HUMAN CLONING IS 100% JUSTIFIED!

There is no comparison in that statement. Human cloning can revolutionize the medical profession. Imagine, a person dying in a hospital and there is no donor to give him a life-saving liver. What happens then? Then that patient may not find a suitable donor and die. But lets suppose that the individual were to clone his organs, then there would be no problem whatsoever. He would get the liver, and be perfectly alright. Does that not justify human cloning? I rest my case.

Josh Cassatt

Let me rephrase that "problem with logic" statement: What I should have said is that you tend to use assumptions as the basis of your logic. I know it isn't supposed to be that way, but that is the way it is.

The problem comes when you supply an "assumption" as "information." For example, if John is a Christian and all Christians are hypocrites, then you can logically conclude that John is a hypocrite. Same logic. (See if you can spot the "assumption" I am talking about.)

Not when the "information" turns out to be an "assumption."

I understand very well the value of your "information." When Dawn says something is so, I can take it to the bank. When you say something is true, I have learned to carefully examine the basis on which you speak.

I know very well what you told me. But I think I have good reason to be skeptical of what you said. Other people, of whom I have reason to have more confidence (credentials, for example), have indicated that there remains a question of Dolly's parentage.

Call it anything you like. It is the truth. I'll give you an example. My grandfather and my grandmother traveled from Kansas to Oklahoma territory to get married. He was thirty-five and she was a month shy of sixteen. They later homesteaded a farm in Oklahoma and raised eight kids, one of which was my mother. The constitution has not changed, but the acceptance of such things certainly have. If you don't believe it, try waiting about fifteen years until you are thirty-five and then start messing around with a fifteen year old girl and see what happens. (The rules have changed.)

I fail to understand the surprise. I merely repeated, again, something I have said a number of time: that I will support human cloning after it is established that nuclear transfer of adult cells is shown to be relatively safe for the clone. Until the safety issue is resolved, I will support a ban.

Like I have said before, Tom, you have an interesting point of view. I read every word you post on this board, regardless of the name you use when posting.

I'm sorry you feel that way Torus. It seems to me that you held your own with Tom very well. I have enjoyed your rejoinders of Tom's "logic." Sorry I will be missing them now.

Well, my grandfather wanted to marry a fifteen year old girl. I guess he thought he had a right to do it. What if you wanted to do the same thing in this day and age. Would you have the same right?

How do you feel about fertility drugs?

Who says?

I think it is mainly emotional. What can I say? I understand Dawn's "greater good" argument, and when I have been faced with questions about fetuses having genetic defects, I have answered that I would recommend abortion. Still, there is no getting around the fact that I simply don't like it.

Yes, that is easy to say, and believe. But that is not quite the same as saying that the brain stores only emotions and that facts (events) are a complete fabrication based only on the emotions stored in the brain. Change the emotion and the facts change. That is a fairly radical idea. And yet, I think I believe it.

The same controls we already have for drugs. No problem.

Putting a control on it like we do for drugs is like asking for there to be an underhanded underground usage. Do we really control drugs? No, or there wouldn't be so much need for enforcement. Pharmaceutical companies themselves have helped the govt. in scams like MK/ULTRA, and have no problem creating harmful drugs that leak into public hands. For all the good it does, something bad will come of it. Almost every good invention ever created could be made a weapon, but I'm only saying it's possible. Rather than trying to recreate Mozart, Einstein, or Ghengis Khan, it seems more likely a person would want to enhance their own characteristics in an effort to dominate. It will become available when the technology is commonplace. You only need money. "Hey, kid, wanna buy some Eagle Eyes?"

The argument for cloning organs is a good one, as easing pain and suffering is, but are we going to have enough resources for all the "longer and happier" lives, room for all the cloned livestock we'd need for the food we'd want without destroying too much of the ecological balance, or places for a booming population to live without going to war over it? Not to bring other boards in here, but this issue may be hampered by some of the others with more far-reaching effects.

(I'll rescind a previous remark, and even answer Tom if he has something to add -- provided he doesn't skirt the issue again or try to flag me for improper usage of a simple metaphor)

As an after dinner thought -- something to chew on:

Control is an illusion made most tangible by the man with the most money. True by our current systems...

To a certain extent, I suppose you are right. But a criminal penalty will keep people, and companies, who have the option of earning an honest living, in check pretty well, I think.

Depends on what you mean by "drugs." If you are referring to pharmaceuticals, I would say that we control them pretty well. The reason is that major drug companies have too much to lose to involve themselves in illegal activities. Furthermore, working within the system is profitable. Most people who have profitable legal options prefer not to have to look over their shoulder.

On the other hand, if you are referring to illegal drugs like pot, the answer is no. The reason is that anybody with a third grade education can grow weed if they have some seeds. Others with a third grade education can handle the distribution. Consider their options: six buck an hour at a fast food restaurant. Such an individual might be tempted to take a chance, and some will.

Now if such an individual, with a third grade education, could handle nuclear transfer of adult cells, I might be worried. But that is ridiculous. Nuclear transfer of adult cells is a very specialized skill. It is not something that the average college graduate is likely to do. At the present time, there are probably 10 people in the world with experience with nuclear transfer. These people do not need to get involved with illegal activities to make a living.

The only problem is finding the scientist willing to do the dirty work. I would suspect that any scientist capable of doing the deed is one who capable of asking what is in it for him. And he has too many options within the system to be bothered with illegal activities, anyway.

No it is not since it is not practical. The technical obstacles of cloning individual human organs are awesome. However, developing animals, using cloning techniques, capable of growing organs for transplant into humans is--or shortly will be--very practical.

Good.

This assumes that anybody and everybody can be bought. I have the impression that people who have options otherwise can be very independent with respect to this.

I think in the long run the journey to find an efficient method to clone will produce benefical discoveries for mankind. Governments have a poor track record when they attempt to decide what is most benefical for their citizens. Usually the decision makers try to keep the status-quo and lose sight of the big picture.

My last message was a little garbled therefore, I'll try to make my thoughts more understandable. I think Chris is saying that we should leave the subject of cloning to people who are experts. However, I'm always leery of allowing the government or whatever establishment you want to name as the sole arbiter. In my experience, usually these arbiters are only interested in protecting the status quo...not in furthering a cause that may benefit the common man.

I take it you are in favor of cloning. Sometimes, however, people mean "human cloning" when they say "cloning." I am in favor of animal cloning for pharmaceutical purposes and for the development of animals capable of growing organs suitable for implantation into humans. However, I am of the opinion that recent experience with animal cloning signals danger if human cloning is attempted too soon. I therefore support a ban on full term human cloning until it is shown that human cloning is safe. In what way do you disagree with me?

I am not sure I understand what you mean by the big picture, Joe. Could you expand on that?

