clone3000

AMY FLETCHER - 01:57pm Feb 5, 1998 ET (#3000 of 3022)

I feel that clones could have a definite purpose in medical technology. However, my concern lies with the large portion church-going Americans who may or may not see clones as a slight against God. Clones may divide America further than it already is. If the use is for harvesting organs, tissue, etc., and not to create a whole new breed of humans perhaps we can integrate this new technology in our society. Otherwise, I fear for future generations divided against each other.

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

David Christen - 02:01pm Feb 5, 1998 ET (#3001 of 3022)

Swiss-Tanzanian

America can clone them - Saddam can get rid of them!

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

Michael Karras - 02:24pm Feb 5, 1998 ET (#3002 of 3022)

Cloning can be both something to seek or bury in time! In my opinion a commitee should be formed that should control this kind of experiments and not forbid. Human kind would be gratly aided by experiments of this kind. Only thing that has to be concerned is morality and wether people are ready to stand up to this "science" challenge.

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

Mike T Jones - 02:32pm Feb 5, 1998 ET (#3003 of 3022)

Roving Libertarian

deanna jarrell 2/5/98 12:55pm

Are you scared yet?

Not until someone poses a realistic doomsday scenario. The science-fiction story you posted has no basis whatsoever in reality. Get the facts before you get hysterical.

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

Mike T Jones - 02:35pm Feb 5, 1998 ET (#3004 of 3022)

Roving Libertarian

Shawn M. Richardson 2/5/98 1:17pm

Huh?

There are plenty of legitimate moral and ethical questions to be answered here without worrying about such ridiculousness. Like I said before, get the facts before you get hysterical.

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

Cynthia Smith - 03:26pm Feb 5, 1998 ET (#3005 of 3022)

There is only one CREATOR, read from the Word Of God: Beginning in the book of Genesis starting with Chapter 1. In the beginning God created heaven and earth. Not only did he create heaven and earth, but also man.

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

Carl Nicolai - 03:43pm Feb 5, 1998 ET (#3006 of 3022)

Located in Taipei Taiwan

Let me see if I have this strait.

We have religious fundimentalists whose ideas can be considered responsible for the bombing of abortion clinics and whose ideas may well lead to the bombing of cloning clinics.

Oh I get it: wrongfull death, wrongfull birth.

BTW does anyone know the legal statis of cloned human skin? Like is in now legal to use it for making gloves for instance. It might be romantic to wear leather gloves cloned from the skin of someone you loved.

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

tom.A - 03:49pm Feb 5, 1998 ET (#3007 of 3022)

Are monsters born or made?...Are Einsteins born or made?....lets find out!

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

Rob G. Schmidt - 04:25pm Feb 5, 1998 ET (#3008 of 3022)

Look, if God didn't want us to tread on his territory, he wouldn't have made it possible for us to accomplish cloning in the first place. Quit making this into a religous issue, cause NOT EVERYONE IN THE WORLD IS A CHRISTIAN! Everyone has there own beliefs and will not be dictated by a religious majority in the US (which happens to be a minority WorldWide). If someone wants to clone, and will pay for it with their own money, then clone away.

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

AMY FLETCHER - 04:48pm Feb 5, 1998 ET (#3009 of 3022)

Nobody is making this a religious issue any more than a science issue. I'm simply stating a possible future outcome based on what I have gleaned from my history lessons. This could be a potential crusade-who knows?

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

D. Watcher - 04:53pm Feb 5, 1998 ET (#3010 of 3022)

Very simple, God is the creator and "cloning" is not in God's plan for human reproduction.

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

Rob G. Schmidt - 05:11pm Feb 5, 1998 ET (#3011 of 3022)

"cloning" is not in God's plan for human reproduction? Well if we learn anything from our history lessons, it should be that religions continously change their stances as science progresses. If we shouldn't be messing around in reproduction as you state, then I suppose we should all stop receiving ultrasound, and just let God have his way. Cloning is simply the next natural progression in human discovery. Humans have a gift which no other animals have, we have it, therefore we must use it to our fullest ablities. Through cloning we will make great strides in our knowledge of human nature, genetics, and human creation.

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

Glenn Curry - 05:12pm Feb 5, 1998 ET (#3012 of 3022)

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

D. Watcher 2/5/98 4:53pm you say "Very simple, God is the creator and "cloning" is not in God's plan for human reproduction."

Simple is as simple says. And you seem to be.

First you present some mythical entity as the basis of your supposition. Rediculous. PROVE god and then we ill see about the validity of the rest of the contention. Ortherwise, don't try to use an unsupportable contention in your proposition.

And even if we accept the idiotic concept of a god, for the sake of the arguement. where do you find proof to support that YOU know what this mythical entity has as a plan?

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

Carol Emmet - 05:21pm Feb 5, 1998 ET (#3013 of 3022)

My first reaction to the subject of cloning was outright rejection of the concept. And i'm still wary of it, but i have tried to listen to other points of view. On the one hand, i think i have a problem with infertile couples using cloning as a way to get a baby that they want. (But perhaps that's because i don't understand the feeling of wanting a baby with your own genes that much ) On the other hand, i can remember when recombinant DNA technology first came on the scene, and people were absolutely appalled at the prospect of "creating" what i suppose you could call "forms of life." Yet i myself ended up being the direct beneficiary of this tecnology - i have had insulin-dependent diabetes for 36 years, and i take four insulin injections every day. Were it not for the technology that permits the production of human insulin (which is much purer and in most cases better tolerated than beef or pork insulins), i could not control my disease as well as i am able to. You may not think this is a big deal but the truth is that diabetes is one of the leading causes of blindness and kidney failure and amputation of limbs. If i can avoid having those things happen to me, then i think that's a good thing. This is just one example of what this sort of technology can do. Which isn't to say that it shouldn't be studied and monitored closely and very very carefully. If you use the (i think, faulty) analogy that only God can create life, then you might as well say that humans should not be able to "do" anything besides exist. If you believe in God or some higher power, then you have to believe, or at least i do, that we were given brains for important reasons, those reasons including to help our fellow humans by curing diseases and making food abundant and so forth.

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

Dawn Willis - 05:39pm Feb 5, 1998 ET (#3014 of 3022)

tomA> Were you the one who said we had the ability to correct genetic defects in utero? Not so. We can detect genetic defects in in vitro fertilized embryos and choose not to implant them. We cannot as yet replace a bad gene with a good one. Most cloned genes are copies of mRNA, not genomic DNA. and only contain coding regions (usually put under the control of whatever the researcher decides), and they insert at random in the genome.

Carl Nicolai: Cloned skin is grown in a layer of single cells. Much too thin for gloves! It only acquires a multilayer structure after it is placed on a suitable body surface and has a blood supply.

Glenn Curry: some people think that a belief in god has an evolutionary advantage, by providing social cohesiveness. What do you think?

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

tom.A - 06:10pm Feb 5, 1998 ET (#3015 of 3022)

Dawn Willis: "Were you the one who said we had the ability to correct genetic defects in utero?"

No I wasn't...you wasted some writing on me.

D. Watcher: The God I know has no plan for human reproduction...take a good look around you...that is quite apparent...no sheep...no plan!

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

Ron Sasala - 06:15pm Feb 5, 1998 ET (#3016 of 3022)

It is generally accepted in science that all knowledge is good, or at least morally neutral. Scientists commonly dismiss ethical questions as misdirected, saying it is not knowledge but it's application that must be judged moral or immoral.

However, Erwin Chargaff, giant of reproductive science, a biochemist whose work at Columbia Univ in the 1940s helped lay the foundations for unravelling DNAs secrets says scientific curiosity is not an unbounded good. He says resraint in asking necessary questions is one of the sacrifices that even the scientist ought to be willing to make to human dignity. Strong advice, and perhaps heretical, but well worth pondering.

Much of what Chargaff foresaw has already come to pass, including the buying and selling of human embryos. He says that a balance that does not tremble cannot weigh. He also says what he sees coming is a gigantic slaughterhouse, a molecular Auschwitz, in which valuable enzymen, hormones, and so forth will be extracted instead of gold teeth.

Today, the selling of foreskins is a very lucrative business for skin grafts, and circumcisions are on the rise. While organ growing can be very beneficial, the dream of reason in the hands of a Hitler or a Saddam Hussein can have monsterous consequences. All of us should value Chargaff's words and take them to heart.

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

Glenn Curry - 06:39pm Feb 5, 1998 ET (#3017 of 3022)

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

Dawn Willis 2/5/98 5:39pm you ask "Glenn Curry: some people think that a belief in god has an evolutionary advantage, by providing social cohesiveness. What do you think?"

"social cohesiveness"? Are you kidding? A simple review of history shows how absurd that contention is. There has not been anything even CLOSE to destroying "social cohesiveness" like religion does. Even if they share the same god myth, they find minute differences in application of the belief enough to ridicule and kill the other ones.

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

babel dispersus - 07:06pm Feb 5, 1998 ET (#3018 of 3022)

...omega

I am beginning to see it now, it is almost clear. Replace every instance of God in the Book with Man, and every instance of Man with God, and you have a less clouded view of reality. Yes, that is how it goes... In the beginning, Man created heaven and earth in his mind by seeing evidence of these things in his external environment. Then he also created God in order to make sense of these first things. He then attributed the unchanging characteristics of his environment to this overseer. But there are still more questions... If man did follow what science has discovered to be genetics, and did in fact evolve from lesser creatures, then from whence the first? Is life an illusion, composed in reality of chemical complexities?

Are you scared yet? Not until someone poses a realistic doomsday scenario.

