clone2700

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cliff Beall - 12:31am Jan 28, 1998 ET (#2700 of 2700)

Certainty: most of the time it ain't...

Glenn Curry: This is known as the fallacy of "Shifting the burden of proof". You are trying to assert that these clones will be subject to some other set of laws. None of which exist. Then you want us to prove that these OTHER laws don't exist and that people that come into existence thru cloning will be treated differently than those that come into existence thru sex, fetility drugs, invitro or any other method.

Glenn, I didn't hear Jeremy assert any such thing. It appears to me that he was attempting to respond, in a reasonable way, to Tom's confused list of supposed benefits of cloning, a number of which are totally unrealistic. "Provide for the easy production of replacement organs and tissues," my proverbial. It is not only incorrect--unless you assume something like slavery--it sends the wrong signal. And, by the way, it is not Jeremy who is confusing cloning with genetic engineering, it is Tom. Cloning will not "cure Cancer & a plethora of other diseases." And while I am convinced there is no danger of legislated mistreatment of clones, I find nothing wrong with the questions Jeremy is asking.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Aaron Cline - 01:11am Jan 28, 1998 ET (#2701 of 2702)

Can you clone a human soul? What happens when the rich are able to engineer their children? Do the poor gradually become more enslaved to their wealthy oppressors because they can't compete in the society which has evolved from our technology?

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cliff Beall - 01:14am Jan 28, 1998 ET (#2702 of 2702)

Certainty: most of the time it ain't...

Joe Graham: Let's refine human cloning to the point where we can clone individual organs, and solve our donor problem.

This idea appears to be a gospel on this board if nowhere else. It keeps coming up again and again. I think that before we will get to this point, however, the ability to send messages to an organ to correct genetic and other problems naturally will be perfected. And when that happens, and I think it will happen relatively soon--scientists are working on it now with some success--there will no longer be a organ donor problem because no more organs for transplant will be needed.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Karan Gandaja - 04:06am Jan 28, 1998 ET (#2703 of 2730)

I feel that cloning could turn out to be beneficial to society, especially where medicine is concerned.

I am not to keen on the subject about cloning babies for infertile parents, it sounds more like a business.

Here is my most radical statement ever:

I feel that these scientists think that by cloning humans or rather superior beings they can challenge the powers of the world and once in for settle the dispute between knowlegde and power. It's probably a conspiracy man, to take over the world or atleast challenge the world. These scientists basically don't have a life and all they do is work and learn work and learn, till there is absolutely nothing else to do but CLONE a companion.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. Zoser - 09:52am Jan 28, 1998 ET (#2704 of 2730)

Seeing in night and bringing forth by day.

People you are failling to realize that humans do not .....DO NOT know everything in the body so how can they gaurantee a good life for the clones or humans.You are a fool if you think you can control the destiny of a whole group of clones.The Atom bomb,Chemical gases,industrial viruses,and the pollution of the Earth has showed that the organized human race is hurting this planet overt or covert.There is nothing good that could come out of this.And if something good does happen then it will be outweighed by the bad."We were made in god's image.But when we made god in our image he rejected it."Some things in Spiritual text has not happened yet.What make you think that you are above the natural laws of the universe.Scientist or not!

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jeremy Durand - 10:11am Jan 28, 1998 ET (#2705 of 2730)

Let the truth be known....I lied!

Glenn

First of all, I never brought religion into this conversation. I don't follow any organized form of religion. Never have, never will. I am not a Christian and never have claimed to be one. So please stop with your pitiful attacks on Christianity. It has no relevance to my situation or viewpoint.

Second, you strike me, and others, as someone not capable of having a discussion without being arrogant and offensive. You appear to have little, if any, social aptitude. Why is that, Glenn? Why do you feel this insistance to attack people? I guess I should forgive your attitude based on my assertion that you are socially challanged.

The point I was trying to make, which has been proven time and time again, is that the tendency of mankind is to view others, that are not like themselves, as less than equal.

Forget the race issue for a moment. I'll try an example that is a little more closely related. Some time ago we had to enact a law that protected handicapped people from discrimination. Why? Because they were not considered equal. The existing set of laws were not enough to protect these people from discrimination and abuse.

Who is to say that clones won't be viewed the same way? As "freaks" or unnatural? And if they are, history should tell us that there will be a high potential for problems and abuse.

The points I'm bringing up are about ethics, but not about religious ethics. I think they are valid.

BTW, no comment about my response to your fallacy accusation?

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jeremy Durand - 10:12am Jan 28, 1998 ET (#2706 of 2730)

Let the truth be known....I lied!

Cliff Beall

Thanks for providing a rational answer to my question.

Also, thanks for the support of my other questions.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

A. Zoser - 10:20am Jan 28, 1998 ET (#2707 of 2730)

Seeing in night and bringing forth by day.

BTW are clones going to need sunblock?I remember the thought of Hitler and the perfect human.Blond with Blues it sounds scary to me.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Keith Fosberg - 10:49am Jan 28, 1998 ET (#2708 of 2730)

It's not just a life, Its an adventure!

Jeremy,

First off; If I sounded condescending I owe you an appology. Several of us have been with this board for months now and are getting tired of responding to the same questions (our problem, not yours.)

I really don't think the "slavery problem" (manifested as mail-order soldiers or "part-farms") will be an issue. The current body of law should do nicely, just as it has for in-vitro births. If, however, a predudical response is seen I don't anticipate a problem getting mass support for "clone rights" simply based upon the conversations on this and other boards.

Since no one will be able to tell an "in-vitro" child from a "naturally concieved" child from a "cloned" child I don't expect that any discriminatory effect will be seen.

The population question is interesting, and complex. I will get to that in my next post.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Keith Fosberg - 11:01am Jan 28, 1998 ET (#2709 of 2730)

It's not just a life, Its an adventure!

Will cloning cause over-population?

There are two ways to approach this question.

The first is the direct approach of re-phrasing the question; "Will our population swell uncontrolably with the addition of cloned people?"

The answere is no. Here are my justifications;

1.Clones are more difficult to "concieve" than "naturally concieved" children. The "success rate" is lower and the procedure less enjoyable. The requirements for birthing them are identical. 2.Concieving a child via cloning will always cost something. Concieving a child the "old fashion" way is still free. 3.A "cloned" Bill Gates is not the original Bill Gates. This offspring is no more and no less in the line for inheritance than an offspring concieved by traditional methods by Mr. Gates, therefore no "dynastic" advantage is achieved.

The second approach to this question is seen in re-phrasing the question; "Will medical advances achieved with the aid of cloned embrionic specimens being used in research lead to over-population?"

This gets so involved that I will break to yet another post :)

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jeremy Durand - 11:24am Jan 28, 1998 ET (#2710 of 2730)

Let the truth be known....I lied!

Keith

Thank you, as well, for rational answers to my questions. My comments regarding attitude were more directed toward Glenn, but I appreciate your concern for the spirit of progressive debate.

I am still not completely convinced that we, as a world-wide society, are socially, ecologically, and/or legally ready to deal with cloned humans. Again, I have to fall back on history as my basis for this opinion. Perhaps I never will be completely convinced until such a time the this issue becomes more tangible (the old "see for myself"- type thing).

As for the over-population issue. I've used this question with other, somewhat related, topics like fertility drugs, youth genes, etc. My purpose for asking is to try and stress the view that we are reaching a critical population mass on this planet. People are living longer, having more and more babies, and using more and more resources. At what point have we gone too far?

Life is a cycle. People are born, others die. We are trying to alter that cycle. More people are being born and living longer, less people are dying. Mathematically speaking, our world population is exploding.

Again, these are just my opinions.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Glenn Curry - 11:37am Jan 28, 1998 ET (#2711 of 2730)

The biggest problem with those that claim to be "Born Again" is that they think it gives them twice the rights!

Joe Graham 1/28/98 12:14am you say "From my understanding with telomerase it is now possible to give a clone a lifespan identical to that of the parent organism."

telomerase research is aimed at extending EVERYONE'S life, it does not relate specifically to cloned, in vitro, or any other "enhanced" conception process individual.

"To put it another way, imagine Saddam the 10th and George Bush the 12th fighting out Desert Storm the Final Chapter: Son of Desert Storm 10 -- while King Elvis the 9th turns out his latest recordings and Albert Einstein the 7th finally unites gravity with the other subatomic forces."

Where does this idea come from? A clone is a PHYSICAL copy of the donor's dna provided at monoploid stage (single egg cell). There is little likelyhood that this clone will even be an EXACT physical copy and since their upbringing inherently HAS to be different, they will definately be a mental copy of the donor.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Glenn Curry - 11:45am Jan 28, 1998 ET (#2712 of 2730)

The biggest problem with those that claim to be "Born Again" is that they think it gives them twice the rights!

Aaron Cline 1/28/98 1:11am you say "Can you clone a human soul?"

Nope, you can't clone something that doesn't exist. In the millions of years of human existence, in the billions of medical examinations, operations, autopsies ... there has never been ANYTHING that can not be identified with simple physical laws.

As Einstien stated "Neither can I believe that the individual survives the death of his body, although feeble (minds) harbor such thoughts through fear or ridiculous egotism."

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Keith Fosberg - 11:57am Jan 28, 1998 ET (#2713 of 2730)

It's not just a life, Its an adventure!

Glen, I think you meant ...definately not be a mental copy... :^)

In deciding what (cloning or anything else) will have the effect of engendering over-population I think we must first define over-population.

If you define over-population as being a population that exceeds the carrying capacity of the environment an organism inhabits and do not allow expansion/modification of that environment then we are drastically over-populated since the pre-technology carrying capacity of our environment is no more than 250 million, tops.

At our current five billion we obviously must consider technology and modification/expansion of the environment that we occupy (unless you consider some very draconian "de-population" scemes.)

This planet can probably support somewhere in the neighborhood of 15 billion humans without sacrifycing the other species on the planet. Obviously some changes are needed to realize this potential!

We are not currently over-populated. We are quite capable of sustaining a higher number of persons than exist now with current resources and technology. It is our social/governmental/economic systems that are failing us.

Will cloning cause a population increase? More advanced medicine will, wether it comes via cloning or nano-technology or "emergent technology." Banning knowledge will not see us through the current cricis. The upwards spiral of more births by more people will ensure population growth even if we halt all medical advance.

