Isn’t “dihydrogen monoxide” water?
But as far as cloning goes, I’m for it. Whether it’s possible or not is another matter entirely.
Cala : yes :P. That was my point.
Maybe I got confused and she was talking about the type of cloning you were posting about earlier? Or maybe she was just full of shit, because I remember being interested in that particular lecture, and the stuff I posted about before, are things she said. :\
Thought so, but that site is hilarious. Never realized it was used by Nazis and pornographers. 
A clone is nothing more than a genetically identical copy. Anything beyond that is just playing with the term cloning. I “clone” plasmids inside E.coli to amplify the genes I extract from Drosophila telomeres so we can study the expression of inserted elements. You can “clone” cells by having them divide mitotically on a petri dish :p.
What people did with Dolly was take a somatic nucleus from a cell in an udder and plugged it into an egg, shocked it so it would grow and then implanted it into a surrogate mother (which I think was the sheep from which the cell was taken in the first place. Therefore, since its a genetically identical copy, it is a clone.
However, part of the problem that arises (as seen with Dolly’s health) is that a genetically identical copy doesn’t mean a phenotypically identical copy and we go into a nice discussion of the net effect of genes and their regulation based upon different sets of circumstances.
What he said. ::dekar!::
Cloning is worth cookies!
At least as long as everyone listen to Sinistral. *Nod, nod.
The birthing sheep was actually different from both the donor of the udder cell and the donor of the egg cell. Dolly had three “mothers”.
1-Nucleus
2-Egg
3-Uterus
You could make it the same sheep or different sheep. I’m not sure which gave which or how many sheep was used to produce Dolly. It kinda becomes debatable which one is “mom”. I would plug the egg and nucleus back into the donor to prevent immune rejection though… Nonetheless, the use of a somatic nucleus makes a clone.
You sometimes have to filter what your teachers say, as some of them make a habit of mentioning unconfirmed rumor and not identifying it as such.
They were two moms, one was Ohma-mom and the other was Fama-mom.
And the only reason Dolly ain’t 100% genetically equal to the nucleus donor is because not all of our genes are in the nucles if you think of mitocondrias (someone tell me how to spell this properly in English). Mitocondrias aren’t in the nucleus. Thus, when that sheep gave her nucleus, it came without her mitocondrias. The lil’ things came from the sheep who gave the ‘unnucleused’ egg. So Dolly had genes from two other sheeps, not just one.
The thing with mitocondrial DNA is that you get all your mitocondrias from your mother. That means there is no gene mixing when you consider only the circular cromossome. Usually people say that human beings have 44 autossome cromossomes and two sexual ones, for a total of 46. I like to count the circular cromossome in the mitocondria, for a total of 47. I think few people share this view, though.
Technically there were three. One to provide the DNA, one to provide the egg, and one to carry Dolly to term.
The terms you’re looking for are “mitochondria”, “chromosome” and “autosome”.
Yeah, I was bringing up something that I thought of on my own which really had nothing to do with what you said. But I’m sure this is a shock since most things on here revolve around you…
Aren’t you being a tad bit pissy today.
He’s right though. Sin just assumed that the comment was directed at him
No I didn’t. Making a comment ignoring what someone said can’t possibly make that person feel targeted :P.
Hush
Actually, it wouldn’t surprise me if we had some failed attempts of cloned humans already- considering what is done to prisoners in North Korea… testing B- weapons on them is (probably) just the tip if the iceberg anyway.
I’ll have to agree with Sin that human cloning probably not only hasn’t taken place, but that it’s still decades away. Human DNA is unbelievable complex- remember, it took decades to finish the Human Genom project. Don’t believe the stuff you see in two-bit media. The scientific community will certainly make an official statement when it is achieved.
(I must note, however, that research that has applications that can be exploited by governments often takes place secretly, and not even the scientific community at large would find about them until the governments want it revealed, particularly in non-democratic countries. Remember the development of nuclear weapons?)
BUT, let’s assume that cloning would be possible. What would be the implications?
Not many, really. At least not PRACTICAL ones. (I’m talking FULL cloning here, not just some tissues; THAT would be a boon for humanity, as Sin mentioned. But of course, the better ways we come up to heal ourselves, the longer people would live, and the worse overpopulation would get, wich would multiply ALL our other problems more. But THAT is a whole 'nother can of worms to discuss.)
I see full human cloning as just another reproductive alternative. Remember, we cannot make clones age faster, and clones do NOT carry their donor’s memories, so forget the old “It’s another me!!” science fiction concept. What would happen is that people might choose to clone themselves as a way to have children by themselves. (Well, a surrogate would still be needed, unless we also invent artificial wombs, which I think is possible as well.) This has no practical purpose other than fulfilling some people’s wishes.
Except that gay people would now have a way of having families on their own. (Whee, more overpopulation!)
There would still be, however, a LOT of public outcry for this. People are just too fanatical about these things. I still remember the big deal made over test tube babies, back when the method was first proposed.
oops, wrong button… I was intending to stay out of this…