I am very scared now... a great understanding has come to me. There is no seperate entity which we usually call life, nor is there a conscious self let alone a soul. And without His creator, there cannot be a God either. We are roaming automata with as much assurance of reality as the universe we appear to perceive, but cannot logically separate from a dream. All at once, we are both physical with no mental, and mental with no physical, or mayhap nothing at all. Are you scared yet? I am. And what if this becomes clear to the masses? Can they even comprehend let alone see the consequences? There will assuredly be global suicide as it becomes clear that, not only does life have no meaning, but there is no life either. The world as we know it, or pretend to know it, is on the verge of the physical abyssal which we already mentally and spiritually occupy. Are you scared yet?

babel dispersus

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

Joe Bauman - 07:16pm Feb 5, 1998 ET (#3019 of 3022)

Center For Advanced Biotechnology and Medicine

I'm just wondering has anyone REALLY given much thought to the idea of a clone Hitler or Saddam Hussein. I mean what would be the point of that. Do people really believe that such a person would rise to power just as the originals. I think anyone attempting such an endeavor would be very dissapointed. Leaders, especially tyranical ones, do not become leaders just based on their genes there are a near infinite other factors involved. Including luck, being in the right place at the right time. Who can say that luck never played a role in where they are today? Not to mention the same attributes that allows some one to thrive in one political climate will not ensure them to thrive in another climate.

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

Glenn Curry - 07:27pm Feb 5, 1998 ET (#3020 of 3022)

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

Dawn Willis 2/5/98 5:39pm you ask "Glenn Curry: some people think that a belief in god has an evolutionary advantage, by providing social cohesiveness. What do you think?"

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

Glenn Curry - 07:36pm Feb 5, 1998 ET (#3021 of 3022)

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

Ron Sasala 2/5/98 6:15pm you say "However, Erwin Chargaff, giant of reproductive science, a biochemist whose work at Columbia Univ in the 1940s helped lay the foundations for unravelling DNAs secrets says..."

I thank you for the insites provided. It was a good read. It is always nice to know how those involved feel on various issues. Thanks again.

However ... this borders on "Argumentum ad verecundiam". the fallacy that just because a person is regarded in one area, their views should be valid in other areas. I do not know this person's credentials and will accept how you vouch for him. But does this give him credentials in the philosophy of the ethics involved.

But I did enjoy reading his prognostications.

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

Glenn Curry - 07:43pm Feb 5, 1998 ET (#3022 of 3022)

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

babel dispersus 2/5/98 7:06pm you say "Replace every instance of God in the Book with Man, and every instance of Man with God, and you have a less clouded view of reality."

Interesting. I had always heard it by subbing god for the devil and the devil for god, it works just as well either way.

"I am very scared now... a great understanding has come to me. There is no seperate entity which we usually call life, nor is there a conscious self let alone a soul. And without His creator, there cannot be a God either."

Read B F Skinner's "Beyond Freedom and Dignity". There is, as with anything, a pessimistic and an optimistic side to this. Half full or half empty.

If we lack any self determinism, yet fall out of a boat, I'll "choose" to swim to the boat.

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

Mike T Jones - 10:01pm Feb 5, 1998 ET (#3023 of 3026)

Roving Libertarian

babel dispersus 2/5/98 7:06pm

Uhhhhh... okay. Ummmm... I'm not a philosophy student, so I'll just take your word for that... umm yeah.

This rule will get you far in evaluating new ideas: "Get the facts before you get hysterical." Feel free to wig out all you want, but only after you get all the information available.

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

Carl Nicolai - 10:40pm Feb 5, 1998 ET (#3024 of 3026)

Located in Taipei Taiwan

Dawn Willis #3014:A "single layer" I dont see how it is possable to handel it. Oxygen et all should be able to go through a layer several cells thick. Then using a pulsed laser you blow out channels say 10 cells apart (like creating alternate channels in heart tissue) and using a small ammount of preasure force the fluid through the matrix. Should be childs play to go maybe 20 cells thick.

Hmmm... I wonder what the market would be?

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

Cliff Beall - 10:50pm Feb 5, 1998 ET (#3025 of 3026)

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

Bob Janitor: Deny it all you want, but you do have the burden of proof! Sorry! It can be proved the neural network is responsible for these things. Can I prove it? No, I'm not a neural researcher... but others can and have proved it.

As you say, scientists have traced the neural network, or portions thereof, in search of causes for observed effects, and have found causes, or examples of causes, for those effects. But how do you know the answers they have found are "complete" answers? Can you tell me that you have a complete understanding of life? I have no concrete reason to believe life involves a deity, non do I have a concrete reason to believe it does not. Neither do you. There is no evidence. Therefore, when you take either side of the issue, you must take it as an article of faith. And I submit that when you have taken one side or the other--it makes no difference which side--and insist that your faith can not be wrong, you have a burden of proof. (God, being an agnostic on this board is fun. You could be one to, Bob. All you would have to do is put your faith aside. What good is it anyway?)

Jonathan Green: I don't think that cloning should be outlawed in the states, but I also don't think that the government should be responsible for the consequences or support of anyone who does try to clone anyone for any reasons other then, for example, their organs.

First, suppose a person is cloned and the experiment turns bad, and shall we say, the clone is "handicapped," who do you think will pick up the tab? My money says it would be the government, and by extension, the people, or, in other words, the taxpayers. Some people don't think we taxpayers should have a say in the matter. I disagree.

Second, cloning individual organs, if that is what you mean, is totally impractical. That the idea is continually brought up on this board--as if it was actually a realistic goal--is ridiculous.

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

Cliff Beall - 10:58pm Feb 5, 1998 ET (#3026 of 3026)

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

tom.A: You can't replicate people exactly. Even if you did clone hitler, it would probably be a "kinder gentler" furer or "just another guy" that looked like the original. The same with Einstein or anyone else. Personalities are unique and impossible to recreate.

I'm told you can't replicate people who are dead. But suppose some cells of Einstein's were frozen before his death, and from one of these, a clone was replicated, I strongly suspect the clone would be exceedingly bright. (And he would probably have trouble in school.) As for a theoretical clone of Hitler, I would suspect Hitler's clone would be a crackpot also, just like the original, but without power, he would be relatively harmless.

Dawn Willis: Cloned skin is grown in a layer of single cells. Much too thin for gloves! It only acquires a multilayer structure after it is placed on a suitable body surface and has a blood supply.

I assume you are referring to Dermagraft, skin cultured from the foreskin of circumcised babies. Those people are going to make some real money, as well they should. It is great technology.

Dawn Willis (to Glenn Curry): some people think that a belief in god has an evolutionary advantage, by providing social cohesiveness. What do you think?

Dawn, I think you may have said the wrong thing:-)

Glenn Curry: Are you kidding? A simple review of history shows how absurd that contention is. There has not been anything even CLOSE to destroying "social cohesiveness" like religion does.

Yes, I was right. We must be careful about these things, Dawn;-)

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

Johnnie Badja - 12:16am Feb 6, 1998 ET (#3024 of 3064)

I think all of you are crazy...welcome to Loon Lake. A morally bankrupt society which doesn't care who the prez is doing or who is doing him as long as your pockets are lined...and if there is money in cloning, God (yeah, there is one) help us all. That will be the ultimate end. The only reason the oil companies haven't already taken over solar energy is because none of them can figure out how they are going to be able to own the sun so they can fix prices...same with cloning...better jump on the band wagon early all of you who plan on getting in on the grass/ground field/floor...pitiful, just plain pitiful.

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

Ruby Pool - 01:09am Feb 6, 1998 ET (#3025 of 3064)

Better Read Than Said.....

Johnnie Badja:

When I started reading the posts, I thought I had landed on the loony board. Then I read yours. Thanks for common sense.

When science can create life...then they still have to create worlds and the universe to even think like God. Until then, faith will suffice for what we see and understand as wisdom and power beyond man's science truly A Creator, we call Almighty God.

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

Johnnie Badja - 01:35am Feb 6, 1998 ET (#3026 of 3064)

Thanks Ruby, glad I know there is one rational human being (if that isn't an oxymoron) on here. At first you think it is just ideology and free thinking...and the more you read the more scary it becomes. Where are all these people living that don't believe in God, think cloning for parts is okay, like human zone instead of autozone..."yeah, I need a new pancreas, oh, about 30 yrs. old" We already know that we are very near the point that anything we do can be justified. Sin is soon to be an obsolete word, and already meaningless for many people apparently. Thank God I still live in a part considered the "Bible Belt" and we may not be futuristic enough to suit you elitists but we sure do sleep well at night, after we say our prayers..Amen.

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

Cliff Beall - 01:47am Feb 6, 1998 ET (#3027 of 3064)

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

Johnnie Badja: God (yeah, there is one) help us all.

I think I like that. Has a ring. I don't suppose I could interest you in becoming an agnostic? (I didn't think so.)

Johnnie, as far as money is concerned. If an individual provides a product or service, and you buy it, they are entitled to compensation. Suppose you were a burn victim and the repair and your recovery was significantly improved by the Dermagraft product, do you not think the people supplying the product is entitled to appropriate compensation? Or suppose, a year or so from now, when the technology is available, you come down with a genetic disorder that can be successfully treated by a protein obtained from the milk of a cow or sheep, do you not think the the people that created this technology and the product derived from it should be appropriately compensated? I do.

Actually, the major promise of genetic research and cloning is the lower cost of medicines to treat dreaded illnesses. This technology will make some very expensive drugs much less expensive. In other cases, it will create treatments that can be obtained no other way. Think about it.

