Human cloning

Is human cloning same with 'the human genome' project

No.
Cloning means producing what amounts to identical twins of a given human being.
The human genome project is a research aimed at discovering the structure and information content of the human genome, which is the part inside the nucleus of each cell, that contains the information (the blueprint, if you like) for the construction and operation of the human cell, and hence, of the whole human.

I hope that helps; it is such a cramped description that it is in some ways and misleading. It may pay you to look up some of the material in books or in Wikipedia or the like.
Cheers
Jon

This days human are thinking above and beyond of our imagination. It seem like human are competing with GOD. when I was a litle boy my granparents use to say 'curiosity kill the cat.' human cloning can never be the same as "the human genome," because cloning is human creation, and what men creats was already created by Gob, men does can not creat a human being, however, they can doplicate or make it similar, but can never be the same human being as God has created.

I would argue that God doesn't create humans, biology creates humans. God creates souls. While it may be entirely possible to clone the biology, I doubt we will ever create the soul.
Of course, if we DO create a clone it is entirely possible that God will then create a soul to go in it. There's no way around God after all.

I think cloning is inevitable and likely both beneficial and evil, probably in equal parts but the evil will come from men who use clones as reserve body parts or something like that not from the lack of soul.Or maybe we will create zombies who will take over the world. It might have already happened in Europe. Who knows?

It would be interesting to find out if intelligence is genetic the way hair color and eye color is. It would also be interesting to raise intelligent clones in separate environments, one with faith and one without, to see how faith affects intelligence. I doubt this will happen. Think of how horrified the leftist elite would be to find out that faith makes people smarter!
eegads, the tea party versus the left will end up being the under educated smart guys versus the educated idiots!

ROFLMFAO
Dawn

Thank you Dawn, but you leave me a little confused. Could you please clarify how you see cloning having anything to do with faith (faith in what, for example?) or "creation", in particular creation of souls? Consider: When God clones humans (which I am sure you agree he does every time he creates identical multiple births, whether twins or octuplets) do you suppose that only one of them gets a soul? Which one? Or do you prefer to believe that each gets only one half (or eighth) of a soul? I have known some really lovely people who had twins, so I hope you have nothing against them in your faith, though I realise that some very faith-centred cultures have regarded multiple births as ill-omened or actually evil, a curse.
Now, If one takes a zygote and splits it into clones, do you suppose that God denies them all souls? After all, the person who did the splitting could no more have created or constructed those resulting embryos than create the parents; in other words: Fat Chance!!!
I am not sure that I follow you there. Please explain. As for raising clones with and without faith, have you suggested such a program of research to your pastor? No doubt he would find it enormously exciting, but personally I find the idea shocking! Don't you think clones grow into adults with their lives and feelings like other people? Those that I have known did so. To meddle with their innermost spiritual structure... Well, sooner you than me!

Jon

Cruz,
>It seem like human are competing with GOD. <
What has this to do with cloning? Every time we suture a wound we do more than it takes to make a clone and we kill more cells in the process. We create nothing. We use what God has permitted us to use, just as much as we do when we graft a tree. Compete??? How do we compete? Do I compete with God when I give a drowning child artificial respiration or a child dying of scarlet fever an antibiotic injection that has him up and healthy again in a week or less? No blindness or deafness or death? Tsk tsk! That God can't be the one in the bible! Be careful! Thoughtless invocation of the creator is blasphemy, and to suggest that a minor surgical procedure flies in His face and could frustrate His will is totally thoughtless.

Think more carefully and find out what it is you are talking about before you diminish God. And pray!

No, you don't compete with God on anything. He's not in your league, as they say.

my post wasn't about faith, in regards to the act of cloning. Cloning is a matter of biology not faith. I think you saw the word 'God' and lost your reading skills. Don't worry, it happens a lot.

