------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tom Anderson - 05:10am Jun 28, 1997 ET (#200 of 1108)
Curiosity was framed, ignorance killed the cat
Sohail,
Ah, but that is the problem I most abhor; that most religions do not carry that capacity to accommodate new needs and ideas. You see, religions such as Christianity base everything on documents such as the Bible, which were written thousands of years ago and are generally considered unchangeable. What this means is that it has static ethics which are often not applicable in our society today; and when faced with a situation that those ethics were not meant to handle, people often try to reject the new idea entirely without considering its usefullness. I believe this is the case with cloning today; people try to measure it to the ethics given in the bible, which is not possible. It requires looking at the situation logically, and deciding where cloning fits into our CURRENT society. It is this unchangeable nature of religion that is its major problem and will be its ultimate downfall in the face of ever-changing scientific discoveries.
Tom
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Juli Arenson - 11:17pm Jun 28, 1997 ET (#201 of 1108)
Tom Anderson 6/28/97 5:10am
Ah, but that is the problem I most abhor; that most religions do not carry that capacity to accommodate new needs and ideas. Once again Tom, I offer another suggestion for you...
It is this unchangeable nature of religion that is its major problem and will be its ultimate downfall in the face of ever-changing scientific discoveries. Which I can offer you some additional thoughts on that one: Baha`i World Faith, which does believe that Religion and Science should work as one.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sohail Zia - 08:27am Jun 29, 1997 ET (#202 of 1108)
With all the intelligence in Nature, I can not deny my Creator; the Source
Tom
You have said, "people often try to reject the new idea entirely without considering its usefullness. I believe this is the case with cloning today; people try to measure it to the ethics given in the bible, which is not possible. It requires looking at the situation logically, and deciding where cloning fits into our CURRENT society".
Tom, I think you have failed to detect it in my messages, that these might be the problems of your society, but not of mine nor of my religion. As if, you ask for looking into situations logically, I agree and feel strange at the same time, that you claim to be a man of logic, still you can never reach the same conclusion as of mine or I vis-a-vis yours. Now you (and your fellow atheist) can say, that you are always thinking logically and we the believer of Creator group are incapable. Let us see, answer my questions to the point (my answers are included after - ) :
Is mankind has discovered all the sciences (i.e. knowledge) of nature? - Answer: No.
Then where the greater intelligence is present? - Answer: In nature and natural systems; including the human biology.
Can the intelligence in nature and natural systems be present without a Source? - Answer: No, nothing happens in our physical and material world by itself.
Then I call the Source (of all that exist to our knowledge and beyond our knowledge) my God, my Creator. And you may deny and call it the accidents of evolution, without giving any real explanation for the Source of the laws of evolution and the existence of material and energy - how can our logic be the same.
Don't give me any example of logic that merely demonstrate the limits of human logic. I know you may never admit and continue to promote your atheism on this board, but sorry we can not vote for your ethics to be applied for cloning.
I used to think that humans can resolve their issues through human logic, but what can be done if even the logic differs among human; or perhaps it is not the logic, it is just a rigidified feeling, I wonder!!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sohail Zia - 03:25pm Jun 29, 1997 ET (#203 of 1108)
With all the intelligence in Nature, I can not deny my Creator; the Source
Tom
1. But you have not answered from where the laws of physics and chemistry came; who made them in the first place.
2. Well, people have seen your answers and mine.
3. You have expressed according to my predictions.
4. You should address me and not Juli, she (or he, excuse me if I am wrong) has said you nothing, and please calm down.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tom Anderson - 03:42pm Jun 29, 1997 ET (#204 of 1108)
Curiosity was framed, ignorance killed the cat
Sohail,
The question is not "who" but "how". And that question has not yet been answered; but that doesn't mean we should make up an answers in place of our ignorance, we should try to find the correct answers. And that is what science will eventually do, if not held back by "religious ethics".
I address Juli for her message, and you for yours; perhaps you are confused.
Tom
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Johari MA - 06:13pm Jun 29, 1997 ET (#205 of 1108)
There is no difference in logic... logic is logic and it applies to anyone using it. Only religion differs among different peoples. Anyone and everyone can use logic; maybe you should try it sometime.
Sorry Tom, there are differences between them. There are 2 kinds of logic : inductive and deductive and each has its own differences!. Thus , different people use different kinds of logic in different situations. Universal generalisation is a kind of logic used by scientist (esp atheist) to generalise that a highly ordered system ('the law' of any sciences) purely arise by itself - w/o any external source (although, to US, mathematically speaking [using logic], this is highly improbable). Their generalisation is scientific and logic, yet not necessarily true; Thus, don't be confused, creationists have used logic for their faith (or 'myth' as you called it).
To a creationist (as ethics and religion are both mutually compatible), we could sort out a (more) balanced solution for a question (in this case, cloning). To a creationist, Atheist, have none but only (now and forever): their generalisation logic and ethics; May be you should remember that sometime (too).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tom Anderson - 06:58pm Jun 29, 1997 ET (#206 of 1108)
Curiosity was framed, ignorance killed the cat
Creationist,
I'm sorry to have generalized logic so much, but what I meant to say is that logic is not subjective, in that a logical proof requires a logical proof to refute it. I have debated religion vs atheism many times, and it always boils down to the fact that the theist cannot back up his ascertations through logic, but always falls back on the illogical condition of faith.
Tom
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Johari MA - 07:39pm Jun 29, 1997 ET (#207 of 1108)
logic is not subjective, in that a logical proof requires a logical proof to refute it.
I suppose you have got a direct logical proof that god does not exist
I have debated religion vs atheism many times, and it always boils down to the fact that the theist cannot back up his ascertations through logic, but always falls back on the illogical condition of faith.
I have also met lots of atheis, and it always boils down to the fact that they generalised that the probability of nth number of consecutive (highly complex) phenomena to occur simultaneously, is highly probable, though, mathematically speaking, this isn't (probably) true. Thus, atheis also have their faith in their assumption. For you is your faith, and for us is ours. Period. (Sorry sys ops, this is a bit off line)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tom Anderson - 08:31pm Jun 29, 1997 ET (#208 of 1108)
Curiosity was framed, ignorance killed the cat
Yes, this is getting off-topic, since religion has nothing to do with cloning or ethics; ergo it has nothing to do with the ethics of cloning. So, I will email you my logical disproof of God.
Tom
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kurt Schoedel - 12:03am Jun 30, 1997 ET (#209 of 1108)
This debate on religious is getting off track because it is totally relevant the those of us who want nothing to do with it. As I said before, the values of a religious meme are applicable only to those who subscribe to it. For the rest of us, morality is contractual in nature. Therefor, the issue of cloning can only be discussed within this context.
Kurt
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sohail Zia - 05:11pm Jun 30, 1997 ET (#210 of 1108)
With all the intelligence in Nature, I can not deny my Creator; the Source
Kurt
The discussion "is getting off track" - partially Yes and partially No - if you read the theme provided by CNN at top of each page of this message board, besides no one has stopped anyone from putting up a relevant message which one think so. The present discussion I think is the result of my message - 04:16am Jun 23, 1997 ET (#187) "Cloning And Ethics"(part two). The need for this topic generated due to various messages for which the complete study of this message board will be required.
"the values of a religious meme are applicable only to those who subscribe to it." - But many readers have not subscribed to the lessons of atheism on this board; e.g. many erased and installed messages esp. the contents of Tom Anderson - 06:53pm May 8, 1997 EST (#36) and the links provided up to the TNA - The Net Atheist in this message. Well, we (the believers of Creator - God) have not asked Sysop to erase it, because we believe that everyone has the right to put a point of view, everyone should see each other's way of thinking, as it gives a chance to rethink in ones own mind and widens the scope of thinking.
Tom
"The question is not "who" but "how"." - To us it is Who and how; for Who we have undisturbed faith as you can see, for how we took part throughout the human history for the promotion of science. We never mind the existing possibilities in nature and welcome the findings; as of our Creator's creations for us i.e. humans, believers or unbelievers alike. But when it comes to the implementation of any findings, the believers' considerations could be different from the unbelievers. As for the "ignorance" - you believe in an incomplete "how" without Who, which is contradictory to the laws of physics.
"I address Juli for her message, and you for yours; perhaps you are confused." - No, I am not, I was there when you posted Tom Anderson - 02:57pm Jun 29, 1997 ET (#203, and I started my writing, meanwhile you deleted your message, a minute later you posted the second version and even that too has been deleted by you or by CNN. I feel sorry for, because this has reduced the contrast of of the messages on board.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Johari MA - 10:40pm Jun 30, 1997 ET (#211 of 1108)
Kurt Schoedel 6/30/97 12:03am morality is contractual in nature. Therefor, the issue of cloning can only be discussed within this context. Yes indeed. Morality should be as such. BUT, if the logical truth is presented based on their paradigm, they could have accepted it; not deny their (own) logical methodology of reasoning. It couldn't possibly be contractual, if they behave as such.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tom Anderson - 06:12pm Jul 1, 1997 ET (#212 of 1108)
Curiosity was framed, ignorance killed the cat
Sohail,
Contradictory to the laws of physics??? You might try to explain how you came to that conclusion!
As for promoting science, cloning research IS pure science. We're not talking about applications of it, just the research itself.
Yes, it's true; I do recall forgetting to put your name on the message. Only a period of a couple of seconds elapsed before I changed it, I'm amazed you managed to see it in that amount of time. I hadn't realized it was deleted again; but I would repost it, but I did not save that one. I don't see how there could have been objections.
Tom
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Noel Yap - 09:01pm Jul 1, 1997 ET (#213 of 1108)
Unfortunately, very few scientists have acted responsibly with regards to their discoveries. This is a direct consequence of living in a capatalist society. So, either we get rid of capatalism, or we regulate research until we've straightened out the ethics.
Today, sci/tech moves much faster than what our culture can absorb; we need some forces to help our right-brained, emotional selves catch up with our left-brained, logical selves.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kurt Schoedel - 11:56pm Jul 1, 1997 ET (#214 of 1108)
In a capitalist society. People, as free individualists, can choose what technologies they want to use or not. This is much more ethical than having some politician or beaurocrat decide for us. The only ethical issues as far as I'm concerned is that I have the freedom of choice as to what technology I want to use. I don't need ethicist to make the choices for me, thank you very much. Please leave your right-brained assisting forces out of my life, for I don't need them.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Noel Yap - 03:48pm Jul 2, 1997 ET (#215 of 1108)
In a capitalist society you do not have the resources to pursue the research you might want. So, if you want to eat, the topics of your research is limited by the ones willing to pay you. This leaves government (mostly for defense) and big corporations.