It is only through embracing the responsible application of any and all knowledge that we can obtain that we will gain the means to allocate the available resources to sustain our species.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jeff Moroski - 12:00pm Jan 28, 1998 ET (#2714 of 2730)

The reason research on cloning is being conducted has nothing to do with human cloning. Restricting cloning to animals has more than enough possibilites to keep scientist busy until well into the next century. The usefulness of animal cloning cannot be fully comprehended. It will help numerous problems, ranging from social problems like hunger, to medical problems such as hemophelia. Most scientist are wholeheartedly against human cloning for the simple reason that it is unnecessary at this time.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Keith Fosberg - 12:06pm Jan 28, 1998 ET (#2715 of 2730)

It's not just a life, Its an adventure!

For an alternative answere to Glen's;

If we suppose that people do have souls, that these souls are, in fact, the very essence of what we are; Cloning the soul would DUPLICATE the person rather than simply thier physical structure! Since we can't even describe a soul scientifically, let alone detect or measure it, this is not a problem.

We can not clone a soul, if it does exist it has nothing to do with DNA. Making souls (again if they exist) is the province of God, not man. We do not have to worry about upsurping this province because as Glen stated above; "... in the billions of medical examinations, operations, autopsies ... there has never been ANYTHING that can not be identified with simple physical laws ..."

Souls either do not exist or they are beyond our scope of experiance with the universe. God (if this line of thought is valid) will give each cloned child a soul just as he does naturally concieved children and in-vitro concieved children.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Keith Fosberg - 12:10pm Jan 28, 1998 ET (#2716 of 2730)

It's not just a life, Its an adventure!

Jeff,

Who are "most scientists?" I have only spoken to two people who actually work in this field and both of them are in support of research involving "human cloning."

It could be that my sample is too narrow, so if you have some supporting evidence for "most scientists" I would be interested in seeing it.

I do agree that there is plenty of work to go around either way!

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Glenn Curry - 12:13pm Jan 28, 1998 ET (#2717 of 2730)

The biggest problem with those that claim to be "Born Again" is that they think it gives them twice the rights!

Jeremy Durand 1/28/98 10:11am you say "The point I was trying to make, which has been proven time and time again, is that the tendency of mankind is to view others, that are not like themselves, as less than equal."

But this is a false assertion and I provided enough historically factual examples to prove it.

as an example you say "I'll try an example that is a little more closely related. Some time ago we had to enact a law that protected handicapped people from discrimination. Why? Because they were not considered equal. The existing set of laws were not enough to protect these people from discrimination and abuse.

You keep asserting that it is inherent "that it is the nature of mankind to view others, different from oneself, as insuperior and not equal."

Yet in the example you give, it would seem that only ONE side of the groups holds the "superiority" mentality. I do not see anything to support that the handicapped feel "SUPERIOR", they are trying to establish EQUALITY, not be viewed as INFERIOR.

So you do not prove that there is an inhernet "NATURE" of mankind in this regard, just that SOME humans do take this attitude.

"It has happened all throughout history between various races and cultures."

Selective anecdotal evidence does not prove a universal attitude inherent in our "NATURE". It would seem in almost all examples, it is only ONE side that has this "SUPERIORITY" complex.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Glenn Curry - 12:15pm Jan 28, 1998 ET (#2718 of 2730)

The biggest problem with those that claim to be "Born Again" is that they think it gives them twice the rights!

Jeremy Durand 1/28/98 10:11am you say "BTW, no comment about my response to your fallacy accusation? "

It was obvious that you could not understand the "burden of proof" issue and I saw no benefit in trying to educate you further on it. Idf you don't get it, you don't get it.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Glenn Curry - 12:23pm Jan 28, 1998 ET (#2719 of 2730)

The biggest problem with those that claim to be "Born Again" is that they think it gives them twice the rights!

Keith Fosberg 1/28/98 11:57am you say "Glen, I think you meant ...definately not be a mental copy... :^)"

Opps, your right, My typo error. Thanks

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Glenn Curry - 12:30pm Jan 28, 1998 ET (#2720 of 2730)

The biggest problem with those that claim to be "Born Again" is that they think it gives them twice the rights!

Keith Fosberg 1/28/98 12:06pm you say "For an alternative answere to Glen's;

If we suppose that people do have souls, that these souls are, in fact, the very essence of what we are;"

OK, let's play make beleive and pretend there is a reason to discuss imaginary things like souls. Here is a similar issue.

In dual zygotic pregnancies (identical twins), the division of the zygote into to two seperate zygotes happens well after fertilization and intial cell divisions. Well into weeks after fertilization. So if the "soul" is assigned at fertilization as is claimed by those in the no, which one gets the soul when the division takes place?

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Carl Nicolai - 01:30pm Jan 28, 1998 ET (#2721 of 2730)

Located in Taipei Taiwan

It seems clear after reading some 2700 postings that conventional religions are not going to be able to deal with cloning. The largest christan church almost fractured over considering the sun the center of our system. Other strong groups are trying to use their many thousand year old beleif structures to make sence of modern knowledge. I think thoes beleifs will have to be bent beyond recognition in order to make sence. The Catholic church is against IVF, but who is listening.

Some people say the earth is over populated. The earth has always been over populated in as much as people will increase their numbers until they start starving. Wars have ceased to be usefull in the modern world because outside of maybe oil and land there isn't anything that justifies the cost.

I think it would be usefull to plot where there is no resistance to cloning and other forms of genetic research. This should tell us where the big money is going to flow to in the future of this industry.

BTW I thought pharming was very clever.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jeremy Durand - 01:40pm Jan 28, 1998 ET (#2722 of 2730)

Let the truth be known....I lied!

Glenn

"But this is a false assertion and I provided enough historically factual examples to prove it."

Bull. You have provided nothing. Your favorite plan of defense for your arguments is to ask for proof. Fair enough. However, when the same is asked of you, you balk. You have been repeatedly asked to provide any type of proof. Each and every time, Glenn, you try to pass the buck back to the asker rather than provide them with what they're asking for. Even a statement as simple as, "There isn't any proof to support my claims. They're just my opinions", would be far more respectable than this current tactic you seem fixated on.

Perhaps I should reword my example, then.

I understand it to be the inherent nature of mankind to view the accepted "normal" elements in their environment as superior. People who, or things that, fall outside this "norm" are viewed as abnormal and insuperior.

Generally speaking, the overall phsycology of any culture is such that their customs and beliefs are considered normal and other culture's customs and beliefs are viewed as insuperior. Examples of this can be sighted using religion, political philosophies (like Communism), sexual preference, race, etc.

Generally speaking, people with mental or physical handicaps were viewed as insuperior. Therefor, certain laws were created to prevent dicrimination based on that belief. Same can be said for people with terminal illnesses.

A law was put into place in this country to make slavery illegal. Before, it was considered fine because other cultures, races, tribes, etc. were considered insuperior by the oppressing culture.

I simply wanted to know if these issues had been taken into consideration. If not, they need to

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Gordon Anderson - 01:42pm Jan 28, 1998 ET (#2723 of 2730)

------------------------------------------------------------------------ Keith Fosberg #2713 says: In deciding what (cloning or anything else) will have the effect of engendering over-population I think we must first define over-population.

End of quote.

I think that over population should involve the consideration where there are so many people that life becomes unpleasant. The idea that we should let the population expand (by cloning or whatever) to the pure subsistance level is horrible to contemplate. It is better that we restrain population growth now. The more people on earth, the more demand on the resources and environment which are already strained. You may not see it so much in the U.S.A., but when you go to other countries, especially third world, you can see the affects of over population.

Aside from that I do not think that cloning would cause any significant acceration in rate of population growth.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jeremy Durand - 01:46pm Jan 28, 1998 ET (#2724 of 2730)

Let the truth be known....I lied!

Gordon

" The more people on earth, the more demand on the resources and environment which are already strained."

Exactly my concern. Thank you.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Keith Fosberg - 03:54pm Jan 28, 1998 ET (#2725 of 2730)

It's not just a life, Its an adventure!

Gordon,

My main point (besides the one you supported) is that it is not primarily the population of the Earth, but actually the economic, social and governmental systems that are the problem.

I can not accept that we can not feed (or buy TVs for) everyone when we actively destroy resources to maintain market values.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ruby Pool - 05:23pm Jan 28, 1998 ET (#2726 of 2730)

Better Read Than Said.....

Glenn:

"In dual zygotic pregnancies (identical twins), the division of the zygote into to two seperate zygotes happens well after fertilization and intial cell divisions. Well into weeks after fertilization. So if the "soul" is assigned at fertilization as is claimed by those in the no, which one gets the soul when the division takes place? "

You are missing the meaning of 'soul.' The life is the soul...which is passed on when the sperm enters the ovum...not weeks after fertilization. The identical twins both receive life at the same instance. life is the spiritual substance of the cell. It isn't given but past on from the parents. Life flows through every part of cells and growth begins.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ruby Pool - 05:28pm Jan 28, 1998 ET (#2727 of 2730)

Better Read Than Said.....

Harry J. Zilkan:

I totally agree. All wisdom and progress comes from the Creator. Our life is always in His hands. If cloning is wrong...the proof will be in the pudding, just like the A bomb. The uses could be for good or bad, like everthing else.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Steven Shelley - 05:30pm Jan 28, 1998 ET (#2728 of 2730)

It's redundent...

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Keith Fosberg - 06:17pm Jan 28, 1998 ET (#2729 of 2730)

It's not just a life, Its an adventure!

Ruby, Glen, whoever...

I really think that the most relevant point about souls as regards cloning is that souls are not a relevant concern.

You have three possible cases;

1.Souls do not exist2.Souls are metted out by God3.Souls "form" at conception (or thereafter)

The first case is selfevident.

The second case is only a problem if God is rather petty.

In the third case a soul will form just as in any other child.

You see, it isn't that I don't care about anyone's concern about the cloned individual having a soul, it is simply that I feel that the concern is mis-placed.

The question reads the same to me if you ask; "Will the clone have a [fill in any human attribute]?"

The only difference between a cloned child and any other child is that the cloned child is directly descended from a single genetic donor rather than two genetic donors.

This is why questions of slavery and spiritual "completeness" do not concern me. Two seconds after the ovum is implanted absolutely no body will be able to tell in-vitro from clone from "made by whoopie!"

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dawn Willis - 06:42pm Jan 28, 1998 ET (#2730 of 2730)

Glenn Curry: Regarding telomerase research, it is aimed at life extension for all, but it would be easier to achieve that if the telomerase gene, under the control of a specific inducer that the fetus or adult would not normally come in contact with, were inserted in the zyote (cloned or natural). Otherwise, it will be very difficult to get telomerase turned on in every dying cell. A problem with the whole scenario is that cancer cells, the quintessential immortal cell, have their telomerase genes in a permanent "on" position.