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

Cliff Beall - 01:57am Feb 6, 1998 ET (#3028 of 3064)

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

Johnnie Badja: Where are all these people living that don't believe in God, think cloning for parts is okay, like human zone instead of autozone..."yeah, I need a new pancreas, oh, about 30 yrs. old"

Johnnie, I just now read your new post. Sorry about the bad joke about enticing you to become an agnostic. Of course I knew better than that. I generally show more respect for other people's religion. Sorry. But if you have read many of my posts, you will know that I find cloning for parts as absurd as you do. Actually more so, I would estimate, since I doubt if you realize exactly how unpractical it really is. But animal coning will create a revolution in medicine. And that is not bad. I doubt if you will be opposed to better medical treatments derived from this technology.

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

Johnnie Badja - 02:25am Feb 6, 1998 ET (#3029 of 3064)

Cliff, no problem :) to paraphrase Voltaire, I may abhor what you say but I will fight for your right to say it, and I agree that if used properly there could be a wealth of knowledge and usage from cloning animal parts, but we are humans...and what is our greatest fraility? Rhetorical...greed, of course. So, someone, somewhere, with funding from some loon, such as Madman Saddam would have to go past the limits set and in a matter of time, we would not know to which new parent we should say "nice baby" or "new clone?" Let me interest you in changing your agnostic view for a moment and just ask yourself, if we, as a people, are able to govern ourselves and others with something that is much like atomic energy, capable of doing so much good, but an even greater potential to do harm, if in the wrong hands, where, invariably, things all ways end up...ask Monica Lewinski...sorry, last part was irresistible. BTW, I do have a genetic disease for which there is no cure. I am told it will more than likely not shorten my life by much if any, will just make me wish it would. Have a good day.

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

Bob Janitor - 03:49am Feb 6, 1998 ET (#3030 of 3064)

Well this will probably be my last post on the cloning board. As much as I enjoy a good intellectual debate, this board has turned into new people coming in, spouting off some ignorant religious (that, coincidentally, has no basis in the bible) dogmatic crap. They soon leave and never read my oh-so-witty :-) replies or respond. If idiots could fly, the cloning board would be an airport. And right now, there's heavy air traffic.

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

Robert Halley - 07:29am Feb 6, 1998 ET (#3031 of 3064)

I think people are going to far when they are trying to play God, only one person can be a creator,and that is him, He will, just let man go so far,and that is it,If anyone out there is a christian, you better start reading your Bible,because in Revelations, you know,who wins in the end, thats, right, God himself, and all this,cloning will come to an end. IF anyone knows someone or a scientist,who does cloning,ask him,if he believes in the real creator,don;t be surprised,by his answer. Leave the people making to God.

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

Ernest Rockwell - 09:22am Feb 6, 1998 ET (#3032 of 3064)

It strikes me as somewhat odd that many of the same people, our ILLustrious president especially, who are PRO-abortion are ANTI-cloning. Is it okay to kill a life which was conceived naturally but immoral to make a life artificially? The logic in that argument is not simply flawed, it is perverse and frightening.

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

Jeremy Durand - 10:06am Feb 6, 1998 ET (#3033 of 3064)

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

Here are some hypothetical questions:

If a human with a genetically aquired and life threatening illness or disease is cloned, would he/she not be guilty of a criminal act (such as assault)? He/She would have knowingly brought an life into this world knowing that, when the baby clone is born, it will have the same disease.

Should they even be allowed to clone themselves?

Likewise, would the same person be guilty if they conceived a baby naturally?

Could be ground for future criminal lawsuits?

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

tom.A - 10:19am Feb 6, 1998 ET (#3034 of 3064)

The only usefullness that I can see is cloning violent criminals and intelligent/talented people. That way you would answer the age old question about nature and nuture for good. If you cloned (John), Paul, George and Ringo...would there be another Beatles? NOOOOT!

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

tom.A - 10:24am Feb 6, 1998 ET (#3035 of 3064)

Cliff Beale: You obviously believe that monsters (and geniuses) are born and not made. That is a very contentious issue. Especially when you bring God into the issue.

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

Keith Fosberg - 10:50am Feb 6, 1998 ET (#3036 of 3064)

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

Johnnie Badja,

A note about the oil corporations and solar energy; The largest and most effective solar furnace is co-owned and opperated by Exxon and Cal Edison as a "research" facility.

You are correct about the greed of these folk, as I understand it they are developing solar technology, but don't have plans to implement it until the current energy market begins to loose share due to lack of raw material.

Jeremy Durand,

That question might be better suited for the other science board, "Genetic Discrimination," but it is interesting. Given recent rulings based on HIV sufferers being criminally responsible this type of legislation might come to pass.

To all of the people using the phrase, "Man playing God";

May I respectfully request that you grab a dictionary and look up the terms, creation, development, and reproduction before you start slinging the brimstone around?

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

Robert Kuffel - 11:57am Feb 6, 1998 ET (#3037 of 3064)

Bob Janitor, Sounds like you are pretty intolerant and dogmatic yourself, the very thing that religious people (particularly Christians) all around are accused of. As this is my first time on the board here, how studied are you in the scriptures to come to the conclusion that the biblically-based religious views out there on the cloning board are WRONG?

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

Taché, Garett - 12:32pm Feb 6, 1998 ET (#3038 of 3064)

Don't we have enough problems with the way things are? Shouldn't we work on improving the human race as it is now before we try to create clones of imperfection?

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

Ray Toothman - 01:15pm Feb 6, 1998 ET (#3039 of 3064)

I do not believe that the human race is smart enough to play GOD. While we may have the methods down pat, we sure do not have the ethics. Consider these possible clones.

Sadaam Hussien - great doubles

William J. Clinton - do we want another

Richard Speck - duplicate killers

Second disturbing thought - Who is the real original and who is the clone ?

Third disturbing thought - What genitic problems will arise from this. Do you really want another you ?

Final thought - Is the clone a person or a thing ?

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

Christian Delong - 01:50pm Feb 6, 1998 ET (#3040 of 3064)

I think that the most frightening thing about human cloning is that it forces some paople to change the way that they view the world. It serves as a frontier; if crossed, the human race would be more of a scientific creature than a godly creature. Scientific inquiry has always been bound by religious dogma. If we as a society could come up with guidelines for ethical use of this technology rather than challenging the inevitable, then we could allay some of our fears. We could focus on deriving potential benefits.

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

Valerie Jones - 04:19pm Feb 6, 1998 ET (#3041 of 3064)

Is the clone a person or a thing ?

A clone is just as much of a person as identical twins are original and real people. Once I was amazed in my sunday school class to find out that some people who were so opposed to cloning didn't even know that identical twins were genetic copies of each other,just like clones.

Who is the real original and who is the clone ?

Even a clone and the original would be different. Everyone, including twins, have slight variations in their DNA. That is why twins look a little different. Clones would be the same way.

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

Michael Guzzo - 04:57pm Feb 6, 1998 ET (#3042 of 3064)

Wake up people. There is no "God." You pray to someone, but when it's said and done, it's really all the same... just got a different name. If cloning a superior creature is possible, (humans, in this case) - more power to the cause. Why not reproduce some quality, rather than a lot of worthless, meritless people like the kind in much of today's society... in your neighborhood... on your block... murdering your children. Power to the cloners. Yeah baby.

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

Glenn Curry - 05:27pm Feb 6, 1998 ET (#3043 of 3064)

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

Cliff Beall 2/5/98 10:50pm you say "I have no concrete reason to believe life involves a deity,"

Of course you don't NOBODY does.

"non do I have a concrete reason to believe it does not. Neither do you. There is no evidence. Therefore, when you take either side of the issue, you must take it as an article of faith. And I submit that when you have taken one side or the other--it makes no difference which side--and insist that your faith can not be wrong, you have a burden of proof."

This arguement by FAITH is usually taken on by one from the religious side of the issue, not a fence sitting Agnostic. (Agnostic, an Atheist that hasn't been able to drop the fear yet.) :-> But it is not valid

1) A _Theist_ is someone that believes one or more of the thousands of god (deity/ whatever) myths. Atheist means A-(not)-theist or "not a theist". Atheism does not REQUIRE a negativew belief in a god myth. An Atheist can be someone with no thoughcts about a god one way or another. Someone brought up in a society which does not hold any god myths would be an Atheist.

2) Therefore, since it is possible to NOT have ANY thoughts about a god myth of one type or another, it is required to invent propositions which would justify even evaluating whether there is a god or not. This violates Ockham's Razor and is therefore invalid. EVERYTHING we can interact with, everything in our existence can be explained to reasonable satisfaction with known physical "laws" (theories). There has not been one single identifiable phenomenon that is not explainable to a REASONABLE extent (existence itself can not be proven beyond a reasonable extent). There is no need to invent additional 3rd party elements.

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

Glenn Curry - 05:27pm Feb 6, 1998 ET (#3044 of 3064)

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

3) While it is not possible to prove that there is no god of any type, it IS possible to use simple Critical Thinking skills and Scientific Method to evalute those that ARE documented. Take the Greek gods, Zeuss and the boys. There are books about them, shrines, legends and many people have believed in them. But who today would be so ignorant as to profess absolute belief in their current existence and control of the world? An Atheist merely adds one or two more god myths to the thousands that everyone else already is willing WITHOUT the need of FAITH to reject. The difference in god myth rejection between a Xian and an Atheist is less than 0.1% disbelief in gods.

4) Then there is the The Atheists Certainty. It is as impossible to prove that there is no Easter Bunny or Tooth Fairy as it is god or Flying Reindeer. But we can evaluate all of the information available to us and state with reasonable certainty that there is no .... (Easter Bunny, Tooth Fairy, god or flying reindeer ...)

It is well acknowledged that it is impossible to prove a negative. That is why the "Burden of Proof" always falls on those that wish to believe the positive. But that does not mean that someone can not accept the overwhelming evidence AGAINST the existence of soemthing (like a god) and state that for all intents and purposes "There is no god". And not require FAITH to do it anymore than denying the existence of the man in the moon.