My reference to 'faith' was in the capacity of raising clones, once intelligence is proved to be a genetic factor, which I think it is, at least on a basic level. I said; it would be interesting to raise [intelligent] clones in equal environments, one with faith, one with out, to see if faith affects intelligence at all. I then got a bit sarcastic. Sorry about that.

now, I'm talking FAITH...not religion. I realize most people have a hard time distinguishing between the two. I do not.

I define faith as a simple knowledge of a Creator and created and the relationship between the two. This is not popular in science yet, the fact remains...there is more to life than the sum of the biological parts.

religion is another topic entirely and certainly not one I want to experience...again.

Dawn

Really Dawn! Not in our league? Would you discriminate against us simply because it would take us longer than 7 days? Good work takes time you know. Have you taken a look at the world lately? Tsk!

Oh well.

More seriously, I do now see your interest in the comparative experiment, though it would not be ethically acceptable as a deliberate experiment, it could be performed more indirectly as an opportunistic study. In fact it has been done in a way of course, on a small scale, using twin studies. On the sort of scale that you expressed an interest in, think this one over.

There are say a few dozen individuals, female, male, and assorted. Each is widely admired for various attributes, so widely that they get elected by the CLA (federal Cloning Licensing Authority, DC) for indefinite cloning. Each produces say, about 100 viable clones. However, clones don't just spring into adulthood straight from the Petri dish, so they are raised in volunteer wombs in volunteer families, one each (I DID remark that the clone parents were admired, didn't I?) and brought up au pair.

OK, now what do we have? Apart from a society with a notionally enriched gene pool, we have the basis for a super duper twin study. You could do all sorts of statistical studies, totally harmlessly and almost non-invasively; certainly invisibly to the subjects. And I reckon that you would get very high correlation between the (genetic) sources of the clones and personal mental attributes, including various aptitudes, taking into account the various home environments. We already have seen that from studying natural clones, right?

You say >I'm talking FAITH...not religion. I realize most people have a hard time distinguishing between the two. I do not.< Not wishing to be unkind Dawn, but assertion that YOU personally can distinguish them does not rank highly in scales of cogency. Your explanatory remark makes little sense as it stands. Firstly, if you understand what religion is, you fail to demonstrate the fact. Do not confuse "religion" with any particular sect or branch of belief, such as Christianity or Hinduism. What you describe as faith is as religious a definition as any I have seen. The generic difference between religion and science is not belief, not logic, not faith, but dogma. Now, I do not use the term "dogma" in the offensive sense of having your mind made up and refusing to change, but as a technical term in the sense of "doctrine", that part of a body of belief that a believer in any particular religious body must accept and may not modify (might not even be permitted to question).

In science OTOH, dogma is not valid in argument. You could be as dogmatic (or as flexible-minded) a scientist as you like, but your only argument that *I* am compelled to accept is that your evidence and logic turns out to be irrefutable (such as describing what you did, observed, and concluded, and inviting me to try it for my self perhaps). Scientist or not, you may choose personally to believe what you like. That is another matter.

As for your definition of faith, it sounded like dogma to me, but suit yourself, as long as you don't insist that I accept it (or offer more compelling argument of course!) A wise old man defined it differently: Belief without evidence in what is told by one without knowledge, of things without parallel.

>This is not popular in science yet, the fact remains...there is more to life than the sum of the biological parts.<

Popular? Since when was science a matter for democratic voting? I have repeatedly made use of votes in class to settle knotty questions, and then shown the students that the majority decision was WRONG!!! And often the minority as well... Truth is not an exudate of the ballot box, Dawn!!!

But very well, let's consider your assessment anyway.
After all, popularity also is no warranty of error, right?
So:
Do you know who originally said "The whole is more than the sum of its parts?" (Not necessarily in English of course!)
I don't know either.

But certainly Aristotle did say it. I don't know of anyone who has denied it since, but take whoever did deny it, and show him a pile of vehicle parts and ask him to drive that pile.
That is what you might call proof by challenge. :-)

You will not be offended I hope, if I reserve judgment on your assessment of science as well as of religion and faith?

