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

Tom Anderson - 03:02am Feb 26, 1998 ET (#3600 of 3621)

Curiosity was framed, ignorance killed the cat

Frank,

I never made any arguments about mutations, transposons, aging, or any other unrelated topic; I only questioned your assumptions about them and pointed out the fallacies in your arguments.

The only argument you and I ever had was that you said that Dolly is necessarily the result of a fetal cell and you said so because you do not understand probability. Now that I have shown you the actual probability, maybe you can admit that you were wrong about Dolly and wrong to accuse Wilmut of defrauding his results.

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

Frank Joyce - 03:18am Feb 26, 1998 ET (#3601 of 3621)

Tm anderson:

the problem with you rcell culture idea is that you didn't adress splitting the cells. each day as part of maintaining the cells. 1st they trypsinis them then remove 1/2 the cells and bring up the population again. the only time they are not doin this is during serum starvation. then they bring the cells to confluence and use media either containing less or no serum So depending on how many times they SPLIT the cells as they maintained them, they would slowly end up with more and more of the faster dividing cells. So now ask yourself how many times they tried and how many days they took doing so and how many times they had to bring up the cultures.

But as we agreed before this is speculation and neither you nor I can prove only Wilmut can redo to get credit

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

Keith Fosberg - 08:54am Feb 26, 1998 ET (#3602 of 3621)

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

I think I will try to put on a checked shirt and "reset" the debate, so wearing kevlar and asbestous undergarmets..:

I believe that Tom's position is that if fetal cells are in fact present in mamary tissue durring pregnancy that the relative volume of cell types makes it statistically nearly certain that an adult cell was used to clone "Dolly."

As I understand Frank's position, he is stating that Dr. Wilmut's protocol to select an appropriate cell makes the selection of the much rarer by volume fetal cells far more likely candidates to have been the origen of "Dolly."

The rest of the argument appears to be resultant to digressions due to analogy and missunderstanding.

Is that a fair and accurate statement of the basic argument? (BTW: You are both indulging in some personal attacks from time to time. Watching you each accuse the other of this behaivior is amusing!)

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

Keith Fosberg - 09:21am Feb 26, 1998 ET (#3603 of 3621)

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

In reference to my previous post:

I think both positions have validity, and as has been said, time will tell.

This probably is a very critical argument in the end as the vast majority of both possitive and negative supposition on cloning assumes that the cloning of an aged, adult cell is (or will be) possible.

As an outside observer on the debate I think I can tell you what happened. Soon after the initial statements of position were made Frank made the unforunate statement (more accuratly, he strongly implied) that the fact that a clone was produced strengthens the supposition that "Dolly" was cloned from a fetal cell, since fetal cells are easier to clone. This, although possibly true, is a logical error in debate since it is an argument that is supported by the conclusion rather than vis versa. Tom's error at this point was to chase after this logical digression rather than to dismiss it. The vast majority of argument from that point on is the result of this early digresion from the primary argument.

From my point of view I still maintain that the use of the term "fraud" is unwarrented. This experiment may be invallid, but if so I am confident that this is the result of error, not purposfull deciept. Since Dr. Wilmutt admitts the possibility of this error It seems unlikely that he intentionaly set out to defraud.

If mutation is the primary reason that cells eventually fail, is this the source of aging? This suggests to me that we age because our cells can not reproduce themselfs accuratly after a certain point. This line of reasoning leads me to conclude that Bob Janitor is correct in his inferance that the study of regenerative tissue is vital to extending lifespan. If a fully adult lizard has cells that are not prone to "mutation deficiency" then we should deffinatly find out why these cells are not. But lizards to age and die......

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

Frank Joyce - 10:08am Feb 26, 1998 ET (#3604 of 3621)

First of all you tried to argue against echa point buy lcaimng they didn't esixts.

Second you didn't answer my questions again on each topic. It's time to come clear and answer the questions I stated above. Do it before we continue! Stop dodging them simpy because you would have to state that i a was right. You've done that several times now.

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

Frank Joyce - 10:13am Feb 26, 1998 ET (#3605 of 3621)

Now about cultured cells again. even if you change the number to somehthing you consider more realistc. You once again dodged the issue that in order to maintain the cells they would have to spleit them ( remove 1/2 the cells from culture and add fresh medium each day) in order to maintain them. You did say you are familiar with animal cell culture right. this is teh practice of keeping your cells alive. Very common. ths even with your numbers above each round they will be growing up faster. IT IS EXTREMELY UNLIKEKY that they only grew the cells up once and never split them. It is more likely that they split them a large number of times before they finally got dolly. thus agin you'd have to keep putting it througght that eqution of yours starting each time with a higher number of cells.

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

Frank Joyce - 10:16am Feb 26, 1998 ET (#3606 of 3621)

Once again answer those question I posted. the were indeed statements you claimed were wrong or not enough proof they exist. the cell aging was somehthing you stated recently as not existing after we had agreed on dolly. So please state them and show me your ego is not too big to do so! Plus it will finally clear the air on what we do and don't agree on.

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

Bob Janitor - 02:15pm Feb 26, 1998 ET (#3607 of 3621)

Frank,

confused this with teh process of differentiation

No, I did not confuse this.

1. Quiescence is dedifferentiation

2. Cells that dedifferentiate and redifferentiate into another type of cell do so naturally-- and without all these "mutations" (which do occur) prohibiting them from doing so

3. Cells artificially "coaxed" to regenerate can do so, without mutations prohibiting them

4. Cells that can regenerate do not get cancer

5. Carcinogens/cancer introduced into regenerative tissue produces extra growth

Speaking of damaging mutations and cancer, did you know the HeLa cells have been living since 1951?

Anyway... my point being, you have exaggerated mutation, saying it prohibits cloning, and that Dolly was a fake from a fetal cell, even though statistics show otherwise.

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

Frank Joyce - 03:43pm Feb 26, 1998 ET (#3608 of 3621)

Keith

Actually my origional argument was as follows.

Because it is easier to clone an adult cell than a fetal cell there woould be an artifactual selection produced.

My supporting statements were 1 adult cells aquire more mutations as they age.2 germ cells have better DNA protection and do not have high mutation rates. 3 Transpostion occurs more often in adult cells 4 Mutated cells have a greater chance of giving rise too mutated adults. 5 unlike plants animals tend to abort embryos with too much genetic damage. 6. DNA repair in older cells is mainly focused on actively transcribed genes. Not genes that are no longer turned on.

each time I've stated that adult cells are easier to clone. Tom and Bob try to discredit the stament as a way of disproving the artifactual selection that would have occured. They chose to attack each of the supporting statements to do this. However each is publish information.

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

Frank Joyce - 03:45pm Feb 26, 1998 ET (#3609 of 3621)

Ultimately I've asked tom to answer each of the qwuestina I asked about mutation rates , transposition, etc. but now that he has had tiome to look things up I think he realised he can no longer argue that adult cells are not any more difficult to clone than fetal cells. thus the artifactual selecion I spoke of cannot be disproved.

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

Frank Joyce - 03:54pm Feb 26, 1998 ET (#3610 of 3621)

Bob Janitor: the issue with cancer is that it is produced through mutations. these mutations can arise both spontaneously( thus the many spontaneous Mutation rate studies and spont. mut. spectra published) and via carcinogens. If adults cells did not have undergo mutations all the time we could then say spontaneous mutations would not be a significant risk in cancer.

Cancer is also relevant because it demonstrates that udder cells undergo mutation just like human breast cells do.

HeLa cells have been around a loing time. they Are not likely to be cloned into a whole human though would they?. again you know that this is a cancer cell line that by the nature of cancer has acquired many mutation. It has also succesflully turned on gene that it does need. It repairs the genes it needs to survive as a cell culture

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

Frank Joyce - 03:55pm Feb 26, 1998 ET (#3611 of 3621)

BTW BOB. Crecentials? how 'bout that drosophila? or is it still just a fly therefore not relevant?

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

Frank Joyce - 03:59pm Feb 26, 1998 ET (#3612 of 3621)

SO tom just for the sake of asgreement here. What about answering those questions instead of finding new ways to dodge them.

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

Noel Yap - 04:06pm Feb 26, 1998 ET (#3613 of 3621)

Tom Anderson: There is no reason to assume that "quantum phenomena", which you still have not defined, are not deterministic to begin with. Proving as such is secondary.

What happened to "one must prove the positive?" Quantum phenomenon (ie quantum tunnelling, quantum fluctuations in a vacuum, particle decay, ...) would have to proven to be deterministic before your "reliable knowledge source" can accept that it is. Or are you now changing the question to be, "Are quantum phenomenon non-deterministic?"

OK, leaving philosophy aside, AFAIK, HUP states that particles don't have exact position and exact momentum at the same time -- this holds for other dual properties. Our measurements have nothing to do with this fact (unless we go back to interpretations.) The values of these properties are fuzzy; they are non-deterministic.

Popping off the tangent stack and restoring back to the cloning debate, though, free will either exists in both "normal" human beings and clones or it doesn't. So, whether it exists or not, is a moot point.

Tom Anderson: The difference is in the defined domain of the set. A horse owner must own at least one horse; a religion must worship at least one god.

I, and many others, define the domain set to be zero or more. I would still lean towards generalisation (ie when coding a function that takes in integer values, I would code for the most general case (other than for optimisations) which is lies either in the non-negative or integer domains.)

Noel Yap: <Regarding beneficial vs dominant characteristics of genes> This is so obvious I don't know why I missed it to begin with. Thanks.

Come to think of it, Tom, this logic is great for explaining why most dominant genes are beneficial, but the inverse does not necessarily follow. IOW, the que

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

Noel Yap - 04:08pm Feb 26, 1998 ET (#3614 of 3621)

Tom Anderson: consider if the coin could also land on its side, or spontaneously disintegrate, or change shape, etc., which would all be possible were events truly random.

But these events can actually occur. The subatomic particles composing the coin can spontaneously decay. The coin can land on it's side... We artificially limit the event space so that we can model the system using probability. Models never truly reflect reality.

Tom Anderson: Nondeterminism would invalidate the idea of any universal constants, and events would be entirely unpredictable. Since science has shown this as otherwise, we can only conclude that the universe is deterministic.

This still doesn't follow. The non-determinism of elements in a system can be "averaged" out when dealing with many of them. However, the averaging out is almost never complete so the non-determinism still affects the entire system due to the system's chaotic nature.

Tom Anderson: In addition, randomness would contradict the conservation of energy since this law is deterministic: energy can neither be created nor destroyed -- however a random action must draw energy from nowhere.

Tom Anderson: You still don't seem to understand. Science produces reliable knowledge because it is the only method of finding truth which depends not on the person trying to find the truth, but on the truth itself.

I do understand. You have much faith in Science's ability. Science itself works from a given set of axioms and lemmas (ie given A and B are individually true, A and B taken together is true.) There are no proofs for these basic statements; they "just make sense."

Furthermore, as more and more knowledge is gained, in order for one not to ge

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

Noel Yap - 04:08pm Feb 26, 1998 ET (#3615 of 3621)

Furthermore, as more and more knowledge is gained, in order for one not to get bogged down in the details, one must have blind faith that previous generations were correct in their findings. For example, I don't have time to learn everything about computers (although I have gone down to the quantum level.) For the things I haven't learned, I'll take it on blind faith that it works properly unless I'm given facts that point otherwise. OTOH, I find that when I do have time to learn the lower layers (ie C++ and Java object models, ISO OSI architecture, hardware architecture), it helps me understand and develop higher layers.

