heck of a lot harder than it sounds. I've heard that just mapping the human genome is a project on the scale of going to the moon, and not nearly as well funded.
One last idea to this long-winded post. The idea of cloning has existed in science fiction for so long, that much thought has already been given to all these issues. Because of this, the successful cloning of a sheep does not worry me. I think this is the one "potential threat of the future" that we as a society are best able to deal with, now that it is beginning to happen. I believe we are well prepared to deal with this in a way that will be ethical, moral, and still reap the benefits this technology may provide. I have no "future shock" with regard to cloning.
Charlie
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tom Anderson - 11:36pm Jun 9, 1997 ET (#111 of 1108)
Curiosity was framed, ignorance killed the cat
JT Smith 6/9/97 1:59pm,
Thank you; its hard to find reason around here.
Catherine Merrill 6/9/97 3:36pm,
Science and Religion are absolute opposites and cannot possibly coexist. The theist says, "I don't know why, God must have done it." The scientist says, "I don't know why, I will find out." And that is the difference.
Tan Yun Fee 6/9/97 3:48pm,
What? I didn't understand a word of that.
Stephen Kapolka 6/9/97 4:46pm,
No difference here, we've been doing genetic engineering forever. That is what evolution is. When you see someone of the opposite sex who is appealing and you choose to concieve a child with, that is genetic engineering. Domestic animals, genetic engineering. What's the big deal? Why do you think fathers approve intelligent men for their daughters? Genetic engineering. The perfect child.
Frans de Calonne 6/9/97 8:18pm,
The evolution process has already stopped for humans. We are a global population with relatively random, nondifferential mating and we fight natural selection by prolonging everyone's lives despite their genetics and we don't have preditors. We already are decreasing our diversity by mixing all separate populations into our "melting pot". Genetic engineering would at least serve to vary our already static gene pool.
Kurt Schoedel 6/9/97 8:50pm,
Right on!
Charlie Audritsh 6/9/97 10:48pm,
I agree that too many people jump the gun. But the ban will not serve to promote research, it will help those who are saying it is wrong to bury this and brainwash children into thinking it is wrong and suddenly it will seem like murder to them.
Tom
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Steven P Henry - 11:47pm Jun 9, 1997 ET (#112 of 1108)
With regard to the "Rev's" comments I have the following response:
Would you please clarify what you are trying to say as your post seems to talk a lot and say nothing.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kir Yakov - 07:54am Jun 10, 1997 ET (#113 of 1108)
The Federal ban is fine - quite indecent of us would be to spend public money on something most of the public - due to misunderstanding, mostly - considers abomination. As for the private research - what are you, kidding? - it will go on anyway. People want to live; they will spend their money on medical science no matter what bans you design. Afraid of cloning humans for spare parts? Vivid imagination, I'd say. But maybe you have a point. Let all this research go on in the broad daylight, in labs open for scrutiny - not deep underground, being entangled with other outlawed activities. (By the way, human clones would be less indentical than same-egg-twins - because of the differences in mitochondrial DNA that comes from the donor ovary cells, not from the nucleus. Sen.Bond should think about outlawing identical twins first:-).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bill R. Woodard - 02:15pm Jun 10, 1997 ET (#114 of 1108)
G_D created man and woman. He has made it possible for mankind to reproduce itself. Mankind has been doing just that for thousands of years. We know how to do that. There seem to be no reason to clone. So any monies spent toward that end are taking monies away from research in areas when there is real need.
We may have to question some of these ideas if they begin cloning Pamela Anderson.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Charlie Audritsh - 02:24pm Jun 10, 1997 ET (#115 of 1108)
Tom,
Are you Tom Anderson? I'm new to this whole message board thing and am just learning the ropes. I agree with you generally about how bans stifle research. However, this ban seems to be trying to be different. To quote the CNN article "The [National Bioethics] commission called for a ban on cloning aimed at reproducing a human being, but would not bar laboratory cloning research that stops short of producing a baby." The spirit of this seems to be to encourage research, yet put the brakes on what society thinks brakes need to be put on -- 277+ human freaks preceding one viable human clone that no one else knows how to react to or deal with. I imply that this is a perceived threat because having heard the Scotish scientist who cloned the sheep (I forget his name) speak before the National Press Club (I think), he is the last person who wants to charge ahead into anything like that. I think this ban intends to give everyone time to get on the same page with regard to the ethics and benefits of cloning, while preventing freakish human experimentation by understanding the technology much better before human cloning is even attempted. I believe this is common sense to all the scientists in this field.
There will always be people who want to paint this and other things as just plain evil. This ban might give them a slight advantage now, but it will also allow time for everyone else to come up to speed. Later, an informed population will not be so easily swayed by these hot heads and fanatics.
Charlie Audritsh
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Doctor Colossus - 03:42pm Jun 10, 1997 ET (#116 of 1108)
Bill,
Cloning Pamela Anderson is pointless. You would get an above average looking gal, but if you want a chick that looks like she does now you would have to build her, not clone her.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kir Yakov - 03:53pm Jun 10, 1997 ET (#117 of 1108)
On a lighter note, I remember a rhythm attributed to Azimov, if I'm not mistaken:
Oh, give me a clone
Of my own flesh and bone,
With its Y chromosome
Changed to X!
And when it is grown,
My own little clone
Will be of the opposite sex!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kir Yakov - 03:55pm Jun 10, 1997 ET (#118 of 1108)
By the way, as a loyal reader of "Reason", I'd like to inform that: Virginia Postrel (the Editor) will appear on two national radio shows (Judy Jarvis and CBS's Gil Gross Show) to oppose the proposed ban on human cloning. The Jarvis segment is at 1:15 pm EDT, and the Gil Gross segment is at 9:00 pm EDT. Both shows are tape delayed by some of their stations.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
M.A.DeLuca - 05:32pm Jun 10, 1997 ET (#119 of 1108)
Even if cloning could be used successfully to reproduce an individual, it would take twenty-one years for the clone to mature into adulthood (depending on the legal definition of "adult"). This, in addition to the fact that the clone would be fully human and therefore subject to developmental uncertainties, makes cloning impractical for any ridiculous ideas of creating armies of sadistic warlords. (Besides, I rather suspect that a clone of Saddam Hussein would be Saddam's own worst enemy!)
A related issue concerns the molecular clocks called "telomeres" which signal when a cell has reproduced a certain number of times and can no longer divide. I don't believe the techniques used to conceive Dolly reset these clocks, so Dolly, and any clone conceived with similar techniques, will have telomeres set for an adult, and shouldn't live any longer than the donor parent. If an old man decided to clone himself, the resulting child would suffer a form of progeria and wouldn't live long.
Cloning as a substitute for reproduction is impractical, and the old-fashioned method is more fun anyway, so put aside the "Brave New World" fears, and accept it as a simple tool for research and medical applications. Someday, lives will be saved using this knowledge. It's up to the pious to decide whether that day is sooner or later.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Chris Moyer - 07:54pm Jun 10, 1997 ET (#120 of 1108)
Regarding the panel's decision on cloning: They permitted the cloning of embryos as long as they were not implanted into the mother's womb and allowed to survive. Isn't that reassuring? Is this not worse than actually cloning the humans? I mean if you take an adult's DNA, and clone an embryo from it, and experiment with it for about 3 or 4 months, then throw it away, not only are you effectively cloning a human, but you're killing it too. That's two wrongs instead of one. Anyway, I do not believe this ban will hold (they say the ban is for 5 years, but I expect them to have fully independent clones in a matter of 2 to 3 years.) You see, this recent decision is a way to clone humans without a public outcry. Sure, there'll be some, but not nearly as much as if scientists were actually allowed to create the human clones and let them live. This way, the people who don't have a problem with embryo experimentation won't mind the cloning experiments on embryos. It'll only the Right-to-Lifers and anti-abortionists who will create controversy. And with the liberalization of this country, the number of people against abortion I'll bet is declining per capita. RESULT OF PANEL'S DECISION: Discussion of cloning will take place on a nationwide scale over the next few years, and people will become more and more accustomed to the idea. Then, when the Government allows full human cloning, everyone will accept it as normal. That's my prediction.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
TURNER PAUL - 09:39pm Jun 10, 1997 ET (#121 of 1108)
more good will come from it than bad just like all new discoverys. if the human mind can imagine somthing than it is possible to do. our minds can only imagine somthing that has already been planted in our minds or else we couldnt imagine it.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
jay lockhart - 11:39pm Jun 10, 1997 ET (#122 of 1108)
I think that cloning is the best scientific discovery that has happened in the history of science! It is stupid to ban this discovery, this is not the dark ages. We could end disease, cancer and maybe even old age. No I think that using the phrase "Playing God" means you don't have a valid reason to disagree. We play God everyday: we send people to DeathRow, we alter DNA for a perfect gene, we make medicines to cure or treat illnesses. By all rights we are already going to Hell, so why stop?? While were on the subject, women are the product of an experiment by God. Did he have the right to create man, but only change the sex of Adam's clone, thus making woman? That's right clones are made in the exact way God made woman! Now who's say he is wrong?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Doctor Colossus - 11:49pm Jun 10, 1997 ET (#123 of 1108)
Hasn't anyone thought about cryogenics?