Now Dawn, I do not want you to read much nastiness into what I have said. It was well intended, even when bits might have seemed rather prickly. But I hope you will forgive me for telling you that I get the impression of a lot of hurt and bitterness (which, if I am correct, would not be surprising in the light of my experience) but I would like to leave you with my good wishes and a highly non-religious observation that I have admired and profited from since I was a teenager. "You can't be bitter and alert at the same time." It was in a story called Eastward Ho! by William Tenn, a very wise man by all accounts, as well as the evidence of some of his writings.

Go well,

Jon

Jon,

what an excellent mind and reasoning you have. I truly enjoyed reading this and thinking about it! This is rare, worth the price of rubies.

let me say, as briefly as I can, regarding religion versus faith, as I know it...

religion is a system of organized structures designed to explain and or communicate with what is perceived to be God. In and of itself, religion is harmless, its application leaves a lot to be desired and has proven to be dangerous in many cases.
Religion is divisive because it sets one group of 'believers' against another and against those who don't subscribe to one system or another. Some religions group themselves into 'categories' so that they don't have to go to war with everybody.

religions are like nations. They have borders and boundaries, rules and laws, even capitols and cities and states (holy places)as well as governing bodies and leaders. And, I would add, the system is easily corrupted and has been for a long time.

now faith is freedom. I have no religion. I am completely free to consider anything I want, make decisions based on evidence, think, react, love etc however I want. What I get up to is between me and what I have faith in. Period.

Dogma, as it applies to all systems of human interaction, is inflexibility. Science of all kinds has dogma too...oh yes it does...some things are sacred to scientists, depending on their specialization of course...
the free(est) thinkers and doers in science(s) are generally theoretical ones, my favorite kind.
Theories are wonderful things; they are the ability in science to end one school of thought at the first hint of it being wrong and begin a new school of thought based on the new evidence.
This is how I see my faith...it is highly theoretical. I don't KNOW anything...I look at the evidence and make the most logical assumption based on what facts I can glean. It changes constantly, as I think it should. I find people locked into one way of thought to be completely...boring.

now, regarding my experiment of faith and intelligence and cloning...you raise some interesting points. When I proposed this, I wasn't considering the morality involved, it was a simple science experiment; (a+f) vs (b-f) = I to what factor? (a and b being the twins)

this whole premise falls apart if we propose morality, as well it should perhaps...I'm unclear on that, I'll have to think about it.
Generally it is considered immoral to experiment on human beings (in anyway considered cruel or unusual) but then the question of "are clones human beings" rises and we are back where we started.
However, I think the issue in this case would be...is the experiment cruel and, if it is, which way is the cruelty skewed?
Is it cruel to raise them with or without faith?
or is it cruel to create them in the first place..especially for a specific purpose

Dawn

Dawn,

Many thanks for your friendly reply. Unfortunately I am just off on a journey, so I cannot reply just now, but I'll try to get back in a few days. All the best,

Jon

Dawn ,

You have been far too kind, but don’t think I don’t appreciate the compliment.

>religion is a system of organized structures designed to explain and or communicate with what is perceived to be God. In and of itself, religion is harmless, its application leaves a lot to be desired and has proven to be dangerous in many cases.
Religion is divisive because it sets one group of 'believers' against another and against those who don't subscribe to one system or another. Some religions group themselves into 'categories' so that they don't have to go to war with everybody.

religions are like nations. They have borders and boundaries, rules and laws, even capitols and cities and states (holy places)as well as governing bodies and leaders. And, I would add, the system is easily corrupted and has been for a long time. <

The reason that my definition of religion is so compact is that it is only the common denominator. You could say it is only the essence of religion. What you have said is widely true, but the details of various religions vary so greatly that one could pick at each of them and that is part of the reason for schismatic disagreement and hatred. The reason for a definition based on doctrine vs no doctrine, rather doctrine vs doctrine, is that the latter sets religion against religion (My doctrine is better than yours so God HATES you and I’ll be laughing at your screams as you roast in hell ha ha -- in loving sorrow of course!) In contrast, the nearest that I believe you could find to an exception to the former, would be when the doctrine is too incoherent to be characterised at all.