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

Noel Yap - 04:09pm Feb 26, 1998 ET (#3616 of 3621)

Tom Anderson: Religion is not a method of gaining knowledge;

This is true, although it can be argued that it is a method of gaining wisdom. Given this, it is conceivable that Science can coexist with other beliefs.

Tom Anderson: You mean nothing that you know of.

And, hence, "AFAIK."

Tom Anderson: If it were nondeterministic, it would violate Conservation and lead to complete unpredictability in the universe, and make universal constants impossible to ever even concieve of. Certainly there is a potential that causes it.

See above regarding non-determinism as the number of particles approaches infinity.

Tom Anderson: Science by its nature is democratic.

I would say that pure science is. But the way it's practised sometimes (if not most of the time) is not. This is why we end up with people not being able to obtain their PhD's 'cos the board doesn't understand or doesn't care for what their research has to say.

Tom Anderson: Authoritarian science is a paradox.

Paradoxes exist in the real world.

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

Noel Yap - 04:10pm Feb 26, 1998 ET (#3617 of 3621)

Tom Anderson: Nobody has the right to play thought-police.

I'm glad you're fair about this.

Tom Anderson: Anyone I debate with has come willing to debate with me -- unlike many rude Christians who have tried repeatedly to convert me despite my requesting that they leave me alone.

I've run into some who politely ask if I would like to talk about God, but I've never had any experiences such as yours.

Tom Anderson: That is a fallacy. Other experiments have no bearing on the probability of this one.

Huh? Researchers try to duplicate experiments in order to verify them. If noone can duplicate the experiment, it's taken that the original had some error.

As I remember (possibly incorrectly), the two that are cloning the cows used a different cloning technique that Wilmut did. If this is true, their success has no bearing on Wilmut's success or failure.

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

rita gold - 06:49pm Feb 26, 1998 ET (#3618 of 3621)

Re cloning: Anything that exists, any technology, whatever; if it is, it is. Who can say what God intended. Whatever man can achieve is God given. What's so bad about cloning? Man is capable of a lot worse. Rita Gold

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

Bob Janitor - 07:55pm Feb 26, 1998 ET (#3619 of 3621)

the issue with cancer is that it is produced through mutations

Yes, I understand how cancer comes about, but why doesn't it occur in animals with regeneration?

RE: Drosophilia

I don't remember the original post, so I'd have to look at it again, can you provide a link or did CNN delete it?

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

Noel Yap - 07:57pm Feb 26, 1998 ET (#3620 of 3621)

Keith Fosberg: We have no way to predict many (actually most) discreet quantum events. This is not a result of randomness, however. This is a result of the complexity of the system and our less than perfect undrstanding of the mechanism.

I will agree that we may not perfectly understand what goes on at (or below) the quantum level. Given this, though, we cannot absolutely say that the events are not truly random.

Keith Fosberg: Structure would not be possible in a non deterministic system.

Unless the non-determinism balanced itself in larger scales. Your statement is akin to saying we wouldn't be able to measure pressure 'cos we can't measure each and every molecule in the system. The fact is that the "randomness" (in quotes 'cos it's not been determined to be truly random) cancels out (except when measuring at better accuracies.)

Keith Fosberg: Competing arguments suggest that structure is self imposing across state changes. These are both deterministic models.

None of the models have been experimentally proven.

Keith Fosberg: All this really says in the end is that reality is deterministic.

I will agree with this if what you've said has been determined to be absolutely true.

Keith Fosberg: Free-will, as it is usually understood, means that sentient beings have the ability to choose their actions and beliefs. Although babel's argument is valid in so far as it shows that our actions are determined by the influence of our environment it does not rule out free-will as we are free to synthethise information without intelligent interferance.

And, hence, it really depends upon which definition of "free will" one "chooses" to use.

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

Noel Yap - 07:57pm Feb 26, 1998 ET (#3621 of 3621)

Bob Janitor: A) Wilmut cloned a sheep from a differentiated cell, with a 99.99% probability,

I think Wilmut tried the experiment 80 (?) times. This would give a 99.20% probability that none of the cells were fetal. Although this is still pretty good, I wouldn't bet my life on chances like this.

Bob Janitor: B) someone else cloned two cows

I thought they used a different process.

Tom Anderson: And the probability of any outcome is the product of the probabilities of the events that lead to that outcome.

Assuming that the events are independent.

Tom Anderson: Dolly is most likely (99.1% chance) what she was originally claimed -- the clone of an adult somatic cell.

Assuming that clones from fetal cells have the same mortality rate as clones from adult cells.

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

Cliff Beall - 10:18pm Feb 26, 1998 ET (#3622 of 3622)

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

Where I first disagree is that this is "old news." While I understand that nuclear transfer has been around for a while, it is my understanding that cloning of differentiated cell, both fetal and adult somatic cells, is new. Prior cloning involved embryo cells, which are not yet specialized. This is the "old news." I find it strange that a biologist, and a PhD candidate would fail to make this distinction between the old and the new technology. It is rather fundamental detail, it seems to me.

I also do not agree that Dolly was a "fraud." Dolly was a clone of differentiated cells, whether from fetal or adult cells. This is what Dr. Wilmut was trying to do, and he succeeded. The reason I suspect that Dolly is a clone of a fetal cell is that: 1. It is possible. 2. Other labs, as well as Dr. Wilmut, himself, apparently, since Polly and Molly are clones of fetal cells, have been unsuccessful, cloning from adult cells, using his method. He has shown that his method does work with fetal cells, however. Polly and Molly are proof of that.

Incidentally, I find your attitude strange coming from a biologist. I draw no conclusions, necessarily, but it seems more in tune with that of a non-scientist who might enjoy poking fun at the "high-and-mighty" scientist.

I will not comment on the rest of your post since it seeks to restate Tom's and Bob's position from your point of view. I prefer to receive their positions from them, from their point of view.

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

Cliff Beall - 11:35pm Feb 26, 1998 ET (#3623 of 3624)

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

It is consistent with published reports. I believe it. And for me to believe anything is remarkable. I tend to be skeptical of everything;)

I would have thought your college library would contain a copy. I can understand a clod-hopper like me not having access to such a book, but I would have assumed your college would provide access to you.

True. Now suppose I have a mixture of 302 stainless steel (non-magnetic) chips and AISI 4140 steel (magnetic) chips in a bucket. By volume, suppose 99% are the 302 stainless steel chips, and only 1% is 4140. Now, I swish a magnet around in the chips, and lo, and behold, a few chips sticks to the magnet. What can I conclude from that? I think I can conclude that the magnet found the 4140 chips.

Since Wilmut's method definitely works for fetal cells, and does not seem to work for adult cells, I suspect the chances of Dolly being a clone of a fetal cell are greater that a mere counting of the odds. Incidentally, it is reported that Wilmut had 277 failures before Dolly was successfully cloned.

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

Cliff Beall - 11:37pm Feb 26, 1998 ET (#3624 of 3624)

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

Or maybe they did not present their research in a consistent understandable way.

I have to admit that I have had some experiences similar to those Tom describes. But I have had many more pleasant experiences with religious folk. I guess it is who you run with;)

I agree.

It is my understanding that you are correct on both counts.

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

Carl Nicolai - 11:44pm Feb 26, 1998 ET (#3620 of 3653)

Located in Taipei Taiwan

Ok. Now we have maybe 50 postings on what kind of cells were used to clone Dolly. Every one agrees that it is an important distinction on what kind of cells were used. It seems everyone uses the word differentiated to discribe some kind of quality that a cell has that is important if you want to clone an animal from that cell.

Now if we are talking science, a vital quality such as the ability to form the basis of a future clone, has to have some meaningfull definition. The science that I know weighs and measures things. It orders and ranks things. It establishes clear qualities that can be used to form rational arguments.

Until you have a well formed question the data you have may or may not contain information. There is no way to know.

We have trouble enough with the moral and ethical implications of cloning. Humanity is not well served by a bunch of ivory tower flakes and bath tub gin technitions promogating such loose concepts.

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

Frank Joyce - 12:33am Feb 27, 1998 ET (#3621 of 3653)

Cliff Beal:

I put fraud in quotations becuase it was meant as a sarcatic remark. Wilmut cites 1983 as the first of the nuclear transfer exps 15 yrs ago. I heard about adult cell cloning and john gurdon almost ten years ago. Most of the people I talked to after we first heard about dolly though it was strange that it made such headlines, becuase it has cloning exp have been around for a while.

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

Frank Joyce - 12:45am Feb 27, 1998 ET (#3622 of 3653)

Noel:

I think you ddi bring up questions about cell aging. 1st this is differnet then a whole animal aging. Plus there are far more things invvolved oterh thatn acquiring mutations. I bring up the mutations because of teh relevance to the argument.

Take for example a fetility clinic that does in vitro fert. They take extreme precautions to make sure eggs and sperm are not eposed too long to light or left in open air(oxidative thus mutagenic) too long.these are conditions that egg and sperm do not naturally encounter during in vivo fertilization. they are both potentially mutagenic conditions. By avoiding these conditions they increase the chance of producing normal embryos and the baby should develop normally as long as the Parents aren't providing genes for diseases or missing limbs etc. Now apply this idea to what I've been saying about mutations in cells that will be used in nuclear transer and ultimately to yield an offspring

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

Frank Joyce - 12:51am Feb 27, 1998 ET (#3623 of 3653)

Bob Janitor. You first mae the connection between regeneration and cancer when you said that lizard tails regenerate and the tails don't get cancer. Again I made the point that the tissue that was used does get cancer thus is acquiring mutations.

Furthermore. the earliest groups of scientist trying to tackle the differentiation question, " Is genetic material lost as cells differentiate or is it constant?" Avoided uysing parts of animals known to regenerate. at the time it was beleived that they kept certain cells in an undifferentiated state and thus would make poor candidates to solve the question. they wanted cells that were definitely differrentiated to be able to prove that gene loss does not occur. again udder cells don't regenrate and do acquire mutations as seen by the incidence of cancer..

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

Cliff Beall - 01:07am Feb 27, 1998 ET (#3624 of 3653)

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

Frank Joyc:

In one of the articles on the subject I have read, Dr. Bishop indicated his method relied on a discovery made by Dr. Steen Willadsen "more than a decade ago." Willadsen, according to Dr. Bishop, cloned cow cells from embryo cells which were not yet specialized.

This timing thing is crazy, however. I have read reports that until last year, it was a truism in science that while it was possible to clone embryo cells which had not yet specialized, "differentiated" cells (from either fetal or adult cells) could not be cloned. Other reports indicate that cloning has been occurring for twenty years. I try to understand, but really, what is a poor non-scientist like me to do.

I know. Be skeptical of everything.

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

Frank Joyce - 01:47am Feb 27, 1998 ET (#3625 of 3653)

Cliff beal. The adult cells that had been cloned in the past were those done by John Gurdon He cloned adult skin cells of frogs in 1975!!!! WOW!!!.his methods have been only slightly modified. He did not however take the fromgs to vcmplete adults. I'm not sure why? I think it is because teh frogs he used Stay take about a year Metamorphose. He should have used a frog like Lepidobatracus laevis which goes from Zygote to adult in about 7 weeks. results would have been a lot quicker. Anyway Wilmuts attempt was only to fill this last gap and solidify the idea that differentiation does not occur via loss of genetic material.