In this society, I do not have a choice in which technologies I want around me. Current technologies affect everyone everywhere (remember Chernobyl, Three Mile Island, BNL?)
Personally, I do not see anything wrong with cloning (any living organism). I am, however, myopic. Clinton is taking a conservative stand in this situation. Once the ethics have been ironed out, research should again have the go-ahead. Those that are willing to fund, will. You'll have your free-market-ethics; I'll have my think-before-we-leap technology.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tom Anderson - 05:34pm Jul 2, 1997 ET (#216 of 1108)
Curiosity was framed, ignorance killed the cat
I'm an equal opportunity employer when it comes to my brain hemispheres.
Government and ethics don't mix; it borders on the separation of church and state. Ethics are purely personal. Only laws apply to everyone, and laws can only restrict things which somehow injure someone else. That is not the case with scientific research... it cannot harm anyone (except to contradict silly religious preconceptions). Any restriction to the progress of science is unacceptable.
Tom
BTW, Three-mile-Island and other nuclear plants have potentially saved many lives and much pollution and even more precious Americans' dollars. Don't bash it cause you don't understand it.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Noel Yap - 06:41pm Jul 2, 1997 ET (#217 of 1108)
The separation of body, mind, and soul has been the largest mistake this country has ever made. This is not to say that religion should not be separated from government. There is a difference between spirituality and religiousness.
Laws are abstractions. They represent what ethics they are meant to.
Pure scientific research cannot harm anyone. In this society, though, no one will fund any research if they cannot benefit from applying it.
Your leaning towards science and away from spirituality proves that you are not an EEO when it comes to brain hemispheres. "Any restriction to the progress of science is unacceptable" -- why not, "Any restriction to the progress of spirituality is unacceptable". The problem with atheists is that they've made Science their religion.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tom Anderson - 01:25am Jul 3, 1997 ET (#218 of 1108)
Curiosity was framed, ignorance killed the cat
Laws are what make civilization work. They are not abstractions but concrete rules by which we can operate with the greatest freedom and the least interference with others' freedom.
Ethics are personal rules of interaction with people.
Spirituality does not exist, and is certainly not a characteristic of the brain. It is a concept related primitively to religion.
I really hate it when people call science religion. Religion is characterized by a belief in a super-human power by faith and worship. Atheists neither believe in super-human power, nor base anything on faith. Science is a modus operandi, a way to find information with the least degree of uncertainty. If you call believing in plausible, reproducible evidence an act of faith, then everything is an act of faith, and the word loses all meaning.
Tom
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Noel Yap - 03:19pm Jul 3, 1997 ET (#219 of 1108)
Laws are abstractions. For example, speeding laws are made for safety. However, if I drive safely -- keep a good distance, drive in control, signal when changing lanes -- but drive over the speed limit, I might still get a ticket. That's because the law (abstraction) is enforced, not why the law was created to begin with.
Another example is the CDA and its bunch (of which some have actually been passed). The reason the laws are in place are (so they say) for the protection of "our children". There are other ways to achieve this goal, but instead a law is passed that forbids certain freedoms.
Another example, getting back to the topic at hand, is possibly a law that forbids research into cloning. I'm sure some wouldn't agree with such a law even if it were supposedly based on keeping our freedoms with the least interference with others' freedoms.
Clinton has not banned cloning research forever. The government has postponed any research until such a time that the experts (hopefully not the politicians) decide what the implications of such a technology are. I wish they'd done the same for nuclear. They really ought to do the same for nano-tech -- maybe not now, but when we know more to make better decisions.
Spirituality does exist. This society seems to separate Science and Spirituality -- "One is better than the other". Eastern philosophies don't do this. They know both are necessary. They know the two must co-exist.
When it comes down to it, especially today, Science is a religion. People believe the Big Bang occurred. People believe evolution is real. People believe the quark and time are real. Although these are highly accepted theories, they have no predictive value and/or no real evidence. The one time "miracle" of the parting of the Red Sea is as believable as the one time "occurence" of the Big Bang.
More than this, scientists believe there is one real truth. They have faith that they can learn this truth.
Religion does not have to have a super-human power. In the CS world (at least) developers get into religious wars over language, editors, OS's, etc. Are these things super-human powers? Or is it that religion is just a very strong belief in something.
At some level, people, no matter whether they're theist or not, believe in something. When this belief is strong enough, it's a religion. Tom's opinions on Science is so strong, I would consider it a religion.
Everything is an act of faith (ie "I will live through today"). The word still has meaning.
Well, back to the cloning issue. Clinton has the power not to direct government funds into research he does not want to fund. Maybe that power should be taken away from the government and given to the people.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tom Anderson - 05:48pm Jul 3, 1997 ET (#220 of 1108)
Curiosity was framed, ignorance killed the cat
Maybe that power should be taken away from the government and given to the people.The only part of that last post that is valid. And I tend to agree with this, in some respects. People who don't know anything about the research, or research in general, should not be given this power (including Congressmen). It should be left to the government agencies that specialize in these subjects (that is, No Earmarking at the Congressional level). I would be relatively content in allowing the NSF and the military complex to allot money where they think it should best be used. However, neither Clinton nor ethicists should have that power.
Tom
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Johari MA - 06:18pm Jul 3, 1997 ET (#221 of 1108)
Tom Anderson 7/3/97 1:25amAtheists neither believe in super-human power, nor base anything on faith
......except, on certain issue, their faith (an extreme assumption) is so strong, for the impossible. Creationist 6/29/97 7:39pm
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kurt Schoedel - 03:38am Jul 4, 1997 ET (#222 of 1108)
Spirituality and science do indeed work together. Spirituality is best described as that feeling of desire to overcome the perceived limits on what we can become and to transcend to something more than human. Science and technology are meerly the tools that allow us to do this. As I said before, I have no desire to clone myself. Rather, I want the stem-cell regeneration capabilities that will come out of it so that I may get on with becoming what I want to become. For me, spirituality and science are mearly flip-sides to the same coin.
BTW. I've met athiests who've been just as dogmatic as religious people (Do Randroids come to mind?).
Kurt
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Holy Joe - 06:42pm Jul 4, 1997 ET (#223 of 1108)
I hope that they dont start to clone those Apes that are from outerspace cause they are crazy!!!
holy joe
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Darrel Felty - 11:47am Jul 5, 1997 ET (#224 of 1108)
Government has the right, indeed the obligation to regulate the cloning of humans. All research on human germ cells, even that for "beneficial reasons such as preventing disease, should be prevented until we know the precise nature of the human genome.
Would it be worth the risk to introduce a change that prevent cancer, but would also interfere with our ability to make moral judgements? What if these new people were stronger, healthier, longer-lived, but felt it in their best interest to get rid of the "weaklings" ( homo sapiens.)
Under the provision to "provide for the common defense" the Government should guarantee that a new strain of "supra sapiens" is not set free upon the world. Any cell research should be restricted to somatic cells, so that the changes are not passed on to future generations. Sometimes, we must be protected from ourselves!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sohail Zia - 05:48am Jul 6, 1997 ET (#225 of 1108)
With all the intelligence in Nature, I can not deny my Creator; the Source
Tom Anderson - 06:12pm Jul 1, 1997 ET (#212)<-- Nothing happens without cause or work-done, as I explained earlier in #55, disorder increases with simple work-done and order is only achieved by intelligent work-done; still you suggested it, in your response as a flawed effort, where as your paradox in the next message had the same status to me... The CNN- theme for this message board is not the pure science of cloning only - but we can use the word - also for the science.... > "Yes, it's true; I do recall forgetting to put your name on the message."< --Thanks.
Noel Yap Actually capitalism also needs some rest after knocking out the communism, and the religions of our world have already been put to deep sleep - by each other - not by atheists - the fact, so Kurt should not worry and Tom is already aware. I share the irony, no one talks logic to Tom, but how can I convince others, when human logic has its own limitations.
Tom Anderson - 05:48pm Jul 3, 1997 ET (#220) - "neither Clinton nor ethicists should have that power."<
i.e. only the scientists who do not mix up with religion, i.e. atheists only should have the power, i.e. humans who are not atheist does not have any value or deserve to express any opinion. If I am able to understand the postings of Tom.
Darrel Felty - 11:47am Jul 5, 1997 ET (#224) What if these new people were stronger, healthier, longer-lived, but felt it in their best interest to get rid of the "weaklings" ( homo sapiens.) < -- There is noting to be afraid as such and I agree with Tom in this respect. In fact in my understanding there are more chances of degeneration unless we could check and correct individual genetic codes.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kurt Schoedel - 10:53pm Jul 6, 1997 ET (#226 of 1108)
My approach for dealing with "supra-sapiens" is to make sure that bio/nanotechnology is available for me to enhance myself so that I will always be competitive with any "supra-sapiens" who might try to **** with me. Of course, I still want the enhancement capabilities for re-engineering myself even though there are no supra-sapiens (at least, not yet). My experience until now is that we don't need supra-sapiens in order to be ****ed with. Intrusive governments and religions have proven themselves more than capable of doing this already.
Kurt
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sohail Zia - 02:37am Jul 7, 1997 ET (#227 of 1108)
With all the intelligence in Nature, I can not deny my Creator; the Source
Kurt
" to enhance myself so that I will always be competitive with any "supra-sapiens" who might try to **** with me."
Sorry, would you please explain '****'.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tom Anderson - 04:09am Jul 7, 1997 ET (#228 of 1108)
Curiosity was framed, ignorance killed the cat
Darrel, Kurt,
I think you should both read a little bit about cloning before making such silly posts. It might do some good to go back and read all of my previous posts... they will refute every word you just said.
Tom
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Noel Yap - 07:39am Jul 7, 1997 ET (#229 of 1108)
Thank you, Kurt, for backing me up on my stance that Science and Spirituality must be balanced.