Joe, I assume you are talking about me. The name is similar and the context seems to point toward me, as I read it. Therefore, I will attempt to clarify:

Nuclear transfer is a difficult and specialized technology. In essence, it is surgery. We don't let just anybody perform surgery. We allow only individuals of proven ability to perform surgery. Nuclear transfer, itself, should be performed by experts only. But that does not mean that I think only people capable of performing this incredibly difficult surgery should make all the decisions. I think it is well to listen to the experts, but each individual should decide for himself or herself what he or she will support.

Who do you think should be the arbiter?

Well, if the status quo means the maintenance of my freedom of speech, religion and privacy, among other freedoms I desire and enjoy, then I guess I support the status quo. If it means that decisions that significantly affect the health and well being of members of our society are made in an orderly and democratic fashion, then I guess I support the status quo. If it means avoiding the misuse and misapplication of technology that can have a profoundly adverse effect on people, then I guess I support the status quo.

There has been much talk of logic on these pages,I wonder if anyone is willing to see that deductive logic (and mathematics,which except geometry is all formal logic as shown by russel and wittginstein)is all axiomatic in nature,these axioms being proved by nothing,(hence the name),and hence logic and mathematics never prove anything more than they already assume.Their only utility is to make things more understandable for us by showing us what our own assumptions mean.Theorams are just convenient to remember and apply as reasoning from initial axioms is not always that easy.The example of the "syllogism" provided is a method of reasoning as old as aristotle(and maybe even more).The conclusions that logic draws are already implicit in the axioms.As for induction,that is basically an axiom of science and its validity in all cases is again questionable,as it is limited to our sample space.

Thanks for the suggestion Chris. I'll discuss your ideas later although with all the revelations about misuse of Government power I wonder if I am perceiving your comments correctly. My point was, no matter how skilled a carpenter is, I still wouldn't want him working on my car. If I have any problems transferring my file, can I use you as a resource?

It all depends on what is considered obvious. An axiom is supposed to be obvious, something on which reasonable people can agree. If, starting with premises that both you and I find obvious and reasonable, you make an argument, it is likely that I will find your argument persuasive. As an example of this, since I find the premises in your post to be reasonable, I find your entire post persuasive.

Problems and disagreements arise when different people make different assumptions. For example, for many people, the existence of God is obvious. They "see" God in everything. Although they may attempt to prove the existence of God for the benefit of others, they do not need to "prove" the existence of God for themselves since, to them, the existence of God is "axiomatic."

For others, the existence of God is not obvious, and that it is not obvious is "proof" of the non-existence of God. I consider this a fallacious argument since the premise is faulty as hell. Or they postulate a particular preconceive notion of God and attempt to disprove that preconceived notion. (As I recall, that was Tom's method.) However, disproving a particular preconceived notion of God is not equivalent to disproving the existence of God. When pressed, they insist that they do not have the burden of proof--while all the time insisting that their notion of the non-existence of God is correct.

Joe, although Chris is an exceedingly good name, one that I would be proud to wear if it was mine, the fact is that I have the much less desirable name, Cliff. In the interest of clarity, you should henceforth refer to me as Cliff, even if it is the much less desirable name.

You have a point there that I can not dismiss out of hand. On the other hand, I must say that I consider Trent Lott to be at least as honorable a man as Jeremy Rifkin or Richard Seed.

Of course. Actually, it is relatively simple. While in your word processor, just hi-light the portion of text you want to post and select Copy from the Edit menu. Then get on line and sign in. When CNN provides the edit box, make sure your cursor is in the box where you want the text to appear, and select paste from the edit menu of your brouser. One thing to watch for. As your posts get longer and longer, you may find your posts getting "cut off." You will need to learn about how much CNN will accept in one bite, and divide your posts accordingly.

BTW, you seem a lot more comfortable this morning than last night. I hope you stick around.

Did you read the article yesterday about apartheid science? S Africans druing the racist era tried to use science to kill or to "really" make blacks inferior by infecting them with diesases that damage the brain.

I don't think huamn is ready to handle the moral responsibility of cloning yet. The technology may be beneficial if used in medical purposes but there is always someone who wants to use it for some evil causes.

Even medical purpose cloning is too disgusting for me. Someone should discover alternative ways to cure disieases or just vanish all diseases and prevent anything that needs to be cured at first place so we don't even have the chance to cure them. No diseases, no hospitals, just research lab.

Give food and clean water to everyone on the earth, that'll save a lot more than cloning can ever do today.

No, but if it is true, or substancially true, it does not surprise me much.

That is like saying an automobile is useful in that it provides a means of transportation, but there is always someone who will drive a car a hundred miles per hour, and make lots of left turns without signaling. Can we not keep the good (transportation) while avoiding the bad (joyriding)?

Now, wait just a cotton picking minute. Above you said the technology was beneficial if used for medical purposes. Now you are saying it is disgusting. Before, you tended to throw the baby out with the bath water. Now you are saying the baby is dirty and needs to be thrown out just as much as the water. Which is it?

Keeping the home fires burning I see. Great! After reading some of your, and others, posts concerning "qualified people" I got to wondering how you and the other "right thinking" people are going to handle a real tekie.

We are talking about someone who can design a robot micro manipulator from the parts found in a Radio Shack store and a couple of old disk drives.

So he gets an old microscope (high quality) a micro camera, and some temp. controllers and other bio. stuff, from the local scrap yard next to a university, and designs and constructs a device for nuclear cell transfer.

He puts all this stuff into the old Air stream trailer his father gave him and heads for his cousins sheep ranch to make Dolly's by the bushel.

After his attempts get to about 30% implantation to normal births he and his biochemists wife decide to give humans a shot.

Now because of the law he and his wife neglect to tell the local quack how the baby was conceived.

So sooner or later they get to have a clone.

Do they:

A sell the story for 2 million dollars and pay the fine.

B keep quiet and just raise their child

C start an underground clinic al la Dr. Seed

D have a birth party and invite all their friends to witness the blessed event.

The thing is Cliff I know people like this.

Well, if he does all this, including getting his rates up to 30% implantation to normal births with sheep, I think I would call this guy "qualified." I guess the only question I would have about the baby is, "Can I hold him"?

Carl, on second thought, it won't happen. Sure, it will start out that way, but by the time the guy gets his rates up to 10%, his biochemist wife will explain to him how much money in pharmaceutical he could make. Then he'll get patents on his methods and enter into contracts to provide so many sheep which produces this protein in her milk to this company and so many which produces that protein to that company for big bucks. And in the meantime, he and his wife have a couple of kids the old fashioned way. And by the time he gets his rate up high enough to even think about cloning humans, he will be a world famous scientist with a reputation and a bank account to protect. Do you think a world famous scientist would take a chance with his reputation and his bank account that he has worked literally years to build? I don't.