But it should be a snap to insert a cloned telomerase gene into the nucleus of the cell to be cloned, repair the telomeres, then remove the inducer so that the cloned telomerase gene doesn't function. The natural telomerase gene willact in the cells where it should, the germ cells and stem cells.

Gordon Anderson: I don't think there will be any cloning going on in the developing, overcrowded nations. Only the highly industrialized nations can afford it.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Thad Willard - 08:16pm Jan 28, 1998 ET (#2727 of 2777)

Considering the theological implications of a successful human cloning,could it be said, that if a human soul is created by God at the cloning -that God approves of the cloing? We have to assume God has free will in a much fuller measure than we do,thus if he creats a soul ,would that imply some type of Divine approval? Perhaps some Theologin out there would be willing to speculate on this.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ruby Pool - 08:53pm Jan 28, 1998 ET (#2728 of 2777)

Better Read Than Said.....

Keith:

I have no problem with your rendition of the soul or cloning. I agree.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sheilah Troiano - 09:17pm Jan 28, 1998 ET (#2729 of 2777)

Cloning just reminds me of Hitler when he tried to create a super race by annihilating groups of people who are below his standards. Cloning could just be its high-tech version. It gives me the creeps...

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mario64II - 11:28pm Jan 28, 1998 ET (#2730 of 2777)

It's coming

It think it's fascinating when scientist mismatch different animals and plants together to create a wholly different organism.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Haymour Ghassasian - 01:06am Jan 29, 1998 ET (#2731 of 2777)

Colning is a sign of the direction of which we as a society have moved towards. It reflects the sad truth that man will ultimately destroy itself by trying to play the role of God. Cloning is wrong, and a great disrespect to mother-nature.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Tom Anderson - 02:23am Jan 29, 1998 ET (#2732 of 2777)

Curiosity was framed, ignorance killed the cat

Whoa, I've only been away from here for a few days and there's already a hundred more messages! I'll only respond to the ones which are thought-out enough to warrant a response (and maybe some which completely lack understanding and need to be put straight, and maybe just a few that I agree with so much I have to say so). Uh oh, this is going to be long one...

Cliff,

You have forcefully demonstrated that sterilization without consent is illegal. You have not demonstrated that laws regulating or restricting the cloning of human beings would be unconstitutional.

How are they different? Both deny the ability to reproduce.

I suggest you to read the following two articles [regarding evolution]. I consider both to be authoritative and both are available on the net.

They are both decent articles, but there was nothing there that I have not already seen. And they agree with my statement that we are not evolving any longer.

I don't think the present court is in the mood to break new ground either.

It would not be ground-breaking, it would be upholding the current law and the traditional interpretation of our inalienable rights. It is not the right of the State to dictate how a person conceives a child, or even if a person can conceive.

Edward Coronal,

I just wonder what if, --- a human freak comes out from the tube?

First of all, clones don't come from tubes, they are born to a mother. Second of all, there would be evidence of "freakishness" very early in the development of the fetus, and the procedure could be aborted. Third of all, what basis do you have to suggest that anything of a "freakish" nature could be created through the cloning procedure? Speaking from ignorance is not a valid argument.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Tom Anderson - 02:24am Jan 29, 1998 ET (#2733 of 2777)

Curiosity was framed, ignorance killed the cat

Dawn,

only DNA in the germ cells became part of the next generation, so you only inherit two of your billions and billions of unique DNA strands from your parents

That is not entirely true... the billions and billions of strands are produced from those original two. Those two do not necessarily stay intact, but may, during mitosis, separate into the new cell; thus, potentially every cell in your body could have some of the original DNA. But that is irrelevant to our discussion, because the cloned cell is essentially like a germ cell in that the DNA is of the same age, and that it is the source for all future DNA in the new organism. To say that cloned DNA is going to be aged is the same as saying that gamete DNA is going to be aged. Where is the difference?

Also, even atoms within DNA molecules exchange with their environments so that the identical O or H in the DNA probably isn't the same O or H it was a few years ago (but I don't have to tell you physicists that).

I don't think that is true. If DNA were a reactive chemical, it would not be stable enough to maintain the information it does. But even if there is occassional replacement, that only goes to support my argument that cloned DNA is not going to be "aged".

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Tom Anderson - 02:25am Jan 29, 1998 ET (#2734 of 2777)

Curiosity was framed, ignorance killed the cat

Dawn,

Some people are concerned that somatic cells have aged DNA due to shortened telomeres, so that the clone's cells will start out the age of the cloned DNA

One problem I have with the telomere theory of aging is that many types of trees seemingly have indefinite lifespans, and yet they do not have indefinite telomeres. Also, such things as Leukemia can significantly shorten telomeres without an effect to the lifespan of the individual (excepting as result of the illness). Also, how do gametes replenish their telomere length that so eludes somatic cells? Additionally, mitochondria are passed directly from the mother to child without them ever undergoing any type of sexual process, so how is it that they can clone their telomeres without "aging" their DNA? Also, if it is only the length of telomeres that determine our maximum lifespan, then we should start inserting twice as many sequences into all zygotes using a restriction endonuclease enzyme, some extra telomeric repeats, and some DNA ligase enzyme. Then everyone would live twice as long! However, I sincerely doubt that it would actually have any effect. You would think that anyone actually researching this would try that very thing on mice or whatnot. In fact, if it were found that the shortening of telomeres is the cause of mortality, then it would be a fairly elementary task to create a virus which injects the proper restriction enzyme and terminal repeats... then mass produce it and release it on the population so that everyone lives forever!

Is human evolution still occurring? Certainly mutations are, but as Tom says, evolution can't occur without selective pressure on a population.

Thank you, Dawn; that ought to teach that doubting Cliff ;o)

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Tom Anderson - 02:25am Jan 29, 1998 ET (#2735 of 2777)

Curiosity was framed, ignorance killed the cat

Dawn,

Finally, Tom, do you really want to live forever?

Maybe not, but I would rather have control of when I go than letting it be chaotically determined. Also, I would rather be in perfect health throughout my life than slowly degrading. Certainly, I would love to explore every last niche of our universe before my death (if it is finite), but I'm sure that there may be some point in time (a few millenia perhaps) when I am finally bored of life and want to die, but not before then. Ever watch ST:TNG? There was an episode concerning this very issue (Q wanted to die because he was omniscient).

If everyone did, eventually we would reach a point where very few children could be born

The universe is a very large place! Besides, if you could live forever, there would be little need to reproduce. Even so, you could have one or two kids, and then have your respective tubes tied.

The world would get very dull without the infusion of new ideas.

New ideas do not necessarily arise from new brains... in fact, most people are more creative later in their lives.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Tom Anderson - 02:26am Jan 29, 1998 ET (#2736 of 2777)

Curiosity was framed, ignorance killed the cat

Jeremy,

If cloning were to get to a point of commonplace then there would be millions of clones in addition to the billions of people on this planet.

No, there would be millions of clones in place of children conceived in another fashion. Cloning is just another form of reproduction.

You speak of experimenting on clones...

I never said any such thing. I said that knowledge will come from cloning, not that clones are to be experimented on. The medical advances will come from the research of cloning and observing the process. It will answer current unknowns about many things such as cancer and ageing. Just as the space race brought a plethora of knowledge and technology that would have been impossible without the actual doing of it, cloning will bring perhaps even more such knowledge and technology simply by the doing of it.

We die for a reason.

Well, perhaps some of us should, but I'm not referring to myself. Go ahead and reject medication and surgery and old-fashion hygiene and all of our other medical progress, and you will not last past your next birthday. If you want to die, be my guest and balance out nature, but I won't allow you or anybody else to force that on me or anyone else.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Tom Anderson - 02:26am Jan 29, 1998 ET (#2737 of 2777)

Curiosity was framed, ignorance killed the cat

Keith,

Parent are not going to have three children the old fashion way, adopt two more and then clone up seven more to get an even dozen. Someone has to raise children, so Tom is 100% correct, cloning will not cause a population explosion.

Thanks for the show of support, Keith. I don't know how this point is still unclear to people, but I guess the more you repeat it, the more it will stick.

There are no "laws of nature" in so much as this term is used to indicate rules. The only "laws of nature" are the ones that we are learning through science. If cloning was against the actual "laws of nature" then it wouldn't work.

Excellent explication!

The principals that are behind the constitution and the attached bill of rights have their root here.

I wholeheartedly disagree. The Constitution is a complete and utter divergence from religious law.

Jeremy,

With all do respect, I don't think you can accurately state what cloned humans will and will not be used for.

People are people... just because your mindset allows you to consider a person who was conceived through nuclear injection rather than gamete fusion to be considered less, does not mean that anyone else, and certainly not our courts of law, will do the same. Are you to outlaw minorities from reproducing because they may be discriminated against? What if we make it a law that you cannot have children because "you can't accurately state what your children will and will not be used for"?

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Tom Anderson - 02:27am Jan 29, 1998 ET (#2738 of 2777)

Curiosity was framed, ignorance killed the cat

CLIF,

HOG WASH!!! IF YOU WERE DYING...

As much as I agree with your arguments, please refrain from yelling. Thank you.

Max,

when has cloning equated to the increase in organ donations?

Donations? With cloning technology, we will be able to directly clone an individual organ.

A. Zoser,

The universe has already got a plan for population growth.

Please don't personify the universe. There is no intelligence there, and there is no plan. We live for our own reasons and answer to nobody but ourselves. If you need to look elsewhere for guidance, then I can only feel sorry for you. You should first understand logic, science, and the nature of reality before making such grand judgements about the future of mankind.

Nirmal,

No one has seen the result of a human clone, so no one can say how much individuality a human clone has

We don't need to see a calculator compute 5*8 to know that it will spit out 40. Just because you don't understand biology enough to predict what will happen does not mean that the same is true for others. A cloned person will be every bit like everyone else on this planet.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Tom Anderson - 02:28am Jan 29, 1998 ET (#2739 of 2777)

Curiosity was framed, ignorance killed the cat

Christopher,

Im sure that cloans would be flawless

You obviously do not understand cloning; the child will have the same physical and mental capabilities as its parent had.

Giovanni,

By producing sintetic new life forms, we will soon have untested organisms, not proven to be compatible with the enviroment. The consequences are totally unknown.