There are people who pay lots of money to have their heads frozen in hopes that one day a new body can be cloned for them and their brain put in it. If cloning of humans is banned, these people are screwed!
There seem to be quite a few religious types on this page so maybe some of you have thoughts on this:
These people whose heads were frozen are technically dead, where are their souls? Have they crossed over? Are they waiting for resurrection? What if they do get resurrected? Does their soul get pulled back from the afterlife? Do they get a new soul?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Steven P Henry - 12:26am Jun 11, 1997 ET (#124 of 1108)
Cryogenics yes I was thinking about that, talk about giving a new definition to Disney on Ice. A bad pun for sure but that is the first thing I thought of. If we were to generate a clone of someone that was cryogenically frozen the first problem that we would have is thawing the individual. To maintain 'life' we would have a serious problem - we haven't successfully developed a technology to achieve this without destroying a large number of cells. I think right now the best we could hope for is to generate the 'image' of that person. We can't retrieve a brain in tact let alone an entire individual - yet. With regard to the cellular clock, I have not heard of that issue but I would like to know more about it.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tom Anderson - 02:09am Jun 11, 1997 ET (#125 of 1108)
Curiosity was framed, ignorance killed the cat
Kir Yakov 6/10/97 7:54am,
Mitochondrial DNA differs very little from person to person and does not in any significant way alter a persons attributes on a larger scale. Nice observation though, I hadn't bothered to think about that.
Bill R. Woodard 6/10/97 2:15pm,
He has made it possible for mankind to reproduce itself. Mankind has been doing just that for thousands of years. We know how to do that. There seem to be no reason to clone. Who's to say that G_D didn't make cloning a valid tool for us? It exists, so it must be there for a reason, right? Or maybe god doesn't exist, and its just genetics we're talking about.
Charlie Audritsh 6/10/97 2:24pm,
You are right that the intentions seem fair. I am worried about the result. To say that human cloning is bad, religious groups will use that to make sure it never becomes legal. It should never become illegal in the first place. Researchers are responsible enough to experiment on sheep first, then maybe chimps, then maybe people. That is the way it is for all medical research, no difference should be made out of this particular developement.
Doctor Colossus 6/10/97 3:42pm,
Glad some other people can see that; it seems like everyone thinks cloning is like that Little Caesars commersial where you just hit a button and out pops a full grown clone. But people must see that a clone is no different from anyone else... just has the same genes as its parent, that's all.
Kir Yakov 6/10/97 3:53pm,
And Azimov wasn't the first... remember the Mona Lisa?
I'd like to inform that: Virginia Postrel (the Editor) will appear on two national radio shows (Judy Jarvis and CBS's Gil Gross Show) to oppose the proposed ban on human cloning. Yes! Finally, someone to stand up for our rights to freely persue research and come up with our own conclusions.
M.A.DeLuca 6/10/97 5:32pm,
Even if cloning could be used successfully to reproduce an individual, it would take twenty-one years for the clone to mature into adulthood (depending on the legal definition of "adult"). This, in addition to the fact that the clone would be fully human and therefore subject to developmental uncertainties, makes cloning impractical for any ridiculous ideas of creating armies of sadistic warlords. (Besides, I rather suspect that a clone of Saddam Hussein would be Saddam's own worst enemy!)
Very good, another one sees the light, where were all of you supporters of freedom and users of logic and reason in the last 100 posts?
A related issue concerns the molecular clocks called "telomeres" ...
I hadn't heard of this, specifically, but it seems to me that the technique they used reset the entire DNA would also include these "telomeres" if they are an amino acid sequence on the DNA. And if they are a separate protein, they would not go from the adult cell to the donor egg.
Cloning as a substitute for reproduction is impractical...
Yes, if you are fertile; but if you are infertile, this is the only way to go.
Chris Moyer 6/10/97 7:54pm,
That is an optimistic point of view, and I hope that is how it happens.
Doctor Colossus 6/10/97 11:49pm,
Good question for the religious types. Of course, the soul does not exist and neither do those people at this moment, but should they be thawed, they may regain consciousness as they had it before being frozen. Or the procedure may not work and they will remain non-existant, except in memory that is.
A quick anecdote: When I was young, I used to work at this park called Cattus Island in South Jersey. We would catch killifish and fr
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Lou Cifer - 07:36am Jun 11, 1997 ET (#126 of 1108)
...Love Rules...
So-called cloning still makes a new "sheep" or "human", etc. Big deal! I think most people don't understand the technology.
Lou C.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jake Coursey - 05:47pm Jun 11, 1997 ET (#127 of 1108)
Clinton You are a good man don't ruin it
If cloning humans is banned then we will never know the posibilities it could bring let us try.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kir Yakov - 08:19pm Jun 11, 1997 ET (#128 of 1108)
After Jake -
Clinton, IMO, you are an <expletive>
So many things you did - from making deals with Castro on refugees to attempts on policing Internet to <expl> up perpetually to Big Labor to incessant cheap demagoguery - make me SO mad and SO sad. Do something good for a change: allow me to clone myself: maybe my body-double will be still alive at the time when we elect somebody decent to be our President....
Sorry, couldn't help it:-)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
yaakov ariel - 11:32pm Jun 11, 1997 ET (#129 of 1108)
Cloning is just stopping Natural Evolution, and Natural Selection. If we remember Murphy's laws, we may be sure that mankind will do the worst use of this discovery. Anyway, we have no more choice, and the best thing wouls be to regulate it.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tom Anderson - 11:37pm Jun 11, 1997 ET (#130 of 1108)
Curiosity was framed, ignorance killed the cat
As I was saying before being cut off... I used to work at Cattus Island, and we would put killifish in the freezer for turtle food in the winter. Several months later, we would thaw them out, and they would come right back to life. It was so cool. That is when I decided that I would be frozen when I die in hopes of being revived later when I could live again. There is nothing wrong with wanting eternal life, just about every religion has thought about some way to make it happen, but I want it for real.
Tom
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tom Anderson - 11:41pm Jun 11, 1997 ET (#131 of 1108)
Curiosity was framed, ignorance killed the cat
yaakov,
I already explained that the human species is no longer evolving anymore anyway. We are a single global population with convergent, random mating. We have excellent medicine, so we prevent natural selection by making sure everyone lives as long as possible.
If you think discovery is bad, you should be Amish and certainly not using a computer. It's not the knowledge that is bad, it is the people who use it to do harm to others. In most cases, technology serves to enhance our lives; just look around.
Tom
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Doctor Colossus - 11:46pm Jun 11, 1997 ET (#132 of 1108)
Tom,
How can you say the soul doesn't exist? There is no known way to prove it conclusively one way or another.
I have been thinking about it and I will now attempt to answer my own question.
A clone is a life form like any other and so if a regular human has a soul then a clone does too. Then if a person whos head is in cryogenic suspension is cloned and thier brain put into the new body, they will have all the same memories of the original person (barring damage from freezing and thawing) but a different soul. Also, what of the brain that was in the clone's body? It will, of course be killed, this is not morally justifiable unless the clone is grown to aduldhood through some artificial means and never allowed consciousness, even still this issue deserves further debate.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Doctor Colossus - 12:03am Jun 12, 1997 ET (#133 of 1108)
Tom,
There is no conclusive evidence that the human species has stopped evolving. We have certainly altered the way natural selection works with medicine and such but natural selection does not equal evolution.