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

Glenn Curry - 05:34pm Feb 6, 1998 ET (#3045 of 3064)

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

Cliff Beall 2/5/98 10:58pm you say "I assume you are referring to Dermagraft, skin cultured from the foreskin of circumcised babies."

And all of this talk about "female genital mutilation". Yet this antiquated barbaric ritual still goes on.

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

Glenn Curry - 05:40pm Feb 6, 1998 ET (#3046 of 3064)

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

Ruby Pool 2/6/98 1:09am says "faith will suffice for what we see and understand as wisdom and power beyond man's science truly A Creator, we call Almighty God."

to which Johnnie Badja 2/6/98 1:35am adds "Thanks Ruby, glad I know there is one rational human being"

The desire to reject everything society has learned and instead place your faith and your very lives in a philosophy which has no credibile support, which requires the exclusive use of BLIND FAITH is as far from RATIONAL as one can get.

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

M. Abley - 05:45pm Feb 6, 1998 ET (#3047 of 3064)

When good discussion on the topic breaks down, people in desperation bring in God and religion.

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

Noel Yap - 05:49pm Feb 6, 1998 ET (#3048 of 3064)

George E. Tessier Jr. We should go full speed ahead on human cloning

CNN's lost me with all the moves, but I'm back. For the ones not familiar with my views, here they are:

0. We should never move too fast with any technology. Society moves much slower than technology. It still has to keep up.

1. I guess I've been away so long that: 0. I've forgotten what other issues there were. Or,

1. The first item 0 summed them up.

Someone (perhaps Tom A?): Bob Janitor (aka Noel Yap and/or cliff beale): Why the name change? Trying to hide something?...those

Wow, amazing, I've been away this long and my legacy remains. What an honor. Well, I don't know about Bob, but I work in New York. Cliff just emailed me, he lives in Oklahoma. Of course, this doesn't prove anything. I'm surprised you haven't caught the differences between Cliff and my English usage (ie I intersperse some Yiddish every now and then. I assume there's a lot less Jews in Oklahoma that they don't have this much an effect on culture.

Bob Janitor: OK, here's how genetics is involved in development...

Looks like I agree with what you say.

Bob Janitor: How could there be side effects?

We don't know. Let's take small steps and find out a little at a time.

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

Noel Yap - 05:49pm Feb 6, 1998 ET (#3049 of 3064)

Bob Janitor: It's not like at some point in the future the clone breaks down into some psychopathic mutant.

Since development is affected by the environment (including the environment before fertilisation), this could happen, although I think it's highly unlikely.

Bob Janitor: the human species have ceased to evolve due to a lack of selective pressure in our society.

Societal pressures have replaced physical pressures. This leads to memetic evolution being more important than genetic evolution in the development of our species.

Bob Janitor: Disease is simply impossible to get rid of, even if we manage to genetically boost our immune system.

I completely agree. Life is a series of competitions. It's kinda like stealing cars. New devices are invented to prevent theft and thieves invent new ways to circumvent these devices. It's an ever-escalating cycle.

Bob Janitor: Suffering is part of the circle of life.

I completely agree with this, too.

Jared Christophel: What about the aging of the DNA used to produce the identical twin?

Although the cell would be chosen so as to decrease the likelihood of mutations (including shortening of telomeres) (ie chosen from the liver or something), I don't think it'll completely eliminate all mutations.

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

Noel Yap - 05:50pm Feb 6, 1998 ET (#3050 of 3064)

tom.A

Another name change?

Bob Janitor: Study things yourself and reach your own conclusions-- but don't rush in with emotions and ignorance as many have done with cloning.

I agree. Fear of the unknown is natural. We should deal with it rationally. We should neither run away from something 'cos we're scared nor run towards something 'cos of the thrill of new discovery.

Bob Janitor: Once you die, your neural net breaks down, thought processes stop, and it decays. You cease to exist.

Your assuming that mind cannot function apart from the brain.

Bob Janitor: Nope. But not banned.

Is a ban for five years a ban?

babel dispersus: If we do not interpret reality but only process sensory information, does reality even exist?

Reality exists, but it's subjective.

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

Noel Yap - 05:50pm Feb 6, 1998 ET (#3051 of 3064)

babel dispersus: And without free will, the universe is deterministic...

Free will isn't necessary for non-determinism.

babel dispersus: No... I cannot accept the consequences to this cognition. It would require the complete and total annihilation of my entire belief structure, which is a part of what I am, if I can even be said to exist. I must continue to believe that I do, for what is more real than the self? If you cannot be sure of your own perceptions, then faith in anything -- especially reality -- rests on a nonexistant foundation.

Hey, I like this. It sums up my beliefs on beliefs.

Mr. Mister: If we can't deal with the worst case scenario then we shouldn't take the chance.

I disagree.

Mr. Mister: Want to frame someone for a murder? Clone them and have the clone do the killing.

If you can wait the two decades for the clone to grow up and brain wash them to murder for you.

Mr. Mister: There are just too many new things that we need to consider before we continue to proceed with this.

Before we proceed with experimentation, yes. OTOH, research must be done so that we can learn something before we make mistakes.

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

M. Abley - 05:51pm Feb 6, 1998 ET (#3052 of 3064)

There is really no point in cloning people. If there is, will one of you out there please tell me?

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

Noel Yap - 05:51pm Feb 6, 1998 ET (#3053 of 3064)

The government will try to preserve itself as much as it can. This includes easing the turmoil of the masses. It can't do this by having an out-right ban on cloning. Nor will unregulated growth achieve its goals. Decisions such as these aren't binary -- the government can opt for regulated growth of the industry.

Kristina: I don't know about an all out ban of cloning, but if cloning ever becomes common, what would the social status of clones be?

Misfits until everyone gets used to them (which will be fast 'cos noone'll ever know a clone was a clone unless they came out of the closet.)

Kristina: People (in general) are afraid of cloning, and would likely fear clones.

People in general are afraid of anything new.

Kristina: What would happen to these poor clones, who had no say in how they were born?

Grow up as normal kids being teased for any differences they had with everyone else (ie skin color, slanty eyes, eye glasses, ...)

Kristina: If this sort of thing does happen, it would be cruel and inhumane to clone humans,

I disagree. Suffering is part of life. We might as well drug everyone up if elimination of suffering is our goal.

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

Noel Yap - 05:51pm Feb 6, 1998 ET (#3054 of 3064)

AMY FLETCHER: Otherwise, I fear for future generations divided against each other.

Which is why we should strive for a smooth transition phase possibly spanning several decades or generations -- society must accept new technology if it is to be used widely.

Michael Karras: Only thing that has to be concerned is morality and wether people are ready to stand up to this "science" challenge.

Morality is only an issue as far as people make it one. When society is ready for the technology, it will be developed.

Rob G. Schmidt: NOT EVERYONE IN THE WORLD IS A CHRISTIAN!

We're not talking about the world. The US doesn't pass legislation for the world. Much of the US is Christian. Although I disagree with their opinions, US legislation will take them into account.

Rob G. Schmidt: Well if we learn anything from our history lessons, it should be that religions continously change their stances as science progresses.

Yes, and since religion does control many people, it should be given some time to change its stance on this topic so as to minimize any turmoil.

Dawn Willis: some people think that a belief in god has an evolutionary advantage, by providing social cohesiveness. What do you think?

I know this wasn't addressed to me, but, religion exists for a reason. Those reasons may no longer exist or the niche may be filled by something else. If this is so, it will take time for memetic evolution to select out the right memes (ie mysticism vs science; perhaps a dab of both.) So, there's no reason to artificially speed up the process.

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

Noel Yap - 05:52pm Feb 6, 1998 ET (#3055 of 3064)

Ron Sasala: [Erwin Chargaff] says resraint in asking necessary questions is one of the sacrifices that even the scientist ought to be willing to make to human dignity.

This assumes, perhaps correctly, that humanity is not ready to face certain answers. If so, instead of restraining in searching for answers, how about restraining in publicizing those answers?

Joe Bauman: Who can say that luck never played a role in where they are today?

There are three kinds of luck. You speak of blind luck. The other two are somewhat controlled by the individual. For example, I decide to study Russian 'cos I felt like it. Later on, the education helps me land a job (possibly 'cos I impressed the Russian interviewer with some phrase or something.) Is this luck?

I have very little doubt that a cloned Hitler will achieve a lot in his life (perhaps CEO of an organisation.) I sincerely doubt, however, that he'll seek global domination.

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

Glenn Curry - 06:02pm Feb 6, 1998 ET (#3056 of 3064)

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

Robert Kuffel 2/6/98 11:57am you ask "how studied are you in the scriptures to come to the conclusion that the biblically-based religious views out there on the cloning board are WRONG?"

Because the BIBLE is WRONG. It's that simple. If the source is in error, the conclussions drawn from erroneous materials are most apt to be erroneous themselves. But there is always random chance.

As far as the bible on genetics though...

Genesis 30:37-41 has Jacob taking sticks and putting spots on them. Then placing the sticks infront of pregnant sheep, he is able to change the genetics of the offsprings.

Yep, that very process is being used in labs around the world! After all if it's in the bile, it must be correct! And zebra's are born in front of strpied sticks

A yelp a yelp..

What a hoot!

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

Glenn Curry - 06:06pm Feb 6, 1998 ET (#3057 of 3064)

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

Valerie Jones 2/6/98 4:19pm you say "Once I was amazed in my sunday school class to find out that some people who were so opposed to cloning didn't even know that identical twins were genetic copies of each other,just like clones."