(As you see, I used the term “doctrine” rather than dogma, but that is just a word with less baggage. Dogma is just as correct and means the same thing for most purposes. Check it out in a few philosophy or theology forums on line, or in a few dictionaries.)

“So,” you might well ask, “just having made out a list of things that I must believe makes it a religion does it? That doesn’t tell me much. It is not much help in making sense of religion, is it Mr Smarty Pants? In fact, aren’t you being seriously self-referential, if believing in a list of things to believe is the religion?”

Well, yes, to a point. It would be more to the point if I said that this characterised religious behaviour, rather than religion as such. I cannot think of any religion that does not have such a list in some form or equivalent. Please shoot me down if you see a hole in my idea, because I really need to know. (If we get too deep into this we’ll have to exchange email addresses, because part of what I say is not for publication at present.)

Now, what in fact does it matter if that is all there is to it? Quite a lot really. For one thing, where does that list come from? Is it meaningful? What does it mean? How true are the items in the list? If not true, how correctable? Why should I have faith in them?

Every religious schism, and nearly every religious conflict is based on conflicting dogma. Practically every religious pratfall is based on nonsensical dogma and nonsensical attempts to justify or rationalise dogma.
NB: Atheism is religion by this definition because it states that there is no God(s). Agnosticism of the major sorts need NOT be religion because the agnostic NEED not assert anything about God’s existence or otherwise. Is that a virtue? It might be, or it might not, in one context or another. I never said that religion or any particular religion is bad or good. All I did was to suggest a criterion for classification.

>now faith is freedom. I have no religion. I am completely free to consider anything I want, make decisions based on evidence, think, react, love etc however I want. What I get up to is between me and what I have faith in. Period. <

Please understand that whatever I say about this is in a context of my uncertainty about what you mean. As I read it, it seems to me you suggest that “faith” means that you believe what you please and change your mind about it as you please.

If that is so, then sure, but I am not sure whether that is supposed to be necessarily good. What happens if members of a belief system disagree about the tenets or the meaning of the tenets of their religion? Are there no limits to what one can believe in faith? Is what one believes supposed to be a basis for ethical decisions etc? How long does one have to believe in an article of faith before one is allowed to change one’s mind? Etc. If I am correct in my understanding, then I don’t see where it gets you. If I am wrong, then could you please clarify?

>Dogma, as it applies to all systems of human interaction, is inflexibility. Science of all kinds has dogma too...oh yes it does...some things are sacred to scientists, depending on their specialization of course... <

Here we diverge. Just as I described insistence on dogma as religious behaviour, so I describe scientific behaviour as: questioning any article of assertion, and conditionally altering one’s assessment of the relative merit of conflicting working hypotheses in the light of available evidence, such as the outcome of analysis and experiment. No matter who says it, I am free to believe it, or disbelieve it, but if I wish to convert you, then I have no recourse but to evidence and logic that you are free in principle to test for yourself.

Does a “scientist” behave scientifically? One hopes so, but not necessarily, any more than a priest behaves religiously. (Ask certain persons in certain holy cities about abuses, and see which “religion” has been abuse-free, and for how long!) I have seen no end of “scientists” who wouldn’t know the difference between dogma and science, no matter how loud they are on the subject. (Most of them are not even interested, especially when young!) I have seen other “scientists” who were furiously, vindictively dogmatic about their own views of their field, and would be happy to kill anyone suggesting that they might be wrong, if only they dared. Certainly they would expel any student who questioned them!

That does not mean that dogma is a part of science, any more than that Catholic dogma permits priests to ravish members of their congregation.

>the free(est) thinkers and doers in science(s) are generally theoretical ones, my favorite kind.<

Likely enough, but does that have anything to do with faith? And if their thought is too free, ranging so freely that it begins to diverge systematically from prediction and observation, is their thought still worthy of respect or even attention? The scientist is not interested in theirfaith or otherwise, only in the logic of their theories and the falsifiability of their predictions.