Natural selection is but a part of the evolutionary process. Random mutation is still a factor, maybe becoming more frequent. Being a global population doesn't stop evolution, it alters it from divergent to convergent. In the next century, I expect it to become convergent again when Mars is colonized. Cloning doesn't stop evolution either, even if people stopped reproducing the old fashioned way (yeah, right). In cloning, mistakes (random mutation) are still bound to happen. Besides, people will never be satisfied with the status quo, if cloning was our only method of reproduction, people wouldn't just make exact clones, they would make alterations in order to create a person better suited to whatever tasks the world asked of them. That is not an end to evolution, it is a transfer of control over evolution from nature/god to man. This can be seen as playing god but look at it like this, he's busy, maybe he wants us to start doing some things for ourselves.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ron Picard - 02:45pm Jun 12, 1997 ET (#134 of 1108)
The human race is in the act of playing GOD on a daily basis.People have to understand that human beings will always push to go to the next step. These are the natural tendencies which humans exhibit as part of our own evolution.We as a race have to push the boundaries of science and moral issues to evolve. Once a higher state of being is reached that is when we as a race take the tentative step towards the stars and the unknown.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
M.A.DeLuca - 04:28pm Jun 12, 1997 ET (#135 of 1108)
As God's children, do we not have a mandate to learn and grow, as children should? And as we learn and grow, should we not also accept more responsibility? Children learn by occasionally pretending to be adult. As God's children, perhaps we must accept the need to play God now and then so that we may grow into sharing the burdens and responsibilities of existence. Unless of course we aren't His children, but His pets?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Doctor Colossus - 06:48pm Jun 12, 1997 ET (#136 of 1108)
Yeah! That's right!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kurt Schoedel - 08:03pm Jun 12, 1997 ET (#137 of 1108)
I have an intertaining thought. If we're the children of God, doesn't this mean that we are the decendants of God. Afterall, children are decendants.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Steven P Henry - 10:04pm Jun 12, 1997 ET (#138 of 1108)
Tom: I'm not trying to be argumentative but I think your hypothesis on the human race no longer evolving is incorrect, at least according to the archeologists that I know. Right now from an evolutionary standpoint the typical human isn't particularily good at doing any single task. We can perform many tasks but none as well as more evolved species - our vision stinks, our sense of smell is poor, our hearing is poor and our tactile senses aren't worth writing home about either. A global population isn't as important as it might seem. But on the point of human lifespan being artificially increased is most certainly dead on. I don't believe that cloning should be banned, my greatest concern would be for the clones themselves. If they can be grown without any type of enumeration then they could become the next group of slaves - a life of being a lab rat.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tom Anderson - 11:31pm Jun 12, 1997 ET (#139 of 1108)
Curiosity was framed, ignorance killed the cat
Doctor Colossus 6/11/97 11:46pm,
How can you say the soul doesn't exist? There is no known way to prove it conclusively one way or another.
It is true that you can never disprove any existance claim, but you can show its absurdness. There is no reason to believe it is so. All of the evidence points to the fact that our brain is the center of consciousness. We know how it learns (neural network) we know the physical way it stores information (structure of the network) and the process involved in a response (sodium-potassium gates and neurotransmitters).
Since we know that the consciousness is stored in the physical structure of the brain, it cannot exist as "pure energy" or whatever you think the soul is. A study of the history of religion shows that the soul is one of the most primitive and basic ideas; it is a crude explaination of life. People associated everything with a "little person inside" making it work; these were known as spirits. There was a spirit for everything. Many of these spirits became gods and then the myth progressed and they became "God". The human equivalent was the soul. Things such as dreams, reflections, and shadows supported the idea; also, it was thought that the breath was the soul, because when you die, the breath goes away. It was thought that sleep was the temporary departure of the soul and that death was a permanent departure.
Many myths grew up around these ideas and religions force them on people today. Psychologically, it was an important step in our social evolution; but we have matured to the point where we no longer need to explain ourselves in such a way and we should drop such primitive ideas for a more appropriate investigation into the actual laws that govern our existance.
There is no way that you can prove that puple elves who ride pink unicorns don't exist. The burden of proof is on the person making a positive claim to its existance, not the person who says it does not exist.
If a soul existed and it defined the consciousness, then what of people who get alzheimer's? Or people who get amnesia and then develop a new personality? When is the soul given to a person? At conception? If that were true, then what of miscarriages or the natural expellation of a zygote in menstruation? And, isn't it sinful to commit rape or adultery? But doesn't "God" give those children souls anyway? Is he sinning? There are too many contradictions for it to exist, and the evidence clearly shows that it is neither necessary nor probable.
Tom
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tom Anderson - 11:58pm Jun 12, 1997 ET (#140 of 1108)
Curiosity was framed, ignorance killed the cat
Doctor Colossus 6/12/97 12:03am,
Random mutation is still a factor Hardly. I'll admit that mutation is still possible, but nearly all mutations of such an evolved creature result in immediate death (at the time of fusion). The miniscule amount that don't usually end up creating an imbalance or impairment of some kind. For a beneficial mutation to occur is nearly impossible. And even if it were, which is going out on a limb here, our lifespan would make the effect of such a mutation only apparent after millions of years; we don't reproduce like fruitflies or live as short a life.
Being a global population doesn't stop evolution Yes, it does. A primary means of evolution is a natural barrier separating a species into distinct populations. This is known as the founder effect. Convergent mating means that all current variations of genetics mix into one population and the resulting generations are less diverse. For instance... when people migrated from Africa to Europe, they were founders and evolved from the Africans through natural selection. Now we have two rather distinct "races" (among many others, but not in this example). However, the two populations (among the others) are coming together again and with interracial mating, the resultant generations are no longer so distinct.
Another impedence is the fact that people are having less and less children, so some gene lines are disappearing.
We have certainly altered the way natural selection works with medicine and such but natural selection does not equal evolution. Natural selection has all but stopped. And it will be totally stopped as we continue to create wonderful new cures and preventions. We already have no preditors, so the main method of natural selection is already gone.
Steven P Henry 6/12/97 10:04pm,
Right now from an evolutionary standpoint the typical human isn't particularily good at doing any single task. We can perform many tasks but none as well as more evolved species - our vision stinks, our sense of smell is poor, our hearing is poor and our tactile senses aren't worth writing home about either.
That makes no difference. We cannot be naturally selected for those things anymore. If someone has bad eyesight (like me), we make glasses, et cetera. Evolution isn't about making a species perfect in every way, it is the natural process of survival of the fittest. We have already become the fittest of any animal and our surroundings, so we will no longer evolve... unless we introduce new traits on our own, which is perfectly acceptable to me.
A global population isn't as important as it might seem.
Yes it is, like I stated above to Elijah.
Tom
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tom Anderson - 12:07am Jun 13, 1997 ET (#141 of 1108)
Curiosity was framed, ignorance killed the cat
Ron, M.A.D, Doc,
I would tend to agree that we should always progress... but if you are a believer in God, that is not the case. To paraphrase Martin Luther, Reason is the epitime of all evil. Remember the tree of knowledge (reason and knowledge and progress is the original sin). That was reinforced with the story of the Tower of Babel. It is sinful for the children to try to approach the greatness of their God. Of course that is nonsense. The early christians just didn't want to hear all of the logic against their God. (Or He didn't want to end up like Kronos and get killed by his children :) Afterall, I would; sending innocent people to hell and all.
Tom
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tom Anderson - 12:16am Jun 13, 1997 ET (#142 of 1108)
Curiosity was framed, ignorance killed the cat
Steven P Henry 6/12/97 10:04pm,
I have already explained this a million times... there is no reason to assume that clones would become slaves. We could do the same thing right now to any "gamete fused" people. Why would morality all of a sudden change for "nuclear injected" people. People are people, and we are not going to just revert to slavery after all the fuss about getting rid of it. A CLONE IS A PERSON. In fact, saying that a clone is any less of a person is saying that it's parent is less of a person, because they both are the same genetic person. And consciousness and personality are qualities of the brain, environmental; so its not like they have any less of (not having) a soul. Once again, CLONING DOES NOT EQUAL SLAVERY. A clone would have to be raised by parents just like any other kid, and that family would love that child because it is the genetic offspring just like everyone else and it would be born from a womb just like everyone else. Please, people, understand this.
Tom
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gary McKeeby - 05:13am Jun 13, 1997 ET (#143 of 1108)
We've done such a great job so far..........with poisioning the water, and damaging our atmosphere. Who knows what the future will hold for us with the increased use of pesticides and cattle injections to produce bigger cattle that produce even more milk! What is the real reason for cloning? Is it to see if we can mess with God's creation, or do we want to assist with the overpopulation of the world? Maybe we should step back on this one and rethink it.
GM
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mark McGann - 02:57pm Jun 13, 1997 ET (#144 of 1108)
Graduate Student, Tulane University
This is an old debate, only the names have changed. Scientific fields have come under attack for delving into the unknown for countless centuries. Each time fear of the unknown or fear of god incites these attacks. Using 20/20 hindsight, the benefits of these scientific fields seem clear, and the fear seems childlike. Yet some refuse to learn from the past, and they repeat it, choosing to see fear when science offers hope.
Do you disagree? What field of science, using 20/20 hindsight, do you think should have been repressed?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tom Anderson - 05:35pm Jun 13, 1997 ET (#145 of 1108)
Curiosity was framed, ignorance killed the cat
Right on, Mark.
Gary, how in the heck does cloning contribute to overpopulation? I've heard this comment several times and I would really like to know how you came to that conclusion??
