Posted by
timothy
on from the no-two-cats-are-alike dept.
bbsguru writes "When Texas A&M researchers announced the first Cloned Kitty about a year ago, everyone expected to see a Multiplicity-style pair of cats by now. Not so! The clone is genetically identical, but in many other ways totally a different cat. This
CNN Story has details."
so it is not a copy cat?
by
amentia
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
Everything is not in the genes!
Re:so it is not a copy cat?
by
frozenray
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
> Tabula rasa, people are blank papers when they're born. Our environment form us.
The extreme points of view ("blank slate" and "all in the genes") have been thoroughly discredited by scientific research. We are both a product of our genes and our environment.
May I suggest reading Steven Pinker's "The Blank Slate" for an intelligent discussion of the subject? The book is worth its money IMO.
-- "There are already a million monkeys on a million typewriters, and Usenet is NOTHING like Shakespeare." - Blair Houghton
Re:so it is not a copy cat?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
Rainbow is reserved. Cc is curious and playful. Rainbow is chunky. Cc is sleek.
Hardly surprising. My translation is:
Rainbow is an old cat. Cc is a kitten. Rainbow is chunky. Cc is still growing.
Re:so it is not a copy cat?
by
whovian
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Here, here! I for one am glad to see this information starting to enter the mainstream press -- that genetics isn't everything. From the article:
"Not only does cloning not produce a physical duplicate, but it can never reproduce the behavior or personality of a cat that you want to keep around.
I really hate it when the media plays up the evocation "aw, how cute!" when comparing the appearance of human identical twins. I couldn't decide whether it was the media being stupid, or the media thinking people are stupid, or people being stupid.
Sorry for the gripe...better go get myself a cuppa joe.
-- To-do List: Receive telemarketing call during a tornado warning. Check.
Re:so it is not a copy cat?
by
hackstraw
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
One thing that most of the general public (and appatently people in the field??) don't realize that there occurs genetic drift when cloning organisms. This has been known by botanist when cloning plants. One thing that you "don't do" is clone clones. Its analagous to photocopying a photocopy over and over again. Also, there is simple deteriation of genetic goodies over time. And one cannot discredit the environment, etc.
Re:so it is not a copy cat?
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 1, Insightful
This is hardly insightful. Cats don't change that much as they age. I have an older cat that was never playful and has always been very slim and sleek. The other cat is playful and fat and has been since he was a kitten.
I would also point out that a kitten is no longer a kitten after 1 year.
Re:so it is not a copy cat?
by
talesout
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
Maybe not. But they still act like a kitten until they are two or three. That is, unless they are in a really oppressive environment.
It's like dogs. They may look like adults, but until they hit that third birthday they still have the mind and energy of a puppy. Cats may be a bit more dignified about it, but it's the same deal.
--
Bite my yammer.
Re:so it is not a copy cat?
by
schon
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Rainbow is an old cat. Cc is a kitten. Rainbow is chunky. Cc is still growing.
Yes, and we all know that cat's colouring and markings change as they age too, right? I noticed you deliberately missed that.
Generally, a cat's demeanour doesn't change much as it ages - an adult tend to have the same characteristics as it did as a kitten. The only difference is the amount of energy they have. If you'd ever raised a cat, you'd know this.
As expected really
by
terrencefw
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
I think that this is pretty much what we all expected... far more nurture than nature. Like the article says, it's the personality that we like about our animals, not it's genetic makeup.
As for the company which promises to provide you with a replacement pet which looks just like the old one, they admit that it's won't have the same personality. 'Scuse me, but isn't a pet that looks the same but with a different personality just what you'd find down the local animal sanctuary or pet store? (And far cheaper!)
-- Like tinyurl, but one letter less! http://qurl.co.uk/
The definition of "clone' as used is incorrect, that is probably where the problem comes from in the first place. Redefine that word retroactively and perhaps avoid the whole mess from the start. Clone? I do not think "it" will ever be possible. Are we any closer to understanding the complete universe/multiverse/galaxy much less how our DNA works? HA! Arrogant bastards. In 100 hundred years or so people will laugh at our "clone' ideas. Snicker. I laugh proactively of course. But I reserve the right to change my opinion.
Re:A different cat, yes...
by
slimordium
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
So our challenge is that we as humans need to first be able to create matter, then cloning will be irrelevant.
not necessarily nature vs. nurture
by
Megasphaera+Elsdenii
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
It can very well be somatic mutations that have
rendered them different. I.e., there are a
number of mutations in cells during
foetal development, which result in phenotypic differences that are
not reflected in the genotype. And then there is
nurture in the sense of womb conditions --
may not have been the same. Lastly, even my
identical twin daugthers are very different, so
pretty much anything goes.
Re:Nature vs. Nurture
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
>The coats are different colors. How is this possible?
Huh, you know that children born of mothers who drink during pregnancy have a heavy risk of mental or physical disorders ? So the environment begins before the birth, you see.
Natural twins grow in the same womb. The environment is quasi identical (apart from the position in the womb, of course)
Even if the mother is the same for the 2 cloned animals, it's not at the same time. This could explain the greater difference between artificial clones vs the natural ones.
Re:well...
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
they were, however, expecting the same behavior patterns.
Why on Earth would they expect that? Behaviour is clearly influenced by environment.
Nature vs. nurture's an ongoing battle, but over the past few years it's seemed that nature would win.
What bosh.
Re:why on earth would you expect a carbon copy ?
by
sql*kitten
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Its been established that nature plays a lesser role than nurture in the personality of a human.. obviously, the same must apply to animals as well..
That much is intuitively obvious... what is less obvious is why the cats have different colored fur. After all, human twins are often physically indistinguishable.
