Just curious what everyone thinks about cloning??

Nothing wrong with it in theory, as long as it doesn't become so rampant so as to significantly impede randomization of the gene pool (I forget the biology term for this). Of course, in its present state there is a lot of evidence to suggest clones have a strong propensity for suffering from genetic defects.

I should know the term, but I don't. It has to do with dominant/recessive characteristics, and the fact that the recessive characteristics get concentrated...now I'm rambling. But it is true, as shown in inbreeding, that the more diverse gene pool you have, the less chance you have of getting those nasty genetic diseases.

And as for cloning, I don't mind it.

Its strange that nobody's really heard from anything that was cloned, Dolly the sheep just kinda dissapeared. It leaves you to wonder is it really safe and has it really worked.

If Dolly died/got sick, we'd know about it immediately. The silence just means that Dolly is fine and there's no news about her.

I don't know what to think. I was just wondering everyones thoughts. I personally don't think that we should mess with things like that.

Tent-

Your scope of in-breeding is skewed. The average person knows "in-breeding" is limited to a smaller population than an entire race.

Tent, just a question here.
You say that "Only one fantasy-bound in ignorance thinks the Jew is a seperate race."

But on the the 5th of Feb you say "... account for the Jewish race which has been in-breeding for thousands of years."

So which is it. Is the Jew a seperate race or are you fantasy-bound in ignorance?

So who is writting the idiotic posts?

Lol, nice one snotjockey. It sure is fun pinpointing Tent's hypocrysies.

Tent so is allright to use false statements as long as they are convenient? If you want to preach, you should at the very least use the truth. And I'm not talking about the sad lies some people convince themselves are true.
It is easy to take the convenient path, but the righteous one will take the true path whether convenient or not. If you want to preach and try to enlighten everyone to what you believe is the true path, don't try to get them there by the path of deception.
Good taste would be the last adjectives I would use to describe your statements. Its just pointless to attempt to discuss a topic when you have to tread through a layer a muck clogging up intelligent thought.
I am afraid of no one, least of all you. Don't flatter yourself too much. You are not as intelligent nor as threatening as you believe. Try to step out of your little world and experience the real world which you seem to have shut off.

Tent, we are of the subject if you want to continue this conversation lets start a new thread.

Back to cloning.

I am all for the research into cloning. Through it we can unlock the secrects of our own DNA and find curses for the genetic flaws that are swimming around in our gene pools. The advances of science has made our species weak. Those with genetic flaws would have died long ago and their flaws would not have been passed on. But by finding those flaws we can correct generations of error.

Here we go with the "freaks" again. Tent, I tire of your quite limited insults (though you insulted no one in particular this time), 99% of which include the words "freak" or "genetic defect".

Australia's first cloned sheep died last week. Sad really...I didn't know Australia had cloned a sheep.

Dragonflower,

I shiver at you linking cloning, sadness, and death. You are so morbid.

Sorry, Tent-

Originally posted by snotjockey
I am all for the research into cloning. Through it we can unlock the secrects of our own DNA and find curses for the genetic flaws that are swimming around in our gene pools. The advances of science has made our species weak. Those with genetic flaws would have died long ago and their flaws would not have been passed on. But by finding those flaws we can correct generations of error.

Genetic flaws aren't always a bad thing. These flaws could simply mean that the phenotype is poorly suited to current conditions. Or they may be recombined (during meiosis for reproduction) to form new genotypes adding to the variety of the genepool.

Take for example the sickle cell gene (which causes sickle cell anemia). Those with two sickle cell genes die, but those with one (ie the sickle cell trait) have added protection from malaria. In some parts of the world it is considered a "genetic flaw" but in others it's and advantage.

If we were to eliminate these "genetic flaws" so that everyone's phenotypes were ideal for current conditions and the conditions on earth were to change suddenly (ice age, nuclear war), there wouldn't be enough variety in the genepool to ensure the survival of our species.

Also, some genetic diseases may have been eliminated by natural selection had it not been for technology (though only those that arise before a person has had an opportunity to reproduce). However, others would have arisen from natural DNA recombination so there would always be the genotypes for genetic diseases or other "flaws" of some sort in the genepool or evolution would never occur.

Cloning DNA through polymerase chain reactions is only this first step in understading genetic makeups. Straight cloning (of cells, organs, animals) is not helpful for this purpose since the "flaws" remain in the genepool.

However, "unlock[ing] the secrects of our own DNA and find[ing] cures for the genetic flaws" depends more substanially on recombinant DNA technology, ie the ability to manipulate (turn on and off) genes and to the modify genes. Therefore, the key is recombination rather than cloning.

Just thought I'd add that. Feel free to correct me.

Just more on the concept of eugenics. Either man does the job, or Mother will get around to it in her own good time.

BTW, Dragonflower, Mother abhors genetic flaws. That is why She enacted the law of "Survival of the Fittest".

Natural selection doesn't necessarily choose against genetic flaws. It works in favor of those who are "best suited" to the circumstances. There are many cases where the "fittest" aren't the best suited and die while those with genetic flaws survive.

Dragonflower,

WOW! Off with your head, you racist.

Dragon-

You make a valid point, but the fact is that the VAST majority (probably over 99%) of genetic flaws by our standards are going to be genetic flaws under any possible standards.

Dragonflower,

Would you please, pretty please, interpret Leper's post for me? I and the Divines shall be eternally grateful to you.

I didn't say genetic flaws weren't genetic flaws. I was saying that genetic perfection isn't always great.

Leper, what exactly are your standards??

Dragonflower,

That is what I understood you to say. The meaning (if any) of Leper's post escapes me.

Dragon-

My standards for genetic viability? I suppose they're pretty typical values: general healthiness, basic motor skills, operable intelligence, etc.

And for the record, when one talks about eliminating genetic "flaws," I agree that you need to be wary of destroying the capacity of our species to adapt to significant changes in our environment. I guess my point is that a society can weed out indisputable genetic flaws, while managing to preserve positive diversity.

Before I gag on NATURAL REVULSION let me point out with a quivering finger that the CONSUMPTION habits of culture and subcultures are sure indicators of genetic viability and/or survival of a group.

One can easily compare caviar culture with the hog jowls and corn pone or the bean burrito subcultures.

That, dear comrades, are the logical standards by which rational people judge.

Consumption? Yes. Relative to production, I agree; That's a good factor when considering viability as well.