Tom
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gary McKeeby - 09:35pm Jun 13, 1997 ET (#146 of 1108)
To answer the question on overpopulation.......In a country like Japan where some people live in "compartment-like" apartments and others are literally living on shelves, these people would definetely testify that cloning would help to intensify an overpopulation problem in their country.
Back to the main topic, my opinion is influenced by my belief in the Lord. Yes science has helped mankind, we've come a long way since the Civil War era when battle field wounds were treated by packing them with boiled wool and allowing the wounds to heal. But...many terminally ill patients today are turning back to the basics (Homeopathic medicines), and are making increadable progress. There are certain areas where we should not tread, and I feel this is one. In MY opinion, the Lord is the creater of life, let's leave it that way.
GM
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Albert Arendsen - 09:46pm Jun 13, 1997 ET (#147 of 1108)
aka Chakotay
lets look at it from this side. all reasons not to clone are ethical. "we should not play God".
we are far beyond the point where we could say "we should not play God". we created the Sahara. we fly, even in space. we walk on the moon.
aren't identical twins natural clones of eachother? if you cut a branch of a plant to grow a new plant, aren't you cloning? if you breed plants or animals, aren't you practicing genetic manipulation?
and there is one big pro to cloning that I haven't seen here yet. the fertility of the Human males is decreasing rapidly. also, there are born more girls than boys, while naturally there should be about 1005 boys on 1000 girls... large parts of the Western world will be completely infertile within a few generations if it goes on like this. the cause is unintended artificial female hormones that we have thrown into our environment for ages. the Human Race will destroy itself if this goes on. it may even be irreversable because it was simply seen too late. perhaps it WAS seen earlier, but since most scientific minds are men, they were carefull breaking the shocking news because it would damage their male ego... if it is found out that it is irreversable, cloning is the way to survive as a species until normal reproduction is possible again.
and isn't the preservation of the species the highest directive in nature?
ofcourse this is one-sided and pessimistic, but it IS a side, it IS a possability.
a possability that should not be overlooked.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Christopher Trenschel - 10:20am Jun 14, 1997 ET (#148 of 1108)
I love myself so much I want to marry me. Why won't those darn scientists clone me like I asked so I can fulfill my life long dream of marrying myslef?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Albert Arendsen - 01:46pm Jun 14, 1997 ET (#149 of 1108)
aka Chakotay
when you'd clone somebody you wouldn't create the same person, but just a person with the same genes.
much of what a person is is in his/her personality, and personality is "created" while that person grows up.
pit-bull terriers are considered one of the most violent canine breeds. if you would take two identical twin pups, and give them a different upbringing, one could turn out to be the friendlyest dog you've ever seen, while the other could go around attacking anybody in sight.
genes may dictate the probability of a dog becoming violent, but not if they will become so.
it's only logical that the same applies to Humans.
if you'd clone Adolf Hitler, I'm sure the clone wouldn't end up like the original Beast.
"Adolf II" would have a completely different upbringing, and therefor develop a completely different personality.
oh, and another thing: if somebody is 30 years old, and is then cloned, the clone would be 30 years younger than the original.
unless ofcourse they find a way to speed up the aging process.
it is impossible to create two identical persons, even by cloning. even identical twins (same genes, same upbringing in the same environment) will have different personalities.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jonathan Carson - 04:36pm Jun 14, 1997 ET (#150 of 1108)
here's a cute little lyric from a favorite rock band of mine that i enjoyed in high school:
"you cannot go against nature because when you do go against nature it's part of nature, too"
(Love and Rockets, "no new tale to tell")
As a biomolecular researcher, I tinker with human genes all the time, trying to figure out how they work. But I draw the line at cloning another human being. The procedure itself would not be unethical, but the poor clone-child would probably not be raised in a natural way with all the pure, unconditional love that he/she needs; sure, this would merely be like making a twin brother, but the poor kid would feel pretty neurotic growing up in the omnipresent shadow of his adult "twin."
(Still, perhaps we need to discuss this issue some more, because there might in fact be ethical examples of human cloning, eg., stillborn babies might be good candidates for cloning??) However, I don't believe in genetic engineering of the human germline--that moves us too far into Nazi-style eugenics where questions of "who or what is superior?" move into the forefront. Whoever possesses the exclusive power to answer these very questions and imprint them on a generation of human offspring would be a very powerful person, indeed. And we all know that absolute power corrupts.
However, I am very excited about the prospects of somatic cell gene therapy for already living persons who suffer from AIDS or cancer or cystic fibrosis or Alzheimer's. It's only a matter of time before such diseases will loose their teeth, or at least be delayed.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kir Yakov - 04:46pm Jun 14, 1997 ET (#151 of 1108)
Cristopher - See a doggerel by Isaac Azimov in one of the previous posts (Granting your wish would involve though some genetic engineering, since same-sex marriages are not allowed yet, and that goes beyond the scope of cloning:-)
Gary - Overpopulation, last time I checked, is due to a very low-tech technology. Invented by Lord, in your terminology. Besides, problems here are not in NUMBER of people as such: densely populated Holland is fat and happy, while worst recent cases of starvation occured in barely populated Ethiopia and Somalia.
Continuing your medical analogy, why do you think that this particluar procedure - extracting a nucleus from a somatic cell and introducing it into a reproductive cell - is worse invasion in the Creators territory than, say, heart surgery?
Albert - I'm glad you mentioned it. Right now we have an explosion of twin and triplet births in all developed countries - due to new fertility drugs. Ought to be banned as a case of sneaky cloning?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Karoli Kuns - 01:37am Jun 15, 1997 ET (#152 of 1108)
Query: Who would parent cloned children?
Query #2?: What do we do with "mistakes"?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Carl Nicolai - 04:39am Jun 15, 1997 ET (#153 of 1108)
Located in Taipei Taiwan
If the U.S. presses ahead with an attempt to ban human cloning what makes think all countries will do so. If Christan Bannard in South Aerica had lived under U.S. restrictions we would still be arguring about the morals of human heart transplants.
Human clonning can not be stopped. Medical progress that depends on various studies including cloning can however.
A lot of people think we should not play God. Dude! Thats the whole idea. Most of the west has a god that is a creator. Of cource we are going to try to be creators including creating new life, duplicating life that now exists and probably bringing back older extinct forms of life.
We have been trying to play god since the beginning of time. We view gods as powerfull and want to be like them.
No stupid law is going to stop humans from cloning themselves. By prohibiting cloning research however we can delay some types of medical progress.
Who would parent cloned children? People who love children. What do we do with mistakes? Try to learn from them, just like we do now.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
John Murphy - 02:39pm Jun 15, 1997 ET (#154 of 1108)
Like it or not we are on our way...
Humans learn just enough to mess things up...
We have trouble understanding how life and the world around has figured how to work in balance...We have to get our two cents in...We know better than anything else???
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tom Anderson - 04:06pm Jun 15, 1997 ET (#155 of 1108)
Curiosity was framed, ignorance killed the cat
Gary McKeeby 6/13/97 9:35pm,
You still haven't answered how in the heck cloning contributes to over population. Cloning is no different than "natural" conception. It is simply another option. No more people will exist with cloning than without.
Albert Arendsen 6/13/97 9:46pm,
I have brought up infertility several times. Cloning should be a perfectly acceptable, valid way for an infertile man or woman to raise genetic offspring.
Where did you get those numbers on the "supposed" ratio of male to female? We evolved from African apes who live in harems. The ratio in an ape population is about one male for every ten females. So where do we differ? What law exists that says there has to be this exact ratio?
Christopher Trenschel 6/14/97 10:20am,
I love myself so much I want to marry me. Why won't those darn scientists clone me like I asked so I can fulfill my life long dream of marrying myslef?
Psychology has shown that there is no one you could get along with worse than yourself. That is why spouses are often complete opposites (you know? opposites attract). Your worst enemies are often people just like you.
But, even if you did want to proceed with doing that, you have made the common mistake of assuming a clone would just pop out as an adult. You are wrong; you would have to raise your clone from an infant. And then you would be its father rather than its lover, and besides, the latter would be incest.
Albert Arendsen 6/14/97 1:46pm,
when you'd clone somebody you wouldn't create the same person, but just a person with the same genes. much of what a person is is in his/her personality, and personality is "created" while that person grows up. Yes, I have made that point several times; but people seem to ignore it.
pit-bull terriers are considered one of the most violent canine breeds. if you would take two identical twin pups, and give them a different upbringing, one could turn out to be the friendlyest dog you've ever seen, while the other could go around attacking anybody in sight.
How right you are... my neighbor owns two pit-bulls; the first time I saw them, they came running after me, they jumped on me, and started wildly licking my face. These are the friendliest dogs you could ever imagine.
oh, and another thing: if somebody is 30 years old, and is then cloned, the clone would be 30 years younger than the original. unless ofcourse they find a way to speed up the aging process.