Re:well...
by
Jace+of+Fuse!
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Why on Earth would they expect that? Behaviour is clearly influenced by environment.
That issue is hardly clearly one way or the other. The Nature vs. Nurture battle has been going on for a long time. It's very naive of you to believe you are so special that you are privi to the answer most psychologists would love to have. How much research have YOU personally done in that field? None? You probably haven't done any. When you say "Behaviour is clearly influenced by environment" in that context, you are implying that you believe nature has no role. Anybody who has studied this topic at all would immediately cite reasons to strongely disagree with you.
There are people who study this day in day out and make a living trying to figure out the answer to that question, and even THEY don't know with enough certainty to say one way or the other. Oh, sure, some of them will take a stance on one or the other side, but in the end they'll still admit they aren't really sure. It isn't clear, and you clearly do not know enough to have a valid hypothesis. The only thing you have is an uneducated opinion.
But then, you were too busy being an anonymous troll to make any kind of sense, huh?
--
"Everything you know is wrong. (And stupid.)"
Moderation Totals: Wrong=2, Stupid=3, Total=5.
Re:well...
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
When you say "Behaviour is clearly influenced by environment" in that context, you are implying that you believe nature has no role.
Don't be silly. Of course I'm implying no such thing. I stated that behaviour is influenced by environment, and so it is. Read any of the literature! Both nature and nurture have their influence, and no-one in the field is looking to say that either one has no influence, as it is simple to prove that both have an effect.
But then, you were too busy being a troll to make any kind of sense, huh?
Re:Nature vs. Nurture
by
TCaM
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Simply having a particular gene or set of genes does not always mean that the gene or genes will express. It is well known that environment can have a drastic on how genes express in an organism.
Why would they be?
by
avajadi
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
The fact that two genetically identical specimens differ never seems to stop baffling the scientific community in spite of the fact that it's been a known fact for as long as we've known about genes. For instance: how identical are identical twins, really? If you look at dandelions in a field, are they all the same? Both are examples of multiple, genetically identical, specimens (assuming the dandelions are all of the same species, they are effectively clones, since they reproduce asexually). In both cases there are great similarities, but also some differences in both physical appearance and, in the human example above, behaviour. My biology teacher told me many years ago: You don't inherit properties, you inherit predispositions./Avajadi
Not really a suprise...
by
CharlieO
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
This isn't really a surprise - what it is an example of is the popular misunderstanding of genetics and cloning.
DNA and genes are only the receipe for a cat - if you like the instruction set.
Its only if you think of a well ordered system that you would expect an identical end result - for instance most computer code is well ordered in this respect - every time you run the program and construct the classes you get the same result.
But not every system is like this - any system, and certainly most you find in nature, that is chaotic can produce different results. Sometimes these may reach the same exact stable state in the end - sometimes that approach a loci of similar states.
In terms of the cat each clone will approach a loci of very similar looking cats, but each cat will be different. They will all look very similar but they will not be identical.
In terms of a reciepe we all bake cakes using the same mix of ingredients and the same oven - but each week it does come out slightly differently.
This really shouldn't be a surprise - nature has for years provided its own genetically identical clones in the form of identical twins/triplets etc - and whilst they are indeed very similar they are not identical.
So even before you bring the nature/nurture argument in its clear if you stop and think that genetic clones will never be identical.
Re:so - what's the truth about identical twins
by
stixman
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
This does however raise the question, do identical twins actually have identical fingerprints?
No, they don't. I'm an identical twin, and have at some point compared my fingerprints to those of my brother. We can share driver's licenses, passports, jobs, girlfriends, etc:o) but if fingerprint verification becomes widespread we're out of luck!
I think it would be intersting to see if the coloring and pattern of the kitten was a product of it's suroundings before and during birth.
For Example, lets say the the mother cat was active, and the cat was born in the summer in warm weather. Would that make the kitten be lighter colored, and have thinner fur? How about an identical Clone where the mother was kept in a dark damp room? Would the kitten show up different because of the suroundings it was in before it was even born? (That is assumeing these babies were created, then artificially inseminated.)
To me that would be an interesting extension on this experiment. TO see exactly how things turn out. And maybe make a major breakthrough in how we think of genitics, and the possability of some other factors that have yet to be discovered in teh development of humans/ animals/ all thoes other things:)
Ohh, sorry about grammar, and spelling mistakes, I am sure their are plenty.
- Ice_Hole
-- "I couldn't give him (Bill Gates) advice in business and he couldn't give me advice in technology."
Linus Torvalds
ahhh, common sense exists!
by
iwbcman
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Jubilation...
I am so happy to see that the slashdotters have been able to see through the hype with which we have been bombarded for so many years in the form of fantasy fiction and science pretending to be fiction.
The whole notion of "carbon ccopies" of living beings seems to presuppose that life itself is virtual, ie. subject to substitution. Whereas virtuality is correct paradigm for understanding and dealing with man-made mass-produced technology and everything which has to do with computers, its applicability stops there.
The world in which we live is not virtual, there is no substitute for those beings who constitute this world- each and ever being is in the last instance irreplacable.
99% of what has been written about "cloning" has been science-FICTION inspired hype. I love science fiction personally, becuase it IS fiction. When scientists start pursuing fiction as science they make a laughing-stock of themselves and the "issues" supposedly "moral" which surrounds their work.
It is amazing how are society constantly seeks out virtual dilemnas instead of dealing with that which is already here..
Hats off to a little bit of not so common, common sense.....
To get it right...
by
praedor
·
· Score: 5, Insightful
You could do the cloning from the embryonic stage. If you impregnate a cat and let the eggs start developing, then select one or two embryos, split them into two (now half-sized) embryos, reimplant them, then let them continue development then you would TRUE clones that went through the same environment during development. The same burst of hormones from the mother at the same time, the same nutritional environment, etc.