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

Frank Joyce - 01:56am Feb 27, 1998 ET (#3626 of 3653)

It's not really a truism that adult cells cannot be cloned. Most people in science beleive that theoretically they can, it's just really tough. Agian for reason that I have stated about cells acquiring mutations as they get older. Basically because of this it means a lot of grunt work sorting though many cells to find once that would be cloneable. Most people have stuck with fetal cells simply because it allows them to produce transgenic animals that are not "genetic mosaics." In other words establishing a stable transgene in all cells not just a few. the Cloning of adult cells is mostly important in the understaning of differnetiation itself.

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

Tom Anderson - 03:07am Feb 27, 1998 ET (#3627 of 3653)

Curiosity was framed, ignorance killed the cat

Frank,

Actually my origional argument was as follows.

Because it is easier to clone an adult cell than a fetal cell there woould be an artifactual selection produced.

No, your original argument was that Dolly is more likely to be a clone of a fetal cell because there is an artificial selection produced. Then you tried erringly to defend this by trying to show that there is an artificial selection. But this is irrelevant because I have shown that no matter what the selection is, it is dependent on the original sampling.

Ultimately I've asked tom to answer each of the qwuestina I asked about mutation rates , transposition, etc. but now that he has had tiome to look things up I think he realised he can no longer argue that adult cells are not any more difficult to clone than fetal cells. thus the artifactual selecion I spoke of cannot be disproved.

First of all, Frank, I have not made an argument against the existance of any of the phenomena that you cited. I made an argument about the way you presented them, false assumptions about them, and their irrelevance to the discussion. In addition, out of curiosity, I asked you quite a few questions about these things that you decided not to answer, since the facts that I was questioning were actually false assumptions.

What about answering those questions instead of finding new ways to dodge them.

I'm not dodging anything -- the items you refer to are red herrings and do nothing but distract the focus from the falacious reasoning of your core argument. Let's keep it where it belongs.

And, Frank, do me a favor and write in complete sentences -- it is difficult to decipher what you are saying sometimes.

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

Tom Anderson - 03:09am Feb 27, 1998 ET (#3628 of 3653)

Curiosity was framed, ignorance killed the cat

Noel,

What happened to "one must prove the positive?"

Am I expressing a positive? I am stating the status-quo; you are suggesting a contradiction of scientific knowledge.

Quantum phenomenon (ie quantum tunnelling, quantum fluctuations in a vacuum, particle decay, ...) would have to proven to be deterministic

These are complex events. There is no reason to assume that they are non-deterministic. Assuming that they are deterministic is the logical agreement with everything we know. The burden of proof would be on showing that our current universal models are completely wrong.

OK, leaving philosophy aside, AFAIK, HUP states that particles don't have exact position and exact momentum at the same time

Again, you are confusing this. Please try to understand, this is a very important point because you keep tripping over it. The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principal states that we cannot MEASURE both of these properties simultaneously, not that they do not exist.

The values of these properties are fuzzy; they are non-deterministic.

No, they are not. They are unknowable to us, but not nonexistant. Ignorance of the values of these properties does not make these properties nondeterministic.

free will either exists in both "normal" human beings and clones or it doesn't. So, whether it exists or not, is a moot point.

No, its not. It defines a person. The definition of a person is very much a part of this cloning debate.

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

Tom Anderson - 03:11am Feb 27, 1998 ET (#3629 of 3653)

Curiosity was framed, ignorance killed the cat

I, and many others, define the domain set to be zero or more.

You cannot call a person who does not own any horses a horse owner. You cannot call a sunny day a rainy day with zero rain. You cannot say that a computer turned off is on with zero power. Finally, you cannot call atheism religion with zero gods. These things are necessarily defined by the set of one or more.

But these events can actually occur. The subatomic particles composing the coin can spontaneously decay. The coin can land on it's side... We artificially limit the event space so that we can model the system using probability. Models never truly reflect reality.

A coin is not going to melt, turn into a spoon, spontaneously decay, decide to fly upward, stop a millimeter off the surface, start singing, enter warp, etc., while you flip it in the air. It will be effected by all forces acting on it, and there will be no random creation of energy by which it could do anything non-deterministic.

The non-determinism of elements in a system can be "averaged" out when dealing with many of them.

So you are saying that energy is randomly created and destroyed equally? Is the total energy in the universe still the same at every moment? Where does it go? Where does it come from? Why would it do this? Obviously nothing determines when or where or how often, otherwise it would be deterministic. How do you explain that we have never witnessed an object that once had energy spontaneously lose it without it going anywhere? For instance, have you ever seen anything that was high up in the air suddenly, and without any releasing of energy, just end up on the ground instantaneously? Fire turn ice cold? Solid matter become spontaneously volatile?

However, the averaging out is almost never complete so the non-determinism still affects the entire system due to the system's chaotic nature.

Then conservation doesn't hold.

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

Tom Anderson - 03:13am Feb 27, 1998 ET (#3630 of 3653)

Curiosity was framed, ignorance killed the cat

There are no proofs for these basic statements; they "just make sense."

They agree with reality. If you want your thoughts to coincide with reality, then you must think logically. Science was not just invented out of thin air... we use it because it works, and it works because there exist universal constants which can be and are revealed by experiment.

Furthermore, as more and more knowledge is gained, in order for one not to get bogged down in the details, one must have blind faith that previous generations were correct in their findings.

You are wrong. The faith is not blind. You can take someone's word on it that they have already proven a certain fact because you can go and repeat their experiment. After doing this for ever single thing a scientist tells you, and finding that it is true of all of them, you begin to take some things on faith because you know that if you do repeat the experiment, like all of the others, it will work as well. This is not the same as authoritarian knowledge. It is called trust; a trust that is strengthened by the fact that it follows logically, and that others have already repeated the experiments many times. That is why it is called reliable knowledge.

This is true [that religion is not a method of gaining knowledge], although it can be argued that it is a method of gaining wisdom.

What is wisdom without knowledge? Wisdom cannot be had without knowledge, especially reliable knowledge.

Paradoxes exist in the real world.

Well, that's interesting... why don't you share one?

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

Tom Anderson - 03:15am Feb 27, 1998 ET (#3631 of 3653)

Curiosity was framed, ignorance killed the cat

Researchers try to duplicate experiments in order to verify them. If noone can duplicate the experiment, it's taken that the original had some error.

I don't even remember at this point what experiment we were talking about, but I recall that it was not a cloning experiment. We were not talking about reproducing results.

As I remember (possibly incorrectly), the two that are cloning the cows used a different cloning technique that Wilmut did. If this is true, their success has no bearing on Wilmut's success or failure.

This is similar to what I was speaking of -- a different experiment has no bearing on the results of an unrelated one.

I will agree that we may not perfectly understand what goes on at (or below) the quantum level. Given this, though, we cannot absolutely say that the events are not truly random.

Two points:

•It would be most reasonable to infer that the universe is consistant whether we can measure a particular instance of it or not, rather than say that those parts we cannot measure are inconsistant with the rest. That is, all of our evidence supports the proposition that events are deterministic, since those that we can measure all have been shown to be as such. Saying that unseen events are random would be unnecessarily multiplying entities, as William of Ockam would phrase it.

•You continually use this term "quantum level". I'm not sure what you mean by this. A "quantum" is simply a discrete unit of measurement. If you mean really small, perhaps "sub- atomic" would be the term you are looking for, since a "quantum" can be any size -- for instance, you could say that a shot-glass holds a quantum of beer.

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

Tom Anderson - 03:18am Feb 27, 1998 ET (#3632 of 3653)

Curiosity was framed, ignorance killed the cat

None of the models have been experimentally proven.

Actually, I would say that they have been equally proven. That is, there is certainly evidence to support them or they would never have been theorized, but there is not enough evidence to distinguish between the differences between them. They are partially deductive and partially inductive. Either way, though, you do not get randomness.

I will agree with this if what you've said has been determined to be absolutely true.

How about reliably true? That you exist cannot be determined to be absolutely true.

And, hence, it really depends upon which definition of "free will" one "chooses" to use.

No it doesn't. Free will either is or isn't. If it isn't, then there is never any choice.

I think Wilmut tried the experiment 80 (?) times. This would give a 99.20% probability that none of the cells were fetal.

That does not follow. It just means that none of the cells developed, that's all.

Assuming that the events are independent.

No, that is assuming that they are dependent. If the events were independent, then there would be no product involved. But, the selection of a fetal cell, no matter how many times it is divided in culture, is still dependent on the original sampling, which is dependent on the ratio of fetal cells to somatic cells by volume in the udder. Thus the probabilities are multiplied.

Assuming that clones from fetal cells have the same mortality rate as clones from adult cells.

No, I needn't assume anything about mortality rates.

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

Tom Anderson - 03:22am Feb 27, 1998 ET (#3633 of 3653)

Curiosity was framed, ignorance killed the cat

Cliff,

The reason I suspect that Dolly is a clone of a fetal cell is that: 1. It is possible.

Though highly improbable.

2. Other labs, as well as Dr. Wilmut, himself, apparently, since Polly and Molly are clones of fetal cells, have been unsuccessful, cloning from adult cells, using his method.

It has not been retried enough (if at all) to just declare it a failure. If ten other experiments fail, there is still a good success rate. After about a hundred attempts, I would start using the term "very questionable", and not until it is given up for frustration and impatience that I would deem it a "failure".

I would have thought your college library would contain a copy. I can understand a clod-hopper like me not having access to such a book, but I would have assumed your college would provide access to you.

Ok, let me rephrase: I do not have time to determine whether I have access to it; so, for all intents and purposes, I do not. Maybe if Dawn were to quote it for us...

What can I conclude from that? I think I can conclude that the magnet found the 4140 chips.

I understand your point, but I don't think it directly relates. You see, what if you had some chips that were just a tiny bit more magnetic than the rest of the magnetic chips, then you could never determine which were which by that method. It would be even worse if you did not even know whether or not there were two different kinds of chips; or worse still, if you knew that there were more than ten different chips of varying magnetic attraction, and that the one you want may or may not be in there. This is a better relation to cell culturing.

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

Tom Anderson - 03:25am Feb 27, 1998 ET (#3634 of 3653)

Curiosity was framed, ignorance killed the cat

Carl,

Humanity is not well served by a bunch of ivory tower flakes and bath tub gin technitions promogating such loose concepts.

Right on! Let's clean this discussion up a bit. A good starting point would be to state your position before providing premises and defenses.

Frank,

I bring up the mutations because of teh relevance to the argument.

But you fail to state how it is relevant. All I see is a red herring.

I suggest you state your position, state your premises, and then explain how that leads to your conclusion. Because right now I see no argument whatsoever.

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

Onimo Ratisbon - 04:14am Feb 27, 1998 ET (#3635 of 3653)

cloning was started by R.seeds he says that he was an unimportant student of the high school because he new things which other students did not .he said that cloning was started by his brother but he failed

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

Onimo Ratisbon - 04:20am Feb 27, 1998 ET (#3636 of 3653)

I AM CHANGING MY TOPIC : MOVIES

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

Keith Fosberg - 07:44am Feb 27, 1998 ET (#3637 of 3653)

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

Since the basic ethics of allowing of banning the cloning of humans for reproductive purposes hinges upon the existance (or lack thereof) of free-will I have decided to revisit the question.

In a sudden flash I have decided to reverse myself.

I will try to keep this brief, but may have to span a couple of postings to present my argument for the existance of free-will.

Although I have fairly succesfully argued for a deterministic universe I have a strong intuitive feeling that free-will exists. It suddenly came to me this morning that an examination of the minutia of QM would not yield insight as the fundemental nature of existance is unknowable and therefore speculative. So, how should I procede? Then, in a "ta-da" kind of moment I realised that the answere lay within the "babel-fish" paradox (Doug Adams, anyone?)