>Theories are wonderful things; they are the ability in science to end one school of thought at the first hint of it being wrong and begin a new school of thought based on the new evidence. <

That sounds great, but it has precious little to do with science at the coal face. There is always a first hint for attacking any accepted fact or theory. Most often those hints simply are wrong, so quite sensibly a lot of people are very chary of accepting every (or any) new observation or every new idea. And some people not so sensibly. But by and large, if you put on your bulldog face and refuse to accept ANY new divergence from orthodoxy *you will nearly always be right!!!* New ideas that work are rare. New ideas that work better than old ideas and upset the applecart are very, very rare indeed. Remember, that old ideas have had to survive a lot more flack than the new ideas!

Effective scientists note new ideas and, unless they are working directly in the field, they either decide whether they believe it or not (I for example, accepted the idea that mitochondria were endosymbionts, but rejected the idea that arthropods and chordates had the same basic organisation, only mutually inverted, and I am of the opinion that the black death was caused by a viral disease, not Yersinia, and I have no idea what the hell is going on with dark matter), or they note the idea and remain agnostic till other people have established some theory as the clear favourite (which they might accept or not according to preference). Often it hardly matters. You can navigate with flat-earth maps and have great results if you stick to local geography! (Seriously!  )

What competent scientists do NOT do, is to say: “Hey! A new idea! Bye-bye to last year’s model!”

>This is how I see my faith...it is highly theoretical. I don't KNOW anything...I look at the evidence and make the most logical assumption based on what facts I can glean. It changes constantly, as I think it should. I find people locked into one way of thought to be completely...boring.<

Locked-in sounds suspiciously like dogma. Not scientific according to definition. Usually correct anyway (assuming it began with well-established ideas).

“Boring”? What does “boring” or “interesting” have to do with it? IMO scientific ideas and developments and even observations in the perspective of established science, generally are interesting, even fascinating, but just try telling most people more than thirty seconds about it and see how soon the hoot of “boooring!” starts! Boredom has no cogent force. It is in the mind of the beholder. Or perhaps more often in the lack of mind…





>now, regarding my experiment of faith and intelligence and cloning...you raise some interesting points. When I proposed this, I wasn't considering the morality involved, it was a simple science experiment; (a+f) vs (b-f) = I to what factor? (a and b being the twins)

this whole premise falls apart if we propose morality, as well it should perhaps...I'm unclear on that, I'll have to think about it.<

Well, for a start, it does not seem to me that morality has anything to do with the TRUTH or CORRECTNESS of the hypothesis. It has to do with what one might be willing, or permitted, to do about investigating it.

>Generally it is considered immoral to experiment on human beings (in anyway considered cruel or unusual) but then the question of "are clones human beings" rises and we are back where we started. <

Um… well lately such reservations are more and more extended to experiments on animals too, and I rather approve of caution in such matters, though I don’t wish to outlaw all research as some nut cases would love to do.
Just how one could logically could exclude any functional clone from recognition as a human escapes me. What is more I don’t see how one could consider the “clone status” of a subject, human or not, in assessing the ethical status of an experiment. If there is evidence suggesting suffering, there had better be sufficient cogent incentive to justify proceeding with the research.

>However, I think the issue in this case would be...is the experiment cruel and, if it is, which way is the cruelty skewed?
Is it cruel to raise them with or without faith?<

This to my mind is a more relevant question. Lots of people carry on about cruelty when I cannot imagine what they think are sounding off about. To my mind if there is no suffering I don’t know how cruelty comes into it.

>or is it cruel to create them in the first place..especially for a specific purpose<

Dunno. I am as far as I can imagine without faith, and I don’t feel a thing. As long as no one forces me to toe the line of their faith, I couldn’t care less. As I see it, faith is belief without evidence, whether internal or external. If you have enough personal evidence for your belief, but no evidence to offer me, then as I see it, you have reason to believe and I have not. Big deal. Until you decide that my unbelief is evil and I need a good bombing, shooting, threatening or torture to do me the favour of giving me faith. Until that happens I don’t know why we shouldn’t be friends.