The clones being produced of late from adult somatic cells are not good measures of the strength of genes in creating a creature/person. Why? No, NOT because of "nurture" being more important (it isn't). It is because the de facto biological environment en utero is different (different hormone levels from mom, different nutritional conditions, etc...no two pregnancies are the same in this regard particularly from different mothers).
Original cat biologically developed in a certain set of biological conditions en utero. That cat was also produced from properly regulated/formed egg-sperm fusion. Copy cat was produced from a somatic cell which DID contain mutations (inevitable given the basal mutation rate), many genes were silenced or activated in a manner totally different from a normal fertilized egg and all that regulatory machinery has to be unwound to get embryonic development going. This unwinding of regulatory mechanisms is imperfect - hence the MANY MANY failures to get a successful clone; the why behind the huge failure rate (added to mutations).
You end up with a disregulated genome in the embryo that is TOTALLY different than the properly regulated/prepared genome resulting from a standard egg-sperm fertilization event, coupled to a different biological environment en utero and you will NOT get a carbon copy. Can't happen, wont happen.
The time between inserting the nucleus from a somatic cell into an enucleated egg (the standard method of cloning in these circumstances) is too short. Those cells capable of dividing begin dividing almost immediately. There is NOT enough time for the somatic genome to be "reset" (if resetting is truly even possible) to a state equivalent to that of a normal egg-sperm state. Thus you end up with a mishmash of improperly regulated genes in the clone's genome - differences and problems galore. NO carbon copy.
-- In Bushworld, they struggle to keep church and state separate in Iraq as they increasingly merge the two in America.
Re:well...
by
Swanktastic
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
Look at how identical twins raised in different environments exhibit similar behavioral patterns, down to the occupations they choose.
The huge difference between twins and clones is that a set of twins experience mostly identical conditions during the gestation period. The same temperature, the same bath of hormones, oxygen levels, etc. It's not a huge surprise then that they end up looking the same, acting the same (within limits). A clone on the other hand is going to experience a completely different set of conditions, even if it is placed in the womb of the original mother (surely she has aged some).
In reptiles, the gender of an animal can be changed simply by incubating at a different temperatures. Sea Turtle's genders are determined by location/temperature in the nest. It shouldn't be surprising that these cats and thus humans would turn out to be radically different then based on their gestation environments. In fact, I'd be willing to wager this is precisely why the cloned calico turned out to be gray...
This is only news . . .
by
Badgerman
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
Because of the fact that it violates cultural assumptions, not any scientific fact or expectation.
We're entering a phase where our cultural assumptions on science, derived from many sources (mostly unscientific) are running headlong into actual technology.
Just take a look at the people who were shocked to discover folks would use a worldwide network of data exchange (the Internet) for pornography! No one's interested in that stuff . ..
-- "The Sage treasures Unity and measures all things by it" - Lao Tzu
Re:Hear that sound?
by
LittleGuy
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
You can clone a body, but you cannot clone a soul.
_I_ call it a major breakthrough in metaphysics.
-- Mod Karma -1:I sed bad wurds. If I cep my mouf shut, I wud be at riyses.
From the article
by
peterpi
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
"However, he said cloning could reproduce what a pet owner considers to be exceptional genes, particularly from an animal with unknown parentage or one that has been spayed or neutered."
This will destroy the exclusivity of a good pedigree (an oxymoron in itself IMHO) and be a cause for concern for breeders once the technology falls in price.
Re:well...
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 1, Insightful
What else can you expect from the same genes and the same culture? Raise one twin in a rich u.s. family and the other in a poor Tibetan family...THEN see how (DIS)similar they turn out.
Re:Impossible to...
by
Xuther
·
· Score: 3, Insightful
But that would give you immortality (so long as you keep your brain safe).
Um not exactly.. It would be a duplicate copy, but not you. It would just have your memories. Now, if you could link the two brains and just transfer the running "program" of who you are over to the other "processor" without halting or forking, then I'd consider it immortality since it's the same memories, genetics, and for lack of a better word "soul".
Pseudo Immortaltiy
by
Myriad
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
However, another much better method is this: Make a clone of John, keep its brain blank as you grow it (maybe in an accelerated fashion) to John's size, and then transfer John's thoughts to that clone. Of course that requires very advanced brain knowledge to "read" and "write" a brain - assuming that's even possible.
But that would give you immortality (so long as you keep your brain safe).
This would only give you pseudo immortality. Consider:
You have the original and make a copy of it, then place the copy into the new body. For a brief period there are now two copies of you.
Here's the catch, the original still dies. Meaning you still die, but a backup lives on.
Personally I'm not sure I like that a whole lot. It might be nice to know that my personality will go on, but it still is not me.
The only way I can see this sort of working is if the mind is transfered rather than copied. Then, arguably, the original doesn't have to die as well. Though this transfer would likely be a copy and wipe, which has the same problem as above.
-- "They do not preach that their god will rouse them, a little before the Nuts work loose." Kipling, 'The Sons of Martha'
Re:Pseudo Immortaltiy
by
mdwh2
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
This would only give you pseudo immortality. Consider: You have the original and make a copy of it, then place the copy into the new body. For a brief period there are now two copies of you. Here's the catch, the original still dies. Meaning you still die, but a backup lives on.
I think this is an interesting idea, and I think the answers depend a lot on the nature of consciousness, and whether there is any such thing as a "soul".
The point is that to everyone else, the backup would seem identical to you. Moreover, the backup would claim that he was you - as far he is concerned, he has been brought back to life. The "original" you will never know having died (assuming one doesn't believe in an afterlife). Things are a little more confusing after duplication but before one has died; you'll have two people both insisting they are the 'original' (and in some sense, they are both right). From that instant on, they'll diverge and be different people, of course.