I will start with my version in the next post.

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

Keith Fosberg - 08:09am Feb 27, 1998 ET (#3638 of 3653)

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

First, here are my asumptions:

•The concept of a creator requires faith.

•Faith must be unproven (by deffinition.)

•In a deterministic system an effect can not exist sans cause.

•Prior to "the beginning" there was either, a. no existance, or b. a singularity having no structure and no state.

•Free-will requires the existance of random events.

Argument #1:

Since no effect can exist without a cause, a universally deterministic universe would require a cause from an outside source to exit the condition of nonexistance or statelessness.

Argument #2:

Any external cause is effectively "God" regardless of its objective description because said cause meets the fundemental requirement of being "God" as this cause would be the creator of the universe.

Argument #3:

If it could be proven that the universe is universally deterministic it would be proven by axiom that God exists.

Argument #4:

If it is proven by axiom that God exists since the universe is universally deterministic, then it is equaly proven that God does not exist.

Argument #5:

If "God" does not exist in the function as the creator of the universe then there can be no external cause to reach the initial effect of existance.

Conclusion:

The universe (with or without the existance of "God") can not exist purely as a deterministic system without courting a logical paradox, therefore the occurance of random events must be greater than zero, effectively proving that free-will is possible.

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

Frank Joyce - 12:59pm Feb 27, 1998 ET (#3639 of 3653)

Tom Anderson:

I did state there would be an atricifial selection based on the fact that the fetal cells are easier to clone than adult. the supporting facts that the fetal cells are easier to clone came from all of the othe statements that you now avoid by calln red herrings.

Your sampling again arguement again is wrong since three times now you fail to adress teh issue of how the cells are maintained by splitting teh culture every day, and bringing them up again. You also depend on changing you figures each time I point out and error.BTW fetal cells have a doubling time around 10 hrs. adult fiberblast are between 14 and 16 hrs. So try pluggin those in to the model. then run through the model each day that they split the cells, remembering that each day the cells will be a greater percentage of the population.

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

Keith Fosberg - 02:37pm Feb 27, 1998 ET (#3640 of 3653)

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

Frank (or anyone),

After having picked out your candidate cell for nuclear transfer, would you be able to tell by examining the cell if it was from the adult or the fetus?

Of more interest to me; Supposing Frank is correct in his supisition that the protocol to maintain the culture and the 1 out of 200+ attempts that succeeded in producing a viable fetus are an indirect method of selecting fetal cells, does this suggest that the cloning of adult cells has not yet been shown to be achievable? Or does this mearly suggest that drawing a sample from a pregnant ewe is not a good procedure to establish the viability of adult cell cloning?

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

Frank Joyce - 06:04pm Feb 27, 1998 ET (#3641 of 3653)

Keith:

The fetal cells and adult cells are both fibreblast cells and are not visuaally distinguishable. Having cultured fiberblast I am familiar with thei doubling times and it is nnoted that even when you obtain the same types of cells from different areas you can have doubling times that vary by 5% or more. Fetal cells versus adult would be expected to be greater than 5%. Now keep in mind as Wilmut prepared the cells lines he's starting out with several types of cells found in whole udder tissues. HE has to grow them up split the culture and grow them up again several times in order to establish a cell line beleived to be all the same type. then when doing teh experiments he does the same he gorws them and splits teh culture at least once every day t maintain the cells, During the selection for cells he the grows them tro confluence ( the point where they are so crowded they stop dividing and exist as a layer of cells) and deprives them of serum in the media. Other cells he Splits and lets grow fro a while without reaching confluence. this is how he obtains teh various stages that he used.

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

Frank Joyce - 07:09pm Feb 27, 1998 ET (#3642 of 3653)

Bob Janitor:

the stament you made about drosophila is on #3425. This was regarging the ealeist work that demonstrated that germ cell chromosomes within nuclei were kept bound and protected, so that there would be less damage to the chromosomes

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

Frank Joyce - 07:30pm Feb 27, 1998 ET (#3643 of 3653)

Summary of arguements:

I have suggested two points of artificially produced selection in the experimet.

Culturing the cells and differing doubling times for cells. This allows fro cells to continually increase in percentage of teh population each time the culture is split.

The Microsatellite analysis: Nothing conclusive since teh parent might not be desceernable based on the 4 2-banded markers. No way to estimate probablity wioothout the DNA of both parents. Thus two possibilities. Either teh adult cells were eventually over come by the fetal cells with continual splitting of culture. or teh two cell types exist in various concentrations But are not genetically discernable.

At this point there is known to be conatamination in the cell line, And again selection based one the adult cells being more difficult to clone based on the effects of aging.

Support for why adult cells more difiicult to clone

DNA Repair coupled with transcription, only actice genes repaired

Mutation rates (#new mutations per unit time) and spectra ( types and locations of mutaion).

Transposition events known to occur more often in adult cells

Germ cells protected from many types of mutations.

Many cows have been cloned from fetal cells Only One sheep claimed to be cloned from adult.

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

Frank Joyce - 07:31pm Feb 27, 1998 ET (#3644 of 3653)

Actually there is also another point at which a big selection would occur. Lets wait and see if the Pro argument gets to it first

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

Noel Yap - 08:33pm Feb 27, 1998 ET (#3645 of 3653)

Keith Fosberg: [Tom and Frank] are both indulging in some personal attacks from time to time. Watching you each accuse the other of this behaivior is amusing!)

I agree.

Keith Fosberg: If mutation is the primary reason that cells eventually fail, is this the source of aging? This suggests to me that we age because our cells can not reproduce themselfs accuratly after a certain point.

Mutation is any change in a cell's DNA. It probably does explain a cell's aging but our aging may have other reasons as well (ie extended use of hormones.)

Cliff Beall: True. Now suppose I have a mixture of 302 stainless steel (non-magnetic) chips and AISI 4140 steel (magnetic) chips in a bucket. By volume, suppose 99% are the 302 stainless steel chips, and only 1% is 4140. Now, I swish a magnet around in the chips, and lo, and behold, a few chips sticks to the magnet. What can I conclude from that? I think I can conclude that the magnet found the 4140 chips.

This is a good analogy as to why pure probability and statistics doesn't work when one doesn't have all the facts.

Cliff Beall: Incidentally, it is reported that Wilmut had 277 failures before Dolly was successfully cloned.

Thanks for the info. Taking the 99.99% figure (for the chances of picking out an adult cell)) and assuming that the mortality rates of clones from adult cells is the same as that from fetal cells, there is now a 97.26% chance that all 278 trials were from adult cells.

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

Noel Yap - 08:33pm Feb 27, 1998 ET (#3646 of 3653)

Cliff Beall: Or maybe they did not present their research in a consistent understandable way.

If their research was above the heads of the board (which is likely to happen from time to time considering how many PhD candidates there are each year), their communication skills may not match their research skills. This does not invalidate their research. For example, would Einstein have been able to obtain a PhD considering the "proven facts" of Newton? Why was McClintock's research shunned? Could the Gaia theory also be a victim of "rule by the masses?"

Tom Anderson: Am I expressing a positive? I am stating the status-quo; you are suggesting a contradiction of scientific knowledge.

So now we must prove things that are not status-quo?

Tom Anderson: The burden of proof would be on showing that our current universal models are completely wrong.

So if most people believed that Area 51 housed a UFO, it must be true?

Tom Anderson: The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principal states that we cannot MEASURE both of these properties simultaneously, not that they do not exist.

As I understand it, this is an interpretation of HUP. In fact, if I remember the equations properly, it stares you right in the face -- dual properties do not (in reality, not due to any measuring) have exact values at the same time.

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

Noel Yap - 08:34pm Feb 27, 1998 ET (#3647 of 3653)

Tom Anderson: <Re quantum phenomenon> They are unknowable to us, but not nonexistant.

Sounds like the argument theists use to support their beliefs.

Tom Anderson: [Free will] defines a person. The definition of a person is very much a part of this cloning debate.

Well, then, how would the existence of free will differ from a "normal" human and a clone? Again, it exists (does not exist) equally in both.

Tom Anderson: You cannot call a person who does not own any horses a horse owner.

I could rephrase the question to be, "How many gods does the person believe in?" rather than asking, "Does the person believe in any gods?" Occam's razor would have you define "religion" as simplistically as possible. This definition would have no mention of gods.

Tom Anderson: A coin is not going to melt, turn into a spoon, spontaneously decay, decide to fly upward, stop a millimeter off the surface, start singing, enter warp, etc., while you flip it in the air. It will be effected by all forces acting on it, and there will be no random creation of energy by which it could do anything non-deterministic.

Back to probability and determinism. I propose a gedandenexperiment. Let's say one has a light bulb. It's state is either on or off and is not determined by any outside factors. At any point in time, one can see whether it's on or off. One can then take samples of how often it is on versus how often it is off. You can then empirically calculate the probability of each state. This would support the statement that determinism is not necessary to have probabilities.

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

Noel Yap - 08:34pm Feb 27, 1998 ET (#3648 of 3653)

Tom Anderson: So you are saying that energy is randomly created and destroyed equally?

Isn't this what quantum fluctuations are supposed to be? Isn't this how they explain the Big Bang?

Tom Anderson: Is the total energy in the universe still the same at every moment?

More or less if it's non-deterministic.

Tom Anderson: Where does it go? Where does it come from? Why would it do this? Obviously nothing determines when or where or how often, otherwise it would be deterministic.

Right. So therefore answers to such questions don't exist.

Tom Anderson: How do you explain that we have never witnessed an object that once had energy spontaneously lose it without it going anywhere?

We haven't looked long enough. We haven't looked at the right time at the right place. Our measurements aren't fine enough.

Tom Anderson: For instance, have you ever seen anything that was high up in the air suddenly, and without any releasing of energy, just end up on the ground instantaneously? Fire turn ice cold? Solid matter become spontaneously volatile?

Gee I wish I knew the correct terms for these arguments as I'm sure you do. All this is irrelevent until you have given me proof that the universe is deterministic at all scales.

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

Noel Yap - 08:35pm Feb 27, 1998 ET (#3649 of 3653)

Tom Anderson: Then conservation doesn't hold.

Again, your faith in such basic "facts" is unwaivering. The conservation "laws" are assumptions based on observations. They are as much "laws" as were Newton's at one time. Future observation may or may not overturn the conservation laws. But assuming their absolute (ie to the nth degree) correctness doesn't prove determinism. IOW, the conservation laws must be proven correct for all space and for all time. This can only be done through induction. Induction would necessitate determinism which is what we're trying to prove to begin with.

Tom Anderson: This is not the same as authoritarian knowledge. It is called trust;

Again, this sounds like other religions.

Tom Anderson: What is wisdom without knowledge? Wisdom cannot be had without knowledge, especially reliable knowledge.

Please don't take this as a personal insult, but this is something I would have said when I was in college. There are many things not taught in classes Experience teaches much more. I'm sure you know this, but I'm not sure to what extent you this -- I'm not even sure to what extent I know it 'cos I still have many more experiences to go.

Tom Anderson: Well, that's interesting... why don't you share one?

Most individuals don't act violently and would rather ignore a situation or talk it out than fight, yet war exists. Please don't give excuses as to the reasons for each individual war; it's beside the point.

What happened to my question about the distribution of beneficial versus detrimental genes that are recessive? If anyone else has an answer, I would welcome it.

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

Noel Yap - 08:35pm Feb 27, 1998 ET (#3650 of 3653)

Tom Anderson: That is, all of our evidence supports the proposition that events are deterministic, since those that we can measure all have been shown to be as such.