Who should decide whether cloning research should go forward? The people who are too stupid? The governments who are too stupid? Or the scientists who (hopefully) balance "control of nature" with ethics? This society is too complex for me to deal with everything; I would have to trust ethical scientists.
As for genetic engineering, once we know the genomes, that doesn't necessarily mean we know all the phenomes. Genomes are static (analogous to a computer system); phenomes are (more) dynamic (analogous to the behaviour of the computer system).
One question that comes to my mind is: Who is responsible for raising the clone-child? Answers to this and other questions must be found before continuing any R&D on cloning.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Spike Perkins - 11:29am Jul 7, 1997 ET (#230 of 1108)
If a Supersapiens does arise that is smarter, faster, more creative, and just generally better than the 1900s version humans, why should we care if they take our place? Isn't improving ourselves the goal of progress? And when has playing God ever been a problem before? Humans can certainly be improved upon, so why not welcome that opportunity?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mukesh Shah - 11:43am Jul 7, 1997 ET (#231 of 1108)
According to me, CLONING is great achievement for mankind. Now, they can send clone human being to MARS and can do the research on that planet.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Noel Yap - 03:40pm Jul 7, 1997 ET (#232 of 1108)
Mukesh, you're assuming that the life belongs to whoever created it. This hasn't been decided yet. In fact, I'm sure someone out there will insist that a clone is not a life -- or at least not a life that's protected under our constitution.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Marc C Wichman - 03:49pm Jul 7, 1997 ET (#233 of 1108)
The moral and ethical questions involved with cloning humans are sufficient to make us proceed with caution.
I believe this research should continue but with due discretion and control. Genetic engineering is the more powerful new concept imaginable and should not be carelessly played with.
Continue to proceed with experimentation. Continue with controlled experimentation. Do not rush into implementation of a process just because we can. Stop and think if we should.
The moral questions of legal status of clones, should they have rights under our laws, can they be used for spare parts for the wealthy? All of these issues must be considered before cloning of humans is permitted on a practical scale.
Let's make sure before we clone that we are not "Clowning"
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Noel Yap - 04:23pm Jul 7, 1997 ET (#234 of 1108)
I very much agree with Marc, however, research in our society is driven by the possibility of using what was learned. No corporation/government will stand idly by pondering the ethical questions at the time when they, and perhaps soon, competition, can make money/weapons now.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tom Anderson - 06:32pm Jul 7, 1997 ET (#235 of 1108)
Curiosity was framed, ignorance killed the cat
I think everyone seriously needs to learn just what cloning is and what it is not. Cloning is the creation of a new person with the identical genes of its parent. Cloning is not genetic engineering. Cloning cannot be used to create an improved species. Cloning cannot be used to create mindless robots. Clones are people just like everyone else, except they are the identical twin of their parent. There is ABSOLUTELY NO ETHICAL DILEMMA! A person created by nuclear injection is the same as a person created by gamete fusion. THEY ARE THE SAME. Please stop making these mistakes.
Tom
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Johari MA - 07:12pm Jul 7, 1997 ET (#236 of 1108)
Tom Anderson 7/7/97 6:32pmCloning cannot be used to create mindless robots. ...which is why you cannot harvest thier body/parts for whatever reason you have.
They are human beings.
Clones are people just like everyone else, except they are the identical twin
You mean, genetically identical with the source parent.
There is ABSOLUTELY NO ETHICAL DILEMMA!
There are ....to some of us.
A person created by nuclear injection is the same as a person created by gamete fusion.
THEY ARE THE SAME. NO. Nuclear injection uses a single (diploid) nuclear DNA to provide the genetic material for the clone, AND it is an artifical way of creating another being. While gamete fusion, is a natural process called fertilisation, using two haploid cells (gamete/ovum).
Please stop making these mistakes.
Please stop such generalisation mistake, also.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Johari MA - 07:50pm Jul 7, 1997 ET (#237 of 1108)
We need to consider carefully before cloning Homo sapiens, while cloning Homo arrogant, is completely out of the question !!!!!!!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jim Willingham - 11:43pm Jul 7, 1997 ET (#238 of 1108)
(BorgDOS 6.2)C:\ Session Complete. Assimilate Another? Y/N
Re: Noel Yap 7/7/97 3:40pm
"...you're assuming that the life belongs to whoever created it."
It had BETTER belong to whoever created it. I've got my clones out cleaning my septic system right now (except for the one I'm using for a foot stool). If someone decides the other way, I'm in for a nasty back-salary squabble.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Noel Yap - 07:56am Jul 8, 1997 ET (#239 of 1108)
Tom, would you also argue that identical twins are the same?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Karoli Kuns - 02:51pm Jul 8, 1997 ET (#240 of 1108)
Tom Anderson 7/7/97 6:32pm
For some of us the ethics of creation are inextricably intertwined with the question of cloning.
It is neither unreasonable, nor is it out of bounds to question these things. There are too many people out there who are in power and addicted to power, too many who do not have ethics or consider ethics, and too many implications to be blase' about the ethical and moral overtones.
That said, I agree with the person who said proceed, but proceed carefully.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tom Anderson - 06:53pm Jul 8, 1997 ET (#241 of 1108)
Curiosity was framed, ignorance killed the cat
Creationist 7/7/97 7:12pm,
...which is why you cannot harvest thier body/parts for whatever reason you have. They are human beings. Cloning an organ is not the same as surgically removing one from a living person. Nor is raising a brain-dead infant (not necessarily a clone).
You mean, genetically identical with the source parent. That's what I said.
NO. Nuclear injection uses a single (diploid) nuclear DNA to provide the genetic material for the clone, AND it is an artifical way of creating another being. While gamete fusion, is a natural process called fertilisation, using two haploid cells (gamete/ovum).
I never claimed the procedure was the same, I claimed the result is the same... and it is. Either way, you get a person, a whole person, and nothing but a person. There is no difference between these two humans even in the zygote stage... just two cells that may become adults some day.
Noel Yap 7/8/97 7:56am,
Tom, would you also argue that identical twins are the same?
YES! They are both people.
Karoli Kuns 7/8/97 2:51pm,
It is neither unreasonable, nor is it out of bounds to question these things. There are too many people out there who are in power and addicted to power, too many who do not have ethics or consider ethics, and too many implications to be blase' about the ethical and moral overtones.
You are still thinking that this is a subjective notion, it is not; there are no ethical implications because all of the fears that you have are completely unfounded. People in power cannot do anything to a clone that they could not do to a non-clone and vice versa. All of this science-fiction nonsense that people believe about clones is absolutely rediculous. Since when did you need ethics to reproduce? The Presidents Clinton have a kid, so how contradictory is that?
Tom
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sohail Zia - 10:28pm Jul 8, 1997 ET (#242 of 1108)
With all the intelligence in Nature, I can not deny my Creator; the Source
Tom - "Cloning an organ is not the same as surgically removing one from a living person. Nor is raising a brain-dead infant (not necessarily a clone). "
Can human beings think of killing the brain of their infant child or even of embroy for harvesting organs? if not, then how can we kill the brain of a clone? is cloned infant or embroy not human? where do you put your ethics in the name of science? why do you contradict yourself?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tom Anderson - 01:42am Jul 9, 1997 ET (#243 of 1108)
Curiosity was framed, ignorance killed the cat
Sohail,
Contradict myself? I think not. No, an unborn fetus is definitely not a person. Growing a mindless body is no different than doing medical experiments on animals, actually even less questionable. Is donating blood or a kidney unethical? No, because an unintelligent body part has no rights except as they pertain to the brain that owns it. We perform abortions all the time, killing the brain; but we could easily save the body and put it to good use. But this really has nothing to do with cloning; the statement I made was in response to the twisting of my previous statement by Creationist in which he suggested that I endorsed the "harvesting" of organs from people (which I do not, and never even hinted at). This type of thing might have ethical implications, but it is not new and not confined to cloning; so I maintain that cloning has no ethical implications at all.
Tom
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Karoli Kuns - 03:23am Jul 9, 1997 ET (#244 of 1108)
Tom Anderson 7/8/97 6:53pm
Indeed, there are ethics involved in the choice to create children and to have them.
One of the problems we have is that there are some people who have chosen to forget that, and their names end up on message boards like this being condemned and villified as a murderer and baby-killer (a la Melissa Drexler).
It's not just about uniting sperm and egg.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sohail Zia - 03:57am Jul 9, 1997 ET (#245 of 1108)
With all the intelligence in Nature, I can not deny my Creator; the Source
Tom Anderson - 01:42am Jul 9, 1997 ET-" No, an unborn fetus is definitely not a person. Growing a mindless body is no different than doing medical experiments on animals.... Can human beings think of killing the brain of their infant child, fetus or even of embroy for harvesting organs? Cloned or Uncloned. Please ask others as well.
Tom -" We perform abortions all the time, killing the brain; but we could easily save the body and put it to good use." Abortions can only be perfomed where there is a danger to the health (life) of mother or child.
"so I maintain that cloning has no ethical implications at all. -Tom"
I agree as far as it is visualized as an alternate form of human reproduction, but not for harvesting.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Johari MA - 05:57am Jul 9, 1997 ET (#246 of 1108)
Tom Anderson 7/8/97 6:53pmCloning an organ is not the same as surgically removing one from a living person. I would say, if cloning an organ is possible, why not? BUT ...
Nor is raising a brain-dead infant (not necessarily a clone). This is a controversial definition of a 'clone'. You would (theoretically) need to 'sedate' the clone to make it 'brain dead'. He is not brain dead, you purposely have to make it 'brain dead' Thus, if you say...
You are still thinking that this is a subjective notion, it is not; there are no ethical implications because all of the fears that you have are completely unfounded. People in power cannot do anything to a clone that they could not do to a non-clone and vice versa It is then founded , as you purposely need to 'sedate' the clone... Whichever way you want to put it, you could never consider a 'complete clone' as an 'organ' for body transplant... unless you puposely ignore the actual definition and made up your own reality about 'organ'.
Tom Anderson 7/9/97 1:42am
We perform abortions all the time
That is to say specifically, YOU and your colleagues, not WE ;.........again, misleading generalisation.