Sythetic? Untested? Incompatible? What are we talking about here, a human being or a new pain killer?

Bobby Lee,

I think that infertile couples should adopt if they want a baby.

I think you should adopt if you want a baby.

God made man in his image. Man does not make man in man's image.

In some African religions, Man was created from God's puke. In reality, Man is his own image, and was not made by anybody. God was created by Man in his ideal of what Man should be; it would be contradictory to not aspire to our own idea of what we should be.

Furthermore, God has a reason for a couple to be infertile even though it may not be readily apparent.

It is not a good philosophy to allow que sera sera; it is much more advisable to take control of your own situation and work to make your life be the best you can make it.

The FDA should ban cloning of any sort.

The FDA does not have the authority to ban anything, only to enforce the law. It is Congress which writes the laws, but they can be deemed unconstitutional (as the banning of cloning is) by the Supreme Court.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Tom Anderson - 02:29am Jan 29, 1998 ET (#2740 of 2777)

Curiosity was framed, ignorance killed the cat

Glenn,

THOMAS HOFFMAN 1/26/98 9:08pm you say "THEY MIGHT BE ABLE TO CLONE ONES' GENETIC MAKEUP, BUT NOT ONES' SOUL."

That's because the genetic makeup actually exists.

Nice come-back :)

Padmanabhan,

Imagine a rich guy asking, hey why not make a 1000 copies of myself.

The same as a rich guy asking, hey why not have a 1000 children without cloning.

Well when they do that nature takes care of it. The evolutionary process takes care. These clones will be so suceptable to newer diseases that their resistance will go haywire.

How do you figure?

Nicholas,

Conservatives rejoice at the arrival of a new issue they can complain about and blaim all the problems of the world upon. Genetic cloning is a scientific issue and has nothing to do with "God".

I am a conservative Republican/Libertarian atheistic scientist in favor of cloning. Please don't stereotype.

Cevat,

DO NOT BE CHAINED BY THE CONSERVATIVES

Again with this stereotyping... please stop!

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Tom Anderson - 02:30am Jan 29, 1998 ET (#2741 of 2777)

Curiosity was framed, ignorance killed the cat

Robert,

I know that half of who you become is because of nurture, yet half of who you become is also nature.

Personality is developed entirely by experience. Unless you are talking about an innate chemical imbalance caused by an error in a gene, aggression and so-forth are not genetic.

Any study about the nature of our souls, seems to me to be a good thing... even if we discover that they (our souls) are not. Clones will help us in that discovery.

Agreed. Unfortunately, people want to believe so badly that they do not even want to test the hypothesis to find that it is wrong. And, when cloning is commonplace, and everyone functions perfectly normally, they will change their beliefs so that they can still incorporate their fantasy by saying something like "well, God gave the clone a soul too". I wish people could just accept the fact that our personalities arise from the consciousness produced by our brains and not some supernatural force.

Keith,

Here are a few facts...

Well said.

If God didn't want us to do something he would have said so.

Corollary: If God existed, he would have said so.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Tom Anderson - 02:31am Jan 29, 1998 ET (#2742 of 2777)

Curiosity was framed, ignorance killed the cat

Max,

From what I understand, many of the people against cloning have stated that they are not Christian and are against it for practical reasons... Therefore, why attack religion?

Because those who state as such contradict themselves in their attitudes. It is clearly superstition and/or ignorance which produces the "practical reasons" they speak of. There are no practical reasons to oppose cloning, and anyone who thinks they have one should re-evaluate what the source of it is.

Kathryn,

It is possible to clone a race of human beings. These could be genetically designed for any number of purposes: Slavery, testing, McDonald's employees, or any other menial labor that the educated, wealthy or powerful don't want to do themselves.

No, it's not.

The scientific community needs to establish guidelines for itself and the public needs to keep a careful eye on them.

Generally, scientists have high ethical standards, and they know what they are doing. The "public" doesn't know squat.

Keith,

Slavery is illegal! There is no "genetic loophole clause" that effects this, so will everybody please stop worrying about it? Also, can we please separate the terms, cloning and genetic engineering? They are not the same thing.

Let me add (with especially strong feeling): YEAH!

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Tom Anderson - 02:35am Jan 29, 1998 ET (#2743 of 2777)

Curiosity was framed, ignorance killed the cat

Jeremy,

If you're so informed, please tell me where I can find any documents that state a human clone will share the same "human" status as a "real" human. That they will be privy to all the rights and freedoms that "real" humans have.

First of all, a nuclear injected human is just as "real" as a gamete fused human. Secondly, try the Constitution of the United States of America. Particularly:

UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION,AMENDMENT XIII,SECTION I

Neither slavery nor involuntary servitude, except as a punishment for crime whereof the party shall have been duly convicted, shall exist within the United States, or any place subject to their jurisdiction.

UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION,AMENDMENT XIV,SECTION I

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Tom Anderson - 02:36am Jan 29, 1998 ET (#2744 of 2777)

Curiosity was framed, ignorance killed the cat

Jeremy,

Also, please show me figures that guarantee there will be no further overpopulation problems as a result of commonplace "cloning".

Use logic. The premises and conclusions have already been given to you, all you have to do is try to understand it.

I learned it from the master, (insert name: Glenn Curry). You're always asking people to prove their claims. I'm simply asking the same.

You don't seem to understand... you have the burden of proof.

In fact they should already have been taken into account before the concept of cloning human even made it to centerstage.

They have; check the Constitution.

M. Boyd,

I don't care how you try to intellectually reason it out, human cloning is just simply wrong. It can in no way benefit mankind.

Open your eyes!

Joe,

We have a new form of slavery with the fate of the individual predestined according to genetic rules.

Apparently, you do not understand the genetic rules, because they do not in any way govern personality. A clone of Albert Einstein could become a bartender. A clone of Elvis could become a scientist. A clone of Saddam could become a philosopher. Et cetera. Et cetera. What you are talking about is A Brave New World.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Tom Anderson - 02:37am Jan 29, 1998 ET (#2745 of 2777)

Curiosity was framed, ignorance killed the cat

Cliff,

Nobody has the faintest idea of how [cloning a heart] could practically be done.

That's not true. All you have to do is reset the genes (or provide the correct chemical environment) such that the cell behaves as though it were an embryonic heart cell and begins dividing into a new heart. This is not far-off at all.

To answer Jeremy, it depends on whether the defect was caused by a mutation in the heart cells or was passed on in the entire genome. If it is the former, the new heart will be in perfect health. If it is the latter, the new heart will last as long as the first one did, but can possibly be fixed through genetic engineering.

Glenn, I didn't hear Jeremy assert any such thing.

I did.

"Provide for the easy production of replacement organs and tissues," my proverbial. It is not only incorrect--unless you assume something like slavery--it sends the wrong signal.

It is entirely correct, does not involve a complete person, certainly not slavery, and sends no signal except a perfectly exceptable benefit of cloning.

And, by the way, it is not Jeremy who is confusing cloning with genetic engineering, it is Tom. Cloning will not "cure Cancer & a plethora of other diseases."

I have never confused cloning with genetic engineering, rather the exact opposite -- I do nothing but implore others to recognize the difference. Curing diseases will come from the medical knowledge gained through the researching of the procedure. Cancer is very much linked with the particularities of cloning, as are various genetic diseases and cellular responses to infective diseases. In addition, cloning will entirely eliminate such things as Down's Syndrome, Criminal Tallness, Kleinfelter's Syndrome, Tay Sacks, Phenylketonia, albinism, hemophelia, et cetera, et cetera, et cetera, in the clone because meiosis never occurs.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Tom Anderson - 02:38am Jan 29, 1998 ET (#2746 of 2777)

Curiosity was framed, ignorance killed the cat

Aaron,

Can you clone a human soul?

You can't clone something that doesn't exist.

What happens when the rich are able to engineer their children?

Well, that's what is so spectacular about a capitalistic society: anyone can become rich or poor, it all depends on how you use your individual capacities, not what capacities you have. Poor people routinely become rich, just as rich people routinely go bankrupt.

Cliff,

I think that before we will get to this point, however, the ability to send messages to an organ to correct genetic and other problems naturally will be perfected.

I doubt that will ever happen. If an organ can't repair itself on its own, chances are there is nothing that we can "tell" it to do differently. The only thing to do is to provide it with additional resources or replace it. Nothing we do can correct a genetic mistake in an organ short of replacing the genes in every cell, or simply replacing every cell.

Karan,

Here is my most radical statement ever...

How misguided and ignorant.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Tom Anderson - 02:40am Jan 29, 1998 ET (#2747 of 2777)

Curiosity was framed, ignorance killed the cat

Jeremy,

My purpose for asking is to try and stress the view that we are reaching a critical population mass on this planet.

Please enlighten me as to what this "critical mass" is and how it was determined. As far as I can tell, we could support twice our current population in this country. If third world countries would get up-to-date on modern agriculture, etc., then they could do the same.

People are living longer, having more and more babies, and using more and more resources.

Living longer, yes. Having more children, no. Using more resources, certainly not.

Keith,

It is only through embracing the responsible application of any and all knowledge that we can obtain that we will gain the means to allocate the available resources to sustain our species.

Well said (I seem to say that often about your posts).

Jeff,

Most scientist are wholeheartedly against human cloning for the simple reason that it is unnecessary at this time.

First, it is entirely unscientific to be against any research, so your statement is self-contradictory. No scientist can be against cloning research, or else he does not embrace science (and is not truly a scientist). Being against immediate human trial is a different matter. Secondly, it is far from unnecessary -- it is potentially the answer to all of our medical problems.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Tom Anderson - 02:42am Jan 29, 1998 ET (#2748 of 2777)

Curiosity was framed, ignorance killed the cat

Jeremy,

I do not see any truth in your view. It is the inherent nature of man to accept their peers, not reject them... that is why society was ever built in the first place. If you have ever observed children, they do not care about the differences in people until they are taught that view by their parents or other adults. Even other animals are like this; puppies and kittens, bear cubs and fawn, get along fine... until they are raised by their parents to fill their "natural" role. I think it has primarily been the monotheistic religions that have spread the view of superiority, as there can only be one God and it must be theirs. Children are taught this from day one. White children and black children could get along fine in integrated schools, while their parents wanted them to be separate. I remember school-mates who were great friends of mine, until they were force-fed religion and found me to be atheist, and therefore inferior. It is not there inherent nature of Man to hate... that is something that is acquired.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Tom Anderson - 02:42am Jan 29, 1998 ET (#2749 of 2777)

Curiosity was framed, ignorance killed the cat

Ruby,

The life is the soul...