Consider - it could be that every night I go to sleep, "I" die, and it's a different "me" that wakes up the next morning. But unless anyone (the "me" today, the "me" tomorrow, or anyone else) could have any way tell any difference, to me it seems meaningless to say that something has died. It could be that "I" die every nanosecond - it could be that the only way to define continuity of consciousness is in terms of memories and brain activity.
If one doesn't believe in some continuous entity like a soul (as I don't), then the "me" as used in this context is meaningless.
You say that transferring could work - but how is transferring different to a copy-and-delete? (I guess, again, it depends on whether one believes in some unique un-copyable property of physical particles).
It's a similar idea with teleporting Star-trek style. If any such technologies ever appear, I agree that people would be wary (I mean, *I* would be too, despite what I believe). But after a few people have tried it, people would gradually see that it "works" (rightly or wrongly), and it could well be that it becomes commonplace, apart from a few who resist.
Re:Nature vs. Nurture
by
bokmann
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Coat patterns are influenced by the environment in the uterus during fetal development... similar to the principles at develop your fingerprints. Even identical twins don't have duplicate fingerprints, even though they share more genetic information in common than clones do (itentical twins *also* share the mitochondrial dna from their mother, which is not the same as a 'nuclear' dna that gets cloned).
MTV Animated clone series...
by
ClioCJS
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
By the way, if anyone wants a lighter approach to the topic of clones, tune in to MTV's "Clone High", a new animated series that premiered last monday at 10:30PM. (Originally aired on Teletoon in Canada in the last 6 months I believe.)
The main characters are Abe Lincoln, Joan Of Arc, Ghandi (all highschoolers), along with J.F.K., Van Gogh, and many others.
I'm very anti-MTV but they have always had good series. (Aeon Flux, The Maxx, Daria, Beavis & Butt-head, The Head, Liquid Television, Cartoon Sushi, hell even 3-South is semi-tolerable.)
-- -Clio
Karma: Bad (mostly from not giving a fuck)
Blog: http://clintjcl.wordpress.com
I find it odd how so many continue believe this myth that clones are somehow identical carbon copies of each other. I don't know where this started, but a simple look into nature will show you that it can't possibly be so.
Look at identical ( monozygotic ) twins. Twins of this type are as close as you will ever be able to "duplicate" someone. They share the same DNA, as they are produced from the same egg and same sperm in conjunction. They shared the same womb environment, and all forces that shaped one in the fetal stages of development would also have occured to the other. In the cases where they are not given up for adoption, they share the same family & early childhood environmental influences. It is true that there can be slight differences, it is often true that parents will ( often unconsciously ) treat one twin differently from the other, viewing one as "the strong one" and the other as weak. Even in the womb, there can be slight differences, where one gets a kind of biological "preferencial treatment" receiving slightly more nutrients, oxygen, etc. than the other. But they are as close as can ever be made by anyone.
Now compare this with a clone. Certainly they share the same DNA - but under most circumstances they do not share the same fetal environment or the same early developmental environment. Even if they are born to the same mother and raised in the same place, simply the difference in time between when one is born and the other can yield significantly larger differences. Beyond all that, those who study such things regularly say that only about 40-50% of what we would consider to be the "fundamental characteristics" of a person is determined by genetics, the rest of it being some mix of individual experience combined with individual decisions. Ie: genetic factors only account for 40-50% of the variation between individuals.
So we can easily see that twins ought to be much more alike than clones. Yet we know that even identical twins are often not carbon copies. They may look nearly identical, but they often have quite different personalities. True that there are cases where identical twins seem nearly mirror images of each other, and strange tales of those who are seperated at birth and find that years later they have lived almost parallel lives, but that is by far the minority. As for such ridiculous things as "what happens to your soul if you get cloned?" - noone ever worry about the souls or "essential personality" of twins as being a philosophical problem, so why clones?
--
There are a thousand forms of subversion, but few can equal the convenience and immediacy of a cream pie -Noel Godin
Re:Impossible to...
by
Anonymous Coward
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Scientifically, cats are the more similiar to humans then different. Both are mammals, their organs operate pretty much the same way. The only real dividing line is whether or not cats (or other animals for that matter) have souls, like humans are supposed to.
Personally, I believe that if there is such thing as a sould that is the unique property of humans, given to us by God, then any human would be given that soul, whether or not it is a clone, artificially insemenated or molecularly constructed doesn't matter. The kicker is that the people who are wanting clone tech to become immortal are just deluding themselves. They will die, and there clone will live on, but it will not be them.
What makes you? Souls, etc
by
phorm
·
· Score: 4, Insightful
Which brings in a big debate over cloning and just what makes a person, well, a person. If you have a soul... would a clone be born with a soul? If you were brain-copied over to the clone, does that clone inherit your soul as well? If you original body dies... what goes to heaven/hell? What really defines you.
Yeah, I think cloning really scares the crap outta a lot of religious people, especially with the concept of having a lot of soulless clones.
That being said though, even if you copied the "memories", a lot of the way a body works depends on how it has grown. John Doe "A" may be 5'8" tall, with a slight case of asmthma from living near the local carcinogen plant, etc etc. John Doe "B" would grow up with different ailments, and probably a different biochemical pattern within his body. A lot of how we work is in our hormonal, etc, balances.
So, even if there were no soul issue, growing a new John Doe "B" from DNA of John Doe "A" (or a new fluffy the kitten), will not create an exact replica.
Re:More cats?
by
niagaracyber
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
"There are millions of cats in shelters and with rescue groups that need homes, and the last thing we need is a new production strategy for cats."