Ref. Cliff Beall - (#4322 of 4322)

Well yes if he know anything about Bio. Eng., but he is only a technician and his wife is just a regular biochemist. They don't know anything about retro virus(sp?) insertion of traits into genetic structure. They can not even figure out why sys4polybutaldiene(sp?) is the toughest rubber known to man. Heck the man just has a serious genetic problem that he does not want to pass on to his children.

The fact that he was a coreman in the Navy gave him a little medical experience, but basicly he is just a Tekie.

On the other hand now that he has a family to support? Hmmm. If I fused an enucleated sheep and human cytoplasm and added a human....

Chief, Some time ago, Dawn said: "Cliff, the difficult part was cloning the whole sheep from a pre-existing mature cell so that every single gene would be a copy of the original. The easy part is putting a gene for protein X under the control of a milk protein regulator into the clone. In mouse experiments, this is done after the embryo is formed in vitro from sperm and egg (the "embronic stem cell"), but before it is implanted in the mother."

She later said: "Injection of foreign DNA into fertilized livestock eggs has been going on since about 1985, resulting in 5% "takes" in which the timing and expression of the inserted gene, as well as its incorporation into the sperm or egg (essential for subsequent breeding of the desired flock)is unpredictable. Apparently the embryonic stem cell technique that works so well in mice hasn't been perfected in livestock."

Now, I must say that I can't say anything from my own knowledge and experience, since I have none. But the way I read Dawn's comments--and I think she does know--is that inserting a gene is something that probably hundreds of lab technicians might know how to do. Scientists--and their lab technicians--have been doing this for years. On the other hand, you expect this technician to do things that Dawn thinks is difficult, and do them like rolling off a log.

Furthermore, your going to have him do all of his cloning with mature cells, something that Dr. Wilmut can't seem to get the hang of, and get his success rate up to 30%, something else that Dr. Wilmut can only dream about. (Somehow, it just doesn't ring true to me.)

Joe, I think a scientist might be able to do it, but when they are as good as Carl says this guy is, they will do it within the system.

Isn't this world over-populated as it is? I mean, what has happened to our morals in society? There are no morals anymore. People just think they can play with nature. I believe in God and I believe cloning is wrong. It's not natural and it's not meant to be. If God meant for there to be two of the same, identical human or animal, he would have created twins. We need to let nature do its thing and leave the act of cloning alone. Forget about it! Spend all of the money used for such cloning experiments and put it towards the fight against Aids or cancer. That's all I have to say.

Ref. Beth Shoemaker - (#4326 of 4326)

Well you see Beth that's just the point. Cloning, because clones are identical twins, just might be able to help us isolate the causes of cancer or help with AIDs treatment.

I think the main goal of cloning should be cloning of human organs since there are people need it badly and could lose their life while waiting for an organ to be available

Well, I think the main target of cloning is to make a superior man which is better than an usual man. So, it's reflect the pessimistic of some people who want to be superior than the others by using the shortcut way. It's mean they've failed in using human way.

I've heard rumors that scientists have found human DNA on the Holy Schroud. Anybody here the anything else?

If the ultimate goal of cloning really is to create a "super" or "perfect" human then we are in trouble. Some one has got to set the standards for perfection; who will that person be?? Plus, it is wise to remember that some of our planet's greatest thinkers were far from perfect. Bethoven was deaf, Hemingway was an alcoholic, Steven Hawking is paralyzed. How much of their genius is experience and how much is genetic? Would these people have been so great without suffering in their lives. The concept of "tortured genius" is an old one indeed. If all humns truly were "perfect", what a boring world...

However, cloning science should not be limited because it can greatly improve the quality of life. If organs can be grown in a lab to place damaged or defective body parts that would be very exciting. Cloning could also be used to propegate plant and animal life for use in space travel. It would be a lot easier to carry an "ark" full of cells to the moon than whole animals and plants.

If it's true that human DNA has been found on the Holy Schroud, should scientests proceed and clone? I think it would be pretty neat to see Jesus Christ hanging out again.

Whenever anyone uses the word "morality" to drive public policy, we should ignore it or intentionally do the opposite. At best, morality motivates individual behavior consistent with that individual's religion. At worst, it forces one religion's taboos on a multitude of citizens who have not chosen it.

Anything that organized religion cannot control, it must label as immoral and attempt to suppress. Eventually, when the new and different becomes commonplace, the earlier attempts at suppression will be vehemently denied.

In Ben Franklin's time, preachers were rabid about the immorality of lightning rods because they interfered with God's righteous revenge.

They conveniently ignored the fact that the structure most commonly ignited was the tall and pointy church steeple. They also avoided the observation that a God who could be subverted with a few dozen feet of copper wire didn't merit much respect anyway.

Yes, we'll get the "immoral and unnatural" labels from those whose simplistic world views are threatened. My response is "grow up and get used to it".

I disagree. Every generation tends to think morals have deteriorated from the previous one. My reading of history is that we live in a rather enlightened age.

If cloning is so wrong, why is it so prevalent in nature?

Assuming God does exist, he has done it many times.

One think about leaving everything to nature is that nature seems to make a lot of mistakes.

First, I would point out that AIDS and cancer did not result from man's intervention. It is man's intervention that may result in a cure.

Second, most of the money spent on cloning research is being spent by private companies. I think that PPL and Advanced Cell Technology Inc. are startup companies intended to capitalize on their developed technology, but ABS Global Inc. is basically a animal fertility company (bull semen) that is attempting to extend it's product line into another area. These are the major players as far as I know

I hope not. You appear to be an intelligent individual that would be fun to argue with. Anyway, having an argument with you would be a nice change of pace from my arguments with "radical cloners" like Carl and Tom.

Any investigation into the nature of biology might theoretically be useful in isolating causes of disease. But cloning, by itself, is unlikely to result in any specific advancement in the prevention of disease. What it will do is provide a ready supply of proteins that can counteract genetic defects in some people, and make life more bearable, perhaps even pleasurable, for them. I think that is significant--and good.

Well it would make sense if it was practical. But it is not. The technical obstacles attending the cloning of individual human organs are incredible. However, developing animals, using cloning techniques, capable of growing organs for transplant into humans is--or shortly will be--very practical.

I disagree. The main target of cloning will be the treatment of genetic defects using human proteins from the milk of cloned animals. That is where the money is being spent, and that is where the money will be made. In the big picture, human cloning is almost a side issue.

No, I had not heard that--although I understand that there does appear to be blood on the cloth.

Interesting.

Since we do not at present--and may never--have the ability to clone dead DNA, it is unlikely we will ever know the source of the (apparent) blood--assuming it is blood and assuming it is human.

Bob, you have something of a point. But I think your post is a basically an example of overreaction to practically nothing.

To those individuals who excitedly contemplate cloning Jesus from blood found on the Shroud of Turin:

It is a non-issue, carbon dating has determined the age of the Shroud to be from around the middle ages. The Shroud is most likely either a hoax or some artist's interpretation of what Jesus's burial Shroud would look like.