So ask at your sunday school, If the the soul is imparted at fertilization to the single celled egg, and the seperation of the egg into two zyotes for twins happens weeks afterward, which ONE gets the soul?

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

Glenn Curry - 06:10pm Feb 6, 1998 ET (#3058 of 3064)

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

M. Abley 2/6/98 5:45pm you say "When good discussion on the topic breaks down, people in desperation bring in God and religion."

Without god myths or religious dogma, there is nothing that could be said against the advncements tjhat cloning can bring us. It is only when viewed thru antiquated superstitions or dogmatic ignorance that one developes the "should play god" garbage.

If religion wasn't once again trying to hold society back, there would be no discussion. We would just continue to advance.

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

Glenn Curry - 06:13pm Feb 6, 1998 ET (#3059 of 3064)

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

Noel Yap 2/6/98 5:50pm you say "Your assuming that mind cannot function apart from the brain."

OK, show us that the mind CAN function apart from the brain. This ought to be a doozy.

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

Glenn Curry - 06:16pm Feb 6, 1998 ET (#3060 of 3064)

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

M. Abley 2/6/98 5:51pm you sak "There is really no point in cloning people. If there is, will one of you out there please tell me?"

The number one benefit I see in human cloning is to allow infertile couples to have a genetically connected offspring. What greater work can science perform than to provide an offspring to caring parents?

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

Amber Lyn - 06:25pm Feb 6, 1998 ET (#3061 of 3064)

Resident ponderer...

What do you think about cloning human babies for infertile couples?

No way. They can adopt or not have children, or pay in full.

What steps do you think the FDA should take to control cloning?

None. The FDA should but out of this, this has nothing to do with them. This should be goverend by the same body that controls medical/surgical techniques.

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

Dawn Willis - 06:29pm Feb 6, 1998 ET (#3062 of 3064)

Johnnie Badja: I live in the bible belt too, and although I was raised as a fundamentalist I outgrew it when I became a scientist. There are atheists, agnostics, etc. in the South. More of the others, I do admit. Anyway, although I am an agnostic (or atheist by Glenn Curry's definition), I would never grow humans for spare parts. I would grow pigs for spare parts, and I think that is what cloning will bring--pigs with livers, hearts, etc. that won't be rejected by a human.

Glenn, Cliff, Noel: I asked the question about evolution and religion because I believe in evolution, so there must be some reason that religions survive. Our brains are programmed to recognize patterns and give meaning--like snakes with rattles are bad. Maybe it is better for our survival that we find meaning where none exists (false positives) than not to find it where it does (false negatives). Better to avoid all snakes than risk getting bitten by a rattler??

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

Rakin(Rahkeen) Ahsan Hall - 06:35pm Feb 6, 1998 ET (#3063 of 3064)

Aside from the religious aspects of this disscussion, I believe we as human beings are not ready to clone anything. Our society is so use to rushing to quick judments (we all remember the fen fen hype). Everytime a group or person invents something, we are so quick to adopt it. In our world we have Planes that crash, fax machines that don' t transmit, cars that don't work, and medicines that are outdated. Now "man" has the concete to try and clone animals, and at the same time, have the nerve to think about doing the same to humans! In this new age of the infromation super highway, I still miss a great majority of my messages. More on the emotinal side, we have a hard time caring for the people on our planet as it is, how are we going to care for a clone of someone/ something? People of different ethnicities are often looked down on as being sub- human. Throughout our short history "man" has desroyed everything he has come in contact with. Slavery, the holocoust, Waco Texas, and the Tuskeegee experiment. I truley fear the day when we have to deal with clones.

Rakin Ahsan Hall

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

M. Abley - 07:39pm Feb 6, 1998 ET (#3064 of 3064)

Glenn Curry: My Karma ran over your Dogma.

I can't imagine a sane infertile couple cloning in order to procreate. The majority of infertile people still produce the necessary sex cells themselves so there is still no rational reason to clone. In cases where a male or female has been surgically altered due to accident, disease or sex change, they can go somewhere else and get the cells.

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

Richard Lang - 10:22pm Feb 6, 1998 ET (#3064 of 3070)

Hey Luddites,

It's going to happen, get over it. The world will not end. Rich men will not "live" forever. It's much ado about nothing. It's another way to have a baby. It's the same thing as having a twin many years late.

Will it have a soul? Answer: If you got one, he/she will have one.

Will rich people live forever? Answer: No, you idiot. Unless of course you believe that everything YOU do is controlled by genetics.

Look folks, when you clone somehthing it is born the same way you and I are, it grows up influenced by what it sees and hears and it is as distinct a human being as any twin.

Get over your superstious ways because no matter what laws we pass today, someday they'll look back on us all and wonder what kind of savages lived back then.

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

Bob Janitor - 01:05am Feb 7, 1998 ET (#3065 of 3070)

Ahh! The Bob came back, the very next day... he just couldn't stay away.

Will rich people live forever? Answer: No, you idiot. Unless of course you believe that everything YOU do is controlled by genetics.

This is simply not true. It is possible to clone a new body (though you don't need an exact clone, anyone with roughly the same size skull cavity would do), remove the brain, implant the brain of the rich dude (in essence a massive neural grafting), and use either fetal neural tissue or an up-and-coming double-inhibitory chemical to regenerate the neural connections. The skull would have to be surgically rebuilt but that wouldn't be a problem.

This could continue for theoretically forever, with the brain regenerating new neural cells as old one dies, or fetal neural tissue grafts taking their place. Once we learn more about genetic engineering, we could also enable aggressive regeneration in the entire body. In a sense, it would live forever-- it would have no maximum lifespan and would heal much more quickly and from much more severe wounds. But, everything dies. Sooner or later, something would kill the rich guy.

FACT: Brain transplants have been performed, even cross species, on lower animals with complete success.

FACT: Hydras and other animals regnerate aggressively and can even be cut in half and regenerate

FACT: Fetal neural tissue replaces dead brain cells and is use as a treatment on Alzhimer's victims

FACT: Neural tissue grafts achieve a 100% success rate with absolutely no rejection

FACT: Rebuilding the skull is a current medical procedure

However, the word "lich" comes to mind.

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

Cliff Beall - 02:13am Feb 7, 1998 ET (#3066 of 3070)

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

Johnnie Badja: and I agree that if used properly there could be a wealth of knowledge and usage from cloning animal parts...

Good. At least we agree on that. Where we disagree is the so called "madman" concerns. The reason we disagree is not that I favor such use, but simply because I think this concern is unrealistic. While I agree that human cloning is possible, a lot of things are possible, and a lot of things are worse. An example of something I think is a lot worse is abortion.

Johnnie Badja: ask Monica Lewinski...sorry, last part was irresistible

Wrong board. I understand CNN has a board for such comments.

Johnnie Badja: BTW, I do have a genetic disease for which there is no cure. I am told it will more than likely not shorten my life by much if any, will just make me wish it would.

Then you ought to be intensely interested in the advancements in medical treatment that this technology promises. Perhaps, because of this technology, you won't have to suffer so greatly at the end of your life. As you know, I consider myself an agnostic. As an agnostic, I doubt the existence of God. But as an agnostic, I freely admit the "possibility" of being wrong. You asked me to put aside my agnostic view for a moment. Okay, I have. And now that I have, it occurs to me that you, as a Christian, must have prayed for God's help with your affliction. How do you know that this is not God's answer to your prayers? And maybe not just your prayers, but those of the millions of people who have been similarly afflicted or have children similarly affected. How do that know that this is not the answer to their prayers as well?

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

Cliff Beall - 02:15am Feb 7, 1998 ET (#3067 of 3070)

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

Bob Janitor: Well this will probably be my last post on the cloning board. As much as I enjoy a good intellectual debate, this board has turned into new people coming in, spouting off some ignorant religious (that, coincidentally, has no basis in the bible) dogmatic crap. They soon leave and never read my oh-so-witty :-) replies or respond.

Actually, I think it is getting better. I read every single post. There seemed to be more sanity tonight than a week ago. But perhaps my view is skewed by Noel's reappearance.

Ernest Rockwell: It strikes me as somewhat odd that many of the same people, our ILLustrious president especially, who are PRO-abortion are ANTI-cloning. Is it okay to kill a life which was conceived naturally but immoral to make a life artificially? The logic in that argument is not simply flawed, it is perverse and frightening.

Yeah, "strain at a gnat, and swallow a camel," as my mother used to quote. I think that passage in Matthew was her favorite Bible passage.

tom.A: Cliff Beale: You obviously believe that monsters (and geniuses) are born and not made. That is a very contentious issue. Especially when you bring God into the issue.

I don't think I would put it quite that way, but it appears to me that certain characteristics, such as appearance, voice, native intelligence, even the nature of ones thought patterns, are genetically linked. I fail to see why this observation should be contentious. The evidence is pretty clear, it seems to me.

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

Cliff Beall - 02:17am Feb 7, 1998 ET (#3068 of 3070)

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

Glenn Curry: Atheist means A-(not)-theist or "not a theist". Atheism does not REQUIRE a negativew belief in a god myth. An Atheist can be someone with no thoughcts about a god one way or another. Someone brought up in a society which does not hold any god myths would be an Atheist.

Theoretically, you are correct. But in practice, I have found people who identify themselves as atheists are generally people who emphatically deny even the possibility of a deity. And, by the way, since you are so quick with a dictionary, would you do me a favor and look up the word "gay" and tell me what it means.

Actually, I thought you were doing pretty well with your argument until you said:

But that does not mean that someone can not accept the overwhelming evidence AGAINST the existence of soemthing (like a god) and state that for all intents and purposes "There is no god".