This "DNA bank service" for cats a symptom of how people love the idea of animals more than real animals themselves. There is an inexhaustable supply, at least now that Asshole Frist is Senate Majority Leader, of cats needing homes, yet some people are looking to throw their money after hopeless duplication of a now-gone pet.
Just because some people voted in a right-wing clone as president, doesn't mean we have to burden the animal world with the same nonsense.
This difference points to a belief I've held for a long time. Cloning is nothing to worry about
The idea that genetics determines everything is simplistically appealing. It also ignores most of modern biological science. Genetics just doesn't work the way the average Fox News viewer thinks it does.
Here are my main tenets why you shouldn't fear cloning any more than any other form of reproductive assistance.
1. Proteomics (http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proteomics) Humans have about 30,000 genes but over 200,000 proteins encoded by those genes. Proteins are what carry out the life processes. Proteomics is extremely complicated and it's effects and actions change depending on the part of the body and the stage of life.
2. Complex Systems - Now that we've got over the genetic determination bias, we have to deal with the incredibly complex interactions of proteins. We're just beginning to understand proteomics, but it's likely that random or at least stochastic variation plays a large role in how the genes build you and me. Studies of complex systems indicate that small fluctuations can have big changes and big fluctuations can have small changes. This gives me the belief (not knowledge mind you, but belief) that cloning will end up with a very similar individual that still remains unique.
3. Tendency Away from Extremes. I've noticed over time that the things society in general gets all worked up about generally turn out to be much less of a problem or as extreme than was expected or feared. While this is not a proof of anything (look at Hitler who ended up the opposite) it general holds true. Killer bees did not wipe out Texas, and the Internet did not save the world, at least as fast as it was supposed to.
Cloning will have it's controversies but after the first few clones have grown up (and Raelians or not, people will be cloned) we'll realize that they're no more a threat or abomination than twins, and possibly less interesting.
The fear over cloning is another example of what happens when people take half-truths and try for the simple explanation.
Re:Nature vs. Nurture
by
Uart
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
This brings to mind the example of the himmalayan (sp?) rabbit. When raised at its normal (cold) temperature, its ears, nose and feet would be brown; BUT when raised at a warmer temperature, it would be white. Also, if a patch of fur were shaved from the rabbit's side, and an icepack were applied, then that area would also grow in brown...
Well it turns out that the enzyme that the himmalayan allele codes for denatures at a warmer temperature, so in cold temperatures, the rabbit's extremities would be the only part of the rabbit that were brown (body heat was lower at those points).
Anyway, the point is, that DNA codes for proteins, it isn't as definitive as people believe it is. Nature can easily affect the proteins/enzymes/whatever to react differently.
--
Opinionated Law Student Strikes Again!
Re:Impossible to...
by
Sandcastle
·
· Score: 2, Insightful
Depends what you mean by raising the dead. If you mean "oh, make a clone of John, educate it, let it grow up to John's age, and you have John again", then obviously that's never going to work, and there was never really any doubt about that.
I think this is only obvious to the few with a decent grasp of science/genetics etc. Most of the world hears the term "clone" and/or "exact copy" and expects to get that.
It's mentioned in the article in several ways. Only a "small percentage" are just wanting "as simmilar as possible", some are even expecting the clone to still know the "old tricks"! If there are people out there thinking this, imagine what the majority are thinking? If nothing else they'd want them to be identical as far as appearance goes, and probably expect the same behaviour. I'm sure a lot of people would expect cloned humans to have the same memories as well. Whether this is just because the general public is dim-witted, poorly educated or just brain-washed by the media and movies showing this type of cloning is not the issue. This just seems to be the prevalent view, and it's one of the major misconceptions that needs to be dispelled before there can be genuinely constructive debate of cloning by the massses.
-- The fact that a fish swims in water does not make it an expert in fluid dynamics. GogglesPisano (199483)
Slashdot Mirror
Everything is not in the genes!
As for the company which promises to provide you with a replacement pet which looks just like the old one, they admit that it's won't have the same personality. 'Scuse me, but isn't a pet that looks the same but with a different personality just what you'd find down the local animal sanctuary or pet store? (And far cheaper!)
Like tinyurl, but one letter less! http://qurl.co.uk/
The definition of "clone' as used is incorrect, that is probably where the problem comes from in the first place. Redefine that word retroactively and perhaps avoid the whole mess from the start. Clone? I do not think "it" will ever be possible. Are we any closer to understanding the complete universe/multiverse/galaxy much less how our DNA works? HA! Arrogant bastards. In 100 hundred years or so people will laugh at our "clone' ideas. Snicker. I laugh proactively of course. But I reserve the right to change my opinion.
So our challenge is that we as humans need to first be able to create matter, then cloning will be irrelevant.
It can very well be somatic mutations that have rendered them different. I.e., there are a number of mutations in cells during foetal development, which result in phenotypic differences that are not reflected in the genotype. And then there is nurture in the sense of womb conditions -- may not have been the same. Lastly, even my identical twin daugthers are very different, so pretty much anything goes.
>The coats are different colors. How is this possible?
Huh, you know that children born of mothers who
drink during pregnancy have a heavy risk of
mental or physical disorders ? So the environment
begins before the birth, you see.
Natural twins grow in the same womb. The
environment is quasi identical (apart from the
position in the womb, of course)
Even if the mother is the same for the 2 cloned
animals, it's not at the same time. This could
explain the greater difference between
artificial clones vs the natural ones.
What bosh.
Its been established that nature plays a lesser role than nurture in the personality of a human.. obviously, the same must apply to animals as well..
That much is intuitively obvious... what is less obvious is why the cats have different colored fur. After all, human twins are often physically indistinguishable.
