Cloning...

Discuss events that have an impact on you and the world today. A home for honest, serious, and open discussion.

Unread postby Travis » Sat Mar 01, 2003 10:54 pm

Couldn't these changes be reached by other means? The ability to replicate another human being is clearly dangerous, and should be a last resort. There is plenty of time until someone will be able to make a clone, and until all other options are explored in this matter, a human clone should clearly not be made.

The Atomic Bomb was also made in this mannor. It's purpose in the beginning to prevent a land invasion of Japan was successful, and saved lives on both sides at the expense of those in Hiroshima and Nagasaki. Which is comparable to those who will die in making clones. Next followed a Cold War, where the world was on the brink of destruction. We kept making the bombs better and stronger, farther flying. Now evil people are getting thier hands on Nuclear Weapons, and now there is big trouble.

Cloning may be used for good by the US, but evil people will get this technology and use it for evil. Cloning may save lives, but it will inevitably kill many more, or cause more trouble than it was worth. By god, if we can come close to makeing a new human being from a bit of DNA, then we can most assuredly find another solution to these problems.
"Be on your Guard, Stand Firm in the Faith, Be Men of Courage, Be Strong, Do everything in Love" - Master Lee's School Motto-

Formerly Schwarz Bruder/Taishi Ci
User avatar
Travis
Scholar of Shen Zhou
 
Posts: 1412
Joined: Mon Jul 29, 2002 5:18 am
Location: Master Lee's TKD School (LaFayette, Ga USA)

Unread postby Seven at One Stroke » Sun Mar 02, 2003 7:16 pm

Schwarz Bruder wrote:Cloning may be used for good by the US, but evil people will get this technology and use it for evil. Cloning may save lives, but it will inevitably kill many more, or cause more trouble than it was worth. By god, if we can come close to makeing a new human being from a bit of DNA, then we can most assuredly find another solution to these problems.


I like your wording, "evil people." :D
Biology and chemistry are experimental sciences. Without the countless empirical data our knowledge of these sciences cannot have progressed this far. Without observation and experimentation, we are likely to end up with the mistakes that the ancient philosophers made. (Aristotle claimed that the four elements make up everything, not atoms.) In order for the medical science and other such sciences to advance, we experiment. The problem of heredity is solved through experimentation with peas, and penicillin is found through experimentation with bacteria. Nowadays we experiment on guinea pigs, monkeys and so on. However, in terms of genetic structure they are still very different from homo sapiens. Nowadays, before a new medicine can be distributed, there must be a rigorous testing process which may or may not involve human subjects (albeit willing ones).

In terms of combating WMD and other naturally-occuring pathogens, Just because the US doesn't develop a certain technology, doesn't mean that other countries won't develop it. If the US didn't develop the A-bomb, the Germans, the Russians and many others might have developed it first. Just because the US doesn't develop WMD, doesn't mean that 'evil people' can't develop it. They are 'evil people,' not 'stupid people.'
Moderation in pursuit of actual work is no vice.
User avatar
Seven at One Stroke
Sei's Slave
 
Posts: 1852
Joined: Wed Oct 02, 2002 4:16 am

Science and Ethics

Unread postby JayWilliamson007 » Tue Mar 04, 2003 3:40 pm

What cloning will ultimately come to a head to will be the age old argument of science vs. religion. Most religious scholars disagree with cloning. Scientists, however, want to see cloning done to improve life by using cloning to advance cures for diseases by experimenting with such things as stem cells, effects of certain gene manipulations, and DNA structuring. Many scientists would have us believe that science should be used as a standard for ethics. That we should use the principles of science to determine the morality of ourselves, while theologians want to use timeless principles of religion. Hopefully no scientist or theologian will jump the gun and declare the other wrong. This would defeat the purpose entirely and no one would be happy until religion would give way as done in so many cases past. (Galileo, and now Darwin). Who is right? Who's to say :?:
Rage against tyranny and oppression.
Jay Williamson
JayWilliamson007
Tyro
 