Life is anything which can metabolize and self-perpetuate. Fungi have life, do they have souls? Viruses have many aspects of life, do they have souls? If so, is it in the shedded protein coat or the injected DNA? If people have souls, is it only because we can metabolize and reproduce? Life is a very elementary thing, and yet the "soul" is used to describe so much more. Certainly each cell has life, do they each have a soul? Our consciousness does not have life, and yet it is carried on after we die in our soul? How is that? What you would like to believe in simply does not exist. There is no "force" a la Star Wars. There is matter and energy and interactions of matter and energy, that is all.

wrong...just like the A bomb.

The atomic bomb, the only time it was used, saved far more lives than it took. It also averted a potentially catastrophic third world war. In addition to that, nuclear power is the cleanest and most efficient source of energy we have other than solar.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Tom Anderson - 02:44am Jan 29, 1998 ET (#2750 of 2777)

Curiosity was framed, ignorance killed the cat

Sheilah,

Cloning just reminds me of Hitler when he tried to create a super race by annihilating groups of people who are below his standards. Cloning could just be its high-tech version.

No it couldn't. You are also confusing cloning with genetic engineering.

Mario-Cart,

It think it's fascinating when scientist mismatch different animals and plants together to create a wholly different organism.

Well, that's nice... considering it's science-fiction.

Haymour,

It reflects the sad truth that man will ultimately destroy itself by trying to play the role of God. Cloning is wrong, and a great disrespect to mother-nature.

Man is God; always has been, always will be. "Mother" nature is not an intelligent being and cannot be disrespected so to speak. We can be sentimental and leave everything as is, but that is not Man's nature, and for good reason -- it is the very quality that has allowed us to survive. We use nature to our advantage, we are tool-makers. Rather than adapt to our environment, we adapt our environment to us. That is who we are. That is Man; that is God.

Tom

P.S. Told you it was going to be long. I may not be back for a while, or I might be, never know for sure.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Homayon Iraninezhad - 03:37am Jan 29, 1998 ET (#2751 of 2777)

Decisions, Decisions!!! On the matter of cloning, I believe it is just like all the other discoveries that man has made in the path of science. God has given man this fundamental element "free will" to decide whether or not cloning is beneficial to humanity. I personally believe that cloning isn't good because if God wanted more humans to come about he would do it himself. Plus, evolution states that natural selection acts on phenotypes and genotypes and leads to adaptations, so you should let nature take it course and not get in the path of it because if you cheat nature then you will pay for it.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Mark Owen Scott - 04:28am Jan 29, 1998 ET (#2752 of 2777)

I'll do what I please with my DNA, thank you very much.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Skip Robokoff - 08:09am Jan 29, 1998 ET (#2753 of 2777)

Abort existing babies, and clone previously non-existing ones? Ah the wisdom of people playing God!

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Keith Fosberg - 08:50am Jan 29, 1998 ET (#2754 of 2777)

It's not just a life, Its an adventure!

Homayon Iraninezhad - 03:37am Jan 29, 1998 ET

"... if God wanted more humans to come about he would do it himself. ..."

As far as I am aware of western religious text this has happened twice (three time if you are a Christian.) Are you sure you want to stand on this argument?

From the same post:

Plus, evolution states that natural selection acts on phenotypes and genotypes and leads to adaptations, so you should let nature take it course and not get in the path of it because if you cheat nature then you will pay for it.

Since this board doesn't have an FAQ I guess we will have to deal with this question from time to time.

Humans do not evolve. There is no selective preasure to support human evolution. Certain disasterously dis-adventagous mutations that prevent reproduction are selected out, but evolution is not occuring. The fast, the slow, the brilliant, the moronic, the tough and the meek all have an equal oppertunity to reproduce thanks to the medical advances that drastically expand our lifespans.

If there is to be any human evolution then it will come from purposfull genetic engineering (and not anytime soon!) A technology that will be further developed by the knowledge we gain through research involving cloning.

To Skip and anyone else who wants to bring this up; There is no linkage between cloning and abortion. I used an ethical comparison between abortion and premature research on human subjects, and am sorry I did now! Furthermore, Skip, no child exists before it is concieved. The only way I could make sense of your argument would be if you could site an actual case where someone had an abortion to "clear the womb" so that they could have a cloned ovum implanted in its place. Find me one person who honestly even says they want to do that and I will be concerned, until then

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Joseph Knasinski - 08:57am Jan 29, 1998 ET (#2755 of 2777)

All cloning, human and non-human is wrong. It is simply unethical. Science should serve mankind, not the other way around. This nonsense is just being driven by a desire for profit without regard to ethics or morals, not to mention a total disregard of possible dangers involved. There is no justification for any type of cloning.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

david balascak - 09:44am Jan 29, 1998 ET (#2756 of 2777)

cloning human is a bad idea, It is said the anti Christ will be a human clone.

Also what purpose does it serve, It destroyes individualiy, and reduces a persons worth. I see it a moral, scientific, and common law mistake.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Keith Fosberg - 10:27am Jan 29, 1998 ET (#2757 of 2777)

It's not just a life, Its an adventure!

Joseph, David,

I would like to suggest that you review some of the previous posts for information contained within them.

Many far-reaching benifits have been shown to be derivable from cloning research and the questions and concerns regarding individuality and civil rights have been addressed in depth.

Oh, and Joseph? Nothing is "simply unethical." Ethics have purpose and cause, they are not random.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Eytan Rait - 11:05am Jan 29, 1998 ET (#2758 of 2777)

Human cloning should be made illegal. How can people make the decision to clone a baby for an infertile couple when they can more easily adopt a baby that can't be cared for by it's natural mother? There are too many chiledren being lost everyday because society hasn't been caring for its own. We should make sure that all children are provided with the proper materials for growing up to become responsible adults, before we can seriously consider the idea of human cloning.

Cloning has been in use for years now in scientific research. If it wasn't for cloning we wouldn't have insulin shots for people with diabetes. It is a very useful tool for discovering the cause(s) of disease and developing cures. Cloning itself is very beneficial to humanity but it should be restricted to bacteria, plants, and small non-sentient animals like mice.

The implications of cloning humans are horrifying. Will the government clone an army for themselves? Will the wealthy clone themselves to pass on their fortunes? We can't engineer people but we can still harm our society with this technology.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Leanne Kildare - 12:21pm Jan 29, 1998 ET (#2759 of 2777)

Without bringing religion into the foray, cloning is potentially damaging to the human race. Although not the same as genetic engineering, what if cloning was coupled with such engineering? Disaster would surely ensue, for the most sinister technology always falls in to the wrong hands. Some power hungry person out there would create a master race, with a plan to take over the world.

This is not as much a religious debate as it is a moral debate. Some will surely argue that religion is morals, but this has no religious affiliation at all: it is a problem that will affect you whether you are Jewish, Christian, Hindu, Buddhist, agnostic, or any other religion.

Personally, I belive human cloning is wrong. Especially for the clone. If you were a clone, how would you feel? A simple replica of someone else? A created thing? An object? It is hard enough for twins, let's keep EVERYONE'S well-being in mind. Thank you.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ruby Pool - 12:32pm Jan 29, 1998 ET (#2760 of 2777)

Better Read Than Said.....

With the information we've been given on cloning, I see nothing in the cloning of two living cells to create a life anymore different than invitro-fertilization. The scientist isn't creating life, he is only passing it on in a new way. Science has not been able to duplicate the human life that comes from the joining of a sperm with an ovum, they have only been able to join them without the sexual involvement. That is my understanding.

I don't see the purpose of it, but I don't see the harm of it. It is just another experiment.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Keith Fosberg - 12:51pm Jan 29, 1998 ET (#2761 of 2777)

It's not just a life, Its an adventure!

If I were a clone I seriously doubt that I would feel any different than I do now.

Two of my cousins are identical twins. I have no problem telling them apart, they certainly are not "replicas" of each other! Clones are less similar to thier genetic parent than identical clones are to each other.

ANd once again in reference to the "sombody clones an army/superior race, etc."; You can not have a baby in one month by impregnating nine women.

And regarding creating a requirement that people adopt instead of having their own children (via cloning, in-vitro, or in-situ fertilization (the "natural way")); This is a nice setiment but it requires a totalitarian government to enforce it. Maybe people should adopt, but do you actually want to pass a law that says they must? (It would be un-constitutional, BTW.)

------------------------------------------------------------------------

James Ochsenfeld - 01:10pm Jan 29, 1998 ET (#2762 of 2777)

Tom Anderson wrote: Man is God; always has been, always will be. "Mother" nature is not an intelligent being and cannot be disrespected so to speak. We can be sentimental and leave everything as is, but that is not Man's nature, and for good reason -- it is the very quality that has allowed us to survive. We use nature to our advantage, we are tool-makers. Rather than adapt to our environment, we adapt our environment to us. That is who we are. That is Man; that is God.

If you are a true scientist, I put this challenge before you: Study the following material: "The Intellectuals Speak Out About God" Darwin himself wrote in relation to missing links "I have asked myself weather I may not have devoted my life to a fantasy...I..am ready to cry with vexation at my blindness and presumption." He also said "If it could be demonstrated that and complex organism existed which could not possibly have been formed by numberous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down." That passage was writen in the book "Charles Darwin Origin of Species" I give you for example the human eye. There is no way the human eye could have developed as a mutation because it has to function from the beginning. "Evolution: The Fossils Still Say No!" by Dwane T. Gish "The Amasing Story of Creation from Science and the Bible" by Dwane T. Gish "The Handwriting of God" by Grant R. Jeffery I would look forward to communicating with you again, when you have had a chance to research the above listed resourses. You will be more capable to discuss the matter from a more unbiased perspective. There is no way to intellegently discuss the matter of Cloning with out addressing the issue of creation as endorced by open-minded scientist. So what kind of tool did you use to create the Sun mr. god?

<J>

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Tom Anderson - 01:22pm Jan 29, 1998 ET (#2763 of 2777)

Curiosity was framed, ignorance killed the cat

Is Human Cloning Ethical?

First, I think it is necessary to define what ethics is. Ethics is the discipline of deciding and dealing with what is good or bad. Good and bad are relative terms, so it must be given the broadest scope necessary to deal with what is good and bad in general for all of human society. Philosophers have put millenia of thought to this, and we have a very good ethical theory, which everyone should read about and understand. Simply put, it is like this: an act is considered ethical if it does not restrict anyone else's freedom.