Why on Earth would they expect that? Behaviour is clearly influenced by environment.
That issue is hardly clearly one way or the other. The Nature vs. Nurture battle has been going on for a long time. It's very naive of you to believe you are so special that you are privi to the answer most psychologists would love to have. How much research have YOU personally done in that field? None? You probably haven't done any. When you say "Behaviour is clearly influenced by environment" in that context, you are implying that you believe nature has no role. Anybody who has studied this topic at all would immediately cite reasons to strongely disagree with you.
There are people who study this day in day out and make a living trying to figure out the answer to that question, and even THEY don't know with enough certainty to say one way or the other. Oh, sure, some of them will take a stance on one or the other side, but in the end they'll still admit they aren't really sure. It isn't clear, and you clearly do not know enough to have a valid hypothesis. The only thing you have is an uneducated opinion.
But then, you were too busy being an anonymous troll to make any kind of sense, huh?
"Everything you know is wrong. (And stupid.)"
Moderation Totals: Wrong=2, Stupid=3, Total=5.
But then, you were too busy being a troll to make any kind of sense, huh?
Simply having a particular gene or set of genes does not always mean that the gene or genes will express. It is well known that environment can have a drastic on how genes express in an organism.
The fact that two genetically identical specimens differ never seems to stop baffling the scientific community in spite of the fact that it's been a known fact for as long as we've known about genes. /Avajadi
For instance: how identical are identical twins, really? If you look at dandelions in a field, are they all the same? Both are examples of multiple, genetically identical, specimens (assuming the dandelions are all of the same species, they are effectively clones, since they reproduce asexually).
In both cases there are great similarities, but also some differences in both physical appearance and, in the human example above, behaviour.
My biology teacher told me many years ago: You don't inherit properties, you inherit predispositions.
This isn't really a surprise - what it is an example of is the popular misunderstanding of genetics and cloning.
DNA and genes are only the receipe for a cat - if you like the instruction set.
Its only if you think of a well ordered system that you would expect an identical end result - for instance most computer code is well ordered in this respect - every time you run the program and construct the classes you get the same result.
But not every system is like this - any system, and certainly most you find in nature, that is chaotic can produce different results. Sometimes these may reach the same exact stable state in the end - sometimes that approach a loci of similar states.
In terms of the cat each clone will approach a loci of very similar looking cats, but each cat will be different. They will all look very similar but they will not be identical.
In terms of a reciepe we all bake cakes using the same mix of ingredients and the same oven - but each week it does come out slightly differently.
This really shouldn't be a surprise - nature has for years provided its own genetically identical clones in the form of identical twins/triplets etc - and whilst they are indeed very similar they are not identical.
So even before you bring the nature/nurture argument in its clear if you stop and think that genetic clones will never be identical.
No, they don't. I'm an identical twin, and have at some point compared my fingerprints to those of my brother. We can share driver's licenses, passports, jobs, girlfriends, etc :o) but if fingerprint verification becomes widespread we're out of luck!
-
I think it would be intersting to see if the coloring and pattern of the kitten was a product of it's suroundings before and during birth.
:)
For Example, lets say the the mother cat was active, and the cat was born in the summer in warm weather. Would that make the kitten be lighter colored, and have thinner fur? How about an identical Clone where the mother was kept in a dark damp room? Would the kitten show up different because of the suroundings it was in before it was even born? (That is assumeing these babies were created, then artificially inseminated.)
To me that would be an interesting extension on this experiment. TO see exactly how things turn out. And maybe make a major breakthrough in how we think of genitics, and the possability of some other factors that have yet to be discovered in teh development of humans/ animals/ all thoes other things
Ohh, sorry about grammar, and spelling mistakes, I am sure their are plenty.
- Ice_Hole
"I couldn't give him (Bill Gates) advice in business and he couldn't give me advice in technology." Linus Torvalds
Jubilation... I am so happy to see that the slashdotters have been able to see through the hype with which we have been bombarded for so many years in the form of fantasy fiction and science pretending to be fiction. The whole notion of "carbon ccopies" of living beings seems to presuppose that life itself is virtual, ie. subject to substitution. Whereas virtuality is correct paradigm for understanding and dealing with man-made mass-produced technology and everything which has to do with computers, its applicability stops there. The world in which we live is not virtual, there is no substitute for those beings who constitute this world- each and ever being is in the last instance irreplacable. 99% of what has been written about "cloning" has been science-FICTION inspired hype. I love science fiction personally, becuase it IS fiction. When scientists start pursuing fiction as science they make a laughing-stock of themselves and the "issues" supposedly "moral" which surrounds their work. It is amazing how are society constantly seeks out virtual dilemnas instead of dealing with that which is already here.. Hats off to a little bit of not so common, common sense.....
You could do the cloning from the embryonic stage. If you impregnate a cat and let the eggs start developing, then select one or two embryos, split them into two (now half-sized) embryos, reimplant them, then let them continue development then you would TRUE clones that went through the same environment during development. The same burst of hormones from the mother at the same time, the same nutritional environment, etc.
The clones being produced of late from adult somatic cells are not good measures of the strength of genes in creating a creature/person. Why? No, NOT because of "nurture" being more important (it isn't). It is because the de facto biological environment en utero is different (different hormone levels from mom, different nutritional conditions, etc...no two pregnancies are the same in this regard particularly from different mothers).
Original cat biologically developed in a certain set of biological conditions en utero. That cat was also produced from properly regulated/formed egg-sperm fusion. Copy cat was produced from a somatic cell which DID contain mutations (inevitable given the basal mutation rate), many genes were silenced or activated in a manner totally different from a normal fertilized egg and all that regulatory machinery has to be unwound to get embryonic development going. This unwinding of regulatory mechanisms is imperfect - hence the MANY MANY failures to get a successful clone; the why behind the huge failure rate (added to mutations).