All of our evidence supported a Euclidean geometry until we started looking into it further. We shouldn't just assume the universe is deterministic until we've looked into it further.

Tom Anderson: Saying that unseen events are random would be unnecessarily multiplying entities, as William of Ockam would phrase it.

I would agree. But, again, we're forcing our beliefs onto the universe. IOW, we're simplifying the universe to fit our models.

Tom Anderson: You continually use this term "quantum level". I'm not sure what you mean by this.

What I mean is the scale at which one no longer deals with continuous events. Continuous events exist 'cos all the discrete events tend to "average" out. When dealing at the quantum level, one doesn't have enough elements in the system for their behaviour to average out.

Tom Anderson: you could say that a shot-glass holds a quantum of beer.

I would much prefer a pint to be the size of a quanta of beer ;)

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

Noel Yap - 08:36pm Feb 27, 1998 ET (#3651 of 3653)

Tom Anderson: Actually, I would say that they have been equally proven. That is, there is certainly evidence to support them or they would never have been theorized, but there is not enough evidence to distinguish between the differences between them.

What's the difference between this and interpretations of HUP? They (some anyway), too, have been equally proven but there's not enough evidence to distinguish among them.

Tom Anderson: They are partially deductive and partially inductive. Either way, though, you do not get randomness.

An all-controlling god would also prevent randomness.

Noel Yap: I will agree with this if what you've said has been determined to be absolutely true.

Tom Anderson: How about reliably true? That you exist cannot be determined to be absolutely true.

Yes, if I feel it's reliably true, then I would say that there is no free will. I haven't come to believe that it's reliably true for the quantum level, though.

Tom Anderson: No, that is assuming that they are dependent. If the events were independent, then there would be no product involved.

Please explain. What I learned is that the probability of a series of events occurring is the product of each event's probability given that each event is independent. For example, the chances of tossing three heads when tossing a coin three times is .53. Bayes's formula generalises the probability to take into account correlations among the events.

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

Noel Yap - 08:36pm Feb 27, 1998 ET (#3652 of 3653)

Tom Anderson: No, I needn't assume anything about mortality rates.

Yes you do, given that Wilmut tried the experiment 277 other times, these might have been failures 'cos he used adult cells. If Dolly was, in fact, from a fetal cell, it might be the reason that she survived.

Tom Anderson: what if you had some chips that were just a tiny bit more magnetic than the rest of the magnetic chips, then you could never determine which were which by that method.

Unless you successively performed this operation. It would act a selection mechanism. This type of selection is seen all around us from evolution to chemical separation to recycling plants.

Tom Anderson: It would be even worse if you did not even know whether or not there were two different kinds of chips; or worse still, if you knew that there were more than ten different chips of varying magnetic attraction, and that the one you want may or may not be in there. This is a better relation to cell culturing.

Cliff's analogy can still be generalised to take these situations into account.

Tom Anderson: A good starting point would be to state your position before providing premises and defenses.

I agree.

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

Noel Yap - 08:36pm Feb 27, 1998 ET (#3653 of 3653)

Tom Anderson: I suggest [Frank] state your position, state your premises, and then explain how that leads to your conclusion. Because right now I see no argument whatsoever.

I think he's already done this.

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

Frank Joyce - 09:13pm Feb 27, 1998 ET (#3654 of 3654)

Cliff beal & noel yapp:

"Thanks for the info. Taking the 99.99% figure (for the chances of picking out an adult cell)) and assuming that the mortality rates of clones from adult cells is the same as that from fetal cells, there is now a 97.26% chance that all 278 trials were from adult cells"

this statistic leaves out the fact that the cell cultures were continuously split and regrown during this period causing an increase inteh # of fetal cells in teh popultion with each round of splitting. Thus with each attempt he had greater odds of getting fetal cells

When he established the populations he went from chopped up udder that contains many cell types and then slowly selected out only fiberblasts, Adult and fetal fiberblasts were present but indistinguishable. So again just to get pure population of fiberblasts he Split the culture several times. regrowing it each time. Thus again giving fetal fiberblasts a good chance to exist in much higher numbers in the population.

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

Cliff Beall - 12:36am Feb 28, 1998 ET (#3655 of 3656)

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

To Frank Joyc:

I have done some scouting around and have come up with the following:

In 1970, a cloning experiment with frogs by John Gurdon, using a method pioneered in an earlier unsuccessful attempt by Robert Briggs and T.J.King, did produce tadpoles. The tadpoles died before they were to begin their feeding stage.

In 1981, Karl Illmensee and Peter Hoppe reported that they had produced three exact clones of a mouse. This was generally considered to be a fraudulent claim, and is still sometimes reported as such, since James McGrath and Davor Solter reported that the experiment could not be repeated. Later, however, it was shown that the experiment was not repeatable after the mouse embryos reaches the two-cell stage.

In 1984, Steve Willadsen cloned a live lamb from immature sheep embryo cells.

In 1994, Neal First and Miassam M. Matalipova successfully cloned four calves, using embryos that had grown to 120 cells.

In 1996, Campbell, McWhir, Ritchie and Wilmut report "live mammalian offspring following nuclear transfer from an established cell line. Lambs were born after cells derived from sheep embryos, which had been cultured for 6 to 13 passages, were induced to quiesce by serum starvation before transfer of their nuclei into enucleated oocytes." (ref. Nature 1996 Mar 7;380(6569):64-66)

In 1997, Dolly was born.

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

Cliff Beall - 12:38am Feb 28, 1998 ET (#3656 of 3656)

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

To Frank Joyc (cont):

On the basis of the above, I think I can categorically state, contrary to your assertion, that the technology represented by Dolly is not "old." Perhaps it can be said that cloning has been a long time coming, but the breakthroughs are very recent. In short, cloning of "advanced" cell of mammals is very new.

To Tom Anderson:

In my rambling around this evening, I ran across the following discussion of some of the possible problems associated with cloning. I think you may be interested. To access, click the following address:

<A HREF="http://www.cabi.org/whatsnew/cloneani.htm"> http://www.cabi.org/whatsnew/cloneani.htm </A>

The specific article to which I refer is about halfway down the page and is entitled: Cloning Miscarriages & Genetic Alterations - ANI Sep 97.

In the article, Wilmut reports that "some of Dolly's chromosomes have undergone subtle structural changes usually found only in cells from older animals. This may be evidence that the chromosomes have retained a molecular memory of the fact that they are derived from a skin cell taken from a 6-year-old animal."

If this turns out to be true, it would be a strong indication that Dolly is a clone from adult cells, as you have argued, but that there may be associated problems with the procedure which you have tended to discount.

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

Keith Fosberg - 12:44am Feb 28, 1998 ET (#3656 of 3664)

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

One last nugget on "free-will" (since nobody wants to touch my "babel fish" argument) --

Anyone read the paper today? The universal application of conservation of energy in open systems might be kaput!

I assume closed systems and local ballance still pan out, but boy, is this gonna shake up some faculties, or what?

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

Tom Anderson - 01:35am Feb 28, 1998 ET (#3657 of 3664)

Curiosity was framed, ignorance killed the cat

Keith,

Finally, thank you, a good structured argument with premises and conclusion! Now, I hope you don't mind if I try to tear it down ;o)

First, here are my asumptions:

The concept of a creator requires faith.

The concept, no; the belief, yes. But I gather that is what you meant.

Faith must be unproven (by deffinition.)

If you qualify that as blind faith, then I agree; otherwise it is untrue.

In a deterministic system an effect can not exist sans cause.

It so follows.

Prior to "the beginning" there was either, a. no existance, or b. a singularity having no structure and no state.

This is a bifurcation fallacy. There may be many other possible explanations, including the obvious one that your assumption that there was a beginning at all is likely untrue. Especially since you are trying to show that a paradox exists in a deterministic universe, you must provide for the likelihood that there is no event without a cause; that is, that there is no beginning.

Free-will requires the existance of random events.

It so follows.

Argument #1:

Since no effect can exist without a cause, a universally deterministic universe would require a cause from an outside source to exit the condition of nonexistance or statelessness.

This depends on the fallacious assumption above.

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

Tom Anderson - 01:36am Feb 28, 1998 ET (#3658 of 3664)

Curiosity was framed, ignorance killed the cat

Argument #2:

Any external cause is effectively "God" regardless of its objective description because said cause meets the fundemental requirement of being "God" as this cause would be the creator of the universe.

Assuming that there is another universe outside of this universe does not solve any problems, it just unnecessarily multiplies entities.

Argument #3, Argument #4, and Argument #5 all depend on the assumptions and the first arguments, so at this point the entire line of argument must be reconstructed.

Conclusion:

The universe (with or without the existance of "God") can not exist purely as a deterministic system without courting a logical paradox, therefore the occurance of random events must be greater than zero, effectively proving that free-will is possible.

Even if the whole line of argument were valid, creating a paradox does not nullify the existing paradox -- randomness requires that energy be created ex nihilo.

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

Tom Anderson - 01:46am Feb 28, 1998 ET (#3659 of 3664)

Curiosity was framed, ignorance killed the cat

[If Dolly is the result of a fetal cell,] does this suggest that the cloning of adult cells has not yet been shown to be achievable? Or does this mearly suggest that drawing a sample from a pregnant ewe is not a good procedure to establish the viability of adult cell cloning?

I made this point a while ago when Frank first arrived. Wilmut did succeed in cloning somatic cells either way.

Frank,

I've rested my case. I'm not going to argue with you about red herrings. None of your arguments hold any water because you are dismissing a fundamental fact of mathematics. If you cannot understand simple probability, then I suggest you go back to highschool. Don't go around criticizing legitimate science just because you cannot understand it.

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

Tom Anderson - 01:47am Feb 28, 1998 ET (#3660 of 3664)

Curiosity was framed, ignorance killed the cat

You know what, Noel? I had about a ten-part post in response to your last comments, but I'm not going to send it. Why? Because in reviewing, I've found that very few of your statements came by way of much thought. Surely you cannot mean the things you are saying. You are taking unimportant pieces of something and trying to argue anything and everything about them. In most cases the arguments just don't make sense. I used to enjoy debating with you, but now it just seems to be getting ridiculous. I know that you know the difference between science and metaphysics. I know you know exactly what the Uncertainty Principle says, and why that is the case. What I don't know is why you are acting as if this is all new to you. I really have very little time to spare, and I did not have many qualms about spending it in a decent debate; however I have far better things to do than correct every misstatement you make. If this is some kind of game you are playing, I do not appreciate it. It is just a waste for me.

"To explain the unknown by the known is a logical procedure; to explain the known by the unknown is a form of theological lunacy." -- David Brooks

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

Cliff Beall - 03:19am Feb 28, 1998 ET (#3661 of 3664)

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

Carl, the term "differentiated," while a technical term, is really not difficult on a conceptual level. Even a clod-hopper like me can understand it on a conceptual level. In the beginning, cells that make up the embryo are not "differentiated." This means they are cells that can become any kind of cell. However, as time passes and the fetus if formed, the cells that make up a fetus become "differentiated" in the sense that some cells become liver cells, others become heart cell, and still others become skin cells. After the cells become "differentiated," they are more difficult to clone. Basically, in order to clone "differentiated" cells, the cells have to be "dedifferentiated." This is the difficult part. Does this make sense?

The reason appears to be that you did not understand the significance of what had been done. As near as I can determine, you didn't have a clue. I would expect that from a clod-hopper like me. I find it incredibly strange for a PhD candidate in molecular genetics, as you claim to be.