As i understand it, there are a number of researchers in Europe who are working with monkeys, especially the bambom, to create a money that is so closely human in the DNA structure that its organs will not be rejected for transpants. Also, for possible use as a alternate to human child birth. the animal would be implanted with a fertile human egg and carry the fetus to term. it is believed there is a strong demand this proces. there would not be any danger of the birth parent being on drugs, carrying diseases, or sueing the donor parents for child custody. What a wild ideal. Oh, I know others have thought of his, would this be a source for the birht of the anti-christ as refered to in the bible?

Monkeys would not be an efficient source of organs for transplant since they reproduce so slowly. Pigs are, potentially, a much more efficient source because they reproduce much faster.

I suppose it might be possible.

What's this? Look, Memory, it is clear that, in context, that the author of Revelation thought he was living in the end time and was speaking to an audience that he knew and to which he was known. His message to them was to hold on to the end which would come very soon. He said so. With respect to the identity of the beast, he used an encryption code since it was dangerous to name the beast directly. But those within the group to which he was speaking would easily understand since they had wisdom (knew the "key"). The beast (or antichrist) was undoubtedly Nero, the Roman emperor who was persecuting the Christians at that time. (The Greek form of the emperor's name, Neron Caesar, which when transliterated in Hebrew characters adds up to the sum of 666.) What you speak is nonsense.

Torus,

I'm sorry if you cannot follow a simple argument, and I would prefer it that you don't try to answer what you don't understand.

Chen,

No; that's nonsense.

Yes, we do.

australopithecus,

My feelings exactly.

Cliff,

If that is ever the case, then I'm sure you'll point it out to me. But I haven't seen you do that yet. That is the point of argumentation. If you disagree with something I say, then if there is a flaw in the logic, point it out. You keep saying that there are assumptions, but you never argue it.

Which you have never been able to refute.

You don't seem to get it -- this is not arguable! I am simply pointing out the subject of the argument, which is what you asked for. Do you disagree that this is the subject of the argument? If so, then we have all been talking about different things all this time.

I said no such thing.

Yeah, well I can pull a gun and shoot a hundred people. Call it murder if you like, but it is the truth. That doesn't make it right.

Don't you see how contradictory and self-destructive that position is?

Torus,

I don't skirt issues and I will always flag anyone for anything when they are wrong. There is never any good done when people go on believing falsities.

Control is very real, and money is not the only card in the deck.

Cliff,

What are you basing this opinion on? I know Chem-Bio students who could do it. In fact, we have a course here called something like Experimental Cell and Molecular Biology as well as several other labs which do precisely that. It's not brain surgery!

Yeah, right, and I suppose you'll tell me that all doctors are legit too.

This is all based on your own personal experience I take it. Care to elaborate on how you determine this? For instance, what technical obsticles? And on what basis do you compare them to other technical obsticles?

And if those freedoms are infringed upon in order to keep the status quo? A ban on cloning research would be such an infringement.

aeyaz,

Precisely. Logic does not magically create new information. It organizes what you know so that you can draw conclusions which otherwise would be very hard to come by. For instance, let's say you want to conclude how much money you'll make by the end of the year. You could go about it the hard way and wait until the year is up and then count it. Or you could do it a little bit easier by counting ahead and adding each day's pay to a running sum. Or you could do it much simpler by using multiplication. You'll get the same answer using each method because the information is always the same, however you can come by the conclusion much faster and easier by applying mathematical (or logical) rules.

It is not an axiom, it is a mathematical method. It may not be absolutely precise or accurate, but on average it is correct. That's why casinos always win. For instance, let's play a game: we'll each toss a penny in the air. If both land on heads, I give you five dollars. If they land on tails or one is tails and one is heads, you give me five dollars. I'll get rich real quick because probability predicts that the coins will land on both heads far less than the other alternatives. Care to test it?

Cliff,

Again, Cliff, I ask that you learn logic. Your opinion of logic is incorrect, please learn how it works and then come back.

Kenji,

Easier said than done. Cloning is one step to getting the cures. Also BTW, vanishing all diseases would be the death of all life on Earth as we know it.

joe,

Where do you get your information? From Cliff? It does not take much money at all, and the skills are not very difficult.

Beth,

That IS what it's going towards! What, you think a cure for cancer is going to jump out of the jungle a la "Medicine Man"? Bzzzzzt, try again! Cloning is the next step to a lot of cures.

Good.

Rizal,

Scott,

The only miracle would be if there were NOT any human DNA on it. Do you know how many skin cells are shed from the average person? Any item of any kind that has been in the vicinity of people at any time will surely have human DNA on it. But Christ's DNA, I think not. For even if the man existed, the Shroud is certainly a hoax.

You want to recrucify him? Just to make sure you can sin a little longer?

JC,

That's true, but would you ever wish any of those defects on anyone? If they are such great things, why not introduce more defects into the population? People can be biologically sound and still attain greatness.

bob,

Yeah, that's the attitude! Right on!

Cliff,

DNA is not alive, so it cannot be dead either. Perhaps "incomplete" or "degraded" might fit better.

I disagree, that is the correct reaction to just about everything.

Eric,

That's true, but no real Christian believes in carbon dating. Otherwise, the whole Bible and the entire religion can be proved wrong. For instance, it shows that the Earth has existed far longer than the Bible claims. It also shows that man evolved from African apes, not from the whim of a deity. So, if he believes that this cloth is Crist's magical shroud, then he won't put much faith in carbon-dating anyway. Of course, he has conflicting viewpoints if he also supports the science of cloning, so it might work.

Memory,

You understand wrong. Also, I have never heard of this species of monkey, did you discover it yourself?

Monkeys are actually rather distantly related. Our closest living relatives are chimps and bonobos. Monkeys would be far to small to have compatible organs.

A monkey would be far, far too small to birth a human child. You would need a very large animal to do that (like maybe a water buffalo or an elephant) since a human baby has such a large head.

And I believe that you are making all of this up as you go.

There's that mistake of mixing science and religion again. It just doesn't work.

What's up with us humans again?

Re the following extracted from the posting referenced above:

Do you, then, contend that every human is born equally capable (in potential) in intelligence, talent, and physical prowess? Such position would appear to discredit 'nature' entirely from the 'nature vs. nurture' argument. How would you explain the differentiation of Einstein, Da Vinci, Michael Jordan, et al from the rest of the bipedal herd?

I found nothing to contend in the remaining myriad of your postings, but I would like to see your elaboration on the response that "gifted" is "nonsense".

Unless paint has DNA it's going to tough to do any kind of cloning from the Shroud of Turin. That shroud has been proven years ago to be a fake. Additional recent forensics tests and carbon dating on the cloth fibers have proved the Shroud of Turin only to be about 400 years old (not 2000). Ironically right about the time it was discovered.