Growing a mindless body is no different than doing medical experiments on animals, actually even less questionable
Yes, some Homo sapiens think that a complete human being is no more different than an animal; Even if they are 'brain dead' (based on your reality), they are not experimental animals. Thus, some people view that a complete human clone is nothing more than just an animal or an organ for transplant, while some don't think as such, this is clearly the situation here.
the statement I made was in response to the twisting of my previous statement by Creationist in which he suggested that I endorsed the "harvesting" of organs from people (which I do not, and never even hinted at
You never hinted ?.... well this is the hint....
Tom Anderson 5/5/97 9:39amBut, supposing you did want to pursue a brain transplant into a healthy young body, it is not as difficult as you might imagine. The only nerves that would have to be severed and reconnected are those in an area between the right and left hemispheres where the two halves communicate between each other and the spinal cord (which holds no memory or In other words, you want to clone an individual, and termed it as 'brain dead' and an 'organ' for yourself. Well, this was the hint I found. You hinted that a complete body is nothing but an 'organ' for transplant; Some people don't look at the issue as such.
>Tom Anderson 7/8/97 6:53pmSince when did you need ethics to reproduce? You are simply deluding the point. Cloning human is a big issue. We haven't got the complete answer for Developmental Biology, Embryology, Cellular Development etc. These will create 'unknown expectations' DURING the research. As we don't know the complete nature of what we are dealing with : science will make errors if it proceeds in this field (now). Such error could potentially produce 'live defective clones'. This is where ethics comes in. How many defective clones would you expect DURING this trial-and-error period? Have you got a special speech for the 'live' but 'defective' clones ? (defective clones = you would have to make the clone become aware of himself, and then only you can decide wheather the clone is normal or not. IF you found the clone is mentally retarded, then I wou
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Johari MA - 06:00am Jul 9, 1997 ET (#247 of 1108)
continual of the above....
IF you found the clone is mentally retarded, then I would presume, you could just dispose the clone, it is nothing different for you than just an 'abortion process', as I understand)
We are not guinea pigs, we are not animal(except for some people on this board). If promoting science would require us to be selfish and inhuman -- than.... I would say ... this kind of science is going to make us become Homo sapiens, rather than human beings. Some people just don't care anything about that. To them, becoming Homo sapiens , and preserving its own life with his selfish ethics, is plainly correct and we should not feel 'wrong' about it. (That is to say, some of us have feelings, some don't)
Thus, Mr Clinton's decision was right, at the present time.
Inconclusive errors as reported by Nature : http://www.nature.com/Nature2/serve?SID=90209795&CAT=NatGen&PG=sheep/sheep3.html
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Noel Yap - 07:23am Jul 9, 1997 ET (#248 of 1108)
Tom: "Is donating blood or a kidney unethical?"
Yes, to some people. As dictator-ethicist for Science, you may deem them "wrong".
Tom: "But, supposing you did want to pursue abrain transplant into a healthy young body, it is not as difficult as you might imagine."
Has this been done already? If not, how do we know there won't be any tissue rejection or any other complications?
Creationist: "Thus, Mr Clinton's decision was right, at the present time."
Though I may not completely agree with your morality -- using body parts of already brain dead infants -- I would say that such disagreements must be ironed out (at least on a domestic policy scale) before proceeding with this technology.
One question that hasn't been answered is: "Who is responsible for the clone's life?" The clone is not, as in science fiction or maybe in the distant future, born an adult. If someone steals my nuclei and clones me, do they have the right to use that clone for experiments, for drafting into the military, for a foot stool?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Johari MA - 08:45am Jul 9, 1997 ET (#249 of 1108)
Noel Yap 7/9/97 7:23amThough I may not completely agree with your morality -- using body parts of already brain dead infants -- I would say that such disagreements must be ironed out (at least on a domestic policy scale) before proceeding with this technology.
If you ask me, I don't want to involve myself with such research, as there is a potential that this technology is going to create hazardous side effects to our society. It will make us, to a certain degree, regard human beings as experimental animals. Some people just think this is completely OK. NO... not to me. For me, there are other (more) important challanges (eg cancer and AIDS) This would require more immediate attention than asexual reproduction and selfish ethics.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Johari MA - 09:14am Jul 9, 1997 ET (#250 of 1108)
Has this been done already? If not, how do we know there won't be any tissue rejection or any other complications? For the moment, this is still science fiction.
Theoretically, if the clone and the donor had the same genetic composition, there won't be any rejection problem. There are complications though; which I didn't analyse yet (because I don't bother about immortality). May be people who dreamed of immortality can answer that question. One potential complication: everything won't be successful all the time.
If such complication arise, the brain could be dysfunctional in its new body (a dead brain) and BOTH donor and recipient will die.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Noel Yap - 04:03pm Jul 9, 1997 ET (#251 of 1108)
Creationist,
In the software world, one sure-fire way to "prevent" viruses is to make backups. One could do the same to combat cancer and AIDS (just kidding ;)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Ian Smith - 05:39pm Jul 9, 1997 ET (#252 of 1108)
Speaking of organs, clones, and such, You all should read Larry Niven's A Gift From Earth and The Long Arm of Gil Hamilton. His books (classic hard-core sci-fi) deal with the issues and explore the social problems of some century in the future, where people are kidnapped by criminals and parted out as unwilling organ donors. What eventually solves the problem is cloning, but not of the whole human body, just the individual parts. The reading is very interesting, yet still carries some social insights for those of you who can't read for enjoyment alone.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Peter Swik - 07:02pm Jul 9, 1997 ET (#253 of 1108)
cloning is wrong. Humans are what they are because of random gene sequencing and sometimes radical gene sequencing. If humans were cloned, nobody would have their own thoughts, feelings, or personality.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tom Anderson - 07:19pm Jul 9, 1997 ET (#254 of 1108)
Curiosity was framed, ignorance killed the cat
Thoughts, feelings and personality have little to do with genes, and nothing to do with cloning.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Esko Ranta - 06:00am Jul 10, 1997 ET (#255 of 1108)
Tom Anderson, you seem to believe that genome of a clone (produced by techniques available now) is identical to the original. That is not true. There are differences on the methylation pattern of DNA's of a clone and the original. DNA methylations are copied when DNA replicates. Currently, engineering of DNA methylation patterns even in a single cell is not possible as far as I know. I advice you to read something about regulation of gene expression, differentation of cells, DNA methylation and/or genomic imprinting. You will learn that usage of genetic code is not so very simple in a cell. So cloning will probably produce inferior copy of the original - at least if we think that a cell probably 'knows' the best way to use its genetic code.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Noel Yap - 07:55am Jul 10, 1997 ET (#256 of 1108)
Tom, we do not yet know how much of thought, feelings, or personality comes from the genes and how much comes from the environment. Perfect cloning (without the problems expressed by Esko) might give us some clues, though.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tom Anderson - 11:57am Jul 10, 1997 ET (#257 of 1108)
Curiosity was framed, ignorance killed the cat
Esko,
The DNA placed into a host cell is the DNA of its parent. As seen in Dolly and in identical twins, cell differentiation does not differ noticably between genetic equals. Cloning cannot in any way create an "inferior" copy by the process itself. There isn't even any basis on which to judge superiority vs inferiority. The organism will develope in the same fashion as its parent did.
Noel,
That is one of the points I've been trying to make... that cloning is needed in order to learn so much about ourselves. However, it is clear from psychology that the personality is mostly shaped by environment, but it is still unknown just what parts of it are given at the instinctual level. Though it remains that Peter's fear of "cloned personalities" is impossible, which is the point I was making to him.
Tom
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Johari MA - 05:39am Jul 11, 1997 ET (#258 of 1108)
Dolly was the only subject found to be successful and it is not as complex as human. Furthermore, they didn't assess Dolly's genetic status completely. The report in Nature (only) quote that the test confirmed Dolly's DNA came from its actual source parent, without any other genotyping tests. Their simple test (PCR based) could be done no more than a few hours ; and it only gave an extremely general view about her actual 'genetic' condition. I have seen obsessed scientists - when they got brilliant result. Believe me, at such excited state -- they won't ask look for any anomaly. This is a fact. Therefore, it is not surprising that the report (only) gave an extremely general excuse to the death of the other clones : no infection or abnormality found. Period.
As qutoed by Eska, there is a possibility that the state of methylation in the source DNA could caused genetic abnormalities to the clone. Genomic imprinting is also an example where geneticists couldn't answer the puzzling nature of specific methylase (hall mirror effect of methylase/demethylasem could such question ever be solved?); The zygote produced from natural fertilisation is at the 'ground state' (no differentation) and thus its methylation status is at optimal condition for normal differentiation. With regard to complex mammalian species (as us), methylation plays a vital role for spatio temporal mode of gene expression. Therefore, the somatic DNA used for cloning is definitely not at the 'ground state'. If the methylation pattern of the source DNA is abnormal (not at the ground state), the clone could carry defective gene 'switches' that could cause a problem to the clone at early embryological state, at young age (child onset), adult age (adult onset) or old age (late onset).
There are also different genetic diseases which are only observable at different stages of a human life (age dependent). Furthermore, abnormal methylation pattern could also caused cancer. Additionally, certain cancers are age dependent. Part of the reasons for these genetic abnormalities are due to abnormal gene regulation, which could have arise from abnormal methylation pattern. Therefore, though the cloning process may (initially) be successful, who knows what would happen to the clone during his life? They might be more susceptible to certain cancer or genetic diseases.
cont'd.....
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Johari MA - 05:43am Jul 11, 1997 ET (#259 of 1108)
Thus, it is incorrect to generalise that cloning could not produce 'inferior' species. It is not scientifically based (may be people got such idea from science fiction movies). Cloning is not as simple as diskcopying. Unless we really know (thoroughly) what we are talking about, then only we should say so. Cloning could produce such 'inferior' species (genetically defective clones) based on the current understanding of genomic imprinting .....and the clone may not necessarily develop (as normal) as its parent did. That is why I have stressed about the unknown expectations in my previous message.
And... as reminded by Esko, the clone may have the same genetic composition with the source parent, but they don't have identical genetic status. Therefore BOTH person are not identically similar as in the case of identical twins.
As for the effect of the environment on our behaviour, there are loads of identical twins around the world. Clones are not necessary to answer such question.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Esko Ranta - 10:26am Jul 11, 1997 ET (#260 of 1108)
Tom, you seem to be ignorant in this matter.