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

Cliff Beall - 03:21am Feb 28, 1998 ET (#3662 of 3664)

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

First, you missed your date by five years. Second, the idea that Gurdon's methods "have been only slightly modified" is ridiculous. And third, the reason he didn't take the "fromgs to vcmplete adults" is that the tadpoles died. (BTW, I hope your doctoral disertation doesn't contain these kinds of grammatical errors.)

Tom, please! Please don't put words in my mouth, and please do not insinuate that I have made an argument I have not made. I never used the word "failure" in this context. Not once. I have not even said it is "very questionable." The kind of terms I have used are: "I suspect," and "it may be a fair indication" and such like. Incidentally, based on the article for which I supplied a link, above, I may start suspecting some other things, but that is beside the point.

She already did. You must have missed it. On that possible basis, I will quote the entire post for you. I think it bears repeating anyway. It is one of my all time favorites:

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

Cliff Beall - 03:22am Feb 28, 1998 ET (#3663 of 3664)

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

Posted by Dawn Willis: 04:19pm Feb 9, 1998: Tom Anderson: The Rh antigen is a protein, and it is found in large amounts on the surface of red blood cells, and their stem cell precursors. Rh antigen does not float around free in the plasma. During pregnancy very small amounts of fetal blood are leaked into the maternal circulation during the last trimester, and so many OB's now give the immune globulin during that time rather than waiting until the big hemorrhage that occurs at birth. However, since red cells have no nuclei, that was probably a poor example for cloning theory. Fetal cells are highly motile, and some of them secrete enzymes that allow them to leave the fetal blood stream and cross the placental barrier. It is a rare occurrence, and back when I was in grad school in the sixties we thought it didn't happen. My 1991 edition of "Basic and Clinical Immumnology" by Stites and Terr, p. 202, states the following: "Although fetus and mother are grossly separated, cells as well as soluble substances can pass through the placenta during gestation....Syncytial trophoblast, more than 200,000 cells per day, is continuously released from the placenta and has been shown to circulate in human maternal blood from the 18th week of gestation. Various blood elements that undoubtedly contain transplantation antigens can pass bidirectionally.....The placenta provides only a partial barrier to transport of soluble or cellular elements and certainly should not be viewed as an absolute impediment to their traffic." I'm not saying that Dolly isn't what Wilmut claims her to be, just that there is a slim possibility that she was derived from a fetal cell. Until the experiment is repeated under more controlled conditions (like cloning cells from a living, non-pregnant donor)we can't be sure. The scientific method demands confirmation.

End of Dawn's Post. Hope you enjoyed it. I did, again.

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

Cliff Beall - 03:24am Feb 28, 1998 ET (#3664 of 3664)

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

Communication skills are very important. Research, without the ability to communicate that research in a meaningful way, is, essentially, wasted.

As I understand it, you are basically correct. HUP can be derived directly from the fundamental equation of quantum mechanics. Thus it does not depend on measurement inaccuracies nor does it depend on the effects of measuring. It is true in principal as well as reality.

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

Keith Fosberg - 08:30am Feb 28, 1998 ET (#3665 of 3666)

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

Not bad Tom,

An argument of that nature was an exercise for the class in symbolic logic (I don't want to admit how long ago!)

The only significant point in the whole argument is that a spontainious event can not occur in a static universe without allowing for random events, the rest of the argument is humor.

As to the probability of fetal cell contamination; I think you may have missed something. All of the calculations you show are based upon a static sampling. Frank maintains that the sampling would not be static, that it would, in fact, become more predujical to fetal cells over time because of h great growth rate of fetal cells.

I can't verify the assumptions about methodgy and growth rates (not my field , you know) but the statistical analysis must include these factors if they are valid.

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

Frank Joyce - 02:28pm Feb 28, 1998 ET (#3666 of 3666)

Tom:

your fundamental fact of mathmatics? I guess that means your ability to plug in the numners you want to get the answers you want! Furthermore you fail to adress the splitting of the culture continuously. you fail to adress the Selection of fiberblasts from the origional culture containing many cell types from udder. Yes the culture was spli more times then the # of tries they made. Becuase of this teh fetal cell population became greater and greater within the whole population. the only person that doesn't understand this is you.

Finally you failed to answer the other questions simply because your wrong. all of teh supporting facts are indeed supported by teh literature and they are not red herrings. Red herring is just what you decided to use to avoid once again. Now you refse to argue because you cannot disprove anything with a math model that only works when you change the number around to get what you want.

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

Tom Anderson - 09:58pm Feb 28, 1998 ET (#3667 of 3671)

Curiosity was framed, ignorance killed the cat

Cliff,

more than 200,000 cells per day, is continuously released from the placenta and has been shown to circulate in human maternal blood from the 18th week of gestation.

Thanks for the recap of Dawn's post. This brings up two points.

1) With only 200,000 fetal cells circulating among billions, there is even less of a probability of one of them being in the original sample.

2) Since the fetal cells in question are being released from the placenta, they are either placental vascular epithelial cells or fetal blood "elements". In the first case, they are differentiated cells and in the other they do not have genetic material. So, no matter whether the cells were from the fetus, Wilmut cloned a differentiated cell anyway.

Frank,

I guess that means your ability to plug in the numners you want to get the answers you want! Furthermore you fail to adress the splitting of the culture continuously.

Ok, Frank, let me run it through for you with all of your own numbers. Give me the following according to what you think: the ratio of fetal cells in the udder, the number of cells taken in the sample, the number of times the sample was split, the relative growth rates of the fetal cells to the adult cells. If you don't know one of these exactly, guestimate for me.

And also think about what I just said to Cliff -- the fetal cells and adult cells are essentially the same type of cell, so how do you propose that they divide at different rates?

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

Tom Anderson - 10:56pm Feb 28, 1998 ET (#3668 of 3671)

Curiosity was framed, ignorance killed the cat

Keith & Noel,

First, before I go into my proof, let me define the universe:

•The universe includes everything -- it is totality. It is the set of all existance.

•Be there boundaries to the universe, either spacially or temporally, then nothing exists beyond those boundaries, or else they are not boundaries but only divisions of the total universe. To fathom this, do not try to imagine walls, but rather that travelling in one direction eventually brings you upon your starting point, or simply never ceases to stop (depending on whether the universe can be said to be open or closed).

•What one might call a beginning (for instance, the big bang) is not a temporal boundary, nor division. To say that something exists before totality is to include that thing in totality. So, there is nothing 'before' the universe; it simply exists or does not exist. Existance cannot be said to begin, but either is or is not.

•The universe, being totality, contains every event that occurs (both energy and matter, since there is no distinction: E=mc2). Note: This includes all mental events.

•If it can be shown, assuming determinism, that all events in the universe can be traced back to one temporal and spacial point, then that point must be defined as the universe. It would be the macro-event which is composed of every micro-event, just as it is when not existant only as a point. This part of the definition is only necessary if the universe is deterministic, and does not effect the proof, but must be included as part of the definition conditional on the conclusion.

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

Frank Joyce - 10:56pm Feb 28, 1998 ET (#3669 of 3671)

Tom Anderson:

Dividing at different rates is easy. this has been observed to be the case simply from sampling the same types of cells from different locations. As I said before its not uncommon to get rates of 5% or greater difference. I did state that doubling times expected for adult fiberblasts are around 14-16 hrs. and that doubling times for fetal cells would be expected somwhere between 9-11 hrs. You assume in your model less then 5% rate difference for the two

Even though they are fiberblasts the adult cells will epress adult isozyme not fetal isozymes. Just like fetuses express fetal hemoglobin and adults express adult hemoglobin. So they are classified to be the same type of cell just not producing identicle proteins including the types of cyclins.

BTW both have us have suggested that somatic cells have been cloned. i have suggested a difference between adult and fetal that would favor fetal cells do to being both less differentiated and not as old thus carrying fewer mutations.

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

Tom Anderson - 11:00pm Feb 28, 1998 ET (#3670 of 3671)

Curiosity was framed, ignorance killed the cat

Theorem: The universe is deterministic -- randomness does not exist.

•This proof is occurring. If this proof were not occurring, this argument would not exist. This argument does exist, therefore this proof is occurring.

•The universe exists. The proof is a group of events, and all events are contained in the universe. The proof exists, therefore the universe exists to contain it.

•The universe is not uniform. A uniform universe must consist of one event that is constant throughout. There exists a proof, therefore there are more than one event in the universe, therefore the universe is not uniform.

•Order exists. Order is defined as the existance of nonuniformity. The universe is nonuniform, therefore order exists in the universe.

•Patterns exist. There are events which share precisely the same order as other events, such as letters and words in the proof which is occurring. These identically repeated orders are patterns of order. The proof exists, therefore patterns exist.

•Relations exist. Patterns can be classified by the relation they have with other patterns. These classifications can relate patterns within an event or patterns between events, for instance the relationship of commonality. Relationship is a property of patterns. Patterns exist, therefore relations exist.

•There exist universals. Patterns and order require that some relations are universally true. For instance, the existance of patterns necessitates that commonality exists always or else patterns do not exist. Also, the existance of order necessitates that order and uniformity are mutually exclusive. These universals are necessary for the existance of the patterns and order; patterns and order exist, therefore universals exist.

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

Tom Anderson - 11:00pm Feb 28, 1998 ET (#3671 of 3671)

Curiosity was framed, ignorance killed the cat

•Randomness does not exist. Randomness is defined as the quality of nonuniversiality. That is, randomness is that which causes universals to be untrue. Universals exist, therefore randomness does not exist.

Also, further proof:

•Math exists. Naming relationships and defining the universal characteristics of them makes for a system of icons that models the universe. Manipulating the icons produces the same result among the icons that occurs among the relationships when the same manipulation is made of the relationships. This model is called Math. Relationships exist, therefore math exists.

•Math cannot model randomness. No equation of math -- that is, no relationship of icons representing universals -- can produce randomness.

•Randomness does not exist. Math can model all events. Math cannot model randomness, therefore randommess does not exist.

Additional evidence: the existance of structure, the first, second, and third laws of thermodynamics.

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

Tom Anderson - 11:16pm Feb 28, 1998 ET (#3670 of 3677)

Curiosity was framed, ignorance killed the cat

Frank,

So far, you have given me:

the ratio of fetal cells in the udder -- No response.

the number of cells taken in the sample -- No response.

the number of times the sample was split -- No response.

the relative growth rates of the fetal cells to the adult cells -- 3:2.

If you want me to do the math for you without using my numbers, you must give me your numbers.

Also, how do you account for this: The fetal cells are epithelial cells and differentiated just as much as the udder's epithelial cells. However, existing in an even larger concentration than fetal cells in the udder are adult stem cells. Adult stem cells, being less diffentiated than both of the former, and being in more of an abundance than the fetal cells, should be selected for more than anything else. And in this case, Dolly is a clone of the adult.

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

Frank Joyce - 11:42pm Feb 28, 1998 ET (#3671 of 3677)

Tom:

There is no definite way to determine how many times the culture was split. I did say that just in maintaining the cells they must be split each day. I aslo said in selecting the cells they also had to undergo several splittings. If it took them over a year to do the experiment how many times would it be split?

again neither you nor I could actually say how many would be present in the udder.

Fetal cells are not as differentiated as adult cells. Again I did mention that fetal cells would be producing fetal isozymic variants of most of their proteins. Adult would be producing adult proteins. Adult cells simply by having been around a lot longer have collected more mutations. If you think there is no difference between the two then why are fetal cells more frequently cloned and only one person claims to have cloned an adult.