Another point I've made and is often overlooked.
Karoli Kuns 6/15/97 1:37am,
Query: Who would parent cloned children?
The parent of the clone, duh. Cloning of a complete person would most likely occur in the case of an infertile parent who still wants a genetic offspring. The child would be just like any other, but it would look just like its parent, except in style choices (which accounts for alot).
Cloned organs need no parenting.
Query #2?: What do we do with "mistakes"?
Medical science would perfect the procedure on "lesser" creatures before moving to humnas, just as with any other medical procedure ever developed before in this country.
Tom
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Karoli Kuns - 05:31pm Jun 15, 1997 ET (#156 of 1108)
Tom:
You place more faith in mankind than I do. Based upon what I read here on these boards, it seems like we ought to start valuing the mankind we have before trying to make more.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Doctor Colossus - 06:31pm Jun 15, 1997 ET (#157 of 1108)
I can't believe how many people are ignorant of the facts in this issue. It's so simple: A clone is a completely normal human being who just happens to have the same genetic make-up as another completely normal human being. There is no reason to outlaw cloning. There are a few practical uses for cloning technology. It would be extremely difficult, time consuming, and expensive to derive a sinister use for cloning. Clones can only contribute to overpopulation to the same degree as normal humans (because they are normal humans).
Stop being so xenophobic! Understand things before you condemn them!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tom Anderson - 06:41pm Jun 15, 1997 ET (#158 of 1108)
Curiosity was framed, ignorance killed the cat
Thanx Doc, I thought that is what I have been saying, but people just don't get it through their thick skulls. Once again, everyone, a clone of a person is exactly the same as a person concieved through gamete fusion! No overpopulation; no super-armies; no medical experimentation; no zombies!
RE: UNDERSTAND THINGS BEFORE YOU CONDEMN THEM!!
"Curiosity was framed, ignorance killed the cat."
Tom
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Doctor Colossus - 06:57pm Jun 15, 1997 ET (#159 of 1108)
This is getting way off the subject but I am finding it interesting. You say the brain accounts for consciousness, but the brain is just a network of neurons. It can process thought by sending impulses from one to another but where do these thoughts originate? Does a neuron generate a spontaneous impulse? This concept seems somewhat unscientific to me. (btw: I am not saying I believe one way or the other on this issue, I am just posing questions)
Getting closer to the subject. Random mutations will cause death or defects in most cases in just about any species but unless a species is already perfect there is still the possibility for improvement or at least diversification. True, the effects wouldn't be seen for millenia but that is how evolution has always worked. A global population really doesn't stop evolution. It might stop divergent evolution but the human race will still evolve, it will just do it together. Even if natural selection were to come to a complete stop, that would not be the end of evolution. Natural selection is a tool of evolution, it is not evolution itself.
Don't use my real name.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tom Anderson - 07:45pm Jun 15, 1997 ET (#160 of 1108)
Curiosity was framed, ignorance killed the cat
Doctor Colossus 6/15/97 6:57pm,
You say the brain accounts for consciousness, but the brain is just a network of neurons. It can process thought by sending impulses from one to another but where do these thoughts originate? Does a neuron generate a spontaneous impulse? This concept seems somewhat unscientific to me.
I can't say that I know everything about neuroscience, but I will try to answer to the best of my ability. First, most of the time, thought originates directly from sensory response; for instance, you read my message and the network of your brain is such that all related info is invoked and you spit out your experience after a complex process which can be modelled using the Schodenger equations. The fact that experience is stored in your brain and that that experience is used to base future actions on is well proven.
So, when you say "where do these thoughts originate", it is usually the case that they will originate as an impulse created when light strikes the eye, sound reverberates the hairs in your ear, your skin is touched, et cetera. However, there may also be the time when there are no sensory inputs, like if all of your senses are not functioning; but it is not known whether there is any thought during such a time since there is no way to communicate such a state to anyone else and I don't think anyone has actually experienced such a state. You might think that sleep is such a state, but it is not; you know how if you hear a dog bark or hammering, it suddenly appears as something in your dream. So the best explaination is that, from what we know, thought is completely a result of outside stimulus; but that we do not know everything there is to know. To say, however, that thought is the result of a soul or some other supernatural phenomenon is absolutely rediculous and completely unscientific.
<continued...>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tom Anderson - 07:45pm Jun 15, 1997 ET (#161 of 1108)
Curiosity was framed, ignorance killed the cat
<...continued>
unless a species is already perfect there is still the possibility for improvement or at least diversification.
Perfection has nothing to do with evolution. It is not about improvement. It is about survival. Evolution occurs because some genes are passed on while some are not. If all genes are passed on, the population does not evolve; and such is the case with people.
True, the effects wouldn't be seen for millenia but that is how evolution has always worked.
No, evolution usually occurs in periods of rapid change and then little change. For instance, if a species becomes separated by a natural barrier such as a wide distance, after just a few generations, the dominant traits of each seperate population will become apparent. If there are different preditors in each population, both populations will evolve accordingly and away from each other.
A global population really doesn't stop evolution. It might stop divergent evolution but the human race will still evolve, it will just do it together.
You don't seem to understand the concept of evolution. It deals with the number of genes passed on to the next generations. A single population does not evolve unless there is introduced a selecting factor. Such factors could be preditors, disease, or sexual attraction. But in a single population in which there is no selecting factor, in which the entire population survives its entire reproductive years, the species does not evolve.
Even if natural selection were to come to a complete stop, that would not be the end of evolution. Natural selection is a tool of evolution, it is not evolution itself.
Yes, it is. Selection is evolution. Species do not "get better" just because they feel like it. There is nothing to say what is good or bad but a selecting factor. Let's say that people value intelligence and that we should evolve toward more intelligence because we think it is better. The only way that would happen is if we selectively mated people of higher intelligence and disallowed the reproduction of "stupid" people. However, it is often just the opposite; most people of intelligence are not sexually appealing while "stupid jocks" get all the chics. So, our population (if it evolves at all) will go toward more sexually attractive people. But, since there are just as many unattractive males as unattractive females, those groups will still manage to mate. So, if I were to forsee any evolution in our species, it would be a deviation between two groups (the smart unattractive, and the stupid attractive). However, there is still randomness to whether stupid and smart, attractive and ugly people will cross-breed. So, all in all, we will still not evolve either way.
Don't use my real name.
Sorry, but that is one of the rules of the forum... it is supposed to be your responsibility to provide your real name. Anonymity tends to make people more rude than if they use their real name (not to say that is the case with you). I guess Elijah Madden just doesn't seem as imposing or impressive as Doctor Colossus. Ok, from now on I'll use your pseudonym.
Tom
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Albert Arendsen - 11:17pm Jun 15, 1997 ET (#162 of 1108)
aka Chakotay
who would parent cloned children? I say the woman that bore the child.
clones are born just like any other child. clones grow in the womb of a normal female (I say female to keep it down to any species in general)
the only difference between a clone and a child concieved by IVF is that not the semen was donated, but the whole DNA.
God (name Him Allah, Jehova, Manitou, Mother Earth, whatever...) created us, so He also created what we make, think and do.
the religious standpoint of anything always has two distinct sides.
for instance, you could say "If God wanted us to fly, He would have given us wings"
but you can also say "If God didn't want us to fly, He would have prevented us from inventing the airplane"
and the same applies to cloning.
I respect other points of view, try to understand them to the best of my ability, but my point of view still remains that I have nothing against cloning.
at least not if the first Homo Sapiens to be cloned doesn't live his/her life like a guinney pig in some laboratory.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Doctor Colossus - 04:03am Jun 16, 1997 ET (#163 of 1108)
Selecting factors only cause certain traits to be favorable and others to be unfavorable. This can cause the unfavorable genes to be bred out of a population over time which is a part of evolution but not all of it. If that was the case then the first life form that ever existed would have had to carry all of the genes for every life form that ever existed on earth. Mutation, the introduction of new genes into the gene pool, still plays a small part.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dave Hamilton - 09:06am Jun 16, 1997 ET (#164 of 1108)
The heck with brain neurons and DNA considerations....How do I clone a Heather Locklear?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tom Anderson - 09:28am Jun 16, 1997 ET (#165 of 1108)
Curiosity was framed, ignorance killed the cat
Doc,
As I said before, mutation would only effect a complex animal if it occurred in the zygote, and most of those would die. Then, if they didn't, it would take millennia for any effects to show up in the population. This was not the case in very early lifeforms: lifespan was small and they only consisted of one cell, which made it easy for mutations to occur. But even if mutations did occur often enough, there would have to be something that selects for those traits in order for them to effect the population.