Well, I see it is about time for me to again point out that the official Tom Anderson FAQ conflicts significantly with FAQ's that I prefer. Therefore, for anyone desiring authoritative information on cloning, please click the following addresses:

The first is an FAQ published by New Scientist magazine. The other is an FAQ written by Charles Arthur and Jeremy Laurance of The Independent newspaper and reprinted by the Roslin Institute with permission of the publisher. I think it is significant that the people at the Roslin Institute thought enough of it to request permission to publish it on their site.

I am glad you finally agree that this is the subject of the argument, not the conclusion. However, you nevertheless keep insisting that it is not arguable. The question is why? I think the answer is as follows:

By use of your "logic," you came to the conclusion that the discovery that was made is that it is possible to clone adult animals. When I pointed out some of the reasons why you conclusion was premature, and, therefore, founded on assumptions which you can not substantiate, you nevertheless attempted to win the argument using "other" tactics. But, Tom, you should know by now that those "other" tactics will not work with me. You can't shut me up that way. When I think I am right, I will continue to argue until the cows come home, or until you give up and admit your error (either that or stop posting--as you have in the past, from time to time).

Good. You have finally admitted that just because something can be done, does not mean it must be done.

See above.

I probably should have said that the entire nucleus of a living cell is needed for cloning, not just DNA--in whatever condition it might be.

Another assumption which you can not substantiate. For example, one of the scientists who did the carbon dating on the Shroud of Turin described himself as a Christian. The way I figure it, he ought to know.

I do not believe that paint has been discovered on the Shroud of Turin, David.

David, it was "discovered" over 600 years ago.

But Louis ("am 65 years old"), should someone perform that 'service', don't you think it would be more considerate of Marilyn's clone to leave her to the attentions of your own (or some other, not yet 65 years old) clone? Though this would still leave you 'out of the picture', I'm sure that when Marilyn sang "Diamonds Are A Girl's Best Friend" she wasn't thinking of birthdays.

But thanks for contributing some welcome levity to this dreary board.

Tom Anderson: This topic has very little to do with "god" or "christianity". This is a technical and ethical and moral topic... all of which have nothing to do with chistianity.

The topic here is whether or not mankind should persue cloning to create "modified" humans, animals, or plants and whether those modified genetic structures are the "property" of the creators and if they have the right to patent them.

I hope this doesn't wander too much from the subject but does anyone have more info on Steven Hawkins talk in front Pres. Clinton at the White House in which he said that genetic recombination to produce a new form of human life was inevitable, perhaps not morally preferable, but as a person with a fatal genetic disease he was obviously looking forward to the day when, how shall we put it, "a healthier humanity?" will exist. Please comment and info please, prefer biblo if avail. Grazie!

Cloning?!?! Is it morally and ethically correct? maybe in some certain respects and in some NO_BLOODY WAY IN HELL!!!. I guess it comes to the minds of the mad scientist whether they are really all together there or just another Frankenstein creator wannabe. to procure better results for the medical purposess of the human specicies as cloning Hearts and other organ transplates needed for the long periodic waiting lists for those people in need. but to create actual humans, will feelings and emotions. Whoa isn't that unethically correct to even promote that idea?. you decide. From ANGEL.

If alter ourselves to be smarter, or stronger, or to be able to live in enviroments that are currently hostile to us, are we still human? Darwin said it, survival of the fittest....

Hey guys, I got just a little bit of slack time, now, but I'm using it to catch up on the 'dynamic universe' board (part of the Space board.) Tom and Cliff, you might like to browse it. Someone's on the board who's on the same wavelength as me; and much better at putting the thoughts into words.

Anyway, glancing through the last 30 or so posts, it looks like nothing much has changed here.

So did I. Thanks for the link.

Very true!

Well said.

If you haven't been there already, you might try looking in the Steven Hawkins Universe site. It is a wonderhouse of interesting stuff and links to other interesting stuff. Click the following address for a link:

<A HREF="http://www.pbs.org/wnet/hawking/html/home.html"> http://www.pbs.org/wnet/hawking/html/home.html </A>

Right again, Chief. Hey, that's three in a row!

Great!!!

Drats...

I looked in, Noel, but, at first glance, it didn't seem to be my cup of tea. I think Tom might go ballistic with all that talk of quantum mechanics ;o)

Yeah, it's comfortable here.

Ref. MikAngelos - (#4362 of 4366)

Bloody way dude. It is going to happen, like it or not.

I guess it comes to the minds of the mad scientist whether they are really all together there or just another Frankenstein creator wannabe.

What mad scientists. Frankenstein is fiction and the Frankenstein Complex, which says that man will produce a monster being that will run around killing everyone is a mental illness.

Get rational.

Of course it is ethically correct to have children people do it all the time. The people who will use new technology because they can not reproduce naturally will pay a lot of money to do it.

If they want to be parents that bad they will try to have the best and most normal children they can.

Please stop freaking out and consider how important assisted reproduction is and what rights would be violated by prohibiting it.

Noel: Ya! I thoutht I saw you there with the ones considering vectors in N dimensional k space. Fun people, but weird.

Carl: Regarding assisted repoduction.... I guess where the issue comes in is when/if people decide to continue the pregnancy depending on the genetic structure of the baby... black hair? nope, abort it. Or to go further, alter the genetic structure of fertilized egg (possible??) until it is something that the parents want.

That's fine, Carl. We all know that if cloning from adult cells is real, it will be done--and I strongly suspect that it is real despite the apparent lack of significant progress and the unexpected delays in recent times. But that doesn't answer the question posed. The question was: "Is it morally and ethically correct"? We apparently have some time to debate the moral and ethical questions, seeing as how nothing exciting seems to be going on at the moment. Why don't we do it?

Now you are making sense.

Now you are being paranoid, Carl. The only reason I would have for banning full term cloning, even on a temporary basis, is that it is not safe. Nobody that I know of has suggested a ban on invitro fertilization. Invitro fertilization is relatively safe. When nuclear transfer using adult cells has been shown to be as safe as invitro fertilization, I think you will find widespread support for cloning for normal reproductive purposes (for normal children).

Ref Steve Manta - (#4368 of 4370)

Well lots of them are doing that now. The birth rate of girls in some areas of the world is decreasing at an alarming rate.

Ref. Cliff Beall - (#4370 of 4370)

Now you are being paranoid, Carl. The only reason I would have for banning full term cloning, even on a temporary basis, is that it is not safe. Nobody that I know of has suggested a ban on invitro fertilization.

Try the Pope. The leader of 100s of millions of people for openers. We all know cloning is and will be considered an abomination by many.

Now start talking about transgenetic engineering.

What pray tell is a "normal" reproductive purpose, and who decides, and who can tell anyway?

From by earliest posts on this board I denied the governments of the world permission to regulate my reproduction. I do not require wide spread support. It would be nice but I have asserted a fundemental right here. If the law does not recognise it, then there is potentially a problem.

I note that some states have passed laws that seem at odds with my rights. Oh well I'm not living in them now.