Keep in mind as well you did mention that they were epithelial cells. how many different types of tissue are made from epithelial cells? Each different tissue type having its own function and producing different proteins. Just because it is an epithelial cell doesn't mean it has stopped differentiating.

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

Carl Nicolai - 11:47pm Feb 28, 1998 ET (#3672 of 3677)

Located in Taipei Taiwan

Cliff Beall - 03:19am Feb 28, 1998 ET (#3661 of 3667)

Carl Nicolai: It seems everyone uses the word differentiated to discribe some kind of quality that a cell has that is important if you want to clone an animal from that cell.

Carl, the term "differentiated," while a technical term, is really not difficult on a conceptual level. Even a clod-hopper like me can understand it on a conceptual level. In the beginning, cells that make up the embryo are not "differentiated." This means they are cells that can become any kind of cell. However, as time passes and the fetus if formed, the cells that make up a fetus become "differentiated" in the sense that some cells become liver cells, others become heart cell, and still others become skin cells. After the cells become "differentiated," they are more difficult to clone. Basically, in order to clone "differentiated" cells, the cells have to be "dedifferentiated." This is the difficult part. Does this make sence.

Yes it really *appears* to say something about cells. I, like everyone else, over the past 30 years would have described it just have you have done.

The problem is that you can not use logical opperators with the concept. Until someone goes to the effort to define just what constitures differentation all you get is fuzzy thinking. This is what Noel pointed out and alerted me to the dangers of this malformed or just too juvenile concept. You call it a technical term. What I am saying is that it is not technical enough.

Now does anyone have a deffination of differentation as applied to cells that is not just intuitive but is usefull in a scientific sence? (As in weigh, measure, rank.... You know like Science)

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

Frank Joyce - 11:57pm Feb 28, 1998 ET (#3673 of 3677)

Tom

I guess you can make an estimate of how long the experiment took using the recipient ewes as a limiting number. We know that there where 227 attempts. Each time they implanted and ebryo and let it go until they were aborted. then started again. I think teh gel shows that ther were only four or five recipient ewes. Now you need to estimate the average nuber of days teh ewes carried the embryo before miscarrying. How soon they would be ready to carry again. Also how long it takes to grow each embryo before implanting needs to be known. Iwould say that teh cells were maintained for quite some time.

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

Keith Fosberg - 12:23am Mar 1, 1998 ET (#3674 of 3677)

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

Tom,

You have two distinct errors in your argument, but I will have to get back to you o Monday. I use a "terminal" (webty) and home and would rather not transcribe and quote by hand!

I will give you a hint though. A) In one agument you overgeneralise. B) In another you make an incorrect assumption regading mathmatics.

Noel may catch you on the latter as it involes a carreer that he and I share. Very sound presentation though, kudos!

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

Tom Anderson - 01:33am Mar 1, 1998 ET (#3675 of 3677)

Curiosity was framed, ignorance killed the cat

Frank,

Let us proceed as follows: we will assume, from Dawn's quoting of the aforementioned scientific journal, that 200 thousand fetal cells exist at any one time in circulation in the mother's body. Out of the 75 trillion cells that exist in the average human body (we will say that this is also the amount in a sheep's body, though there would probably be more), this then accounts for 2.67E-7 (0.000000267) percent by volume. Let us assume that 100 cells have been taken in the sample. Let us assume that the sample was split (50%/50%) twice a day for one year, each time one half of the population being discarded. And we will assume 3/2 growth rate of fetal cells to adult cells. These numbers are either ones you gave me or a guestimation on my part that greatly favors your argument.

From this, probabilistically there is a 2.67E-7 percent chance that any of the cells in the original sample is a fetal cell. After one growth period, assuming one of the cells in the sample were fetal, there is a 1.5 percent chance that any of them is a fetal cell. Then there is a fifty percent chance that it will remain in the half of the culture which is allowed to grow again. Once split the first time, there is a 3/4 percent chance that any of the cells is a fetal cell. After each growth period of 3/2, and each splitting of 1/2, there is a 3/4 percent less likelihood of a fetal cell existing. So, after 730 splittings, there is a (3/4)^730 = 6.23E-92 percent chance that any of them is fetal. This is also conditional on the likelihood that the first one was fetal, so the total probability that Dolly was cloned from a fetal cell is (2.67E-7)(6.23E-92) = 1.66E-98 percent. Both my TI-82 and Windows Calculator agree that this is a 100% chance that Dolly is NOT the clone of a fetal cell.

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

Cliff Beall - 03:52am Mar 1, 1998 ET (#3676 of 3677)

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

I made no argument with respect to probability. My argument had to do with the evidence that Dolly may not be a clone of adult somatic cells, despite any probability you might want to calculate.

For example, I pointed out that other scientist being "unable to duplicate his results, using his method, is probably an indication that Dolly was not a clone from adult cells." And I pointed out that if Wilmut was not the first to clone a mammal from an adult cell, "he should not have credit for it."

Also, I must admit that I strongly objected to Bob's statement that the "experiment had been reproduced elsewhere" since Bob was incorrect, and I said that "if the experiment has been reproduced" elsewhere, I am not aware of it." Finally, I pointed out that according to the CNN report (link above), "No other scientists have been able to duplicate Wilmut's procedure, which has created doubt within the scientific community."

Well, my position has been that if there is doubt within the "scientific community," who am I to be a "true believer"?

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

Cliff Beall - 03:57am Mar 1, 1998 ET (#3677 of 3677)

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

I also made no argument contrary to this. Indeed, I can point to the following statement that I wrote on February 26:

"I also do not agree that Dolly was a "fraud." Dolly was a clone of differentiated cells, whether from fetal or adult cells. This is what Dr. Wilmut was trying to do, and he succeeded. The reason I suspect that Dolly is a clone of a fetal cell is that: 1. It is possible. 2. Other labs, as well as Dr. Wilmut, himself, apparently, since Polly and Molly are clones of fetal cells, have been unsuccessful, cloning from adult cells, using his method. He has shown that his method does work with fetal cells, however. Polly and Molly are proof of that."

I am puzzled about one thing however. In the link that I supplied to you, Wilmut apparently made a statement to the effect that Dolly was cloned from a SKIN cell. (I did a double take when I saw it!) The statement was apparently made last September, before the controversy. I would have expected you to jump on that. I am including the link again for your convenience.

<A HREF="http://www.cabi.org/whatsnew/cloneani.htm"> http://www.cabi.org/whatsnew/cloneani.htm </A>

Maybe you will read it this time;)

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

Tom Anderson - 04:30am Mar 1, 1998 ET (#3678 of 3680)

Curiosity was framed, ignorance killed the cat

Cliff,

I did not really direct those statements to you; even though I addressed the comment to you, I was basically just quoting what you said to make my points to Frank.

Last time I said you were using the absence of a repeat experiment to make a claim about Dolly, you took immediate offense. However, you are again saying that no repeat experiments says something about Dolly's status. This is not good reasoning.

Yes, the cells used to clone Dolly are "skin" cells. They are not skin cells as you usually think of them. Most often we refer to the epidermis when we say "skin". However, skin can actually describe all epithelial cells. Epithelium is a very widespread cell type in the body and makes up many types of tissue. Epithelial cells line every vein and artery, every organ (including the udder) both inside and out, the mouth, digestive, and excretory tracts, as well as the external layer which we call the epidermis.

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

Tom Anderson - 04:32am Mar 1, 1998 ET (#3679 of 3680)

Curiosity was framed, ignorance killed the cat

Carl,

Now does anyone have a deffination of differentation as applied to cells that is not just intuitive but is usefull in a scientific sence? (As in weigh, measure, rank.... You know like Science)

The best I could do would be to define the amount of differentiation by the number of genes being inhibited.

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

Carl Nicolai - 05:34am Mar 1, 1998 ET (#3680 of 3680)

Located in Taipei Taiwan

Tom Anderson - 04:32am Mar 1, 1998 ET (#3679 of 3679)

The best I could do would be to define the amount of differentiation by the number of genes being inhibited.

Thanks. That sounds like a good place to start. If I rember correctally we have something on the order of 100,000 expressed genes. It would seem that most of them are inhibited most of the time. I dont know if chemical production or conversion is easy to measure but in some cells an MRI could be used to detect weither a pariticular chemicals production was being inhibited. (or enhanced)

Now since liver cells produce or convert some 3,000 or so chemicals it would seem that a lot of genes are not being inhibited relative to other cells.

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

Cliff Beall - 12:29pm Mar 1, 1998 ET (#3681 of 3681)

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

Okay, let me explain. First, I object to the word "claim" in the above statement since I have made no "claim" whatever. I have not claimed that Dolly is a clone of a fetal cell. I have only admitted (and when the possibility has been denied, insisted) that it is possible, and I have said that the lack of success in repeat experiments using adult cells is probably an "indication" that she is a clone of a fetal cell. I would not call that a "claim."

My prior objection, to which you refer, had to do mainly with your characterization of my supposed "claim." You said that I could not call it a "failure." The implication of that is that I had called Wilmut's experiment a failure. I did no such thing. While I object to both, I particularly objected to the characterization.

I see nothing wrong with my reasoning with respect to the above. And even if there is something wrong with it, my attitude is that I am perfectly capable of making a fool of myself, all by myself. I don't need any help:-)

BTW, thanks for the explanation about epithelial cells. I appreciate good explanation, and now that I understand what they are, I can start talking about epithelial cells when I see an opportunity. That is what makes me dangerous. Thanks.

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

Frank Joyce - 02:40pm Mar 1, 1998 ET (#3682 of 3683)

Tom:

Your estimate is off again. You state 75 trillion cells in the body. we are only talking about the udder and the cells within it. the estimate of 200,000 cells in the blood stream are cells continually passing through it. once again you need to find a way that will estimate that, and the fact that wilmut did indeed select for fiberblasts which included both types. And please note that he did distinguish in the title of his paper, ADULT AND FETAL cells used for cloning. he is making the distinction. I have stated over and over why adult cells are more difficult to clone than fetal.

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

Cliff Beall - - 03:05pm Mar 1, 1998 ET (#3683 of 3683)

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

Carl, I think you may be trying to make something of nothing with your "degree of differentiation" idea. Some things either are or they are not. For example, iron is magnetic at room temperature. But if you heat iron above it's critical temperature, it converts to austenine and is non-magnetic. To get technical, there is a lower transformation temperature in which some of the iron atoms have converted to austenite, and there is an upper transformation temperature in which all of the atoms have been converted. But once it has exceeded the upper transformation temperature, iron is all austenite, non-magnetic. There is nothing to measure or rank. It either is or it is not.

Or consider the digital switches in your computer. When you use a computer, you cause certain bits to be set in main memory. The bits are either on or off. Once the bits are set, how do you unset them. With respect to main memory, one way is to turn your computer off. But if you have saved the bit settings to your hard drive, the bit settings remain after you have turned off your computer. Does this mean that the bit settings on you hard drive are set more firmly than the bit settings in main memory? Can you then talk about "degree of set"? I think it just means that there is more than one type of memory, and the method of unsetting the bits is different for different kinds of memory.

There is more than one kind of cell in the human body. Since the process of dedifferentiation is more easily accomplished with respect to certain types of cells, does this mean that there is a greater degree of differentiation in some cells than others? I would be inclined to suppose that differentiation is strictly an on or off proposition and that one's ability to dedifferentiate some cells more easily than others has to do with the type of cell one is working with, rather than the "degree of differentiation" of the cell.