For instance, lets say that a mutation occurs that effects eye color. The person who would have had blue eyes, now has hazel eyes. Unless this suddenly made the person more sexually attractive, there is no reason that this trait would become dominant in future generations. Chances are, the billions of non-mutant people would reproduce quite independently of this one (or even say a few) mutations. After several generations, the mutation will most likely work itself out of the species since all who are mating with the mutant do not have the mutanted gene.
Dave,
Why? You want to be her father?
Tom
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Albert Arendsen - 03:59pm Jun 16, 1997 ET (#166 of 1108)
aka Chakotay
evolution = selection + mutation
take away the selection, and what's left is evolution = mutation...
selection is positive, mutation is random.
with Homo Sapiens there is no selection anymore, so what's left is random evolution into... whatever...
it would be favorable for Humans to become more intelligent, but that's not how evolution works. evolution like that needs selection, and selection in that case would mean killing unintelligent people...
we seem to be evolving... we are growing taller, and growing more intelligent. but that is just because we are ill less so we have more time to grow, and education is better, so you automatically become more intelligent. the maximum reachable is fixed in the genes, and since we don't evolve (well, we do, but randomly) that will remain the same for ever...
about real names and handles, on the internet I usually go by the name of Chakotay...
but as Chakotay I'm still not anonymous because everybody knows me as Chakotay :)
anyway, Chakotay is a chosen personality, and in some respects different than I am in real life, which is why I chose to go by my real name on these boars...
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Grant Gallicho - 07:01pm Jun 16, 1997 ET (#167 of 1108)
Chakotay or Janeway or Spock or Chewbacca or Jackass, whatever your name is, you're all going to become anonymous. Anonymity will beget apathy, and apathy will create a remorseless, inconsiderate race of super-no ones . . . this is what you get when you mess with DNA. Welcome to the wonderful world of science, and it's an amazing thing. When the Karma police come to snatch up the techno-wizards behind this one, we can all lament the loss of the 'other,' the 'twin that might be.' I lost myself. I lost myself . . . becomes the human anthem in a blizzard of redundancies and repetative ontological patterns. Being slips into a hiccup. Again and again the same and the same produced. Different womb, same genetic code. But the race can't survive like that. If the DNAs are combined and combined, without variation, we should be prepared to deal with a race of long-chinned hemopheliac people. Isn't science wonderful?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kir Yakov - 10:04am Jun 17, 1997 ET (#168 of 1108)
Grant -
Excuse me, what are you talking about? how on earth cloning would provide for genetic degradation? cloning means, to the contrary, fixing of the genetic composition. haemopiliacs etc are produced mostly by emerging of recessive features due to marriages between not-so-distant relatives. No such changes occur in cloning. Even better - as medical information on genetically identical individuals could be gathered through a number of lifetimes, the later clones will become healthier and healthier, as their treatments will become increasingly adequate....
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Grant Gallicho - 11:58am Jun 17, 1997 ET (#169 of 1108)
Yakov--
You are excused. Did you cough? What I meant is that mating among a population of clones, meaning: there are many of the same genetic code, would produce undesirable human beings.
And also: Your definition of the word cloning is interesting. Does cloning mean only 'fixing of the genetic composition,' as you frightfully put it? Or could it mean something else, something less polarized, less biased? Cloning does not necessitate positive outcomes. Cloning could go terribly wrong; just ask the first 200-odd sheep who went before Dolly, coming out less-than-perfect. Your talk of 'fixing' the genetic codes of human beings, frankly, sounds like Naziism to me. I don't want a better, healthier, more perfect race. I like our flaws. We need our flaws . . . God, why are we always racing to correct nature? Message boards are wonderful things because they allow people to insult each other with impunity. Next?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kir Yakov - 01:38pm Jun 17, 1997 ET (#170 of 1108)
Grant - Why do you think that after a male clone of X has children with a female clone of Y, their children or grandchildren - cloned or not - are very likely to marry other descendants of X or Y? In other words, how is it different from relatives we have "naturally"?
I'm sorry if it scared you, but "fixing genetic composition" is exactly what happens in cloning (if you discount mitochondrial DNA). Generation 2 is genetically nearly identical to generation 1. What is so frightening about it?
Yes, Dolly is a result of a new technology that is far from being routinely reproducible. All the "mistakes" involved, mean, however, that transplanted nulcei just did not developed. No sheep grew sick or got deformed. I wish many medical procedures had such harmless "mistakes".
What it has to do with Nazism? Nazism offered to suppress or eliminate certain groups considered by Nazi inferior; a new technology like this offers to improve life of whoever will be willing and able to pay for it...
And yes, I do want our next generations to be healthier - a monstrous thought, isn't it?
Why are we racing to correct Nature? Because Nature would have us living short and senseless lives, and we do tend to perceive longer and more interesting lives as something positive.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mark McGann - 03:46pm Jun 17, 1997 ET (#171 of 1108)
Graduate Student, Tulane University
I'm always facinated by people like Grant who say
I don't want a better, healthier, more perfect race. I like our flaws. We need our flaws . . . God, why are we always racing to correct nature? I'm certain future generations will look back and thank Grant for defending their right to be stupid, look ugly, get sick and die young.
-Mark
------------------------------------------------------------------------
GREG P. MURRELL - 09:31pm Jun 17, 1997 ET (#172 of 1108)
Good evening all. Just logged on, but I'm way ahead of all of you. In my own twisted mind I invision the lab boys (and girls)as already having one in the oven, or they wouldn't have told us about it at all. They are just pumping up the potential for grant ceilings. Just like when the old buzzard in Jurassic park brought in the heavy hitters. It wasn't till there was something to show, and I ain't talking about a sheep named lassie in scotland. These guys can't be found much less trusted. That's where you run into the problems with clones. We already have enough mind-nummed robots running corporate america, imagine if the personel office were clones & they were predjudgist against non-clones? Getting sidetracked just a little, If you mix a Golden retriever with a collie, both of which are pure bred dogs, you no longer have either a golden or a collie, both are dogs though. Some will also argue that the resulting blend will be a more refind breed. Using that corelation, I can stretch this scenario to emcompass planned parenthood. Picking your sexes in the tube instead of the woumb. The evil ones could breed an entire army of servant class clones and program them in whichever way they had a mind,ala the stepford wives, invasion of the bodysnatchers,etc.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
J. Rail Jr. - 10:06pm Jun 18, 1997 ET (#173 of 1108)
Being a Father of 7,I know how different the offspring of an individual can be from one another.I can only assume that the offspring of clones would also vary considerably from one another,as well as from the offspring of the the origional parent. All this is assuming that there will be cloning of an entire,developed human adult,and not just body parts or components.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tom Anderson - 01:17am Jun 19, 1997 ET (#174 of 1108)
Curiosity was framed, ignorance killed the cat
Grant Gallicho 6/16/97 7:01pm,
You are talking from emotion without any basis in reality. Learn about it before making such absurd statements. We're not talking Brave New World, this is reality (aka seperate from fiction).
What I meant is that mating among a population of clones, meaning: there are many of the same genetic code, would produce undesirable human beings.
Yeah, only if there are only like ten different codes. In reality, it is billions of seperate genetic clones. If everyone on the planet made a clone of themselves, you would have exactly the same diversity as you had before. The only way your scenario would come to exist is if you made millions of clones of the same few people... which would never happen.
God, why are we always racing to correct nature?
Because nature is imperfect, and there is no reason why we should be.
GREGOR MURRELL 6/17/97 9:31pm,
We already have enough mind-nummed robots running corporate america, imagine if the personel office were clones & they were predjudgist against non-clones?
Cloning in no way produces "robots" and is in no way "mind-numming". And why the heck would nuclear injected people be prejudiced against gamete fused people (like their own parents).
If you mix a Golden retriever with a collie, both of which are pure bred dogs, you no longer have either a golden or a collie, both are dogs though.
Genetic recombination has *nothing* to do with cloning; in fact, it is just the opposite. You are talking about regular old normal sex. And neither a collie nor golden retriever is "natural". Both are the result of forced evolution by human selection originating with the wolf.
Picking your sexes in the tube instead of the woumb.
Again, *nothing* to do with cloning; clones are born in the womb just as any other child and you cannot pick anything in a clone or it is not a clone. Clone = new human with the exact DNA of only one parent. Twin = clone of other twin. Triplets = clones of each other. Get it? Dolly = clone of some adult sheep. No choice of sex. No test tube.
The evil ones could breed an entire army of servant class clones and program them in whichever way they had a mind.