Cliff: when I was young and about the time that abortion was becoming legalized I ask my father who was a prosecutor about how the law handled abortionists.

He said that If they were not doctors they were arrested and imprisoned. If they were licensed doctors then every one looked the other way unless a girl died or they needed a doctor in the prison system.

Then they would set up a bust and explain to the doctor that If he pleaded guilty and served 2 years as a prison doctor there would be no further problems. When he got out he would still be a doctor and could go on his way.

To me this is a total corruption of the concept of law in order to practice slavery.

This example is pretty cut and dry. I don't think you can foresee the problems in this vein of the illegalization of cloning and I don't think I am being clinically paranoid because I can see it.

I agree. Also, perfection is not independent from its surrounding context. Since we are all part of that surrounding context, we define "perfection." Furthermore, the definition is not static. IOW, if I create a perfect being, it will affect its surroundings, thereby causing its own imperfection.

I think it's 'cos the definition of what's moral and what's not changes from each generation. The older generation doesn't see that their morals have evolved, therefore, they think that there are less morals.

Yes, but without the mistakes, there wouldn't be room for flexibility.

Yes, absolutely.

Part of personality is inherited, so, Chen is correct.

Me, too, however, if the drug has an adverse affect on the whole of society, society has the right to control its use.

The Christian concept of God lies outside of logic.

It's about as fascist as you dictating where your cells go when you take a walk.

Cliff: It seems we're on the same page on a lot of this!

Carl: Good point! I know that in countries like China and India, a female child is somtimes considered a burden. The family has to give up wealth as a dowry. And a lot of times female babies are killed or abandoned at birth. This results in the skewed population.

But this all happens after conception. What I was implying was that it would all happen prior to actual impregnation. The sex, intellegence, skin color, hair color, etc. would all be decided by the parents. Before the first cell divides! ALthough this could act as a sort of screening process to filter out many genetic disorders it would also totally get rid of all variety in our population. Everyone would be tall, slim, full head of hair, etc.

And then who would we make fun of!? ;)

As a person who has been involved with medical research in one way or another for 20 years I could not help but feel great excitement at the Swiss decision. I welcome scientific advancement. I have personally seen so many lives saved because of it. That's a scientist speaking. I have discovered as I grow older that I learned about science much faster than I learned about life. As I grow older I become more aware of how poorly mankind has handled the gifts given him. As a scientist I welcome the advent of genetic manipulation. As a person, I tremble in fear when I realize to whom this gift has been given.

I agree Doc. I can't imagine what in the world we would need to clone ANYONE for. Even people like Elvis, Van Gough, George Washington. These type people have made their contribution to society. And people who want to bring back artists/musicians etc. must not realize that their death is what makes them ever more popular and they probably would stop caring about them if they were alive again. I really and truly see no reason be it scientific or personal to clone humans. I would on the other hand love to see someone actually create a real jack 'o' lope. For those of you not from Texas, that it the jack rabbit, antelope mix breed. This is a famous Texas legend that would be something to see realized. Just Kiddin'

Michael: You're totally missing it. I don't think cloning is about that at all. The cloning issue is much deeper than just bringing back dead people or extinct species.

It is about whether it is moral to do so. Even if you bring back Einstein, there is no promise that he will be the same person. Personality for the most part is not in your genes. It's learned. Physically, he'd be the same, but not mentally. He might have the same genius, but he may not choose to apply that to Physics or even at all. He might not even be extraordinary.

If you do make a clone, is it even right to expect that person to be the same as one he/she was cloned from? Twins, are pretty much clones. They came from the same cell. They look alike. But do you expect them to be identical in every respect? No, they are each their own person. But suppose someone created you in a lab. You and a hundred other yous. Are you still your own person? Are you still unique? And since you were created by Corporation X, do they own you? After all, they do hold the patent on you...

Noel Yap #4374

The Bible has no argument with true science. True science involves facts and things that have been observed over a period of time and found to have consistent results, i.e., the boiling point of water. True science points to Biblical accuracy, Biblical accuracy proves true science. The Bible is so historically and geographically accurate that where place names and historical figures are concerned many prominent Geologists who work in the Middle East keep one in their knapsacks for reference. However, Creation itself testifies of an awesome God. His fingerprints are evident in the beauty and architecture of the biggest known galaxies to the smallest life forms, their semetry, and their order, etc. The statistics against a "big bang", random process of "creation" is so mind boggling, no one should want to be associated with it. By the way, the observance of new planets and galaxies being "born" only enhances what the Bible says that God would do someday; this could be a preview of this time "There shall be new heavens and a new earth"; the visions we have on film of what a nuclear holocaust can be enhances the Biblical prophecy that the earth will be destroyed by a fire so intense that even the elements will burn and "their tongues will melt in their mouth". Prophecy is God's way of saying to self satisfied men and women, so deceived by so-called "science" today, 'This is your last chance to believe the truth...who else could have told you about such things as "new heavens and a new earth" or describe nuclear destruction several thousand years in advance? However, needless to say, no one will be around to debate the latter! Therefore, everything else, especially evolution, is PURE theory and bad theory at that. That picture of the so called fossil of a "bird dinosaur" is purely ridiculous! It looks like an ancestor of our modern day Ostrich...its a bird, its a plane, its, its...an Ostrich! It would behoove CNN to exercise sound journalism by

Mankind has come to a milemarker in the road of progress called genetic engineering. It is not a question of whether we continue with this new technology or not. Like computers, nuclear energy and other forms of technology, genetic engineering, cannot be stopped. It is going to happen.

Fortunately the changes that it will make are all good for mankind. In the next century, genetic engineering will be a powerful tool for eliminating illness and extending the life of humans far beyond what it is today. The elimination of most of the fatal diseases will become reality just like the elimination of small pox, polio, and a dozen other diseases has lenghtened the life of humans in the past century. Genetic engineering will greatly enhance our quality of life. Not simply by allowing us to live longer healthier lives but by being genetically happier also.

Have you ever seen people who are good natured and happy just about all the time? Perhaps someday, in the not too distant future, they will be able to pass on more than just their nice attitude to everyone else. They will be able to copy and duplicate part of their genes for others and spread their good qualities in a big way.

Over the past 3,000 years mankind has evolved and developed surprisingly little. With the exception of perhaps a beefed up immune system, due to the black plague in the middle ages, I cannot say that there has been any improvement at all in the genetic make up of humans. In fact, over the past few decades, I would say that we have even devolved a little. Genetic engineering will make it possible to insure and accelerate the evolutionary process of the development of mankind. It will be possible to work toward the ideal of Friedrick Nietzsche's superman.

Tom [email protected]

Do you consider this ethical? Answer as you wish, or not. It is all the same. But keep in mind that this kind of thing will continue to be done, regardless what laws are passed. And consider the harm that can be caused if such behavior is outlawed. If it is outlawed, it will make outlaws out of people who kill baby girls. And, also, consider the "fundamental" reproduction rights that will be trampled on by passing laws against this type of behavior.