Precisely, where is this overwhelming evidence AGAINST the existence of God to which you refer? You say there is evidence and that it is overwhelming, but where is it. Stating that it is the same as the man in the moon may be your opinion, but it is not evidence. Your logic is severely flawed. It is for good reason that I disassociate myself from atheists and this kind of flawed logic. I shall remain an agnostic, thank you.

Glenn Curry: And all of this talk about "female genital mutilation". Yet this antiquated barbaric ritual still goes on.

To each his own, I suppose.

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

Cliff Beall - 02:19am Feb 7, 1998 ET (#3069 of 3070)

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

Glenn Curry: The desire to reject everything society has learned and instead place your faith and your very lives in a philosophy which has no credibile support, which requires the exclusive use of BLIND FAITH is as far from RATIONAL as one can get.

I don't think that is a fair statement. I consider both Ruby and Johnnie to be at least as rational as you. I don't blame them for not trusting you to speak for them. I feel about the same way.

Noel Yap: We should never move too fast with any technology. Society moves much slower than technology. It still has to keep up.

I suppose it is about time for me to admit that you were right and I was wrong. For those who don't know, Noel and I used to have a disagreement. He said society was not ready for human cloning. I maintained it was as ready as it was ever going to get and argued that cloning would be seen in a similar light as invitro fertilization. I pointed out that in the beginning, invitro was very controversial, until people saw the first invitro child on TV, and saw how beautiful she was. As might be expected, people loved the child and, as might be expected, they decided there couldn't possibly be anything wrong with the way she came into being.

I thought it would be the same with the first clone child. I was wrong. (But then, I didn't count on the PR disaster that Seed perpetrated.)

Noel Yap: Is a ban for five years a ban?

That was the President's proposal. But it appears to me that the ban the congress is likely to write will not be for a set period of time. Thus, in order to allow it at some future time additional legislation will be required. However, the ban will prohibit cloning for reproductive purposes only. Thus the medical research will continued, and that is what is important.

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

Cliff Beall - 02:24am Feb 7, 1998 ET (#3070 of 3070)

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

Glenn Curry: So ask at your sunday school, If the the soul is imparted at fertilization to the single celled egg, and the seperation of the egg into two zyotes for twins happens weeks afterward, which ONE gets the soul?

Glenn, I have to agree with much of what you say because I just happen to think you are right, but I really hate the way you say it. You have the charm of a dragon. That really was uncalled for. Valerie's post was as nice as it could be, deserved some respect, and you just trashed it. So much for promoting good feelings on the board.

Dawn Willis: Glenn, Cliff, Noel: I asked the question about evolution and religion because I believe in evolution, so there must be some reason that religions survive. Our brains are programmed to recognize patterns and give meaning--like snakes with rattles are bad. Maybe it is better for our survival that we find meaning where none exists (false positives) than not to find it where it does (false negatives). Better to avoid all snakes than risk getting bitten by a rattler??

Dawn, that is a profound thought. It is also one hell of a valid point. I knew you had something in mind, but I couldn't figure it out. I also admire the way you drove it home. Addressing the question to Glenn was a stroke of genius. Sounds like something I would do (in my wildest dreams).

Bob Janitor: Ahh! The Bob came back, the very next day... he just couldn't stay away.

Great. It is addictive isn't it?

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

Blair Steenerson - 05:23am Feb 7, 1998 ET (#3071 of 3072)

Cloning (etc. and all the positives and negatives it entails) is going to happen eventually. Whether it is 5 years from now or 500 (long after we are all gone)will be an insignificant difference in the overall scheme of things

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

Hupjé Robert - 09:42am Feb 7, 1998 ET (#3072 of 3072)

Cloning people is the most absurd thing I've ever heard. Imagine they clone someone like CHIRAC of France and he starts doing Nuclear testing somewhere in your neighbourhood. Or BiLL Clinton.........................

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

Thomas Lenius - 09:52am Feb 7, 1998 ET (#3073 of 3075)

I think it is interesting that people recognize the inevitability of cloning, but I am curious to know how you all feel about aclone's rights. Does a clone deserve rights? Or are they to be treated as biological reservoirs for the cloned being? Secondly, if it were possible for you to be cloned, would want to be? I would have to say I am uneasy about the potential for this technology, because it seems that this is not a necessary application for medicine. I also wonder how the resultant clones would be treated.

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

Rodger Whitney - 10:17am Feb 7, 1998 ET (#3074 of 3075)

IF the rich choose to clone themselves, it would still be a new and separate person. The brain and all the influences on that brain from birth are the controlling factor in what a person will ultimately be and do, though genetics does influence the potential of that person.

I have passed on to my daughter many appearance charecteristics and near-sightedness. This does not make her a clone, but the genetic influences direct her potential.

Cloning is not the evil that some would have you believe. It is a panic created by news organizations to sell advertising.

IF the United States is so shortsighted as to ban or limit cloning research and practice, some other country will begin to use cloning to preserve the best speimens in physical charecteristics and brainpower...and we will be left behind again.

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

Cliff Beall - 10:54am Feb 7, 1998 ET (#3075 of 3075)

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

Blair, that is what you call the BIG picture :-) Sort of puts things in perspective. Probably not a bad idea at this particular time on this particular board. Last night when I was composing my posts, cloning was, in my mind, probably the most important thing since the big bang. Thanks for the reminder about the "overall scheme of things."

Hupjé, last night, I felt compelled to defend a post that I had written to the effect that a clone of Einstein would be exceedingly bright, and probably have trouble in school. This is because I think that certain characteristics like native intelligence and patterns of thought are genetically related. By patterns of thought, I mean attention span or the ability to concentrate, relative drive to overcome obstacles, a tendency to be absentminded, perhaps even the sense of humor one tends to have.

However, there is no evidence that a clone would react to the same historical events as the original. A clone of Clinton would likely be found to be extremely attractive to the opposite sex, despite indiscretions. But the series of events or accidents that put Clinton in the White House is unlikely to be repeated with respect to a clone of Clinton. The same holds for the French President. A clone of Chirac would be unlikely to have any association with Nuclear testing.

Have a nice day.

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

Cliff Beall - 11:11am Feb 7, 1998 ET (#3076 of 3076)

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

Rodger: IF the United States is so shortsighted as to ban or limit cloning research and practice, some other country will begin to use cloning to preserve the best speimens in physical charecteristics and brainpower...and we will be left behind again.

I think this concern about the US being left behind originated with sputnik. Exactly what does it mean?

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

Michael Pomorski - 11:59am Feb 7, 1998 ET (#3077 of 3077)

University of Michigan

I think humans will one day be cloned, and that it is a good thing. Perhaps the greatest advantage will be the cloaning of human organs for medical use. I'm not saying we clone entire humans just to tear out organs for others to use, but we clone the organs so people needing them don't have to wait for someone to die to get a useable organ. As for the cloning of whole humans... It definitely has some advantages, but I wouldn't want to be the first scientist to do it. They will be seen as a "Mad Scientist" or some wild, God-less freak. It is a shame that science can't advance without being blasted from all sides still. You would expect that from people if it were still the Dark Ages, but it still happens today. Science is, contrary to popular belief, not dead set on destroying religion. We don't want to clone humans to destroy faith in God, we want to do it to advance mankind. I don't think God would give us the intellect to do such things if we weren't "allowed" to. A clone would be a human being, not some freak of nature. So don't let biases preclude them from society before they exist.

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

Cliff Beall - 01:01pm Feb 7, 1998 ET (#3078 of 3078)

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

Michael, my questions to you are:

1. What makes you think that cloning of individual vital organs is feasible?

2. In what way will cloning humans advance mankind?

Vital organs are dependent on a continual stream of messages from the brain to maintain proper function. This means that in order to clone an individual vital organ such as a heart, pancreas or liver, separate from a body, you would need to first construct an artificial brain capable of sending the correct signals to the target organ. Next, the organ must have appropriate nutrients to maintain proper function and the means of eliminating waste. Therefore you would need an artificial circulatory system capable of sending the appropriate nutrients to the organ and receiving back the waste. And then, of course, you would need a filtering system of some sort to remove the waste. And this is just for starters. Undoubtedly, a whole host of other problems would have to be overcome. It would be incredibly difficult and incredibly expensive, and nobody is even close to knowing how to do it. In short, it is totally unrealistic.

Nevertheless, this idea seems to have a life of its own. It has been repeated over and over on this board as if it is the gospel. I have repeatedly pointed out the impracticality of this idea, and nobody has ever challenged me with a contrary argument. But, oftentimes, the very next message will suggest it. I am absolutely mystified by the phenomenon. Can you tell me where you first came across this stupid, impractical idea?

Regarding advancement of mankind, while I would not oppose human cloning for reproductive purposes, provided it was done by competent scientists using standardized methods (after they are developed), I fail to see how human cloning is supposed to "advance mankind." I don't see how it would have much affect at all except to narrow the gene pool slightly. Can you illuminate?

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

Bernard Ramirez - 03:41pm Feb 7, 1998 ET (#3079 of 3080)

Human Cloning challenges society's most basic cell : the family. The general accepted family model consists of at least two people, a mother and a father. However, human cloning can be seen as a way for people to "create" their own families alone, thanks to the availability of the wombs-for-rent. So a man doesn't need a women to procreate anymore, and a woman doesn't need a man for the same purpose. We all know there are several methods for achieving this same result, but the particularity of human cloning is that your own genetic material is involved, and the technique seems to be straigthforward, which does not happen in other ones.