It has already been stated that an army of clones would be an inefficient way of creating an army and very superfluous in its result. First, there would be no advantage to making an army of clones. Second, it would take about eighteen years before they can do combat (or whatever). Third, it would take an army of caretakers to raise all the babies. The end to such a feat would only result in a bunch of soldiers having the same shortcomings with nobody to compensate. If anyone wanted an evil army, they would be better off recruiting already-living people. Or if they wanted to go the hard way about it still, they would be better off raising an army of non-clones from babies. And I repeat: clones are not "programmable". You are talking about genetic engineering, which would not necessarily require clones to do. A clone is an exact genetic replica.
Tom
------------------------------------------------------------------------
M.A.DeLuca - 09:12am Jun 19, 1997 ET (#175 of 1108)
Ugh. One hundred and seventy-four messages so far, and still the general posts seem to have no clue what cloning is about! If you think cloning is about creating zombie armies and ripping away individual rights; if you believe cloning is wrong because well...it's wrong; if you're worried that those crazy scientists are busy cooking up a Brave New World free from normal human sexuality, then for God's sake, do a little research! Learn a little bit about what you're ignorantly trying to condemn before you embarrass yourself. If nothing else, please read through the messages posted already so you don't repeat the same drivel.
Sure, argue about the ethics, but please, I'm begging you, learn something about the subject first.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sohail Zia - 12:38am Jun 20, 1997 ET (#176 of 1108)
With all the intelligence in Nature, I can not deny my Creator; the Source
There are many slips between cup and lips
for Tom and others headed for the frozen eternal life. Be careful and listen if you have not frozen your self, as yet.
Please read - Steven P Henry - 12:26am Jun 11, 1997 ET (#124), I am sure you all know better than that; that is why CNN has a message:
Tom Anderson - 11:37pm Jun 11, 1997 ET (#130) "Curiosity was framed, ignorance killed the cat As I was saying before being cut off... I used to work at Cattus Island, and we would put killifish in the freezer for turtle food in the winter. Several months later, we would thaw them out, and they would come right back to life. It was so cool. That is when I decided that I would be frozen when I die in hopes of being revived later when I could live again. There is nothing wrong with wanting eternal life, just about every religion has thought about some way to make it happen, but I want it for real. Tom."
But Tom you yourself said before in your message: Tom Anderson - 02:09am Jun 11, 1997 ET (#125) "but should they be thawed, they may regain consciousness as they had it before being frozen. Or the procedure may not work and they will remain non-existant, except in memory that is."
So when you are young now, think before making a decision; because this seems to be one chance game for your kind of eternal life. However even if successful, you then have to find a solution! perhaps a gigantic energy source from outside the universe to stabilize; as when the ever expanding universe changes its phase to ever contracting universe and vanishes to nowhere; from where it came.
However if you execute for the eternal life at the time of your death at old age, your mind may not be useful to host your slugged child body, i.e. cloned with brain killed (Ref.#s), but I think you will try to find a solution; after all you are a scientist. So first worry about the universe; you must have a solution for the big bang mirror as soon as possible, who knows what happen after your death. (#Related Tom Anderson Messages #13, 24, 25, 27, 52, 139, 142, 158)
Also be careful before becoming a subject of any experiment hungry, savage scientist or such a research organization - for the eternal life.
CAUTION! (Ref.#36, 37, 45) Indeed - Curiosity has been framed, ignorance shall kill the cat.
As for the believers, they rather sacrifice for their children (i.e. natural, test tube or even cloned children). They do not worry about the science of eternal life, God will do it for them (Ref. #111).
(my previous message # 29, 55, 57 & 75) <This message is not a part of #75>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Grant Gallicho - 05:18pm Jun 20, 1997 ET (#177 of 1108)
I agree with Gregor's point(s). To Mark and Kir -- Sorry to have become an unscientific 'feeler' in your eyes. Mark, somehow I doubt that future generations will be any more grateful for my skepticism regarding cloning than they will be for your ability to oversimplify human existence to the categories of: physical beauty, mental ability, and life expectancy. Interesting, though. None of those characteristics fall even remotely close to any category of rights-talk. Being stupid, or ugly, or short-lived has nothing to do with rights. Those are part of living. Like it or not, until the wonder of science seduced Enlightenment thinkers, people didn't even think of 'correcting' the race. It's people like you who put bombs on the planet; it's the deification of science that brought us two global wars, and the magic of Chernobyl. Yakov, I cannot compete with your knowledge of genetics--always had difficulty with it, to be perfectly honest. You win; however, I do find your understanding of nature to be interesting, and problematic. I'd appreciate a defense of your beliefs that (a) nature has a will, ie: 'Nature would have us...' and (b) what has been going on for the past 2000-odd years has been senseless. If nature is bad, if nature is structured against us, then it is surely structured against the rest of the animal kingdom. But how can that be, when there are definite pockets of order (I'm not talking about the atomic level here--of course I recognize the law of entropy) throughout nature. Lowercase n.
And: could we lose the insulting tone? We can all be pricks if we want--that's been established; but it doesn't impress me, and it doesn't accomplish anything.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tom Anderson - 01:28am Jun 21, 1997 ET (#178 of 1108)
Curiosity was framed, ignorance killed the cat
Sohail,
That would, of course, be a last act in the desperation of the throws of death, not an experiment. I value life far too much for that.
As for what will be the course of the universe in a hundred billion years, nobody is even remotely sure right now... the contraction theory does not rest on much evidence. It would not be important anyway, for if I did attain "eternal" life, I would probably have decided to end my life from bordom by the time that would become a problem. Nothing on that grand a scale is going to happen any time soon, even when speaking relative to astronomical time.
As for God; he cannot assure eternal life, but no one will know that until it is over for them and they no longer exist to actually attain that knowledge. It would be a nice idea, but it is pure fantasy.
Grant,
Science does no evil, it is the misguided religious people that do that. All science does is provide us with truth.
Tom
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mary Ayres - 12:36pm Jun 21, 1997 ET (#179 of 1108)
I am looking for a funny poem that was written about cloning that was a take off on Mary Had a Little Lamb. I found it in March and can't find it now. If you have seen it and know its source, please let me know. Thanks, Mary Jo [email protected]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rev. Ruben McDavid - 02:55pm Jun 21, 1997 ET (#180 of 1108)
Perhaps, some enlightened reader can answer me why the Human Genome Program's headquarter is sponsored by the Department of Energy and based in Los Alamos, in the same spot (Trinity Lab) where the atomic bomb was created? Is the mission of this project to create special weapons based on human development? I can only see a historical pattern in a governmental department who has never apologized for their own actions?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kir Yakov - 05:23pm Jun 21, 1997 ET (#181 of 1108)
Grant -
Being ugly has something to do with rights, if you have in principle an opportunity to looks different, and you want it, and you can afford it, but this opportunity is denied to you by society.
RE (1) :I have not suggested that "nature" has a will or a mind. "She would have us" is a figure of speech.
RE (2): You think our natural lifespan is very impressive? Natural - without vaccines, good food, protection from elements.
You think if even those short lives are spent mostly in pursuit of food and shelter, that's how it should be? You don't think that the essense of technical civilization is to extend our lives by enabling us to achieve things we want to achieve with ever increasing speed?
Deification of science brought us two global wars? That's an interesting view. And I thought naively that nationalism and other forms of predatory collectivism - as old as human race - had something to do with it.....
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tom Anderson - 05:26pm Jun 21, 1997 ET (#182 of 1108)
Curiosity was framed, ignorance killed the cat
Ruben,
The Department of Energy is in charge of many, many basic research projects. And Los Alamos National Laboratory is home to a wide variety of those and other such projects. There is *no* way to make a weapon of cloning, sheesh, I thought that was already clear! And please don't start with the government conspiracy theories... that is the quickest way to lose all credibility.
Tom
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kir Yakov - 05:38pm Jun 21, 1997 ET (#183 of 1108)
Rev. McDavis -
The Genome Project is (partly) sponsored by DOE because it happened to be the most convenient engine for pork-delivery in such-and-such political circumstances. Politics of redistribution as usual. (Which says nothing, of course, about the value of the project itself, pro or contra).
As far as I know, there are three centers getting funds from DOE, established in 1988-89: The Human Genome Center of the Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory (directed by Michael Palazzolo), the Human Genome Center at Lawrence Livermore National Laboratory (directed by Anthony Carrano), and the Center for Human Genome Studies at Los Alamos National Laboratory (Larry Deaven). And they are only a part of the worldwide effort.
And - you seriously think that the US Government should apologize, of all things, for creating the Bomb - for keeping at bay totalitarian regimes, for defending freedom and prosperity, for 50 years of peace in Europe?