Don't make me laugh! A lot of influence the Pope has. The Pope is against birth control, for example, and the vast majority of Catholics in this country practice birth control--just like every body else. That is because most Catholics think for themselves. True, there will be some people who will oppose cloning as a method of reproduction, no matter what. But, most will not be opposed to non-manipulative human cloning when nuclear transfer of adult cells is perfected.

Most will be opposed to that (when humans are involved).

Obviously, that was a poor choice of words. I was, of course, referring to human cloning that does not involve transgenetic engineering. I think non-manipulative cloning will be accepted by society, once it is perfected.

If the law does not recognize the rights of parents to kill baby girls and try again for a boy, then there is a problem. So what else is new?

Well, as they say, to get along, you have to go along. I suppose your father thought the system worked. But I can understand how a young idealist like you were might be outraged by such obvious injustice. Unfortunately, neither society nor the law will ever be perfect. However, I can have some appreciation for your father's attitude, and presumed actions as a prosecutor. Obviously, looking the other way when licensed doctors performed abortions is much more understandable than when non-doctors performed them. Society did not, does not and will never want non-doctors performing medical procedures--legal or not. Understand that I am not trying to justify the way your father's generation enforced the law, or failed to enforce it, nor am I trying to justify your father's apparent attitude nor his presumed actions, but rather I am merely pointing out that they appear understandable, perhaps even reasonable, in context.

The "mistakes" of nature I was referring to were genetic disorders, diseases and other disagreeable aspects of nature. It is well and good to look at a mountain scene with the tall pines and the blue sky, and marvel at the "handiwork" of God. But that is not the whole picture. Actually, nature can be downright ugly. Fortunately, science has the capability of reversing some of that ugliness.

I think your fears are misplaced, Doc. Our society may not be perfect, but it can handle this. If nuclear transfer of adult cells is real, human cloning will be done, and it will be done within the system by the right people.

Michael, I too would love to see a real jack 'o' lope. And I am not kiddin'

Steve, the questions you raise are reasonable enough to ask, as a way of making sure the scenario you describe does not happen. But I think it is clear that a clone, should he exist, will be his own person, and he will not be owned by a corporation or any other entity regardless. I have at least that much confidence in the moral strength of our society.

Glenda, there are many errors in the Bible. To insist that the Bible is free of error is ridiculous.

I feel human cloning is a wonderful thing. Any human born as a result of cloning will have same rights under the law as any other human being has.

What's wrong with cloning. It does not harm anybody. It can solve many of our current medical problems.

As long as cloned individuals enjoy the same rights and duties as others , cloning should be encouraged.

Cliff & Andrew: I'd like to think that anyone that is born as a result of cloning would enjoy the same rights as everyone else. And I agree that as long as their are certain guidlines and laws in place to protect them, cloning should be encouraged. By guidelines I simply mean that we shouldn't go around creating people with six arms. But I think that's pretty much a given.

When the concern comes is this: Genetic research companies are already talking about patenting certain genetic structures that they create. How far does that patent extend?

Glenda: Thanks for the theology lecture, but in that entire rant I don't think you asked one question, or even made a point. Sure, the bible is geographically acurate and some of the stories in it are historically correct. However, like Cliff said there are also a lot of errors and omissions. The Bible does make some predictions and, depending on how you interpret the text, some of them are true. But, again many aren't. There have been many people who have "seen" appocolyptic ends and even set dates. But we're still here. That all being said, cloning has very little to do with God or the bible. Let's try and keep religion out of this OK?

The worst 'sin' recognizable by someone not mentally dulled by the yoke of religious superstition is any proscription or injunction against, or crass rejection of, knowledge (BTW, the definition of 'science').

To the subject at hand: Andrea Vesalius (nee Andries Van Wesel), the premier Flemish anatomist (1514-1564), was forced to 'make a pilgrimage' to the 'holy land' to forestall the sentence of death imposed upon him (by that supreme 'religious' perversion, the Catholic Inquisition) for his seminal work in Anatomy. How many alive and healthy today, due to the knowledge derived from his work (now permitting modern surgical techniques), indirectly owe their lives to this genius, whom the 'Church' would have (triumphantly) destroyed?

And no thanks at all to you, Glenda, for that typically inane and factually incompetent rant, which would sit (and belong) better on any of the (far too many) pulpits for the mindless still burgeoning in this country. (BTW, "i.e." ("id est"), or "that is"; is not a substitute for "e.g." ("exempli gratia"), or "for example").

Why, Glenda, were you going to say "edit"? ... or "censor"? And were you cut off (edited or censored) in the very heat of your rant by the imposition of a (maximum) word limit? Did you like that Glenda? Do you think that to be "sound journalism"? Are you pleased that it (apparently) "behooves" CNN to restrict the extent of even such as your 'enlightened' sermon?

(Or do you even bother reading the mindless cant you would vomit over the senses of those ready and willing to actually experience the real world?)

To all of you so longing to "rest in the busom of Jesus" (or Abraham, or some 'Ayatollah', or whom/what-ever), and so ready and eager to preach (interminably and mis-informed) to others: I bid you hurry on to your beloved -- and leave the real world to us ready to live and enjoy life to the best of our natural and educated abilities, with eyes open and longing only to know more of what really is.

As regards any 'afterlife', I am sure of this: at the end, we all go to the same (non-)'place' -- and none shall meet.

It would come to my mind that the study of genetic sciences and theology are best not put against each other to battle and see which one is stonger: the public's faith in God or in modern science, but instead put together in unity where both sciences could benefit one another.

Faith is not science -- it is the antithesis of science. Faith is predicated on belief -- the acceptance of that which cannot be proved. Science is predicated on observation, experimentation, and demonstrable proof -- the acceptance of only that which can be demonstrated as (at least) likely. And leave off the theory argument -- in science the words theory and theorem are part of the vocabulary of a precise discipline; they simply do not translate on par with common (uneducated) usage.

I would agree that this board should not be the proper arena for such contention, but it will intrude and must be countered. It is not the wrath of a jealous 'god' from whom the educated (and education, itself) must protect themselves, but the seditious and vigilante actions of the 'religious righteous'. I fear no bolt from Jehovah (or any other myth), but I am well aware of both the historical and current actions of these 'protectors' of 'god's word'.

Actually, the moderators opened the door to this odious subject when they asked for opinions on the ethics or morality of cloning; and the 'religious' still presume and pretend to hold exclusive rights to both (how easy and convenient for them to 'forget' that the very word "ethics" derives from the pagan Greeks, without whom the early 'Christian' apologists would have been lost in the darkness of their myths).