Posts: 15
Joined: Tue Feb 11, 2003 6:18 pm
Location: USA

Unread postby CnB2186 » Tue Mar 04, 2003 6:09 pm

In order to clone a cure you must first now the cure. And once you have the cure you dont need to clone it just remake it in factory's.
CnB2186
Apprentice
 
Posts: 20
Joined: Thu Jan 30, 2003 2:12 pm
Location: RockSprings, Ga

Unread postby Travis » Sat Mar 08, 2003 2:41 am

What and refering to in the danger of clone is, Clones can be used for evil purposes. Clone the president, and take over the world; clone Osama and never be able to kill him. Though an Atomic Bomb and Cloen may differ, they both have good and bad draw backs that shouldn't have been messed with in the first place.
"Be on your Guard, Stand Firm in the Faith, Be Men of Courage, Be Strong, Do everything in Love" - Master Lee's School Motto-

Formerly Schwarz Bruder/Taishi Ci
User avatar
Travis
Scholar of Shen Zhou
 
Posts: 1412
Joined: Mon Jul 29, 2002 5:18 am
Location: Master Lee's TKD School (LaFayette, Ga USA)

Unread postby Russ » Sat Mar 08, 2003 2:49 am

The whole cloning thing freaks me out. I mean, two of me running around? Plus, it has to be very dangerous, we've tried it onanimals, but who knows the affects it may have on humans? And if they test it and something goes wrong...then we got a big problem.
User avatar
Russ
Legendary
 
Posts: 823
Joined: Sat Oct 05, 2002 4:27 am

Unread postby Sun Siling » Tue Mar 11, 2003 9:08 pm

Schwarz Bruder wrote:What and refering to in the danger of clone is, Clones can be used for evil purposes. Clone the president, and take over the world; clone Osama and never be able to kill him. Though an Atomic Bomb and Cloen may differ, they both have good and bad draw backs that shouldn't have been messed with in the first place.


:lol: this makes me wonder if Osama is a clone of hitler...they just put make-up on him to change his appearance.

But cloning...well...don't want it to turn to one of those games where you have to go kill the evil doctor that cloned everyone. but as far as I know... they tried to clone 3 babies and 2 of them died already.

Also, I heard that the clones never get old?!?! what the!?
"Learn from the past, Live in the present, Plan for the future."
But sometimes you learn from friends too ^_^
User avatar
Sun Siling
Academic
 
Posts: 178
Joined: Mon Mar 10, 2003 4:58 am

Unread postby DianWei » Fri Mar 14, 2003 4:04 pm

Schwarz Bruder wrote:I would like to know one thing. How would making clones help humanity?

We can make them, and carve up thier organs? Use them as Guinea Pigs? To benefit outselves. If Indeed you think they will be ligitimate people, how can you do that to them?

doing ssomething like this is againsth "the universal declaration of the human genome and human Rights" a document unanimously passed by all nation states in the UN. It states that Human reproductive cloning is banned under article 11, and in the case that a human is reproductively cloned they have set up protocols to ensure that both the rights of the donor, and the rights of the clone are made. Like Dr. Carmel Shalev said, test tube babies arent any less human because they were concieved outside the womb, and clones are the same as identical twins. They wanted to make sure that the legendary prerequisite stigmata of "Bastard" children would not be given to clones.
Im in ur vanguard, vanquishin ur d00ds.
User avatar
DianWei
Scholar of Shen Zhou
 
Posts: 1630
Joined: Thu Aug 29, 2002 9:51 pm
Location: In the scaffolding yard, building [HORSE]s

Unread postby JCC » Thu May 13, 2004 5:17 pm

From another thread:

football11f wrote:This topic is to discuss human cloning and bioenginering. For two decades humans have been playing with animal's genes to alter many species. Also, many scientists believe that we are very close to cloning the first human and others say it has already happened.

Are humans going to far in messing with nature? Should humans be cloning themselves? Should humans be altering species to fit our own needs?


Asellas wrote:I am absolutely against animal testing and anything that affects nature. Animals shouldn't be thought of as inferior to humans that we can use them for anything being clothes, food or anything. Mixing species is IMO very dangerous all round. Why? Because it is against nature's will and it also changes animals and evolution. Like mixing two breeds of dogs gets you a "Mongrel" which has the genese of each different dog that mated causing a new specie in a sense.