"The DNA placed into a host cell is the DNA of its parent."
What 'the' DNA? There is a tissue spesific methylation pattern of DNA in each cell, and some cells have chromosomes with gene mutations.
"As seen in Dolly and in identical twins, cell differentiation does not differ noticably between genetic equals."
I would argue that Dolly may have defects in her gene expression due to cloning, but of course her cells have differentiated quite normally, otherwise a miscarriage would probably have been the result. Identical twins do not have noticeable differences in their cell differentiation because they DO have identical chromosomes, and the same environment in the beginning.
"Cloning cannot in any way create an "inferior" copy by the process itself."
Yes it can because the cloning process cannot reset the methylation pattern of DNA to that of which is found in a zygote.
"There isn't even any basis on which to judge superiority vs inferiority."
I am sure that you would consider yourself as superior to a person who is mentally retarded due to Angelman syndrome (search for that in the web) - which is, in some cases, caused by defect in resetting the methylation pattern of some genes of chromosome 15 during production of an egg cell. Well, this type of Angelman syndrome is something that cannot occur in human clones (if that is not the intention), it is an example of importance of DNA methylation patterns.
"The organism will develope in the same fashion as its parent did."
This is NOT a thing you can be sure of and that is why we have to learn more before we can start cloning humans (someone else may defend animal rights). Scientific matters and their ethical implications of cloning are not yet resolved.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tom Anderson - 11:25pm Jul 11, 1997 ET (#261 of 1108)
Curiosity was framed, ignorance killed the cat
Creationist 7/11/97 5:39am,
Dolly was the only subject found to be successful and it is not as complex as human.
Different, yes; not as complex, I don't think so.
Believe me, at such excited state -- they won't ask look for any anomaly. This is a fact.
No, that is your opinion. The truth of the matter is that this research is many years in progress and this is just the best result so far. They are quite aware of its status. And Dolly was not the only clone.
Therefore, it is not surprising that the report (only) gave an extremely general excuse to the death of the other clones : no infection or abnormality found.
As is the case in normal sheep that die right after birth (I think the figure was around 8%).
The zygote produced from natural fertilisation is at the 'ground state' (no differentation) and thus its methylation status is at optimal condition for normal differentiation... the somatic DNA used for cloning is definitely not at the 'ground state'.
Donor cells are induced to quiescence by serum starvation before transfer, effectively modifying them to "ground state".
and the clone may not necessarily develop (as normal) as its parent did.
Well, that is why performing experiments is necessary. As we have seen in Dolly, and other recent mammal clones, differentiation DOES occur (as normal) as its parent did. That is not to say that it will develop *exactly*, cell by cell, the same; but it will certainly produce an organism that is statistically the same (that is, it will express all of the same traits on the macro level).
Tom
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tom Anderson - 12:06am Jul 12, 1997 ET (#262 of 1108)
Curiosity was framed, ignorance killed the cat
Esko Ranta 7/11/97 10:26am,
Tom, you seem to be ignorant in this matter.
I am well aware of the role methylation of DNA plays in regulation of expression, genomic imprinting, and embryonic development, as well as DNA damage repair and the restriction systems. However, it is not likely that there is any difference between the genetic material produced by the fusion of gamete nuclei and a donated nucleus. Methylation appears to be controlled by the cell, and the DNA itself; which means that the new zygote should be very capable of producing the necessary methylation patterns on its own. In fact, it is highly unlikely that the zygote would mature at all if it did not do this. But, then, this topic has not been researched very long and conclusions are still forthcoming... that is precisely why we cannot limit the research now that we have come so far.
What 'the' DNA?
There is a tissue spesific methylation pattern of DNA in each cell, and some cells have chromosomes with gene mutations. The fact that methylation patterns are different in cells of different tissues clearly lends to the fact that they are not set in stone, but rather they are very adaptable. 'The' DNA refers to the genome of the donor, after being stripped of all specialization through serum starvation. The resulting zygote differs none from one produced sexually.
Yes it can because the cloning process cannot reset the methylation pattern of DNA to that of which is found in a zygote.
No, it destroys it in culture, and then it is allowed to form naturally when in its environment of zygote cytoplasm.
a person who is mentally retarded due to Angelman syndrome (search for that in the web) - which is, in some cases, caused by defect in resetting the methylation pattern of some genes of chromosome 15 during production of an egg cell.
More "mistakes" could be prevented than ever caused by cloning. Most birth defects result during meiosis. For example, non-disjuntions such as Turner's syndrome, Kleinfelter's syndrome, and Criminal Tallness. Or other mutations, such as hemophilia, albinism, Tay Sacks, and Phenylketonuria. Oh, and don't forget mental retardation due to Down's syndrome, which results from non-disjuntion in oogenesis. None of these would result in a clone, unless the donor also displayed these traits.
and that is why we have to learn more before we can start cloning humans
Yes, we need to do more research, which is my point in this entire discussion; we cannot ban research, we must continue it. There are absolutely no ethical implications in gaining knowledge. That is like endorsing the Nazi book burnings, or the Christian opposition to the fact of evolution. Of course nobody would just create a clone just for the fun of it; as with all medical research, it will proceed on "lesser" creatures first. Then, the FDA or whatever other medical review administrations must approve it to be applied to humans. But, the research should never be impeded. This withdrawal of all federal funds from such research made by Clinton is clearly unconstitutional as he is imposing his religious beliefs to prevent the freedom of academic learning. This research cannot in any form hurt anybody else. And do not bind research and implemention to one another, they are seperate.
Tom
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Johari MA - 06:02am Jul 12, 1997 ET (#263 of 1108)
Tom Anderson 7/11/97 11:25pmDifferent, yes; not as complex,
I don't think so.
Well, I would say (a) Physically, yes, we are more complex (b) Biologically, yes again, (eg gestation period for humans are much longer)
They are quite aware of its status. And Dolly was not the only clone.
Well, that is your opinion also. People don't want bad publicity. The other clones that were dead/unsuccessful, who knows what really happen to them?
As is the case in normal sheep that die right after birth (I think the figure was around 8%).
I don't think that they are normal sheep. If they were, they would have lived till today.
Donor cells are induced to quiescence by serum starvation before transfer, effectively modifying them to "ground state". Yes, they are only INDUCED to such state.... to artifically MIMIC the 'ground state'.... but I disagree (based on current facts) that ANYONE could EFFECTIVELY modify the donor DNA to the actual quiescence state as in the zygote. You can never reset the methylation pattern of a specialized cell (totally) , this is a fact. This is what worries scientist, when dealing with human clone. We won't know what would happen to a human clone if an error (genetic regulation) occur during his lifetime. A single error is fatal enough.
Well, that is why performing experiments is necessary
Well, exploration is necessary ...Such experiment with animals, may be OK, but with human, it is just NOT RIGHT. As I understand from your previous messages, YOU say that this is COMPLETELY OK. Some people (as me and Esko) strongly oppose such idea.
Producing HUMAN clone with trial and error method is never acceptable. Our knowledge on human genome is still limited at this time If we ignore our actions, then... we are responsible for the consequences. If the clone was produced with ignorance, than, the society is responsible for the mistake. Remember, we are talking about a human being here, not an animal. Unless people say that other human have no feelings (for pain and joy) then only such 'neutral' and 'empty' principle could be applied. Responsible humans don't behave as such. One have no right whatsoever to produce a defective human clone. This is clearly inhuman.
As we have seen in Dolly, and other recent mammal clones, differentiation DOES occur (as normal) as its parent did. That is not to say that it will develop *exactly*, cell by cell, the same; but it will certainly produce an organism that is statistically the same Remember, a sheep would not look no different than a sheep. Though Dolly differentiate as a 'normal' sheep, they do not publish any comprehensive report for its genotype. Furthermore, we may not have as much information about the sheep's gene regulation as in man. Therefore, there isn't too many data to confirm. What if she is sterile? What if it carries certain defective gene(s) (due to the cloning process) that we are unaware of ? We don't know that, at the moment. And, we cannot generalise that without any conclusive data.
cotd....
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Johari MA - 06:03am Jul 12, 1997 ET (#264 of 1108)
However, it is not likely that there is any difference between the genetic material produced by the fusion of gamete nuclei and a donated nucleus If you understand the genomic imprinting (you cannot reset the clock), then you would have known that the above statement is not true.
They have the same genetic composition in general , but their genetic status could never be the same. There ARE differences in the genetic material, no matter how you would want to 'approximate' your view.
that is precisely why we cannot limit the research now that we have come so far.
Yeah... but, as I said, such trial and error research on human is inhuman
The' DNA refers to the genome of the donor, after being stripped of all specialization through serum starvation
You don't know how much the inducement process 'stripped' the DNA back to its own 'ground state'. Such 'total stripping' is not possible, based on the current knowledge. Therefore, if we do not know the precise way of such phenomena, we cannot do it on human. The unknown consequence is too damaging to the subject. One has to be selfish to ignore such complication.
The resulting zygote differs none from one produced sexually.
You are again repeating your general statement. There ARE differences between them. Their genetic status could never be the same
No, it destroys it in culture, and then it is allowed to form naturally when in its environment of zygote cytoplasm.
It is not destroyed, and we don't know that based on our current knowledge. You are simply assuming that it is destroyed. We don't know how specific methylase operates and exactly what is the 'ground state' yet
More "mistakes" could be prevented than ever caused by cloning. Most birth defects result during meiosis.
In case you forgotten my previous reminder, gene regulation involves the precise 'switches'. A SINGLE error is fatal to the clone. And that error could surface at any time during his life, which could have arise from abnormal methylation patterns.
There are absolutely no ethical implications in gaining knowledge.
Gaining knowledge with selfish and ignorant attitude is not a kind of knowledge that I would ever want to know about. Such detrimental 'evolution' of 'ethics' is clearly not desirable by any society.
That is like endorsing the Nazi book burnings
If you endorse cloning human now, you are endorsing the trial and error method on human, and you are endorsing inhuman act. That is clearly the situation here, if you don't understand it, or simply ignoring it.
This withdrawal of all federal funds from such research made by Clinton is clearly unconstitutional
As I understand from the statistics of your country, majority of the citizens are Christians. Therefore, the majority vote is more important and...... democracy is preserved. You are simply viewing this at the wrong perspective.