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

Carl Nicolai - 07:18pm Mar 1, 1998 ET (#3684 of 3686)

Located in Taipei Taiwan

Cliff Beall #3681:There is more than one kind of cell in the human body. Since the process of dedifferentiation is more easily accomplished with respect to certain types of cells, does this mean that there is a greater degree of differentiation in some cells than others? I would be inclined to suppose that differentiation is strictly an on or off proposition and that one's ability to dedifferentiate some cells more easily than others has to do with the type of cell one is working with, rather than the "degree of differentiation" of the cell.

The "type" of cell may indeed have to do with the quality we are calling differentiated. As Noel pointed out however using words like "highly differentaited" implies a degree or something we can attach a value to.

Malleability seems to lie at the core of the concept.

To just say that the only feature that "differentiated" applies to is the ability to make a clone zygote from it totally begs the question. (clone zygote???)

Lets say that we take maybe 20 different cells and try to fuse the necular material with an egg cell.

We could rank the success of this. Incubating the precourser cells with chamical x could change the ranking and overall success rate. If we can isolate the cloneability as an independent function of cells we certainly understand more about them. Weather this relates to our ideas of specialization or differentiation remains to be seen.

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

Tom Anderson - 07:47pm Mar 1, 1998 ET (#3685 of 3686)

Curiosity was framed, ignorance killed the cat

Frank,

That estimate uses numbers that favor your argument, not mine. I used the number of cells in the body because I also used the number of fetal cells in the entire body. They will be evenly distributed throughout, so that gives the likelihood of a fetal cell at any place in the body, including the udder. But, even if I said there were 1 fetal cell for every 100 adult cells, then it would still be a 100% probability that Dolly is not a clone of a fetal cell, precisely because of the culturing selects them OUT.

Carl,

In addition, it should be noted that the zygote is actually quite differentiated. It certainly does not express all of its genes, and only expresses those for a certain function -- that is, producing an embryo.

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

Cliff Beall - 10:00pm Mar 1, 1998 ET (#3686 of 3686)

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

Carl, Tom,

I go back to Tom's original explanation. I tend to accept it because it rings true to me.

Carl, you seem to be hung up on the word "very" as in "it is entirely possible to have a very differentiated cell..." With Tom's permission, I would suggest a better word might be "fully" as in "it is entirely possible to have a fully differentiated cell..." But other than that, it seems to make perfect sense.

On the other hand, "degree of differentiation" makes no sense at all to me. A cell is either fully differentiated or it is not. I would assume that there is a period of transition during which the cell may be "partially" differentiated, but I would suspect that the transition period is quite early in the development of the fetus. Assuming this to be true, I would assume that Wilmut must have used a "fully" differentiated cell to clone Dolly, whether fetal or adult.

If it turns out that Wilmut's method works only on fetal cells, or if it only works better with fetal cells than with adult cells, I would suspect other factors are involved.

But then, I am not a biologist. Perhaps I should leave such matters as these in the hands of the professionals. It appears that they, themselves, may be having a problem in understanding exactly what is occurring.

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

Tom Anderson - 11:04pm Mar 1, 1998 ET (#3687 of 3701)

Curiosity was framed, ignorance killed the cat

The FAQ has reached testing phase, so if everyone would send me comments, you can find it here:

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

Tom Anderson - 11:09pm Mar 1, 1998 ET (#3688 of 3701)

Curiosity was framed, ignorance killed the cat

Note: I have only tested it using IE4, so I would appreciate some feedback on how it appears in other browsers. However, if you do use IE4, you will get a cool rollover effect on the text, but this will not appear in other browsers or versions and should not adversely effect them. Also grermatercal and spEling corrections would be apprecitated. Oh, and content too!

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

Tom Anderson - 11:11pm Mar 1, 1998 ET (#3689 of 3701)

Curiosity was framed, ignorance killed the cat

If everyone agrees with the responses to the questions provided in the FAQ, you can direct newcomers there rather than explaining questions that have been asked a zillion times and then we can advance our discussion unhindered.

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

Carl Nicolai - 12:18am Mar 2, 1998 ET (#3690 of 3701)

Located in Taipei Taiwan

Tom! I just wanted to say thank you for your FAQ. This effort will help every new reader to catch up to where the regulars are. (Heck I picked up a few things myself.) I would like to localize it to Chinese if possable.

Can we get CNN to point to it? Of cource you could put the URL in your sig.

I read it with Netscape and it was a little dark. I think greater color seperation would help.

Thanks again for the great job.

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

Tom Anderson - 01:58am Mar 2, 1998 ET (#3691 of 3701)

Curiosity was framed, ignorance killed the cat

Carl,

I would like to localize it to Chinese if possable.

I have no problem with that.

Can we get CNN to point to it?

I guess it depends on whether they agree with it. We've got "staff" looking through all of the messages, so I guess if they think it is a suitable thing to do, they will link to it.

Of cource you could put the URL in your sig.

Already there. If I happen to leave the discussion for any considerable amount of time, or even for good, I will leave the faq where it is until I graduate in two years. If anyone wants to copy it and mirror it after that, I don't have a problem with it.

I read it with Netscape and it was a little dark. I think greater color seperation would help.

When I get to work on Tuesday, I will look at it in every browser (I'm a web designer, so I have all of them installed at work). Then I will see what you mean and fix it as best possible.

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

Frank Joyce - 03:04pm Mar 2, 1998 ET (#3692 of 3701)

tom:

Your model depends on a mathematical error you made. You state that each round there would be a 50% chance that the fetal cells would be removed during the split. THis would not be the case. Each individual cell that existed in the population would have a 50% chance of being removed. thus as the cells divide their odds of being removed decrease dramatically. The Numbers I give you are numbers that have been observed in NIH 3T3 cells. If you can find other numbers that have been observed for the differences in division rates then please put them in. otherwise you have a math model that only works when you put in numbers that you want to be true. your 50% odds of being removed only work if all fetal cells exist as a collective. we know that is not true becuase in order to split the culture the celsll are trypsinized and suspended( most people do this by smacking the culture flask against the palm of their hand a few times) in the culture media before 50% of that media is removed and replaced with fresh media.

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

Noel Yap - 03:14pm Mar 2, 1998 ET (#3693 of 3701)

Keith Fosberg: in a "ta-da" kind of moment I realised that the answere lay within the "babel-fish" paradox (Doug Adams, anyone?)

Funny, I was just thinking about this a few days back ;o I was also thinking about Restaurant Mathematics and how it allowed the invention of the Improbability Drive.

Keith Fosberg: Anyone read the paper today? The universal application of conservation of energy in open systems might be kaput!

This makes sense. Assuming the universe is closed, the conservation laws still hold. But the non-trivial systems are open. This means any assumptions we have about conservation are in question.

Tom Anderson: These universals are necessary for the existance of the patterns and order; patterns and order exist, therefore universals exist... Universals exist, therefore randomness does not exist.

Just because universals exist does not mean they exist for all space/time. IOW, there's a difference between "there exists" and "for all."

Tom Anderson: Math cannot model randomness. No equation of math -- that is, no relationship of icons representing universals -- can produce randomness.

Math, being a model, is an approximation of the universe. Also, math is invented by man to model the universe. If a particular field in math did not, it would be discarded. IOW, if a math exists, it models the universe. The inverse is not necessarily true (ie if math does not exist, it does not model the universe.) It may not exist 'cos we haven't found it or we haven't found a use for it.

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

Noel Yap - 03:19pm Mar 2, 1998 ET (#3694 of 3701)

Tom Anderson: Additional evidence: the existance of structure, the first, second, and third laws of thermodynamics.

You've seen me discount these with (in so many words) the law of averages, the central limit theorem, and our limited knowledge of the universe. You might as well quote Newton's laws of motion to model the universe exactly.

Frank Joyce: <To Tom Anderson> Your estimate is off again.

You mentioned nothing about his modeling of the splitting process. This accounts more for the probabilities Tom has stated. I think the model is wrong if the rate that fetal cells divide is greater than the rate that adult cells divide. Following is how I would model the process:

Let if be the initial number of fetal cells in the culture.

Let rf be the (constant) rate at which fetal cells divide.

Let ia be the initial number of adult cells in the culture.

Let ra be the (constant) rate at which adult cells divide.

Assuming that none of the cells are discarded, at time t, the number of cells would be: if(1+rf)t+ia(1+ra)t. It should be noted that discarding some of the culture would not affect the percentages in any way (ie if F% of the culture were fetal before discarding half of them, F% would still be fetal after discarding (assuming uniform distributions).)

The above can be generalised for continuous time, so, at time t, the number of cells would be: iferft+iaerat.

The above models can be further generalised with some work to take into account non-constant (or even stochastic) rates of growth.

I leave it to the student to plug

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

Noel Yap - 03:20pm Mar 2, 1998 ET (#3695 of 3701)

I leave it to the student to plug in the numbers and draw conclusions ;)

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

Noel Yap - 03:31pm Mar 2, 1998 ET (#3696 of 3701)

Frank Joyce: [Tom's] model depends on a mathematical error you made.

Any comments/improvements on my model?

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

Tom Anderson - 04:49pm Mar 2, 1998 ET (#3697 of 3701)

Curiosity was framed, ignorance killed the cat

Frank,

Each individual cell that existed in the population would have a 50% chance of being removed.

You just don't get it. If the fetal cells grow by 150% each growth period (your number), and then have a 50% chance of being removed (again, your number), each period results in 75% of the cells (simple calculation). This is a decrease of 25% for each growth period. If you only start out with one or two cells, as would be the case, they would be selected out real fast.

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

Tom Anderson - 06:03pm Mar 2, 1998 ET (#3698 of 3701)

Curiosity was framed, ignorance killed the cat

Noel,

Just because universals exist does not mean they exist for all space/time.

Yes it does, that is what the proof proves. In order for patterns or order to exist ever, then universals must exist always.

math is invented by man to model the universe

You are not reading closely enough. I did not say that man did not invent the math that you and I use with all of the terms and definitions that we have. However, man did not invent Math. Math is a property of the relationships in the universe, we just happen to name them.

You've seen me discount these with (in so many words) the law of averages, the central limit theorem, and our limited knowledge of the universe.

Some observations cannot be "averaged out". Structure cannot exist at all if randomness does. And laws relating to energy would never hold if randomness exists. But they do, so it does not. But these are only secondary evidence to my proof; don't hinge on them, concentrate on the proof itself.

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

Tom Anderson - 06:05pm Mar 2, 1998 ET (#3699 of 3701)

Curiosity was framed, ignorance killed the cat

Ah, Noel, you did point out an error in my math; I used 150% growth, not 150% more growth. IOW, I didn't add 1 in the equation. But I don't think your equation is correct either. Try this:

Let if be the initial number of fetal cells in the culture. Let rf be the (constant) rate at which fetal cells divide per division of culture. Let ia be the initial number of adult cells in the culture. Let ra be the (constant) rate at which adult cells divide per division of culture. Let n equal the number of divisions.

The number of fetal cells after n divisions:

for (var j=0; j<n; j++) if = [(if(1+rf))(0.5)];

The number of adult cells after n divisions:

for (var j=0; j<n; j++) ia = [(ia(1+ra))(0.5)];

Now, if it were as simple as this, it would support Frank's argument. And this might be where his error lies. The problem is that probability is not taken into account here. This set of equations assumes that one half of the population will continue after being split, but in reality there is a fifty percent chance that the fetal cell population will be eliminated in any of the early experiments since there is only one or two cells in the culture at the time. So for the first fifty to a hundred divisions, any fetal cells in the culture are likely to be selected out. These equations also assume that there is at least one fetal cell to begin with, which itself is a most improbable occurrance.