Perhaps they should just breed animals on the verge of extinction like panda's with the same kind and not others. Like seeing a dog which had the properties of a dog yet looked like a panda and that seems hurtful for the animal because when something is unusual, it is looked at in a different perspective than normal animals. I would really love to see how humans would feel being bred with species they don't want to be bred with, i'd love to see animals testing things on us because I consider them equal; some ways more better than humans.
Animals should really be leaved alone and if new species of animal should arise, it should come naturally and not synthetically.
User avatar
JCC
Mod! Law!
 
Posts: 685
Joined: Mon Jun 23, 2003 5:31 pm

Unread postby robbyjo » Sun May 23, 2004 4:57 am

Golly! :shock:

It seems to me that this thread has been plagued with gross misinformation. Well, I was involved in genetic research last year (as a computer scientist, not as a biologist). Although I do not know much of the innards, I think I can contribute something. Feel free to correct me, especially for those expert bioengineers and theologians.


1. Cloning doesn't mean we play God.
God can create things ex-nihilo (i.e. out of nothing), whereas in cloning, we need existing DNA strains. I would argue that this is pretty much like an "advanced" vertilization, whereas we can play with the "building blocks" on what makes individual traits.


2. How cloning is done.

The current method is using Somatic Cell Nuclear Transfer (SCNT) that basically work like this: Take an unfertilized egg cell, remove its DNA, take the cell of the body part you want to breed and put its DNAs inside the unfertilized egg cell nucleus. After some (chemical) stimulation, the egg cell will then divide through meiosis and use the injected DNA's blueprint instead of using the original one. Thus, we get the clone of the body part we want. But this isn't an automated process, but rather a manual labor.

http://www.isscr.org/public/therapeutic.htm


3. Why cloning is opposed?


This link explains it better:
http://www.actionbioscience.org/biotech/mcgee.html

Does it involve killing an embryo? Depends on how you stimulate the egg cell (see above). I would say, it isn't. Some people may argue that an unfertilized egg-cell is a candidate for an embryo. However, it is a gross misconception. If they use a fertilized egg cell, then yes, it is basically equivalent to an abortion.

This rejection reminds me on how in the early 20th century, Christians rejected blood transfusion once it became feasible after the discovery of blood types, citing that God commands us not to eat blood.


4. Identical twins are genetically identical

Believe it or not. I'm pretty sure that most of us have run into twins. Are they different? Yes. But genetically, they're identical. So, does it mean that they have the same memory? No. However, genetically, they're identical. So, cloning doesn't clone aspects other than biological. Let alone souls, etc.



5. Cloning is not perfect yet
High rate mortality, etc, that plagued the clones. I would say it would take decades to perfect it.


So, in the mean time, I would say that the technology is not mature yet. Human has billions of DNA basepairs, most of which we don't know its functions. And worse: most of them are junk / fillers (so sayeth the experts). Do we need to clone human to investigate its function? NO! I would argue that that would be too early. There are still many ways to find out how:
* Functional analysis
* Protein structure analysis
* Sequencing analysis
* Genetic mapping analysis
* etc

The most extensively researched species (in terms of DNA functions) are yeast, arabidopsis (a kind of weed), and fruit flies. This is because they are simple individuals. There are genetic maps for them, although they're not perfect yet. Let alone human's genetic map! Once we exhaust all other means, then we may proceed on going for cloning.



Okay, enough rant for now.

-- Rob

Edit: Waaah! I got it flipped: It should read mitosis, not meiosis.
Edit2: Waaah! I got it right at the first time. It's meiosis.... grrrr....
Last edited by robbyjo on Mon May 24, 2004 8:49 am, edited 2 times in total.
User avatar
robbyjo
Überducky of Shen Zhou
 
Posts: 2766
Joined: Mon Feb 09, 2004 10:17 am
Location: Heaven

PreviousNext

Return to Current Affairs

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests

Copyright © 2002–2008 Kongming’s Archives. All Rights Reserved