They're up to horses now

[Alucard_FoN]

Let me be clear that I was not asking why we clone, I was restating someone else's question. I already know why we do it, and support it one hundred percent.

As far as cell division goes, that's nonsense. Identical twins are clones of each other, so are we to assume that identical twins cells divide twice as fast and they die halfway through their life? Of course not, that's ridiculous. Cloned animals do not have the original cells from their parent. The DNA is identical, but the actual cells that compose the body are brand new cells that the clone made when it was in development. This whole argument that they die sooner because of cell division is illogical, flawed, and just plain retarded. It has no basis in solid science.

[jonmartensen]

Is it not true that when something is cloned, it will only live to about the time that the original sample dies? I think that the reason was because cells can only divide so many times. So when you take an adult, who has had many cell divisions, and clone it, you will have an offspring that will live half as long as the adult.

i.e. Bob is 40 and is going to live to be 80. He gets cloned, and the infant is named Bob the second. Bob 1 lives to 80, and Bob 2 dies at 40. And so on if you cloned Bob 2, Bob 3 would live to 20, etc. etc....

that's bullshit.

I actually think it makes sense. Cells can only divide so many times. Then they die. If cells were able to reproduce themselves for an infinite amount of time, then we wouldn't die. What do you think causes aging? The human body breaks down because fewer and fewer cells are dividing.

i'm pretty sure that not every cell in the clone's body comes from the original, and that would make the thing you said about cell division irrelevant

I'm pretty sure you are wrong, there, pyro. If every cell in the clones body were not identical to its "parent" it wouldn't be a clone now would it.

Identical twins are genetically identical. Their DNA is exactly the same. I got into an argument 2 christmases ago about this, with my entire family, guests and everybody present, them against me. Guess who was right? Thats correct, I was right.

So I'm right, right?

Kegger is pretty closer, it has to do with the DNA, sex, and mutation.



I'm to lazy to give all the details :p

[jonmartensen]

... Cloned animals do not have the original cells from their parent. The DNA is identical, but the actual cells that compose the body are brand new cells that the clone made when it was in development. This whole argument that they die sooner because of cell division is illogical, flawed, and just plain retarded. It has no basis in solid science.

WRONG.
Multicellular organisms passed up fission a long time ago as the form of reproduction and replaced it with sex (much more advantageous both process wise, and through natural selection against harsh conditions)

With the new found abillity to reproduce greater variations that are tested through time (rather than hoping for 1 helpfull mutation out of a million) the sexually reproducing creatures lost their immortallity* (including that of each individual cell).

The reson a clone "ages" fast is not that their cellular processes are speed up, but rather, the degeneration of their DNA is kept in check at the same pace as it was before it was pulled out of the original donor. DNA is the key.

Certain turtles have a very high fidelity system of error correction in their DNA. Once the turtle reaches maturity, it stops aging. These turtles do not die of "old age" in the common sence but are instead subject to predation, disease, famine, drought, and other climactic changes.


*This immortality is not the immortality commonly portrayed by movies and fiction (an immutable existence, cannot be killed, cannot die) Any and all cells that have been reproduced are subject to death, and inevitably do die. By immortality, the organism that reproduces by fission creates itself over again, with no internal limit placed on this reproduction by the DNA. The Billionth cell produced in this manner is still the same original cell save for a sparce hundred or so changes in the Billions of non-essential DNA sequences.

[Kazutaka]

Actually, in response to the debate over the "life span" of cells, this is determined by the telemeres (known as a cellular clock) these are "bundles" attached to the end of the DNA strands of the cell, as the cell reproduces itself these telemeres, are worn down so to speak, get shorter after each reproduction creating a sort of countdown clock.

Dolly was recently put down due to her contracting a common livestock disease as well as the discovery that her cells were showing signs of premature aging. Dolly was discovered to have 20% shorter telemeres than her mother (cell/DNA donor).

One of the many problems with cloning seems to be the production of shorter telemeres in offspring/clones.

[Nurd]

As far as cell division goes, that's nonsense. Identical twins are clones of each other, so are we to assume that identical twins cells divide twice as fast and they die halfway through their life?

I do not agree with the original statement, but this statement is flawed as well. Identical twins' cells divide at such an eary period that having their lifespan shortened by just a handful of cell divisions would make very little impact on their overall lifespan. They may in fact die sooner from old age than they would have if they had remained one person instead of two, but we would never know.

Nurd

[Kazutaka]

cellular life span is determined through telemeres on the tips of the DNA strand. These act as a biological clock for the cells. The longer the telemeres, the longer the life span.

one of the problems with cloning (there are many) is that clones typically have shorter telemeres than thier "donor".

[jonmartensen]

cellular life span is determined through telemeres on the tips of the DNA strand. These act as a biological clock for the cells. The longer the telemeres, the longer the life span.

one of the problems with cloning (there are many) is that clones typically have shorter telemeres than thier "donor".

Not so much shorter as they are the same length as the already developed donor. Which, or course, would mean shorter than normal for the clone (already has a few years of degeneration by the time it's born)

[HungryCrackPot]

I also believe that I read that the metabollic rate of clones are very flawed. I think that it was just erradic(SP SPS PSSP SPS PS PS) at best. I am none to sure, and dont get on my case if I am wrong. I never went very far into cloning. It was interesting, but not my niche.

[Kracus]

As far as it's not ethical to play God, that's bullshit. Everyone's ethics are different. To you maybe it's unethical, but to me it's more unethical not to use the technology to it's utmost to help mankind.

Now I remember why I was going to post here. That bolded statement is bullshit, how silly of me to almost forget to comment. There are ethical standards, whether you want to believe them or not. That's why we have those funny things called laws.

About cloning, I don't know. It's a new topic and it will build as we go along. I don't think it will completely be used for the benefit of mankind which is were problems can and will come about. I can understand why racetrack people (although not completely) don't want cloned horses on their track. It takes away from the pride and history of Thoroughbreds (sp). And then what do you think they'll do if they get really good at cloning horses? Someone with the money will genetically alter a cloned horse to be so adapted at racing that it'll win all the time. That's cheating. It's the same problem they have with people using horse steroids.

But that's just my IMO, and as dennis miller always said, "and I could be wrong"

[El Banana]

However, who sets those ethical standards?

A deity?

Or is a person or group of people truly allowed to decide YOUR ethical code?