This research cannot in any form hurt anybody else.
Yes it can. It can hurt the HUMAN clone. That is never important to you,.....but not to us.
And do not bind research and implemention to one another, they are seperate. Research and implementation may be separate, but they must operate in-sync in the society. Otherwise, people would do anything they want without any rules. And ...society without any rules will collapse.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Roy Hunter - 07:13pm Jul 13, 1997 ET (#265 of 1108)
I for one am against the idea of cloning life
because the Lord should be the only one with a
license to evolve nature and to decide whether
or not the sperm reaches the egg.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tom Anderson - 01:09am Jul 14, 1997 ET (#266 of 1108)
Curiosity was framed, ignorance killed the cat
Creationist 7/12/97 6:03am,
They have the same genetic composition in general, but their genetic status could never be the same. How can you say that? We don't know the actual mechanisms controlling methylation. Chances are, they are actually regulated by the cellular environment, in which case the zygote would be exactly the same as one created sexually. This is probably the case, since these clones actually grew at all, otherwise the zygote would have most likely died. But to know for sure, more research must be done.
such trial and error research on human is inhuman Since when is medical research ever just trial and error? There is much more than just trying something to see if it works, it requires investigating all aspects of the procedure. And, the first "trial and error" experiments will surely be done on chimps.
Such 'total stripping' is not possible I suppose you have some special logic to explain this? Do you know how serum starvation works on DNA?
A SINGLE error is fatal to the clone. Which is precisely why I can claim that there are no errors when a clone actually lives.
If you endorse cloning human now, you are endorsing the trial and error method on human, and you are endorsing inhuman act.
No, I do not endorse just cloning for the heck of it, I endorse cloning research for its many potentials.
As I understand from the statistics of your country, majority of the citizens are Christians.
No, Christians are not in majority. And even if they were, our government excludes all religious reasons for lawmaking. Ethics based on Christianity have no place in secular law.
Research and implementation may be separate, but they must operate in-sync in the society. Otherwise, people would do anything they want without any rules. I don't know where you are making any kind of connection here; research and implementation are completely separate. You may, if for good reason, outlaw a specific implementation of technology, but there is never a cause to outlaw research.
Roy Hunter 7/13/97 7:13pm,
I for one am against the idea of cloning life because the Lord should be the only one with a license to evolve nature and to decide whether or not the sperm reaches the egg. Well, if the "Lord" felt the same way, then we would not have the ability to do this, now would we? Obviously, anything that we can do, the "Lord" has let us do. So your objection is meaningless and it is rather arrogant that you think that you can know what the "Lord" wants.
Tom
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Johari MA - 06:35am Jul 14, 1997 ET (#267 of 1108)
Tom Anderson 7/14/97 1:09am >>>How can you say that? We don't know the actual mechanisms controlling methylation<<<< YES Mr. Aderson. How can you say that... We DON'T KNOW how the actual mechanism works, which IS why it should not yet proceed. And you seemed to ignore and delude THAT simple fact on this board ALL ALONG.
>>Chances are, they are actually regulated by the cellular environment,<<<<< AND THAT Mr. Anderson, IS WHY we don't play trial and error with human. We don't take a CHANCE for giving birth to a mutant HUMAN being. AND THAT is what you seemed to be ignoring ALL ALONG.
>>Since when is medical research ever just trial and error? There is much more than just trying something to see if it works, it requires investigating all aspects of the procedure.<<< AND THAT Mr. Anderson, is why it should not proceed yet. We need to investigate the basic facts first...
>>And, the first "trial and error" experiments will surely be done on chimps.<<< In case you are lost Mr. Anderson, THIS BOARD is discussing on HUMAN cloning research and why it should be banned NOW. That was my main discussion, in case you are confused/lost... READ the title.
>>I suppose you have some special logic to explain this? Do you know how serum starvation works on DNA? <<<< I suppose you know what we mean by 'you cannot reset the methylation pattern' of a differentiated cell.....THAT was my point. AND the serum starvation is only a process that INDUCES the cell ARTIFICALLY to the ground state. DO YOU REALLY UNDERSTAND THESE?
>>>>Which is precisely why I can claim that there are no errors when a clone actually lives.<<<<
THAT Mr. Anderson, I have explained to you in my previous posting. YOUR knowledge on gene expression is at the most basic level BECAUSE you still don't understand the facts, or simply deluding it (read it back, if you can understand it) Creationist 7/11/97 5:39am
>>I endorse cloning research for its many potentials.<<< WE endorse it on animals, but this board is concerned on banning the funds for an issue that we don't really know yet ... again... you SHOULD read the TITLE of this board.
>>You may, if for good reason, outlaw a specific implementation of technology, but there is never a cause to outlaw research.<<< Well Mr. Anderson, in case you have NEVER read a Biological journal Mr. Anderson OR simply tyring to DELUDE the point, I will inform you that anyone involved in HUMAN cloning research will have to PUBLISH their findings CONCISELY. Otherwise, they won't achieve anything in their field. This is where it is DANGEROUS. The publicized material WILL be available to ANYONE. Therefore, if you just don't get it, the law has to control this 'pure' research for its outcome could simply be abused (especially by IGNORANT people and MAD scientist who can't handle reality).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Noel Yap - 07:58am Jul 14, 1997 ET (#268 of 1108)
Tom, actually, it is illegal for the government just to give away money. Therefore, it is completely legal for Clinton to postpone funding for research. Now, setting aside legal issues, it is also responsible of him to do so. Eventually, when we, as a global society, can handle human cloning, we should then go ahead with it. Until then, we have other problems to contend with.
Also, you compare Clinton's actions to that of the Nazi's; the Nazi's who experimented with Jews because they thought that Jews were not humans. I really think you would need a twisted mind to find similarities between the two.
As for banning teaching the "fact" of evolution, this was not a federal ban. It was wrong; it is as wrong as banning teaching the "fact" of creation. Neither front has been proven.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Johari MA - 08:09am Jul 14, 1997 ET (#269 of 1108)
OH...BTW Mr. Anderson, I am degreed in Biochemistry and currently doing a PhD degree (feel free to check my name listed at my university under Centre For Medical Genetics) on a cancer related gene TSC1 (with variable expression and affect different sex/age); Therefore Mr. Anderson, DON'T bother to ask me my knowledge on Genetics...
BECAUSE Mr. Anderson, if you can't understand my BASIC (layman terms) explanationCreationist 7/11/97 5:39am, you will never have a clue about what I am talking about (if I were to explain these things in technical terms).
ADDITIONALLY Mr. Anderson, anyone who tried to stand on BASIC scientific facts WITHOUT knowing the concise explanation -- might better migrate elsewhere...
BECAUSE Mr. Anderson... they are just mumbling without complete knowledge .....and WORST of all, they ignore that and assume they REALLY know what they are talking about.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tom Anderson - 07:00pm Jul 14, 1997 ET (#270 of 1108)
Curiosity was framed, ignorance killed the cat
Creationist 7/14/97 6:35am,
Oh, I must have been confused... let's see...
Title: Cloning
Abstract: Cloning is one of the most significant scientific breakthroughs in history. The possiblities with cloning appear to be endless, what do you foresee? Do you agree with Clinton on barring federal funds for human cloning research?
Well, no, I was correct.
"Cloning...scientific breakthroughs...possiblities...Clinton...barring federal funds...research?" Yup, I am in the right board, are you?
You certainly must not be very confident in your position considering your quoting your credentials when I never even asked for them. It matters not what title you have, or whatnot; it matters only whether your logic is sound.
Now, if you're done implying ignorance, delusion, and mislocation, perhaps we can get back to a civilized, intelligent conversation. You are missing one very important point I have been trying to make, so let me reword and restate: Problems are not the barrier to science, they are the cause. When Kennedy (or more correctly, Nixon) proposed landing on the Moon, did we decide not to, just because the rocket might explode? When Goodyear decided to get into the tire business, did he reconsider since tires tend to pop? When Columbus wanted to sail to the New World, did he stay home because he might fall of the edge of the earth? Similarly, when we aren't sure of the mechanism of methylation, do we just stop research? No.
And you are also assuming that research means the immediate trial of a human clone... which is certainly not the case. Medical research goes through many stages before testing on humans. Banning that research is as absurd as banning the cure for cancer (which this just might be).
Noel Yap 7/14/97 7:58am,
it is illegal for the government just to give away money. Therefore, it is completely legal for Clinton to postpone funding for research. "Any discovery that touches upon human creation is not simply a matter of scientific inquiry... It is matter of morality and spirituality as well."
-President Clinton
Well, that certainly sounds like a religious reason to me. The effects science has on one's religion matters not to the science or to me or to the legal process.
the Nazi's who experimented with Jews because they thought that Jews were not humans. Fallacy, the Nazi's other actions have nothing to do with the ones I cited.
Neither front has been proven. Wrong; evolution is well proven. You can see it for yourself. Dogs, cattle, and other domestic animals all have document evolutions due to our own selection. The very nature of genetics demands that evolution be true. It is logically correct. The fossil record supports it as well. Creation can never be supported by any proof.
Tom
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Noel Yap - 07:24pm Jul 14, 1997 ET (#271 of 1108)
Clinton's quote has nothing to do with the government illegally giving money away.
The Nazi's actions have everything to do with this discussion. Our view -- and I mean our as in the global or even just the domestic and not your -- on how human clones are will dictate how we treat them.
Tom, your beliefs in evolution are very strong. The fact is that there is a lot of circumstantial evidence for the theory of evolution. Still, evolution has no predictive value. Can you honestly say what beings will exist 10,000 years from now?
As for breeding, dogs are dogs are dogs. Any dog out there can genetically interbreed with another. Yes, they look different, but this is nothing compared to the differences between humans and algae.
Going from something static (ie genetics) to something dynamic (ie evolution) in a complex system is something no one understands, yet. It requires a leap of faith to say, "The very nature of genetics demands that evolution be true."
One can -- for the record, I am not one of them -- claim that God put those fossil records there. Why? 'cos God felt like it -- I don't know, I'm not God. Why doesn't Science try to answer this question? Here's a start, assume God exists.