Since cloning does not affect anyone, even indirectly, except the parent and child, the cloning of a person is not unethical just as procreation in any other fashion is not unethical.

However, a failure to come to someone's aid when it is within your capability to do so is unethical, so banning potentially lifesaving medical research is what is unethical. In addition, the attempt of some people to ban cloning without logical cause is in fact reducing the freedom of those who would pursue the subject; thus, those who proclaim cloning to be wrong and ask that it be illegal are actually being unethical.

"Moral theory would have each of us ask ourselves: ...do I subscribe to any a priori view of the world, learned since childhood perhaps, relied on as a psychological crutch, that I have not submitted to critical scrutiny and challenge but under whose influence my actions might have adverse effect on other agents, perhaps those of other races or beliefs or lifestyles? In thinking about morality we should have the wider context in mind, remembering that we are physical and social beings and that our acts have physical and psychological effects on others like (or even unlike) ourselves. My acts become truly moral only when I have taken all that into account." [Peter Caws, Ethics from Experience]

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Tom Anderson - 01:22pm Jan 29, 1998 ET (#2764 of 2777)

Curiosity was framed, ignorance killed the cat

I have certainly asked myself this, and I have found that my views of cloning do not come from any a priori view of the world, but rather the facts we have at our disposal. I implore everyone else on this board to ask themselves this question. In answering, consider your religious views in particular, since they are often the cause of unethical restrictions, and with which the United States government cannot deal due to that fact. You must consider that not everyone has your religious views; it is unethical for you and illegal for our government to restrict people's freedoms based on them.

Tom

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Jeremy Durand - 01:24pm Jan 29, 1998 ET (#2765 of 2777)

Let the truth be known....I lied!

Tom

1) Good arguement regarding the status of naturally born cloned humans. Any person, "clone" or "real", born from the womb of a women legally would be protected under the current laws. I believe that.

I also agree that it may not be the inherent nature of man to hate or discriminate. It may be, as you say, a learned behavior. That sounds about right to me. this doesn't change the fact that it happens though, a lot. The examples I stated are still valid reasons for raising concern over this issue

Thanks for the post.

2) In response to my concerns about world population and overcrowding, you said that this country is capable of supporting twice it's current population. Perhaps, but at what cost? At what point does the population become so huge that the quality of life nose-dives? Surely, twice the population would use twice the space and twice the resources.

3) I have no issue with wanting to live longer and healthier lives, but I realize that the longer we stick around, the more crowded this world becomes.

This is a basic mathematical certainty. When people live longer, they die less. Each day thousands of babies are born into this world. Combine thousands of babies born each day with extended life spans and you get a population increase. It's already happening today.

That in itself is one thing, but when you add in factors like cloning, fertility drugs, etc. you compound the problem.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Tom Anderson - 01:58pm Jan 29, 1998 ET (#2766 of 2777)

Curiosity was framed, ignorance killed the cat

Eytan,

Cloning itself is very beneficial to humanity but it should be restricted to bacteria, plants, and small non-sentient animals like mice.

Mice are more sentient than people.

James,

Darwin wrote... "If it could be demonstrated that and complex organism existed which could not possibly have been formed by numberous, successive, slight modifications, my theory would absolutely break down."

So? He was being prudent by showing skepticism in his own work, that is the essence of what science is. So far, it can be demonstrated that all forms of life have been formed by these "numberous, successive, slight modifications", so the theory is entirely sound.

I give you for example the human eye. There is no way the human eye could have developed as a mutation because it has to function from the beginning.

You obviously have very little knowledge of biology; I suggest you learn more before having such confidence in your arguments. As for your "example", the eye originated in the simplist form as cells which are more light sensitive than others. Such cells are very simple and needn't have developed necessarily for its function, but may have been adapted to that function. In animals, pigment cells played a role in light detection as early as protists. Mostly, this was similar to other nervous responses such as touch and the sensation of heat, since photons striking the pigment were absorbed more than on the surrounding cells therefore caused a rise in temperature. This was obviously selected for since the microorganisms could go toward the light in order to feed on unicellular photosynthetic organisms.

<cont...>

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Tom Anderson - 01:59pm Jan 29, 1998 ET (#2767 of 2777)

Curiosity was framed, ignorance killed the cat

<...cont>

Later, this was selected for so that they could escape other light-sensitive organisms as well. From this point, the structures we call eyes evolved in similar "successive, slight modifications". In fact, the eye developed independently in several different phyla. For instance, the octopus has an eye that looks amazingly similar to our own, but evolved entirely seperately since our common ancestor when our genetic lines split did not have "eyes" like either species. The reason they are so similar is because the function is the same... because this function is very advantageous to life and is therefore positively selected.

Cliff posted a few links to some good reading material on evolution about 150 messages back; you should read them.

So what kind of tool did you use to create the Sun mr. god?

The sun was not "created" by anybody. It was formed by matter and energy interactions that are already somewhat predictable to us. The formation can be modelled in a computer quite accurately.

Tom

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Tom Anderson - 02:24pm Jan 29, 1998 ET (#2768 of 2777)

Curiosity was framed, ignorance killed the cat

Jeremy,

Discrimination is not a problem of cloning; it neither causes it nor is caused by it. It is entirely irrelevant to any discussion about the legality or validity of cloning.

In response to my concerns about world population and overcrowding, you said that this country is capable of supporting twice it's current population. Perhaps, but at what cost? At what point does the population become so huge that the quality of life nose-dives? Surely, twice the population would use twice the space and twice the resources.

Over-population is not a problem of cloning; it neither causes it nor is caused by it. It is entirely irrelevant to any discussion about the legality or validity of cloning.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Tom Anderson - 02:25pm Jan 29, 1998 ET (#2769 of 2777)

Curiosity was framed, ignorance killed the cat

To answer your question though, twice the population (and much more) can be supported without any undesireable consequences. Add several levels to every building in NYC and LA and you already have enough space. You could build several entire cities in the middle of the Arizona desert, with technological advancements. There are thousands of small cities in this country that could stand a population increase of double or more. As for resources... my parents own a farm, and they are being paid by the government not to cultivate the land so as to keep prices competitive. We could feed the entire earth's population from this country alone. With further technological advance, which cloning will expediate, we will be able to support a hundred times our population. In addition, it won't be long before we leave the confines of this planet and begin populating the rest of the solar system, in which case we can have an almost infinite population.

Anyway, as I have already stated, cloning is only another form of reproduction. Even if population control were necessary, you could only limit the number of children people can have, not HOW they have them.

Tom

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ilya Taytslin - 03:07pm Jan 29, 1998 ET (#2770 of 2777)

James Ochsenfeld:

A very good description of how mammalian eye and other, far more unlikely-seeming, biological structures evolved is in the book Climbing Mount Improbable by Dawkins.

I am familiar with the books you mentioned, and Dawkins' book addresses their arguments very well indeed. Evolution of an eye, whether "simple" or compound, is a very straightforward matter, starting with a simple layer of photosensitive cells and progressing through a series of gradual improvements. Significantly, all vertebrate eyes have a flaw which evolution could never correct because correction had to involve intermediate stages inferior to the original - nerves which carry signals from retina to the brain lie in front of the retina and thus block some of the light. Nerves behind the retina would be a better design, but any intermediate stage - with nerves mixed with retinal cells - is worse, and can not be selected for. Flaws like that - less than optimal design with no possible smooth transition toward a better one, - illustrate LACK of intelligent design, and are a pretty powerful evidence of evolution.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

James Ochsenfeld - 03:26pm Jan 29, 1998 ET (#2771 of 2777)

So tell us then, scientist god, Did Evolutionary scientist, Arthur Keith admit " Evolution is unproven and unprovable. We believe it only because the only alternative is special creation which is unthinkable."? In B.G Ranganathan's "Origins?" ......Numerous, sellective, slight modifications.......Evolutionist Dr. Miles Eldredge, Did he actually write"We paleonthologists have said that the history of life supports (the story of gradual adaptive change) all the while really knowing that it does not.?"Darwin on trial" by Philip Johnson A half formed eye makes no sense to me, or a half formed heart as a transition to the whole final heart. Either it is fully formed and functioning or it is of no use and selective mutation would have eliminated it. Where are your missing links, mr.scientist/octipus/god? 9 of your so called 12 "missing links" have been proven to be actually extinct forms of apes or monkeys. The other three, homo erectus, neanderthal man and cro magnon man are men. One had a small brain, one had prolonged vitamin deficiency and one was just found near cave drawings considered primative. What about the one whose artist renderings were taken solely from the tooth of a prehistoric pig. It might be your relative, but it isn't mine. I am sure I am not alone in saying we resent the farce perpetrated on us in the schools. We will all find out about God one day and "he ain't you". We do not need the education of the kind of people whose willfull blindness allows then to accept such hoaxes as "Lucy of Etheopia" whose so called knee was found 2 miles away/ and 200 feet deeper than she was. I feel much more confident in the good judgement of my fellow Christian in these sensitive issues concerning Human cloning. My guess is you had better get used to watching evolutionist back away. The time is here, the THEORY of evolution is colapsing.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Keith Fosberg - 03:59pm Jan 29, 1998 ET (#2772 of 2777)

It's not just a life, Its an adventure!

James,

The debate here is not "Creationism" nor is "Creationism" accepted by all Christians. If Tom is over-zealous in promoting his aethiesm you do your faith no service by mimicking his behaivior.

Jeremy,

I am glad we found consensous on "civil rights!" On the population issue; I don't mean to imply that no issue exists, instead I would like to suggest that improved distrobution systems and more efficient use of resources would be a better answer than denying medical advances.

Tom, Ilya,

I will trust you two to put down the creationist tripe, but then he may just leave anyway. :)

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Gavin Jones - 03:59pm Jan 29, 1998 ET (#2773 of 2777)

Cloning humans for infertile couples is taking too big of a step. With humans there are emotional and social issues involved. Also, if the parent from which the individual was cloned or the clone dies what happens with the death certificate? These and other questions must be resolved before it should be seriously considered.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

James Ochsenfeld - 04:18pm Jan 29, 1998 ET (#2774 of 2777)

Cloning involves DNA, does it not? Is this also an illistration of unintelligent design? This question is bigger than all of us, my 3 knocks on your door are up. Now it's time to shake the dust off my shoes. Bye Folks!