Re: Cliff Bealle's remark that my fears regarding cloning are misplaced--

What makes you believe that our society has handled technology properly in the first place? It is too simple to believe that the worst thing that we need fear is the eradication of the race (ala nuclear holocost) or genetic monsters. Sometimes the greatest damage a thing can do to a society is how that thing changes the society's view of itself. I share your optimism that we will probably not create a genetic nightmare of mutants or supermen with genetic engineering. But there are more subtle issues...what the Greeks would have called "hubris". I am afraid we have done a miserable job of "handling" this aspect of technology. My fear is how the science of life may affect our philosophical understanding of life generally. I am not afraid of some genetic experiement gone haywire.

Regarding some remarks concerning the Catholic Church and its treatment of scientists in the past:

This is always an emotional subject, and the Church is an easy target nowdays--especially in a society that assumes a Western Technological viewpoint is the only correct viewpoint. I would simply add a few observations: 1. Science is not wholly equivalent to knowledge. Properly speaking, the word science derives from the latin scientia, which does mean knowledge. Science, however, is a process for gaining knowledge. It is one way to gain knowledge. A way that, our society at least, feels is preferable. However, like all systems of epistemology, it is founded on its own assumptions. 2. All social institutions evolve. Even the Church. Human beings in the Church have made serious errors in the past, however, that does not mean that everything the institution of the Church has to say is worthless. It would be ashame to throw out the baby with the bathwater. I think the Church's counsel of caution, and concern for life are at least worthy of consideration.

Bob Faulkner remarked:

Faith is not science -- it is the antithesis of science. Faith is predicated on belief -- the acceptance of that which cannot be proved. Science is predicated on observation, experimentation, and demonstrable proof -- the acceptance of only that which can be demonstrated as (at least) likely. And leave off the theory argument -- in science the words theory and theorem are part of the vocabulary of a precise discipline; they simply do not translate on par with common (uneducated) usage.

_____

You are correct in pointing out that faith is predicated on belief, but I think your point should be balanced by some observations from epistemology, which is the branch of philosophy which studies what it means to "know" something. Earlier in this century the brilliant mathematician/logician Kurt Godel showed that all systems of knowlegdge (including science) require assumptions not provable within that system (read beliefs). The interlocking of what is belief and what is "known" is a problem many (often educated) people gloss over. One ramification of this insight is seen in Heisenberg's Uncertainty principle.

I make these remarks because it is important to note the limitations of what we all may consider "certain" knowledge. One of the errors of human beings is to confuse certain knowledge with what is actually based on assumptions and beliefs. In many regards, a simplified scientific epistemology has become the "religion" of the 20th century.

It probably ought to be mentioned that it has not been established, for certain, that nuclear transfer (cloning) of adult sheep cells is possible. (It has not been indisputably established that Dolly was cloned from an adult cell, although it is generally accepted.) In a couple of weeks, Dolly will be two years old, and, to date, there has been no announcement of a second clone from an adult somatic cell. I am not saying that the technology is not real, but it has not been conclusively established to be real yet.

Reported experience with sheep indicate that the cloning of sheep is dangerous to the clone. For technical reasons, it is expected that human cloning will be more difficult, and perhaps even more dangerous to the clone, than sheep cloning.

Not until the state of the technology has greatly improved. Until then, it is my opinion that human cloning should be banned.

Actually, Steve, companies are patenting gene structures that they merely discover. Some time ago, Dawn pointed out that Oncormed, a biotech company, patented the BRCA1 gene sequence, and if anyone wants to use that sequence as a control in commercial genetic testing, or if they want to use the sequence for gene therapy, they have to buy the rights. According to Dawn, this sequence is currently being used in a gene therapy trial for advanced ovarian cancer at Vanderbilt.

I must admit that it was startling to discover that a patent on a gene sequence that I have in my body has been granted to a biotech company. However, having a patent on the gene sequence does not mean that they "own" me, nor can they prevent my body from using it in the normal way that it would normally use it. The point is this, we have already arrived at the theoretical problem you mentioned with respect to ourselves. We don't have to wait until clones are created.

You have a way with words, Matthew. It also helps that you happen to be right.

If you'll take time to read my post completely and correctly, including,

you might accept that I make no reference to "certain" knowledge. I included the phrase quoted above to eschew any preposterous claim that anyone (certainly not any scientist worth his degree(s)) should presume to have "certain" knowledge.

As for criticizing the 'Church' I would remind anyone that there is no time limitation on guilt of murder.

As to the subject of criticism: one of the most popular, and incompetent, criticisms against valid science is its near constant revision of its position on any subject -- but that is its surest strength: the more one studies, the more one rejects "certain" knowledge, and nears appreciating what we can know of reality.

As for degrees, Mr. Heil, if you want to vaunt your academic recognition on the board, I suggest you go the full length and specify your area of claimed expertise. I knew a Ph.D. (English Lit.) who opined that the vulgarity in James Jones' "From Here To Eternity" was excessive and not representative of how 'service men' really talked -- of course, he had not been in the 'service' and quickly wilted before the counters of myself and his brothers, each of whom had first-hand experience. Pressing the point, I have long accepted the convention that vaunting academic degrees be reserved for academe (not "academia" (possibly some obscure disease)) or the context of giving professional testimony. This is neither academe nor a court of law -- it is a message board, for opinions, and in this area, at least, yours is, at best, on par with another's.

Which

Bob Faulkner:

I agree with you that faith is not a legible science. However, religious belief, keeping in mind that religion is only the beliefs of one person, ties in greatly with many other sciences. For example, Dr. Stephen Hawking is an atheist. However, in his cosmological career he does not fail to recognize that there must be a higher entity controlling our actions. And while some of the lesser occurences in the universe might occur as an effect to others, we should recognize that the main events that inspire these events are not occuring in chaos but in knowing. In summary, it should not be noted that we are discussing the existance of an all powerful essence, seeing that the existence of one simply cannot be disputed. It is only a matter a matter of faith that binds the universe together. If events were to occur in complete chaos the universe would have fallen into complete entropy long ago.

True enough. But to suggest that Catholics, today, share the guilt for crimes committed three hundred years ago, whether in the name of God or not, or whether in the name of the church or not, does not make good sense. Anyway, I would surmise from the content of Glenda's post that she is most certainly not Catholic, but, on the other hand, probably considers Catholicism as being almost akin to paganism.

Good point. When a scientist changes his mind in the face of uncovered evidence, it is not an argument against his method of inquiry. Rather, it is a very strong argument that he is getting closer to the truth.

On the other hand, I am inclined to forgive Matthew this minor trespass since I seem to find myself in agreement with most of what he says.

Travis, I was not aware that Dr. Hawking "does not fail to recognize that there must be a higher entity..." Could you specify the source of your information.

Cliff Beall:

Dr. Hawking states the quote in his series of movies. "Stephen Hawking's Universe," and their accompanying book, "Stephen Hawking's Universe, "Stephen Hawking's Universe: the Cosmos Explained."