Science is sometimes as bad as other western religions in that it leaves no room for other beliefs.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tom Anderson - 11:16pm Jul 14, 1997 ET (#272 of 1108)
Curiosity was framed, ignorance killed the cat
Noel Yap 7/14/97 7:24pm,
Clinton's quote has nothing to do with the government illegally giving money away. Oh, but it does; it is clear that his is a religious motive. Maybe not his own religious motive, but probably what he thinks will raise his popularity the most.
Tom, your beliefs in evolution are very strong. You say that as if I am basing it on faith, but I am not. I only base my "beliefs" on evidence.
The fact is that there is a lot of circumstantial evidence for the theory of evolution. No, the fact is that evolution is well supported. It is not "just a theory".
Still, evolution has no predictive value. It has lots of predictive value. You can predict the exact traits based on a selecting factor. For instance, suppose you have a population of beetles that are yellow and red because of the flowers they live on. They are either one or the other. Their main preditor is a bird. Now, if the climate changes and there are more yellow flowers than red ones, you will see a distinct shift of more yellow beetles than red beetles since the birds will be able to spot the red ones far easier. In reality, this type of observation was made regarding a butterfly species because of smokestacks or something. I don't recall the specifics, but I'm sure you can find it in some fairly recent journals.
Can you honestly say what beings will exist 10,000 years from now? No; but that has nothing to do with the validity of this process. Nature is far too chaotic for that kind of foresight. Give me a precise scenario such as the one I described above, and yes, I can predict the outcome.
As for breeding, dogs are dogs are dogs. Any dog out there can genetically interbreed with another. Yes, they look different, but this is nothing compared to the differences between humans and algae. No, dogs are not dogs; there are many breeds. These outward traits are due to evolution. If left to their own, natural selection would further divide them into different species, and wipe out others. Clearly, the traits have come about due to selection... evolution. That is precisely what breeding is. Humans did not differentiate from algae in one generation, it took millions of intermediary steps (like that of wolf to dog).
Going from something static (ie genetics) to something dynamic (ie evolution) in a complex system is something no one understands, yet. That is where you are wrong: genetics is far from static. Genetics IS dynamic; it IS evolution.
It requires a leap of faith to say, "The very nature of genetics demands that evolution be true." Hardly... high school genetics will plainly show that it is necessary. You don't even need to know genetics to see it; you agree that parents pass traits to their children? Do you agree that certain factors are naturally selected for (such as speed to escape preditors)? Do you agree that if an animal lacking a beneficial trait (such as being too slow) will cause it to reproduce less (due to death) than those that have it? Does it not follow, then, that the next generation will have more faster and less slower animals? That is evolution.
One can claim that God put those fossil records there. Sure, and one can claim that we are just a dream in the head of a dragon in another dimension... but that doesn't lend any credibility...
Science is sometimes as bad as other western religions in that it leaves no room for other beliefs. Yes, science does not allow belief in irrational faith within its doctrines. Science is based on reality.
Tom
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Johari MA - 05:16am Jul 15, 1997 ET (#273 of 1108)
>> Creationist 7/14/97 8:09am Well, no, I was correct. "Cloning...scientific breakthroughs...possiblities...Clinton...barring federal funds...research?" Yup, I am in the right board, are you? <<< Well ...for that Mr Anderson, >Since when is medical research ever just trial and error? There is much more than just trying something to see if it works, it requires investigating all aspects of the procedure. And, the first "trial and error" experiments will surely be done on chimps.<<< As you quoted yourself, THAT was the reason why we should ban cloning humans now. If we FIRSTLY would consider cloning chimpanzee, then ...we need not argue 'cloning humans' (now). And ... I was not discussing 'cloning chimpanzee' -- which is not the topic on this board. I was arguing about cloning humans. THAT Mr. Anderson, is why I said you should understand the title.
>>You certainly must not be very confident in your position considering your quoting your credentials when I never even asked for them. <<< No Mr Anderson. In case you lost you common sense ...I am merely quoting it because (as we know) only authenticated person (experts) could make a valid comment about certain facts (eg myself/Esko : genetics) -- especially on critical issue. A person (as you), who only knows cloning from magazines/science fictions or ...(only) reading genetics book, would never know the REAL explanation/practical problems in such area. THEREFORE Mr. Anderson, your are confused with my 'common sense'. I am sorry if my basic common sense is too complicated for you to understand.
>>It matters not what title you have, or whatnot; it matters only whether your logic is sound. <<< Yes Mr. Anderson. My scientific logic is more credible than your BASIC scientific knowledge, and UNFORTUNATELY you could not cope up with it... BECAUSE Mr. Anderson, you didn't understand it....therefore, you chose to stick with your basic scientific knowledge and confused yourself with my scientific point. That Mr Anderson, was YOUR problem... as we have seen
>>Problems are not the barrier to science, they are the cause. <<< YES Mr. Anderson, you need not clarify this to me. If you think I don't know this, you are wrong (again).
>>Similarly, when we aren't sure of the mechanism of methylation, do we just stop research? No. <<< AGAIN Mr. Anderson, you are confused. Did I say that we should stop research on DNA methylation....??? In case it is not clear to you, DNA methylation studies and human cloning research are different (areas) -- as the name implies. Mr. Clinton DID NOT ban DNA methylation studies, if you get what I mean.
>>>And you are also assuming that research means the immediate trial of a human clone... which is certainly not the case.<<< Yes Mr Anderson, I AM assuming that such thing COULD happen. As I said earlier, there are MAD scientist and ignorant people out there, who just can't handle reality. And you just WON'T know what these irresponsible creatures might do. And for THAT Mr. Anderson, if you STILL don't understand it.... is the REASON why we need to regulate this research CAREFULLY. And to regulate it as such, we will need the most complete knowledge and time to think about it (thoroughly).... Which is why Mr. Clinton banned it for now ...
>>Medical research goes through many stages before testing on humans. Banning that research is as absurd as banning the cure for cancer (which this just might be).<<< No Mr. Anderson, cloning and cancer research are (again) totally different areas. Don't give me that generalisation again. We banned that research now because we want to understand the problems (genetics of cloning) and its ethical implications FIRST. We banned it now because we don't want people to do cloning HUMAN based
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Johari MA - 05:19am Jul 15, 1997 ET (#274 of 1108)
cot'd....
We banned it now because we don't want people to do cloning HUMAN based on trial and error ... We banned it now because we need to know EXACTLY what we are dealing with .... BEFORE (even) starting it ...THAT Mr. Anderson, was the summary for my opinion, if you still don't get it (or may be too complicated for you to understand).
Tom Anderson 7/14/97 11:16pm >>Science is based on reality<<< YES, it is based on reality--unfortunately...some people CONFIDENTLY ignore (with FAITH) the 'undefined answer' in science (infinity).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Noel Yap - 07:10am Jul 15, 1997 ET (#275 of 1108)
Tom, it seems you confuse genetics with evolution. Genetics is the code (sort of like a computer program) -- it is static. Evolution is a process (sort of like the process of development) -- it is dynamic.
Evolution brings about it new phenotypes. Genetics by itself does not. The examples you've sited above (dogs, birds, moths -- not butterflies) already had the phenotypes for Nature to select.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tom Anderson - 11:21pm Jul 15, 1997 ET (#276 of 1108)
Curiosity was framed, ignorance killed the cat
Noel,
I am not confused. Genetics IS evolution, and vice versa. You are assuming that phenotypes are static, they are not; variations occur every generation. The variations that allow survival over those that don't are the ones that continue on... and, hence, evolution. The genetic code is not a static thing.
And you are right, they were moths, not butterflies; I'm glad you've heard of it... perfect example of evolution.
Tom
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tom Anderson - 11:22pm Jul 15, 1997 ET (#277 of 1108)
Curiosity was framed, ignorance killed the cat
Creationist,
You are talking in circles, without ever backing up your position with any true arguments. You continually skip over every point I have made. You make assumptions you cannot possibly back up and claim to know things that you certainly do not. You speak in a condescending demeanor unbefitting of someone who claims such high intelligence. As we are getting absolutely nowhere with this discussion, I hereby end it between us. I have far better things to do with my time. But I will leave you with this...
Premise: Research provides valuable answers.
Premise: Anything banned prevents its result.
Inference: Banning research prevents valuable answers.
Conclusion: We cannot not ban research without banning answers.
That (banning answers) is the backward position that you are trying to defend. In other words, you fear the unknown and would rather shun it than confront it; this is the Medieval mentality. It is being kept alive because of rediculous religions from that same era. To support this position, you are clearly in the wrong field of study.
BTW...
The probability of nth number of consecutvite phenomena to occur simultaneously (in a perfect manner:nature) by chance i.e without the influence of an external superior being is highly improbable; Therefore, a superior being exist. Therefore, the probability of a superior being to occur simultaneously with these other phenomena is infinitely more improbable.
Tom
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Johari MA - 04:50am Jul 18, 1997 ET (#278 of 1108)
Right folks, this time I'll give a more delicate closure, otherwise the |WebX| server might REBOOT again. I
>>Tom Anderson 7/15/97 11:22pmYou are talking in circles, without ever backing up your position with any true arguments. <<< No Mr. Anderson. Some people are not trained in practical Molecular Biology and they just assume that they know what they are talking about. Because they DON'T understand HOW certain scientific facts worked, they IGNORE it, and delude the point. THAT Mr. Anderson, is the fact that we have seen on this board. THIS kind of people, are the one truly speaking in circle, because they assume their limited knowledge is fair enough to for their conclusion. >>You continually skip over every point I have made. You make assumptions you cannot possibly back up and claim to know things that you certainly do not .... Similarly, when we aren't sure of the mechanism of methylation, do we just stop research? No ...... Premise: Research provides valuable answers. .................... defend. In other words, you fear the unknown and would rather shun it than confront it; <<<< As for those statements Mr Anderson,
FYI, DNA methylation technique and other elementary units in genetics (for cloning purpose) are CURRENTLY used to understand the human genome. (in fact, in coming few weeks, I am DNA methylation studies for TSC1 gene) Just because we say NO to cloning humans now, it does not mean that we DITCH everything into the drain. There a various elements in the science of genetics which are needed for cloning. People are still exploring gene expression (eg via DNA methylation studies), we are still cloning genes in human (estimated to be around 50-100,000), the HGMP is still going on, EST database is still filled EVERYDAY, embryology/cellular differentiation studies etc. are still moving on and ALL other elementary units that builds up cloning research -- 'mature' every single day. Gene theraphy is still theoretical, but in future time, as a result of these ACTIVE research, it will be a reality. The same goes for cloning. We ARE confronting it, strengthening it , day by day. Thus, we are not abandoning science of genetics and ALL its elements -- just because we say NO to cloning humans (now). Only confused people (who doesn't know what are the elements of 'Molecular Biology' and its relative position /correlation to cloning research) will speculate as such. THAT Mr. Anderson (habitual practise for extreme generalisation -- with limited knowlege) is the TRUE nature of MEDIEVAL. Short sighted and building up conclusion without knowing the actual facts.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Johari MA - 04:51am Jul 18, 1997 ET (#279 of 1108)
What we mean by saying NO to cloning humans (now) is : we refuse to let anyone to congregate all those (immature) elementary units in Molecular Biology (for cloning purpose) in a SINGLE lab (trial and error), with the INTENTION to clone humans, at ANY stage. This will not be allowed, as we have not REGULATE the LAW and we need time to THINK the implications of such technology to mankind.
