Cloning….

@Yanny:

I’m sure if we recloned Dolly today, she’d live much longer.

And you know this how?

Because improvements in the Cloning process have been made in the past 6 years. Remember, Dolly was the first cloned warm-blooded animal. 6 years after the Wright Brother’s first plane, they were able to fly longer than 18 seconds.

@Yanny:

Because improvements in the Cloning process have been made in the past 6 years. Remember, Dolly was the first cloned warm-blooded animal. 6 years after the Wright Brother’s first plane, they were able to fly longer than 18 seconds.

Actually, i disagree with you here. Given the reasons WHY Dolly was so aged at birth, unless the requisite conditions were changed in the meantime, there is no reason to believe that any mammal cloned using similar technology (or any other DNA technology) would survive longer than its progenitor’s survival. By this i mean a dog cloned from a 2 year old puppy which normally might survive to the age of 12 years, would only survive for 10 more years.
This is not merely a “technical problem”, but a fundamental exercise in futility due to the nature of DNA. The only way that Dolly would have survived longer is if it were cloned from a younger ewe.

Then we’ll clone from a younger one :)

My point is, mistakes were made with Dolly which were found. If we cloned another sheep today, it would have less genetic defects than Dolly.

@Yanny:

Then we’ll clone from a younger one :)

My point is, mistakes were made with Dolly which were found. If we cloned another sheep today, it would have less genetic defects than Dolly.

if you want me to stop arguing these points, i’ll comply.
The thing is, “genetic defects” are not so much mistakes with the nature of the genetic structure (which are not so much “defects” as they are “form”) as they are problematic constraints of genetic manipulation due to an architecture that is created “flawed” from a cloning perspective.
Cloning (i.e. replicating) the genetic structure of Dolly’s DNA is not so difficult, and we have the technology in place to do this nearly as flawlessly as the mammallian systems in place. When we clone genetic material, we make few mistakes in replicating it. The problem is that the template itself is “bad”.
This is kind of like the limitations in copying from 5th or 9th generation video tapes. The first copy is nearly identical to the previous. The second loses something. The 3rd, 4th, 5th etc. all lose more sequentially. Now although you might have technology to PRECISELY replicate this material, the material you’re replicating is less than is optimal. This is a very simplified version of the difficulties in dealing with Dolly. True - you might clone from a younger sheep, but if that’s your interest, then just shoot Dolly up with some clomiphene citrate, and sit back and watch the multiple-gestation action.
As i’ve said before, until we can solve the telomere-shortening problem (which i can imagine that we should be able to do using even current replication technology to a certain degree, but no where near perfectly) then we have some big limitations with Dolly.

Wow. This is interesting. BTW, I think you guys are crazy. You and your Canada jokes. :)

I don’t agree with cloning humans. Points about how genetics could be screwed up even more because of the clones being from old DNA are good. But another argument that could come up is that we could take these defects out. Fine on the surface, but removing these defects could make future generations of clones more vulnerable to disease because their bodies have not strengthened their immune systems. An entire race of clones could be destroyed by one rampant disease.
More importantly, one species produces offspring of the same species, correct? Therefore, the stemcells of humans would create more humans (clones or not, they are still homo sapiens). To rear a “clone” simply to “harvest” it is inhumane.
wrt overpopulation. i think it’s to hyped up. if it’s crowded where you are…move. And if you think forceful measures for de-population should be employed (as in systematically kill “extra” people) I have only one more thing to say.

You first.

@dIfrenT:

Wow. This is interesting. BTW, I think you guys are crazy. You and your Canada jokes. :)

I don’t agree with cloning humans. Points about how genetics could be screwed up even more because of the clones being from old DNA are good. But another argument that could come up is that we could take these defects out. Fine on the surface, but removing these defects could make future generations of clones more vulnerable to disease because their bodies have not strengthened their immune systems. An entire race of clones could be destroyed by one rampant disease.
More importantly, one species produces offspring of the same species, correct? Therefore, the stemcells of humans would create more humans (clones or not, they are still homo sapiens). To rear a “clone” simply to “harvest” it is inhumane.
wrt overpopulation. i think it’s to hyped up. if it’s crowded where you are…move. And if you think forceful measures for de-population should be employed (as in systematically kill “extra” people) I have only one more thing to say.

You first.

I’ll only address one remark. The bit about immune system degeneration. While its true that our immune system functions loosely on a random assortment of genes coming together, cloning technology would not necessarly remove this. In fact, it could well introduce improvements in our immune systems (i.e. immunity to various viruses, as well as decreasing allergic reactions etc.). The thing about cloning, is you replicate the ENTIRE genome of your “replicand” - immune systems and all.