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ruby Pool - 06:01pm Jan 29, 1998 ET (#2775 of 2777)

Better Read Than Said.....

James Ochsenfeld:

Don't go away...keep knocking, not for these blinded by the evolution theory, which doesn't explain how the breath of life got into these evolving species, of which we can't seem to locate, but for those learning and listening for some real proof of life's beginning out there in computer land.

Where did sperm and ovums come from that science can't duplicate?

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Keith Fosberg - 06:18pm Jan 29, 1998 ET (#2776 of 2777)

It's not just a life, Its an adventure!

Maybe one day science will be able to explain how life came to be, and then again, maybe not. Either way I fal to see how it is perntinate to a discussion about cloning.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

James Ochsenfeld - 06:48pm Jan 29, 1998 ET (#2777 of 2777)

Ruby, Bless you, Keith, I understand. It is just my opinion that it is pertinent. If DNA is of intelligent design, I feel the designer should not only be acknowledged, but seriously consulted on the matter before we try to tamper with his wonderful work.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Gordon Anderson - 10:06pm Jan 29, 1998 ET (#2778 of 2783)

Posters think that religion and evolution are important to the discussion of cloning - to justify one way or another. I would like to point out that many religious people accept evolution as valid. The largest christian church has published documents saying that the church is compatible with evolution. They have more scientists employed then any other church. Pope John Paul II"s statement on evolution and the church can be found on the web at :

www.natcenscied.org/pope.htm

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Scott Rothbard - 11:10pm Jan 29, 1998 ET (#2779 of 2783)

I wonder if these rabid god-fearing people felt the same way about Galileo and his heliocentric view of the Solar System as they do about evolution. It only took the Catholic church 350 years to admit that they made a mistake; how long will it take the Creationists with their 17th century pseudo-science to acknowledge that Darwin knew a hell of a lot more about nature then their neighborhood priest? If the only arguments against cloning come from religious nuts, then we have nothing to worry about. Hey James - the planets revolve around the Sun, not Earth. And Gordon - it doesn't matter if the church now thinks their doctrine is compatible with evolution; when science and religion disagree, it is religion that ends up caving in. But that is to be expected from a system that relies on blind faith and gets their 'facts' from a 2000 year old book. Why don't you people believe in yourselves - why must you invent gods in order to live in this world? Question to all theists: If there were viable cells left on the Shroud of Turin, what do you think would happen if they cloned it?

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cliff Beall - 01:48am Jan 30, 1998 ET (#2780 of 2783)

Certainty: most of the time it ain't...

Tom Anderson: How are they different? Both deny the ability to reproduce.

Yes, but one is very intrusive of one's person, constituting a significant violation of one's personal privacy and prevents all possibility of reproduction. The other is not intrusive of one's person and thus does not constitute a significant violation of one's personal privacy, and while it may eliminate a reproductive option, it is not necessarily preclusive of any option.

You can laugh if you wish, Tom, but I truly believe that when one has one's pants pulled down and a portion of one's privates removed against one's desire, this is a much more serious violation of one's privacy than the banning of a specific reproductive option that hitherto did not exist.

Tom Anderson: They are both decent articles, but there was nothing there that I have not already seen. And they agree with my statement that we are not evolving any longer.

You apparently did not read them very carefully. For example, Dr. Montelone said, "Mutations are important as the major source of genetic variation which fuels evolutionary change." She defined mutation as a "heritable change in the genetic material," and further states: "We don't know yet why humans may have a higher overall rate [of mutation than E. coli]. However, we can use the estimated human mutation rate to determine its impact on the likelihood of changes occurring in each generation [of humans]."

As for Mr. Colby, near the end of his article, in answer to the question: "Are we still evolving"? he states specifically: "Yes, evolution is still occurring; all organisms continue to adapt to their surroundings and "invent" new ways of better competing with members of their own species. In addition, allele frequencies are being changed by drift, mutation and gene flow constantly."

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cliff Beall - 01:50am Jan 30, 1998 ET (#2781 of 2783)

Certainty: most of the time it ain't...

The significant point is this: selection is not necessary for the evolution of a species. Selection may speed up evolution, but it is not actually necessary. The only thing that is really necessary for evolution is a change in the genetic material. If a change in the genetic material of an organism occurs, and this change is not selected out in succeeding generations (ie, if this change in the genetic material is retained), evolution has occurred. Also, evolution is not necessarily upward. Evolution can be sideways, even backwards. For example, if an organism loses the ability to produce a protein, death may not be the result. The organism may survive, even flourish, by filling an different, perhaps lower, niche than it occupied previously. It is still evolution, and it is still occurring.

Tom Anderson: It would not be ground-breaking, it would be upholding the current law and the traditional interpretation of our inalienable rights. It is not the right of the State to dictate how a person conceives a child, or even if a person can conceive.

Tom, I knew I was conceding the point on Casey too quickly, but Jay's argument was basically sound, and I had grown somewhat weary of the issue, so I decided to put the matter to rest by conceding the point that, in Casey, the Supreme Court did uphold Roe, which it did. Jay was apparently happy with this concession, and my expression of uncertainty about the matter, but here you are objecting again. Thus, it seems to me that I have no option but to point out that while, in Casey, the Supreme Court did uphold Roe (by a split 5-4 vote), it also introduced the concept of "undue burden." And on the basis of the "undue burden" doctrine, certain restrictions on abortions that previously had been ruled unconstitutional were, in Casey, ruled to be constitutional, after all.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cliff Beall - 01:52am Jan 30, 1998 ET (#2782 of 2783)

Certainty: most of the time it ain't...

While one can never be certain about the way the Court might rule in a particular case, it is my opinion that if the Supreme Court were to hear a case resulting from a ban on cloning, it would probably rule that a ban on cloning does not constitute an "undue burden" on the reproductive rights of an individual since other options may be available. This is no necessarily my preference; it is simply my reading of the Court as presently constituted. I wouldn't cry either way.

Dawn Willis: Is human evolution still occurring? Certainly mutations are, but as Tom says, evolution can't occur without selective pressure on a population.

Tom Anderson: Thank you, Dawn; that ought to teach that doubting Cliff ;o)

Funny. See my response above. Let me know if you still have doubts about the rightness of my argument and I will provide additional detail :-)

Tom Anderson: I am a conservative Republican/Libertarian atheistic scientist in favor of cloning. Please don't stereotype.

Well said.

Tom Anderson: Personality is developed entirely by experience. Unless you are talking about an innate chemical imbalance caused by an error in a gene, aggression and so-forth are not genetic.

Not sure I agree with that totally. Can you justify that statement?

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Cliff Beall - 01:58am Jan 30, 1998 ET (#2783 of 2783)

Certainty: most of the time it ain't...

Tom Anderson: I doubt that will ever happen. If an organ can't repair itself on its own, chances are there is nothing that we can "tell" it to do differently. The only thing to do is to provide it with additional resources or replace it. Nothing we do can correct a genetic mistake in an organ short of replacing the genes in every cell, or simply replacing every cell.

Why? The human body is capable of repairing itself in some respects. Cut your finger and it heals. Actually, the only reason surgery works is that the body has the ability to repair the terrible damage done to it by the surgery. Some organisms have the ability to regenerate a severed limb. The human body does not, but the reason it does not is that the instructions to do so either do not exist or are inoperable. All that is actually needed are the instructions and a delivery system.

I have a prediction: within fifty years--perhaps within twenty years--surgery, of any kind, will be a thing of the past, and the mere mention of surgery will invoke shudders at our barbaric past.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Homayon Iraninezhad - 02:17am Jan 30, 1998 ET (#2784 of 2807)

Tom:

If we are all use nature to our advantage then we are making a mistake. We think we are in control, but we are just being enframed by technology. We are just standing-reserve whether we like it or not. Technology is taking over our lives whether we like it or not. Look at how much technology has taken over mans life in the last 100 years. Do we need technology. Is it really making our lives easier or harder? you answer that question. Don't be fooled people... We aren't in control nature. Nature is in control of us. we are merely one tool and nature is the craftsman.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Keith Fosberg - 07:50am Jan 30, 1998 ET (#2785 of 2807)

It's not just a life, Its an adventure!

Homayon Iraninezhad - 02:17am Jan 30, 1998 ET

Don't be fooled people... We aren't in control nature. Nature is in control of us. we are merely one tool and nature is the craftsman.

This is rooted in a common fallacy that humanity is distinct from nature. Humanity is part of nature. Due to many factors we are able to exert far more controll over our environment than any other parts of nature can, so exercising some level of wisdom about how and if we should exercise that controll is important. Antromorphising "nature," as if this planet's biosphere was an inteligent entity does not lead to a rational and wise view, instead it relys on fear.

Cliff,

I still support Dawn and Tom in the supposition that humanity is not evolving anymore. Mutation and drift may very well occur, but without selective pressure is it really evolution, or is it simply change?

This, in my view, actually underscores the need to develop practical and usefull genetic engineering tools so that we may have some control over our future. One of the reasons I support research involving cloned organisms and research into cloning itself is that knowledge gained here may (probably will) be usefull in advancing our genetic engineering capacities.

I am fully in agreement with you regarding in-situ regeneration. :) (Don't like being cut!)

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Barry Collymore - 12:20pm Jan 30, 1998 ET (#2786 of 2807)

It's impossible to stop the march of science ! We can agree or we can object but change through scientific developments will still continue.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dave Rodriguez - 12:21pm Jan 30, 1998 ET (#2787 of 2807)

In response to Mr. Rothbard's comments, Scientists at one time believed the world was flat and Columbus would fall off the edge of the world, which was only the horizon. Creationism is not a pseudo-science, quite the contrary Religion and Science has gone hand in hand. Science looking to disprove or prove everything by 'scientific' study, meaning a true analysis of the subject, compound or element. Many Scientists were Religious and many Religious were Scientists. In fact, most discoverers and inventors were very devoted to Religion and contributed much to mankind's betterment, health & scientific discovery & advances. This all came from a deep respect for the '2000' year old book. Scientists, Religionists, Archaeologists, & Atheists all have derived tremendous 'truths & proofs of life itself' from this book. We do not rely on 'blind' faith. We rely upon 'proof' of his existence that permeates our life and planet and thus conclude, based upon circumstantial evidence that HE exists. Just look at the cells they are cloning. All things have design. Where there is design there is a designer. We must respect the ART of the Creator. To seek to improve upon that is to insult his Reputation, Intelligence & Genius. We are kids tinkering with Daddy's project. Guess what happens? We usually wind up breaking it. Then? We get disciplined(spanked) by Dad. What will be the effect of our interference with Daddy's pet project? To use Hollywood's Movie, "Honey, I Shrunk the Kids." This is a ficitonal primary example of why we should not mess with life, unless we have permission from the Originator. He gave us Life's Manual, that is enough. We must beware, lest we unleash upon the world a mutant upon the earth that will ultimately be our undoing.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Glenn Curry - 12:21pm Jan 30, 1998 ET (#2788 of 2807)

The biggest problem with those that claim to be "Born Again" is that they think it gives them twice the rights!