You end up with a disregulated genome in the embryo that is TOTALLY different than the properly regulated/prepared genome resulting from a standard egg-sperm fertilization event, coupled to a different biological environment en utero and you will NOT get a carbon copy. Can't happen, wont happen.
The time between inserting the nucleus from a somatic cell into an enucleated egg (the standard method of cloning in these circumstances) is too short. Those cells capable of dividing begin dividing almost immediately. There is NOT enough time for the somatic genome to be "reset" (if resetting is truly even possible) to a state equivalent to that of a normal egg-sperm state. Thus you end up with a mishmash of improperly regulated genes in the clone's genome - differences and problems galore. NO carbon copy.
In Bushworld, they struggle to keep church and state separate in Iraq as they increasingly merge the two in America.
Look at how identical twins raised in different environments exhibit similar behavioral patterns, down to the occupations they choose.
The huge difference between twins and clones is that a set of twins experience mostly identical conditions during the gestation period. The same temperature, the same bath of hormones, oxygen levels, etc. It's not a huge surprise then that they end up looking the same, acting the same (within limits). A clone on the other hand is going to experience a completely different set of conditions, even if it is placed in the womb of the original mother (surely she has aged some).
In reptiles, the gender of an animal can be changed simply by incubating at a different temperatures. Sea Turtle's genders are determined by location/temperature in the nest. It shouldn't be surprising that these cats and thus humans would turn out to be radically different then based on their gestation environments. In fact, I'd be willing to wager this is precisely why the cloned calico turned out to be gray...
Because of the fact that it violates cultural assumptions, not any scientific fact or expectation.
.
We're entering a phase where our cultural assumptions on science, derived from many sources (mostly unscientific) are running headlong into actual technology.
Just take a look at the people who were shocked to discover folks would use a worldwide network of data exchange (the Internet) for pornography! No one's interested in that stuff . .
"The Sage treasures Unity and measures all things by it" - Lao Tzu
You can clone a body, but you cannot clone a soul.
_I_ call it a major breakthrough in metaphysics.
Mod Karma -1: I sed bad wurds. If I cep my mouf shut, I wud be at riyses.
This will destroy the exclusivity of a good pedigree (an oxymoron in itself IMHO) and be a cause for concern for breeders once the technology falls in price.
What else can you expect from the same genes and the same culture? Raise one twin in a rich u.s. family and the other in a poor Tibetan family...THEN see how (DIS)similar they turn out.
But that would give you immortality (so long as you keep your brain safe).
Um not exactly..
It would be a duplicate copy, but not you. It would just have your memories. Now, if you could link the two brains and just transfer the running "program" of who you are over to the other "processor" without halting or forking, then I'd consider it immortality since it's the same memories, genetics, and for lack of a better word "soul".
This would only give you pseudo immortality. Consider:
You have the original and make a copy of it, then place the copy into the new body. For a brief period there are now two copies of you.
Here's the catch, the original still dies. Meaning you still die, but a backup lives on.
Personally I'm not sure I like that a whole lot. It might be nice to know that my personality will go on, but it still is not me.
The only way I can see this sort of working is if the mind is transfered rather than copied. Then, arguably, the original doesn't have to die as well. Though this transfer would likely be a copy and wipe, which has the same problem as above.
"They do not preach that their god will rouse them, a little before the Nuts work loose." Kipling, 'The Sons of Martha'
Coat patterns are influenced by the environment in the uterus during fetal development... similar to the principles at develop your fingerprints. Even identical twins don't have duplicate fingerprints, even though they share more genetic information in common than clones do (itentical twins *also* share the mitochondrial dna from their mother, which is not the same as a 'nuclear' dna that gets cloned).
The main characters are Abe Lincoln, Joan Of Arc, Ghandi (all highschoolers), along with J.F.K., Van Gogh, and many others.
I'm very anti-MTV but they have always had good series. (Aeon Flux, The Maxx, Daria, Beavis & Butt-head, The Head, Liquid Television, Cartoon Sushi, hell even 3-South is semi-tolerable.)
-Clio
Karma: Bad (mostly from not giving a fuck)
Blog: http://clintjcl.wordpress.com
I bet it takes you longer to spell your password out loud than it would to type it.
The whole body contributes to memory not just the brain.
There are places where the networks are not touching,and there are places where they are-Boeing's Lori Gunter
I find it odd how so many continue believe this myth that clones are somehow identical carbon copies of each other. I don't know where this started, but a simple look into nature will show you that it can't possibly be so.
Look at identical ( monozygotic ) twins. Twins of this type are as close as you will ever be able to "duplicate" someone. They share the same DNA, as they are produced from the same egg and same sperm in conjunction. They shared the same womb environment, and all forces that shaped one in the fetal stages of development would also have occured to the other. In the cases where they are not given up for adoption, they share the same family & early childhood environmental influences. It is true that there can be slight differences, it is often true that parents will ( often unconsciously ) treat one twin differently from the other, viewing one as "the strong one" and the other as weak. Even in the womb, there can be slight differences, where one gets a kind of biological "preferencial treatment" receiving slightly more nutrients, oxygen, etc. than the other. But they are as close as can ever be made by anyone.
Now compare this with a clone. Certainly they share the same DNA - but under most circumstances they do not share the same fetal environment or the same early developmental environment. Even if they are born to the same mother and raised in the same place, simply the difference in time between when one is born and the other can yield significantly larger differences. Beyond all that, those who study such things regularly say that only about 40-50% of what we would consider to be the "fundamental characteristics" of a person is determined by genetics, the rest of it being some mix of individual experience combined with individual decisions. Ie: genetic factors only account for 40-50% of the variation between individuals.