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

Christine Piltzecker - 03:52pm Feb 7, 1998 ET (#3080 of 3080)

I believe that it is pre-mature to define cloning as an evil destined to be this worlds ruination. However I am torn at the prospect. While I believe that it is a necessity in this world to use the intelligence that we have been given to further enhance a person's quality of life (by this I am referring to the prospect of cloning for organ purposes), I am unclear as to where the line between life-enhancement and self-enhancement will be drawn. Who will maintain those boundaries and how will we procecute those who don't? The prospect of creating another human being through science is facinating and would open whole worlds of questions and perhaps provide us with a different understanding as to the development of the human spirit. I find this frightening as well.What of this person we create? Who will maintain the security for their rights? I am unclear how to clone a healthy heart without it being seperate from the rest of the being, and what do we tell this new being that we create of it's destiny? Can we clone a human without a brain? Even with my hesitations however, who are we to throw rocks at the moon ? If we did everytime a new technology was developed and implemented, current organ transplantation would never have been. I surly could not be chatting through this medium.

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

Cliff Beall - 04:13pm Feb 7, 1998 ET (#3081 of 3081)

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

Christine Piltzecker: (by this I am referring to the prospect of cloning for organ purposes)

Christine, I have repeatedly pointed out the impracticality of this idea, and nobody has ever challenged me with a contrary argument. Are you prepared to argue that cloning of individual organs is feasible?

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

Charles Dennison - 04:40pm Feb 7, 1998 ET (#3082 of 3084)

It would seem to me that if cloning of human beings is not allowed we are saying a great deal about our confidence in ourselves as a species. We are saying, I believe, that we are not merely mammals, but super mammals. Dolly is a mammal. Are we so insecure that we believe the only way to manufacture a human being is through fertilization? The arguments that we would create little Hitlers or worse are, of course, too simplistic. Assume for a moment that Hitler is cloned.......are we as a society so controlled by what we are taught and read that we cannot conceive that perhaps there was a certain amount of good in Hitler that could have been or could be nurtured. It, of course, raises the age old question of whether man is basically good or evil (i.e. is there an evil gene or a good gene?) Just as there are limitations on fertilization, there should of course be limitations on cloning but the limitations should be reasonable and not designed to perpetuate a particular philosophy or political dogma

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

Cliff Beall - 05:50pm Feb 7, 1998 ET (#3083 of 3084)

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

Charles, present technology does not allow the cloning of dead people, unless the cells were frozen while they were still alive. My understanding is that it is likely to remain that way. In a manner of speaking, life begets life, death does not beget life. Of course that was not your point. With respect to your point, my understanding is that while character traits are genetically related, evil, itself, is not.

At least you didn't mention cloning for body parts:-)

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

Alice Reitzel - 07:26pm Feb 7, 1998 ET (#3084 of 3084)

I agree with your position that cloning for body part is presently impractical. That the situation could change and "cloning for parts" was made practical, there would remain the question of who would decide how long anyone should live, assuming we could always replace "old parts." Just imagine the political kaos that would cause!!!

I think cloning in certain instances should be allowed. Cloning for infertile couples is probably not as bad an idea as some might think. Fertility drugs seem to have a wide range of effects, often unpredictable results and probably aren't very healthy for women overall. I could also imagine it could be used in instances of "sudden infant death" cases, assuming this was possible.

As to the question at the begining of this column, regarding the FDA controlling cloning. IT IS ONE OF THE WORST IDEAS I HAVE EVER READ. The FDA in many cases has driven the cost of pharmacuticals and related items through the ceiling, compared to other economically developed countries. There is also an issue of individual freedom and the right to choose here, that would end up in the hands of the government. This sounds a little too much like a George Orwell, or Zamyatin utopian society novel. --- Something, best left in fiction.

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

babel dispersus - 10:56pm Feb 7, 1998 ET (#3085 of 3087)

...omega

Noel Yap: Reality exists, but it's subjective.

In the past few weeks I have done much research on the science of the body. It seems that the brain has been determined to entirely control our body, and hence our actions. I found it difficult to believe this as well, but each movement has been traced to a correspondant electrical impulse from the brain. It has been mapped as to which region controls which action or sense. This fits incredibly well with semiotics. In his break from the Cartesianism of Descarte, Charles Peirce--the founder of semiotics--proved that we have neither intropection nor intuition opposite the ideas of Descarte and Locke. Instead, our thoughts are intirely dependent on the interpretation of other thoughts, thus we cannot think without signs. Since no thought can exist without a previous thought which it interprets (or sensory impression with which it compares other thoughts), there is no original thought, and hence no self. Following that all knowledge of reality comes from the premise that you can always be certain of your own existance above all (with which to compare your experiences), and that we can now show that you cannot be certain of your own existance (in fact, you can show your own nonexistance), then there cannot be any assurance of reality. Your statement that it is subjective clearly impresses your reliance on Cartesianism, which has been philosophically dead for almost a century.

babel dispersus

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

babel dispersus - 10:57pm Feb 7, 1998 ET (#3086 of 3087)

...omega

Noel Yap: Free will isn't necessary for non-determinism.

But it is. Science, if it has done anything at all, it has shown that every action has a consequence, and that we can know the consequence of any action by logically deducing the result of the action from our previous experience (science). If the trial of an action always results in the same consequence, we can be quite certain that it will do so again given the same circumstances. Thus, if there is no such thing as free-will (that is, original thought, and original action), then all actions will result in the only consequence that they can, as governed by natural law. Despite that these things may be complex and unpredictable by us, they are still deterministic. That is, if we had the means to keep track of every last variable in the universe, we could know the future to any arbitrary time or position.

Noel Yap: Hey, I like this. It sums up my beliefs on beliefs.

Unfortunately, it is the faith in your own perceptions which inevitably leads to the conclusion that you cannot have faith in your own perceptions.

babel dispersus

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

Cliff Beall - 11:04pm Feb 7, 1998 ET (#3087 of 3088)

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

Alice, that sounds a bit vague. Could you clarify? In what way do you think the situation could change and that "cloning for parts" could be made practical? (Sorry for being so direct, but I have decided to see if I can stamp out this silliness. I suspect it is hopeless, however. I'll probably give it up in a day or so:-)

Regarding your dirge against the FDA controlling cloning, I might mention that the Biotechnology Industry Organization (BIO) which represents over 745 biotechnology companies, academic institutions, and state biotechnology centers in 46 states and more than 25 nations, requested it. If what you say is true, can you tell me why an organization such as this would do such a silly thing?

Actually, I would suspect it is a measure they have decided to take in an attempt to forstall additional legislation which they don't want. Fair enough. But if the FDA is only doing what the industry has asked it to do, is that a reason to rail against the FDA?

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

Cliff Beall - 01:05am Feb 8, 1998 ET (#3088 of 3088)

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

babel, In your earlier posts, I had the distinct impression you were putting us on. In these last two, I'm not sure. Either way, how do you explain the existence of a child's first thought. This first thought of a child, can have no predecessor, and yet it must exist at some point if subsequent thoughts are observed to exist. You can't have a third or fourth thought before having a first.

This is in response to your statement that "our thoughts are intirely dependent on the interpretation of other thoughts, thus we cannot think without signs. Since no thought can exist without a previous thought which it interprets (or sensory impression with which it compares other thoughts), there is no original thought, and hence no self."

This statement appears not to allow a first thought, since, by definition, a first thought can not have a predecessor, and, according to the statement, a predecessor is required. But a consequence is that your exclusion of the first thought excludes all subsequent thought as well. Therefore you have no thoughts.

For some reason, I am reminded of the Bertrand Russell quote, which (by my best recollection) goes something like this: "It doesn't matter what you believe so long as you don't believe it completely."

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

Carl Nicolai - 02:33am Feb 8, 1998 ET (#3089 of 3098)

Located in Taipei Taiwan

One aspect of a "legal" ban on cloning is to produce some of the very problems the people against cloning have complained about. This is the illicit discrimination against children produced by cloning.

Immagine the impact to a child when they learn that their parents or parent violated the law in order to give them existance. They constantly hear about the evils of cloning and how people who violate this law are destroying the family and should be punished.

On the one hand they will think their parent(s) must love them very much to take such a risk, and on the other that "ordanary" people hate them.

As in other cases where "government" people muck about in places where they dont belong, the effect is to make the situation much worse than berfore.

Of cource! cloning is going to challenge every aspect of humans view of themselves. To rush into ill conceved legislation that affects the essential rights of humanity however will just compound the problems.

The supreme court has voided the doctrine of solvern immunity in cases of both a civel an criminal action when an indivudals primary rights are violated.

The regulators, officials, and police officers can be held personally responceable. This we have recently seen in the Rodney King case.

The only regulatory approach the government can take is to protect the rights of the individuals. This includes the right of informed concent and protection and protection against reckless endangerment.

A carefull and thoughtfull approach is what is required not a mad rush to pass stupid laws.

The scientist dont scare me half as much as the legislators. They are the ones who act not as individuals but as a group and as such have NO individual responcibility.

Oh well maybe society will lighten up and create some reallly good clone jokes for late night TV.

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

babel dispersus - 02:59am Feb 8, 1998 ET (#3090 of 3098)

...omega

Cliff Beall: babel, In your earlier posts, I had the distinct impression you were putting us on.

Not at all; I suggest you really think logically about what I have proposed.

Cliff Beall: how do you explain the existence of a child's first thought.

I think you misunderstand. When I say there is no original thought, I mean that there is nothing that originates within except that which is prompted by something outside and compared to something outside. A child's first thought must come after at least one sampling of at least one sense and the subsequent sampling of another. The first time any sensory information is sent to the brain (the first sight to the blind, the first sound to the deaf, etc.), it is simply recorded without any thought at all to its meaning because there is nothing with which to compare it. Each following input for the entirety of the organism's life is compared to this first sense or any thought there derived.

