They're up to horses now

kthulhu · Post by **kthulhu** » Sat Aug 09, 2003 11:09 pm

Cloning animals in a food shortage? That'd be pretty stupid. Those creatures still need to eat, so all you'd be doing in increasing strain and demand on the food supply.

Farmboybob · Post by **Farmboybob** » Sat Aug 09, 2003 11:12 pm

Hmm, never thought of that. Good call. (sorry for stealing your line KhayotiK)
I still like the clone army idea though. But only if it worked like in the movies.

Propyro · Post by **Propyro** » Sun Aug 10, 2003 9:35 pm

Alucard_FoN wrote:Why are we cloning?

becaue it' sthe scientific communitys new toy ... as far as thyre concerened it's just something for them to fuck around with and see what they can do.

/|\

Roke · Post by **Roke** » Sun Aug 10, 2003 9:59 pm

First person to clone a human being has the largest penis in the world"

Modern Science's view on cloning brought to a level that every man on the forum can understand.

pyro_256 · Post by **pyro_256** » Sun Aug 10, 2003 10:54 pm

Kegger007 wrote:
pyro_256 wrote:
Kegger007 wrote: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

SS5_Majin_Bebi · Post by **SS5_Majin_Bebi** » Sun Aug 10, 2003 11:01 pm

pyro_256 wrote:
Kegger007 wrote:
pyro_256 wrote:
Kegger007 wrote: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?

Kegger007 · Post by **Kegger007** » Sun Aug 10, 2003 11:04 pm

But then that would make the term an *exact copy* or *clone* inaccurate. If the clone wasn't made from only the sample's cells, then it wouldn't be an exact copy. That's why the horse in the article is the twin of it's mother. That's freaky, a daughter that is the identical twin of it's mother.

Don't get me wrong though, it's not like I know the right answer. I'm just arguing for the sake of arguing using my own twisted logic. I was never really that good at biology (i.e. I never took it). History is more my game. So if yours is the correct answer then don't flame me please.

Peace!

pyro_256 · Post by **pyro_256** » Sun Aug 10, 2003 11:49 pm

i didn't say the clone's cells weren't identical to the original. i said that their cells don't come from the original. those are completely different.

Propyro · Post by **Propyro** » Mon Aug 11, 2003 5:59 am

Roke wrote:First person to clone a human being has the largest penis in the world"

Modern Science's view on cloning brought to a level that every man on the forum can understand.

lol ... thats a pretty good simplifacation ... they don't care what they do, just as long as they prove that they can do it.

/|\

Savia · Post by **Savia** » Mon Aug 11, 2003 7:49 am

Although a clone starts off genetically identical to the cloned organism, environmental factors can lead to the clone being slightly different- ie. benign cancers & mutations that are what make us all different anyway. The similarities still far, far outweigh the differences, but they're not entirely identical. That's almost impossible.