I told myself I didn't have time to invest in this anymore, but it is lunch time, so I will spend a little time, try to catch up with a few replies and see what's new.

Ruby Pool 1/28/98 5:23pm you say "You are missing the meaning of 'soul.' The life is the soul...which is passed on when the sperm enters the ovum...not weeks after fertilization. The identical twins both receive life at the same instance."

Ruby, I am a little surprised, I thought you were a Xian and accepted the superstition of the sould being some etheral entity that survivies the death of the physical body. But you state it is merely physical life. OK, I will accept this as your stance, It does not however resolve the conflict for Christers that think there is some ghost floating in us somewhere.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Glenn Curry - 12:34pm Jan 30, 1998 ET (#2789 of 2807)

The biggest problem with those that claim to be "Born Again" is that they think it gives them twice the rights!

Tom Anderson 1/29/98 2:36am you say "(Jeremy posted) I learned it from the master, (insert name: Glenn Curry). You're always asking people to prove their claims. I'm simply asking the same.

You don't seem to understand... you have the burden of proof."

Thanks for the reiteration. I tried to explain it to him (them), but it is lost on him (them). They are not used to developing a logical construct for their assertions. So they think convoluting the process is as acceptable as the inital lack.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Glenn Curry - 12:39pm Jan 30, 1998 ET (#2790 of 2807)

The biggest problem with those that claim to be "Born Again" is that they think it gives them twice the rights!

Skip Robokoff 1/29/98 8:09am you say "Ah the wisdom of people playing God!"

We invented him, we might as well play the part.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Glenn Curry - 12:53pm Jan 30, 1998 ET (#2791 of 2807)

The biggest problem with those that claim to be "Born Again" is that they think it gives them twice the rights!

david balascak 1/29/98 9:44am you say "cloning human is a bad idea, It is said the anti Christ will be a human clone."

Ya right, So show us the biblical passage that says this.

It gets stranger all the time!

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Glenn Curry - 01:01pm Jan 30, 1998 ET (#2792 of 2807)

The biggest problem with those that claim to be "Born Again" is that they think it gives them twice the rights!

Leanne Kildare 1/29/98 12:21pm you say "Without bringing religion into the foray, cloning is potentially damaging to the human race. Although not the same as genetic engineering, what if cloning was coupled with such engineering? Disaster would surely ensue, for the most sinister technology always falls in to the wrong hands. Some power hungry person out there would create a master race, with a plan to take over the world."

OK! without bringing religion into it, tell us WHY "cloning is potentially damaging to the human race"? All you did was include some unsupportable assertion that some evil madman will be the only one to use it and then only to create some master race. All of which is totally contrary to the REALITY of cloning technology and political/ financial considerations. What specifically makes the actuallity of cloning "potentially damaging to the human race"?

"If you were a clone, how would you feel?"

Compared to the alternative of non-existence, My guess would be they would be thrilled that they DO exist.

"It is hard enough for twins,"

What is? I have known twins that would not have it any other way!

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Glenn Curry - 01:05pm Jan 30, 1998 ET (#2793 of 2807)

The biggest problem with those that claim to be "Born Again" is that they think it gives them twice the rights!

Ruby Pool 1/29/98 12:32pm you say "With the information we've been given on cloning, I see nothing in the cloning of two living cells to create a life anymore different than invitro-fertilization. ... I don't see the purpose of it, but I don't see the harm of it. It is just another experiment."

Ruby Baby! I'm proud of you!. We actually agree at some significant levels. Though I DO see purpose/ benefit to it. Esp in non-fertile couples being given the ability to have a genetically related offspring.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Glenn Curry - 01:27pm Jan 30, 1998 ET (#2794 of 2807)

The biggest problem with those that claim to be "Born Again" is that they think it gives them twice the rights!

James Ochsenfeld 1/29/98 1:10pm you say "I give you for example the human eye. There is no way the human eye could have developed as a mutation because it has to function from the beginning."

You really should start reading REAL science instead of CRS garbage. Any org that REQUIRES their "scientists" to sign a pledge stating they can ONLY investigate areas that re-inforce the preconceived premises does not qualify as a TRUE research org. It is a slap in the face of TRUE scientific integrety to intentionally restrict a scientists access to infromation.

As to the "eye" convolution. It has been PROVEN by computer modeling that a simple single light sensitive cell can evolve into a complex eye structure in less that 500,000 years.

From Frequently Encountered Criticisms in Evolution vs. Creationism:

[Nilsson and Pelger's 1994 computer analysis] starts with a mathematical model of a flat region of cells, and permits various types of "mutation." Some cells may become more sensitive to light, for example, and the shape of cells may bend. The mathematical model is set up as a computer program that makes tiny random changes of this kind, calculates how good the resulting structure is at detecting light and resolving the patterns it "sees," and selects any change that improves these abilities. During a simulation that corresponds to a period of about four hundred years - the blink of an eye, in evolutionary terms - the region of cells folds itself up into a deep, spherical cavity with a tiny irislike opening, and, most dramatically, a lens.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Glenn Curry - 01:27pm Jan 30, 1998 ET (#2795 of 2807)

The biggest problem with those that claim to be "Born Again" is that they think it gives them twice the rights!

Moreover, like the lenses of our own eyes, it is a lens whose refractive index - the amount by which it bends light - varies from place to place. In fact, the pattern of variation of refractive index that is produced in the computer simulation is very like our own. So here mathematics shows that eyes definitely can evolve gradually and naturally, offering increased survival value at every stage. More than that: Nilsson and Pelger's work demonstrates that given certain key biological faculties (such as cellular receptivity to light, and cellular mobility), structures remarkable similar to eyes will form - all in line with Darwin's principle of natural selection (Stewart, 1995, 22).

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Dawn Willis - 01:30pm Jan 30, 1998 ET (#2796 of 2807)

This just in from 1/30 issue of Science: Dolly may not actually be a clone from a somatic cell. The cells were taken from a frozen stock of mammary cells of a pregnant ewe, who had died. (I said earlier that a dead person couldn't be cloned--but of course if living cells are frozen, they can be). Fetal cells do circulate in pregnant females, so this cell could have been from the fetus and not the adult animal. Right now two cloned calves are awaiting birth, so we may have to wait until then to be certain somatic cell cloning is real.

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Glenn Curry - 01:51pm Jan 30, 1998 ET (#2797 of 2807)

The biggest problem with those that claim to be "Born Again" is that they think it gives them twice the rights!

James Ochsenfeld 1/29/98 1:10pm As to your promotion of Gish and his ilk. Gish is as dishonest as any from his IRC group can be. An outright liar, eg.

From Creationism: Bad Science or Immoral Pseudoscience? by Joyce Arthur

Lucy is a 40% complete skeleton of a three million-year old Australopithecine (early hominid) discovered in Ethiopia by Donald Johanson in 1973. Scientists consider Lucy to be strong evidence for human evolution, because her skeleton shows both ape-like and human characteristics. She probably walked upright, and is thought by many to be on the direct evolutionary line to humans.

Lucy is a standard component of Gish's debates. He has been repeating the same story about her since at least 1981. Gish's motive is to show that Lucy was not a transitional form between humans and apes, but just an ape that could not walk upright. After discussing Lucy briefly, he cites scientist Lord Solly Zuckerman, who Gish claims did a thorough and careful 15-year study of the Australopithecines with the conclusion that these creatures did not walk upright (see Debates- Doolittle 1981, Park 1982, Thwaites 1988, Parrish 1991; see also Gish 1982). Gish clearly implies that Zuckerman examined the Lucy skeleton itself. However, Gish has repeatedly been told in many debates over the years that this is false (see Debates-Brace 1982, Miller 1982, Saladin 1988, Thwaites 1988). Zuckerman never saw Lucy, and his conclusion on Australopithecines was made at least three years before Lucy was even discovered (Zuckerman 1970). Furthermore, Zuckerman didn't work with any of the original Australopithecine fossils. His conclusions were based on a cast of one half of the pelvis of a single specimen.

In 1982, at a high school in Lion's Head, Ontario, Gish debated Chris McGowan, a zoologist from the University of Toronto. A member of the audience, Jay Ingram, (former host

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Glenn Curry - 01:51pm Jan 30, 1998 ET (#2798 of 2807)

The biggest problem with those that claim to be "Born Again" is that they think it gives them twice the rights!

James Ochsenfeld 1/29/98 1:10pm As to your promotion of Gish and his ilk. Gish is as dishonest as any from his IRC group can be. An outright liar, eg.

From Creationism: Bad Science or Immoral Pseudoscience? by Joyce Arthur

In 1982, at a high school in Lion's Head, Ontario, Gish debated Chris McGowan, a zoologist from the University of Toronto. A member of the audience, Jay Ingram, (former host of the national Canadian radio program Quirks and Quarks), heard Gish's Lucy story, which clearly implied that Zuckerman had studied Lucy herself and concluded that she, along with other Australopithecines, did not walk upright. Knowing this was not true, Ingram asked Gish in the question and answer period why he had misled the audience. A show of hands indicated that about 90% of the audience had assumed from what Gish had said that Zuckerman had studied Lucy. Gish became very upset, lost his temper, and railed that he wasn't responsible for people misinterpreting his remarks (Ingram 1992).

Gish has never bothered to change his misleading story; in fact, he went on to increase its inaccuracy. In a 1991 debate with biologist Fred Parrish, Gish stated outright that Zuckerman had examined the Lucy skeleton itself: "For 15 years...[Zuckerman] studied fossils of Lucy and fossils of 1-2 million years younger than Lucy [sic]" (see Debates-Parrish 1991).

------------------------------------------------------------------------

Max Diaz - 02:07pm Jan 30, 1998 ET (#2799 of 2807)

Agnostics are unknowable; skeptics are questionable, and atheists don't exist.

I'm sorry I am looking for the cloning debate. Does anybody know where I can find it?

Hosted by www.Geocities.ws