Therefore Mr. Anderson, if people are confused about what is the REAL nature of (practical) molecular biology and its elements, my explanation will be in vain (an answer is not an answer in itself). It is reasonable, at certain discussion, to SIMPLIFY things... by ending it ...as you said, because, not everyone is aware of EVERYTHING. When live in a society, we SHARE knowledge. If an expert share his knowledge, he is speaking based on his expertise. And only from the knowledge of an expert, a balanced judgement will be achieved (Only a 'doctor' could diagnose a patient). If one do not believe what an expert say, he should READ the details of the facts presented (if he could grasp the idea), so that he could verify it. Not IGNORE it. When one ignore facts and only stick to his (basic) limited knowledge, HE is being MEDIEVAL...
It is also sad that are no other Molecular Biologist on this board, except I could think Esko.
Last but not least...
>> Therefore, the probability of a superior being to occur simultaneously with these other phenomena is infinitely more improbable<<< THAT, is your own conclusion, based on your belief system...not ours.
The ABSOLUTE truth (for 'infinity'), is yet unknown. THAT Mr. Anderson, is a fact.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
D. Bird - 01:01pm Jul 20, 1997 ET (#280 of 1108)
Please contact me at [email protected] if you are a biologist in need of a volunteer for underground cloning projects
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sandee Myers - 11:48pm Jul 21, 1997 ET (#281 of 1108)
Hello and thanks for your participation in CNN's message community...
As you know, when you register onto our site we ask that you follow several rules and guidelines to help us maintain the highest quality of news-based, focused discussion on the internet. One of those rules is to use a real name. We do this to encourage accountability for one's statements, as it is all too easy for those with trouble in mind to hide behind a silly or fake name.
Beginning immediately, we will delete all messages posted under an obviously fake name. Please assist us in this endeavor by abiding by the rules.
Thanks for your cooperation.
Sandee Myers, CNN PLUS
------------------------------------------------------------------------
William Brooks - 11:16am Jul 24, 1997 ET (#282 of 1108)
Cloning research should be permitted. The government should have a regulatory role but not a prohibitory one.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
David Yarbrough - 01:44pm Jul 24, 1997 ET (#283 of 1108)
I am not a molecular biologist, but I am an educated man who knows other "exciting" research was thrust upon the unsuspecting, disadvantaged underclass in Oak Ridge, Tuskeegee, etc. I too am curious and excited about the posibilities of new research. But I am also interested in engaging in stringent ethical debate regarding the procedures and protocols for such research. I can only hope that the brilliant scientists working in this "brave new area" are just as vigilant about the federal guidelines regarding research with animal and human subjects - as they are with their data.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mare Meyer - 03:25pm Jul 24, 1997 ET (#284 of 1108)
EEEEEEEWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW!!!!Disgusting!!! Sheep milk with human protein?!!!!! Ugh!!! I'm sorry, but no amount of cookies could make that taste better!! Yuk.
Or maybe I should say "ewe, disgusting"!
This just leaves itself open for all sorts of tasteless remarks. No pun intended.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rob Wayne - 04:04pm Jul 24, 1997 ET (#285 of 1108)
Is there any long term effects on Human Gene's in animals?
I'm all for scientific research, however there should be restrictions on these mutations getting out to the human population.
What about potential unforseeable sickness as the result of this "mixture" ?
Mad sheep disease?
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Noel Yap - 04:23pm Jul 24, 1997 ET (#286 of 1108)
We won't know of any long term effects until it's too late.
However, gene splicing is moving at a steady and controlled pace. I see no (unintended) harmful side effects. We're already doing this kind of stuff now with insulin-producing bacteria.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Darrin Rodriguez - 04:51pm Jul 24, 1997 ET (#287 of 1108)
All I have to say is remmeber the movie Planet of the Apes. Let's just hope all this cloning doesn't create an animal aggressive to mankind.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
april crump - 05:00pm Jul 24, 1997 ET (#288 of 1108)
Three words are all I have to offer concerning the "Polly" article. "Dr. Moreau's Island".
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jay Lockhart - 05:02pm Jul 24, 1997 ET (#289 of 1108)
The next step in Evolution is through cloning.
We definitely need all the help we can get. I am definitely for human cloning.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Joseph S - 05:51pm Jul 24, 1997 ET (#290 of 1108)
Whew...Tom,
I'm afraid the bruises from that thrashing are going to stick around for awhile.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dawn Willis - 06:05pm Jul 24, 1997 ET (#291 of 1108)
As a scientist, I don't see what all the concern about human cloning is about. In a world that already sanctions donor eggs and surrogate mothers, this is just another step. Most people don't want to clone themselves, and those that do usually think that a better environment might improve good genes, not because they want a source of organ transplants . I'll bet the Japanese would love to clone their Emperor, since it loooks as if the royal couple may be barren!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Barbara Nichols - 06:57pm Jul 24, 1997 ET (#292 of 1108)
How creative can we get with genes? If my ex had been more of a lamby and less a gorilla, who knows. Might have saved the marriage.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
ElDeana Willis - 07:03pm Jul 24, 1997 ET (#293 of 1108)
Cloning could become a very dangerous propostion if it is not regulated by strict ethical and moral guidelines. There are many advantages and disadvantages to this subject and many people are totally against cloning for any reason. The government should stay out of the funding because they already fund so many different things that appear to be idiotic. This needs to be a purely scientific endeavor. Although I realize that the government probably will not stay out of it. I can just picture a mad scientist in a lab. holding a check from the government and saying "Ah, now we have the money to clone a gorilla head onto a sheep body."
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Kevin Kirby - 07:06pm Jul 24, 1997 ET (#294 of 1108)
Considering all the political posturing and hysterical moralizing about cloning, I must conclude that such an operation must be the highest ethical achievement our race could possibly aspire to. I only fear for the clones when they discover what a pack of chimps have delivered them.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Jesus Rodriguez - 08:59pm Jul 24, 1997 ET (#295 of 1108)
Cloning may still seem scary to most because we are still in the early days of implementation. This is all new to *stuff* even for the scientists. Some day we will become acustomed to cloning committees, procedures and clinics. By then it will be more science that the public takes for granted.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Craig Patton - 09:14pm Jul 24, 1997 ET (#296 of 1108)
In the last final ditch effort of mankind to "become God", we have crossed the final barrier. We have implemented life artificially. (Note--not created). Imagine how insulting this must be to the creator. Of course there will be human cloning, if we're just now hearing about it, they've probably been doing it for ten years. Your next door neighbor may be a clone. This abomination is bound to end in disaster for the human species. Cloning is the ultimate perversion of mankind's mind. Prepare for judgement.....
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Steven M. Castellotti - 09:36pm Jul 24, 1997 ET (#297 of 1108)
It makes me wonder what is next. . .
Maybe someday we'll throw a few chunks of human dna into a dolphin in hopes they we may learn to communicate with it. Just what we need, another species to bitch and moan about how we're messing the oceans up.
Maybe we'll throw a few into an ape, you know, just the right bits and pieces to give it a consciousness and vocal skills. Think of what that could mean for the movie industry. Maybe we could elect one into office, just for kicks.
We could give a dog a voice box. What an excellent way to make sure those digital pets don't take off. Then again, we'd probably have to put up with a lot of "I wanna doggy bone, I want a doggy bone!"
Sure there are commercial possibilities to adding human genes into animals. Frankly, it scares the hell out of me. Imagine what it would feel like to be trapped inside the body of an anminal. . .
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dan S - 09:43pm Jul 24, 1997 ET (#298 of 1108)
Every day, people are blowing up electronic gadgets, computers, and other things because they couldn't resist messing with something they didn't understand.
Scientists know very little about our genetic markers. Only a small percentage of the functions of our genes is understood. No one can be sure how one change will interact with the remaining genetic "code". Imagine the kinds of unforseen problems that can come from messing with the very core of life itself!
As an example for you Windows 95 users, the registry of Windows 95 contains highly customized information about your computer, much like genetic markers in living beings. The registry is what makes your computer unlike any other. You can get to it by running the command REGEDIT. Go ahead and play with it and make changes. You can figure out what some of the codes mean by looking at them and trying some changes. You'll know as much as science does about genetics, and you will have learned it the same way. See how long your computer lasts!
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Therese Bujold - 11:29pm Jul 24, 1997 ET (#299 of 1108)
Do any on you "cloning knowledge bases" know how cloning could possibly be used to cure Type 1 Diabetes? This is an auto-immune disease (for those of you who don't know the difference between Type 1 and 2) where the body's own immune system sees it Islet cells (insulin producing cells in the pancreas) as "foreign" and attacks and kills them. I follow the current research which is largely focused on Islet cell transplantation. The key is to "trick" the immune system in to acceptance; so as to eliminating the need for powerful immunosuppressant drugs.
By the way, my 4 year old son, Trevor, has Type 1 diabetes, and there are alot of diabetics and parents of diabetic children who fear that diabetes care is too big of an cash generating industry, that the drug companies will be sure to keep a cure from happening.....(I know, I know, we've become a conspiracy obsessed nation---but the almighty dollar IS very important to some...) www.Islet.org Check out the message boards there!