And - none of it has anything to do with cloning.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mark Somers - 09:34pm Jun 22, 1997 ET (#184 of 1108)
If I have not seen as far as others, it is because giants were standing on my shoulders. -- Hal Abelson
Brent, I'm curious as to why you put spots on a clone.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sohail Zia - 04:16am Jun 23, 1997 ET (#185 of 1108)
With all the intelligence in Nature, I can not deny my Creator; the Source
Cloning And Ethics b < u continued from message #75 u >
My thanks to Juli Arenson - 04:32am Jun 5, 1997 EST (#78). Every issue known to us is a human issue, so is the issue of cloning ... Solving any issue requires understanding i.e. knowledge and wisdom. Knowledge alone will prove insufficient... No real scientist claim any final theory for the creation of universe and this seems to remain so. A true scientist always know this and never claims to be an authority over any knowledge.... Wisdom requires ethics which come from belief....... Belief vary, so the ethics are changed and consequently the wisdom required, for decision making is also changed among people. There are people who believe in Creator in different ways and those who do not.
For atheists, the fact is that they don't find God in any physical or materially detectable form. Their logic is limited in case of God to human sensory receptors or the five senses. Although it is not the same, when giving hypothetical or predictive theories about some undiscovered or partially discovered natural phenomenon, here logic becomes applicable for them. For the believers of Creator their logic cannot vision the existence and intelligence of nature without the Creator of nature. By 'intelligence of nature', I mean the order and ordered systems of nature, also all the sciences, the rules and laws of nature. However one has a time to think all of this before death; and who knows the time of death, years away or a second away or even its fraction.
Here another question comes into mind, that if God is there then why are we left in misery, diseases, injustice etc. why some of us have disabilities, why it does not seems that we are treated equal in every respect; sure it should also be thought, but here the discussion will change its course to a different direction. Of course for believers in the test (i.e. the life of this world - why the test, is again another issue) God is not going interfere and change the laws of nature till an appointed time (the day of justice according to believers only. I think God is not going to help them by showing a physical existence or direct intervention which man desires, otherwise the case would have not been the same in the first place. Instead God has provided us (believers only version) the sense of right and wrong to pass our present life.
So believers of God have to believe the life after death without a direct vision, so the eternal life together with the Day Of Justice, influence their present life and ethics. And so the wisdom of a believer in creator varies than that of an atheist. There are many messages which show the difference of ethics, thinking and wisdom e.g. Albert Arendsen - 11:17pm Jun 15, 1997 ET (#162 - complete) versus Tom Anderson - 09:35am May 5, 1997 EST (#24) "True, a fully functional clone of yourself would have the same rights as anyone else. However, it is possible to grow a clone without any mental capacity (essentially brain dead), whose sole purpose is as the host body of the donor genetic code. It would not be a person by most, if not all, definitions (excluding the fact that it has human DNA). Ethically, there is nothing that separates this body from a slug. Similarly, such bodies could be grown in mass and harvested for individual organs". Mr. Tom can think such; right away while a true believer will rather sacrifice until finds a way, only if possible through the guide line provided by Creator according to ones belief.
(my previous message # 29, 55, 57, 75 &176)<to be continued>
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Michael R. Adamian - 11:45am Jun 23, 1997 ET (#186 of 1108)
I am very much against cloning the Bell Labs scientist!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mark McGann - 05:26pm Jun 23, 1997 ET (#187 of 1108)
Graduate Student, Tulane University
Grant,
You do not want the human race to be better, healthier or more perfect. You want people to be flawed. I really doubt that future generation will thank you for keeping them from being better, healthier or more perfect. Do you really think they'd prefer to be flawed (e.g. ugly, dumb, sick, short lived, etc...)?
-Mark
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tom Anderson - 09:58pm Jun 23, 1997 ET (#188 of 1108)
Curiosity was framed, ignorance killed the cat
Mark
I agree with your disgust of Grant's ideas; but you are neglecting, as he did, that these things have absolutely nothing to do with cloning.
Tom
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dania El-Kadi - 05:26am Jun 24, 1997 ET (#189 of 1108)
I recently saw a report on French TV where the cloning of several baby cows resulted in animals that look different (the spots on their skin). The report said that the scientists were analyzing their social behavior in order to see how similar they are in character.
Since all of you on this board are very well versed in cloning, please tell me how true this report is.
Thanks for replying
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mark McGann - 10:25am Jun 24, 1997 ET (#190 of 1108)
Graduate Student, Tulane University
Tom,
You are, of course, correct than cloning will produce none of the changes Grant seems to fear they will. I was addressing one of Grant's specific points, however, and didn't want to get into a subject I felt most people already understood. Clearly this is really a discussion about genetic engineering.
-Mark
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Matthew Saul - 04:09pm Jun 24, 1997 ET (#191 of 1108)
CLONE-ALL
In case you haven't heard, there is a new cloning business on the internet called CLONAID that claims it can clone humans for as low as $200,000.
So, I decided to put up a parody site of it called CLONE-ALL. It shows what human cloning can do while trying to be somewhat funny.
We Cell for Less!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tom Anderson - 09:46pm Jun 24, 1997 ET (#192 of 1108)
Curiosity was framed, ignorance killed the cat
Dania,
Cloning CANNOT produce differences; by definition, it creates identical genetic twins. However, it is true that a major advantage of cloning would be research to determine the extent of personality that is genetic and the amount that is learned.
Tom
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Juli Arenson - 06:11am Jun 25, 1997 ET (#193 of 1108)
Sohail Zia 6/23/97 4:16am
Wisdom requires ethics which come from belief....... Belief vary, so the ethics are changed and consequently the wisdom required, for decision making is also changed among people. There are people who believe in Creator in different ways and those who do not. Ethically speaking, this is an extremely complicated topic.
What you write is completely fascinating and I appreciate you advising me to your updates. For me this is going to take more thinking. I am having a difficult time accepting the plus side of cloning.
Not exactly a topic I can even come close to defining an intelligent answer after 3 in the morning.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tom Anderson - 05:54pm Jun 25, 1997 ET (#194 of 1108)
Curiosity was framed, ignorance killed the cat
Sohail,
Ethics DO NOT come from beliefs. They come from an understanding of the relationships and experiences in our own society, not the society of thousands of years ago. God does not make ethics, we do.
Tom
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sohail Zia - 01:40am Jun 26, 1997 ET (#195 of 1108)
With all the intelligence in Nature, I can not deny my Creator; the Source
Tom
You are an ateist, as you have declared. For you it is true, what you say, but majority of the people on earth are not, and that you might not be able to recognise the way others do. The basic difference between you and me to my perception is that you yourself will not be able to deny the intelligence of nature; upto this level I and you can share a common view. But I also recognise the Creator of this intelligence of nature which you can not, at any of my or other believers' of God reasoning. So the solution is quite simple that where ever we reference to God you change it to simply the nature, and where ever we reference to our belief, you change it to rules any society. You may think it premitive, I do not ask you the opposite and I do not impose or even suggest that you are imposing your thought upon me as you have said some where previously.
I think CNN perhaps erase some messages as my previous message has changed its # from 187 to 185.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tom Anderson - 03:35am Jun 26, 1997 ET (#196 of 1108)
Curiosity was framed, ignorance killed the cat
Sohail,
And I recognise that we are the creator of the Creator, so everything in religion is actually something made by people. As such, it is better to use ethics that we create today rather than rely on that of millenia ago.
Yes, the post numbers change often; just look at the number in the URL... I currently see 209! That means that fifteen messages have been deleted in this discussion.
Tom
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Daniel Uram - 06:28am Jun 26, 1997 ET (#197 of 1108)
Do you believe they havenīt cloned yet a human being?
I donīt, if they are already talking about not to do it means
that it can be done and of course any good, crazy and expert cientist (or military) did it already, I bet in some years from now we are going to discover that the official verison (that is forbidden) was fake and one human clone was made.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tom Anderson - 11:43am Jun 26, 1997 ET (#198 of 1108)
Curiosity was framed, ignorance killed the cat
Conspiracy theories... give me a break. Go visit the Roswell board instead. Oh, and mad scientists, please, you're killin me!
Tom
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sohail Zia - 02:54am Jun 27, 1997 ET (#199 of 1108)
With all the intelligence in Nature, I can not deny my Creator; the Source
Tom
Nowhere in my messages I have referred or quoted to any religion, because I strongly believe that a Real Creator i.e. our Creator can not give us a religion (except the adulterations by some religious leaders and their followers) that could be contradictory to the nature upon which we and all in nature have been created.
So the sciences and any scientific discovery including cloning does not confront my kind of believers (which ever) or any real and true set of ethics for our life. It is for only the implementation of any scientific discovery or the way of using it, that we have to use ethics. And ethics do change with believe in Creator or the disbelieve; ethics also change with different religions. A religion can not be called primitive if it carries the capacity to accommodate and comprehend the changing facts and needs of life. (prev. me. #195)