For instance, a child opens its eyes, it sees something red. It cannot describe what this "red" is, nor think about it at all, since it has never before "seen" anything, let alone anything red. However, next time it sees something, it can distinguish it as either "red" or "not red", but not in those terms, only as a thought. All thought and knowledge is built from there (applying equally with all senses).

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

babel dispersus - 02:59am Feb 8, 1998 ET (#3091 of 3098)

...omega

However, this line is being crossed. For instance, I am a part of the Great Internet Mersenne Prime Search (GIMPS), through which my computer searches various exponents to determine if they are prime numbers or not; it then relays information periodically with a central server that coordinates the entire project. All of this is done autonomously without the immediate supervision of people. My computer automatically receives data and reacts to that data. The same could be done, for instance, with a video camera; you could set your computer to ring a security alarm every time the camera sees movement. These types of actions are less complex than those of a drosophila, but they are the first steps toward true thinking (silicon-based) machines.

There is no real distinction between what computers do and what we do, beyond that one is analog and one is digital, one continuous and one discrete. The consequences of this are profound. We do not actually have free will, nor any definable "self"; we only process our inputs and respond with some action. All of our actions are so complex because of the extremely large and varying experiences we have each had with which to compare all sensory information. In addition, we have no assurance that anything is "real" since to determine as such, we must first assume that we are real. Without being certain of the self, it is impossible to be certain of anything that the self interprets. And even if you assume that the self is the only absolutely certain constant, as each of us has already done, then you must eventually come to the conclusion that the assumption was wrong, as I previously reasoned.

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

babel dispersus - 03:00am Feb 8, 1998 ET (#3092 of 3098)

...omega

And, for all of you atheists out there, this is also proof that there exists no god. Since each thought is the result of a previous thought or sensory impression, then we cannot possibly know the attributes of anything we have not already experienced. Anything which we have never before sampled is incognizable. For instance, we can never know what "seeing" through sonar is like (unless you surgically implant part of a dolphin's brain in your skull and somehow attach it) since you have never sampled anything through sonar by which to imagine with. You can know what sonar is (the scientific explanation of sound and water, etc.), and you can see the vacuum tube display on a ship, but you can never "see" through sonar as an animal with that sense can. It is like trying to describe "red" to a person who has never seen.

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

babel dispersus - 03:00am Feb 8, 1998 ET (#3093 of 3098)

...omega

Similarly, you cannot even imagine an attribute of god unless you have experienced it before. It has recently become apparent to me that all of god's attributes are simply superlatives of our own. We can imagine god because he is the same as us, only he is the "greatest" man. He is able to do things that we can not do ourselves, but can imagine doing. The only thing that we cannot imagine is what existed before god made the universe, only because we have never before sampled anything that is not a part of this universe. We can assign god this ability, but we cannot ever possibly imagine it apart from things we already know. And even if there were an agent which could be defined as god (though we cannot know it), it must have some means of free will, and that is presently incognizable as well, even though everyone assumes that they have it themselves. Additionally, for all you anti-meta-physicists out there, this is also proof that there is no soul, since there is not a self at all, let alone one which can perpetuate in any matterless form. I think most people think of themselves, and their soul, as their free will; however none exists.

babel dispersus

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

Tom Anderson - 04:03am Feb 8, 1998 ET (#3094 of 3098)

Curiosity was framed, ignorance killed the cat

Just a quick stop by...

Cliff, for goodness sake, stop being silly. You of all people should not dismiss something so easily. To say that cloning of individual organs is too far out is mind-boggling. First of all, if we can reset a cell to believe it is an egg and produce a new organism, it is not very difficult to make it think it is the first heart stem cell, for instance. It could be so simple as supplying the necessary inducer chemical, or by just placing it adjacent to a stem cell which produces the inducer chemical by which the stem cell would develop by embryonic induction. As for supplying its nutritional, resperatory, and excretion needs, this is hardly a problem... we already can do this with entire organisms and with organ transplants. Just submerge it in a bath of the stuff at first, and then later hook up tubes where the main arteries and veins go. Electronic life support is not a new thing. The question I would have is whether the new organ would stop at producing just the organ or if it would have to be stopped before producing the entire organism eventually.

Dawn, you mentioned that Dolly might not be a true clone of an adult because the cells were taken from the mammary glands which might have fetal tissue in them. What? How could that possibly be? The blood of the mother and child do not even mix, so how do cells get to the mammary glands?

Babel, while your logic appears flawless, it is difficult to accept that we do not have freewill. I will give you that I cannot possibly prove it, and I will not accept it on faith either, but I will certainly hypothesize that freewill does exist in people and attempt to prove or disprove this hypothesis.

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

Tom Anderson - 04:05am Feb 8, 1998 ET (#3095 of 3098)

Curiosity was framed, ignorance killed the cat

For anyone who feels that the Supreme Court would vote against genetic engineering of humans, please read these precedents:

"We have seen more than once that the public welfare may call upon the best citizens for their lives. It would be strange if it could not call upon those who already sap the strength of the State for these lesser sacrifices often not felt to be such by those concerned, in order to prevent our being swamped with incompetence. It is better for all the world, if instead of waiting to execute degenerate offspring for crime, or let them starve for their imbecility, society can prevent those who are manifestly unfit from continuing their kind." [United States Supreme Court on eugenics, 1927]

"Human mating that proceeds without the use of genetic data about the risks of transmitting disease will produce greater mortality and medical costs than if carriers of potentially deleterious genes are alerted to their status and encouraged to mate with noncarriers or to use artificial insemination or other reproductive strategies." [Social and Ethics Board of the Human Genome Project]

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

Tom Anderson - 04:05am Feb 8, 1998 ET (#3096 of 3098)

Curiosity was framed, ignorance killed the cat

Eugenics is not a bad thing, so far as it is not ethinic cleansing. As long as you guarantee equal rights to all people, it should be anybody's right to try to produce the most perfect offspring possible. As humans, we each value things differently, so that offspring would probably be different for all of us. But one thing would be certain: those elements that are bad for any and all of us will be eliminated. For example, people born with only one arm are not discriminated against in the eyes of the law, but I'm sure nobody would wish this defect on their own child. So, if we could make sure no children were born missing an arm, then all would be well. Similarly, if we could make sure that nobody is nearsighted, all would be well. If we could make sure everyone had no genetic diseases... that everyone could live as long as possible... that everyone is attractive... that anyone is as nearly perfect as possible. There is no problem here so long as you still protect the rights of those who are not perfect in any one individual's eyes.

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

Tom Anderson - 04:06am Feb 8, 1998 ET (#3097 of 3098)

Curiosity was framed, ignorance killed the cat

BTW, I will be writing a FAQ in my spare time, and I will post the URL here once I finish.

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

Darien Hager - 04:35am Feb 8, 1998 ET (#3098 of 3098)

Maybe we should think again. What IS free will anyway? The ability to look at two or more possible future actions and do either on a whim? Maybe intelligence is what STOPS free will... If you always know the best thing to do, where is your freedom to choose? Free will could be a product of uncertainty. And Heaven (hopefully somebody is there) knows that there is plenty of uncertainty in this universe.

Genes would probably not opt towards free will, from an evolutionary stance. Why not always pick the choice best to perpetuate the genes than sometimes pick the choice that kills the creature? If genes did this, we'd have a lot less suicides. Free will? Maybe it EVOLVED...socially, so that there would be more genetic diversity...but anyway, I no longer understand what I am saying and have probably driven everyone insane anyway. 8^)

About knowing attributes we have not experieced, yes, we probably can't KNOW them, but what else is imagination for? And God, this is a bit of a pointless argument. Myself, I believe their is some reason we exist. I mean, statistically, good things happen as often as bad... (Depends on if you run around blindfolded and such) but STATISTICALLY...who wants a god like this:

God of nuetrality. Witness his mighty bell-shaped curve of probability! All bow down to God, the indifferent...

No, I don't quite believe that. But the universe takes some explaining doesn't it? We have the HOWs...but not the WHYs. WHY did the big bang happen (just to name a popular theory) We know HOW it might have happened. Maybe it happened because it was supposed to...who made it happen? "It happened because it was after the big crunch"... but why did the big crunch happen? This sort of thing can be argued to infinity and back...It is easier to take the roundabout route and just say a god exists.

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

Cliff Beall - 01:45pm Feb 8, 1998 ET (#3099 of 3100)

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

Carl Nicolai: One aspect of a "legal" ban on cloning is to produce some of the very problems the people against cloning have complained about. This is the illicit discrimination against children produced by cloning.

I think you have a real point here, Carl. If you assume it is going to happen anyway, and I would tend to suppose it will, a specific law making it illegal would appear to make the situation worse for the child.

Carl Nicolai: Of cource! cloning is going to challenge every aspect of humans view of themselves. To rush into ill conceved legislation that affects the essential rights of humanity however will just compound the problems.

Well, if legislators are convinced the FDA intends to be aggressive enough in regulating cloning research, perhaps they will decide that specific additional legislation is not needed. My message to Alice, and to you, was, and is, that you can't have it both ways. Given the current political climate, largely due, I think, to the PR disaster that Seed, in his arrogance, perpetrated, take your pick--if you are lucky. I think BIO knows what they are doing, and to rail against the FDA for taking jurisdiction (which may have a chance of forestalling unwanted legislation) is stupidity. All it does is increase the chances of legislation you don't want.

Okay, babel, I will accept that you are serious. If you weren't, I think I would have heard the punch line by now. The two things that led me to wonder was the pseudonym you gave yourself and the phrase, "I am beginning to see it now, it is almost clear," as if mimicking a fundamentalist preacher. At that point, I was waiting for the punch line so that I could respond by noting that you had named yourself well. (By the way, if you are serious, and want to be taken seriously, why the silly pseudonym?)

Hosted by www.Geocities.ws