So we can easily see that twins ought to be much more alike than clones. Yet we know that even identical twins are often not carbon copies. They may look nearly identical, but they often have quite different personalities. True that there are cases where identical twins seem nearly mirror images of each other, and strange tales of those who are seperated at birth and find that years later they have lived almost parallel lives, but that is by far the minority. As for such ridiculous things as "what happens to your soul if you get cloned?" - noone ever worry about the souls or "essential personality" of twins as being a philosophical problem, so why clones?
There are a thousand forms of subversion, but few can equal the convenience and immediacy of a cream pie -Noel Godin
Scientifically, cats are the more similiar to humans then different. Both are mammals, their organs operate pretty much the same way. The only real dividing line is whether or not cats (or other animals for that matter) have souls, like humans are supposed to.
Personally, I believe that if there is such thing as a sould that is the unique property of humans, given to us by God, then any human would be given that soul, whether or not it is a clone, artificially insemenated or molecularly constructed doesn't matter. The kicker is that the people who are wanting clone tech to become immortal are just deluding themselves. They will die, and there clone will live on, but it will not be them.
Which brings in a big debate over cloning and just what makes a person, well, a person. If you have a soul... would a clone be born with a soul? If you were brain-copied over to the clone, does that clone inherit your soul as well? If you original body dies... what goes to heaven/hell? What really defines you.
Yeah, I think cloning really scares the crap outta a lot of religious people, especially with the concept of having a lot of soulless clones.
That being said though, even if you copied the "memories", a lot of the way a body works depends on how it has grown. John Doe "A" may be 5'8" tall, with a slight case of asmthma from living near the local carcinogen plant, etc etc. John Doe "B" would grow up with different ailments, and probably a different biochemical pattern within his body. A lot of how we work is in our hormonal, etc, balances.
So, even if there were no soul issue, growing a new John Doe "B" from DNA of John Doe "A" (or a new fluffy the kitten), will not create an exact replica.
"There are millions of cats in shelters and with rescue groups that need homes, and the last thing we need is a new production strategy for cats."
This "DNA bank service" for cats a symptom of how people love the idea of animals more than real animals themselves. There is an inexhaustable supply, at least now that Asshole Frist is Senate Majority Leader, of cats needing homes, yet some people are looking to throw their money after hopeless duplication of a now-gone pet.
Just because some people voted in a right-wing clone as president, doesn't mean we have to burden the animal world with the same nonsense.
This difference points to a belief I've held for a long time. Cloning is nothing to worry about
s have about 30,000 genes but over 200,000 proteins encoded by those genes. Proteins are what carry out the life processes. Proteomics is extremely complicated and it's effects and actions change depending on the part of the body and the stage of life.
The idea that genetics determines everything is simplistically appealing. It also ignores most of modern biological science. Genetics just doesn't work the way the average Fox News viewer thinks it does.
Here are my main tenets why you shouldn't fear cloning any more than any other form of reproductive assistance.
1. Proteomics (http://www.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proteomics)
Human
2. Complex Systems - Now that we've got over the genetic determination bias, we have to deal with the incredibly complex interactions of proteins. We're just beginning to understand proteomics, but it's likely that random or at least stochastic variation plays a large role in how the genes build you and me. Studies of complex systems indicate that small fluctuations can have big changes and big fluctuations can have small changes. This gives me the belief (not knowledge mind you, but belief) that cloning will end up with a very similar individual that still remains unique.
3. Tendency Away from Extremes.
I've noticed over time that the things society in general gets all worked up about generally turn out to be much less of a problem or as extreme than was expected or feared. While this is not a proof of anything (look at Hitler who ended up the opposite) it general holds true. Killer bees did not wipe out Texas, and the Internet did not save the world, at least as fast as it was supposed to.
Cloning will have it's controversies but after the first few clones have grown up (and Raelians or not, people will be cloned) we'll realize that they're no more a threat or abomination than twins, and possibly less interesting.
The fear over cloning is another example of what happens when people take half-truths and try for the simple explanation.
This brings to mind the example of the himmalayan (sp?) rabbit. When raised at its normal (cold) temperature, its ears, nose and feet would be brown; BUT when raised at a warmer temperature, it would be white. Also, if a patch of fur were shaved from the rabbit's side, and an icepack were applied, then that area would also grow in brown...
Well it turns out that the enzyme that the himmalayan allele codes for denatures at a warmer temperature, so in cold temperatures, the rabbit's extremities would be the only part of the rabbit that were brown (body heat was lower at those points).
Anyway, the point is, that DNA codes for proteins, it isn't as definitive as people believe it is. Nature can easily affect the proteins/enzymes/whatever to react differently.
Opinionated Law Student Strikes Again!
I think this is only obvious to the few with a decent grasp of science/genetics etc. Most of the world hears the term "clone" and/or "exact copy" and expects to get that.
It's mentioned in the article in several ways. Only a "small percentage" are just wanting "as simmilar as possible", some are even expecting the clone to still know the "old tricks"! If there are people out there thinking this, imagine what the majority are thinking? If nothing else they'd want them to be identical as far as appearance goes, and probably expect the same behaviour. I'm sure a lot of people would expect cloned humans to have the same memories as well. Whether this is just because the general public is dim-witted, poorly educated or just brain-washed by the media and movies showing this type of cloning is not the issue. This just seems to be the prevalent view, and it's one of the major misconceptions that needs to be dispelled before there can be genuinely constructive debate of cloning by the massses.
The fact that a fish swims in water does not make it an expert in fluid dynamics. GogglesPisano (199483)