Does that suit your views?

Cheers,

Jon

Jon,

Perhaps faith is not the correct word. Faith implies I don't KNOW and that is wrong. I do know. It is the only thing I know. Everything else is a theory besides that one thing.(that's what I meant about my faith being theoretical)

the problem with knowing this thing is that I cannot describe it or teach it or lead anyone to it or give it away or quantify it or prove it. I can do nothing with this thing I know, except know it.

when I came to know this thing, I thought I already knew it. It blew me away, this sudden knowing and it...filled me??? like nothing else ever has.
I don't know what else to say. You tore apart my words and revealed them to be childish and inadequate and I am a writer. I'm good with words.

Dawn

Hello again Dawn,

Thanks for the vote of confidence your response implied. Given the passion of your views, you might wish to take this offline for reasons of privacy. (Just a suggestion; I am not insisting!)

>Perhaps faith is not the correct word. Faith implies I don't KNOW and that is wrong.<

That seems to me to be putting it too strongly. I have serious problems with the very concept of “knowledge”, certainly “absolute or unconditional knowledge” (those were not your words of course!) but assuming that we accept some such concept, then having faith in a proposition would be perfectly consistent with knowing that proposition to be true. The problem is rather that having faith in the proposition does not as such guarantee the truth of the proposition. If you do indeed “know” something, then your problem is the perennial existentialist one of being unable to convey your “knowledge”, as opposed to your conviction. In science (i.e. truly scientific behaviour, irrespective of the unscientific behaviour of many persons active in the field of science) the problem hardly arises; one simply finds such evidence as one can, conveys it plus one’s verbalised, illustrated thoughts and conclusions, and leaves the rest to any sufficiently interested supporter or sceptic to deal with as best they can.

> I do know. It is the only thing I know. Everything else is a theory besides that one thing.(that's what I meant about my faith being theoretical) the problem with knowing this thing is that I cannot describe it or teach it or lead anyone to it or give it away or quantify it or prove it.<

If you COULD convey the content of that “knowledge” for other people to understand on their own terms, it would be testable and within the scope of “science”. But remember, you can’t even “prove” to other people that you are you, that you are real, a mental personality. To you I am, I hope, a friend, but really, what am I as far as you are concerned? A few patterns of electrons on a fluorescent screen perhaps?

Does that sound sad? It shouldn’t, you know; someone said something to the effect that if there is nothing you can do about something, it is not a problem, but reality.
What is sad is not reality, but unreality, the things that you wish but cannot have. But you know, as long as you are not hungry, cold, or sick, there are many things to be happy about if only you can find them.

“If only!” Well, I suppose that those two are as sad as any other word of tongue or pen. But though it is harder to be happy than sad, it generally is more rewarding too.

>I can do nothing with this thing I know, except know it. when I came to know this thing, I thought I already knew it. It blew me away, this sudden knowing and it...filled me??? like nothing else ever has.<

Does that sadden you? If not, or perhaps even if it does, then try being scientific about it. (Does that sound cynical? Insensitive? Think about it before you decide.) If you cannot analyse it (and who really can analyse anything one feels strongly about?) then use the touchstone method. Think of your knowledge in connection of every little thing about you; your people, or pets, or words, or work. How does it affect them or how you feel about them? Which does it affect one way and which in another?

That might change the way you think about it, them, or yourself. It is about as empirical as you can get about anything abstract or emotional.

Don’t rush it. That won’t work. Don’t force it. That really, really won’t work. It is like jiggling a bucket of pebbles to make them settle down. Try to push them down, and they will resist the weight of a house, but a bit of jiggling that a child could do will settle them quickly, and you never know how far you can make them settle before you have jiggled them long enough.

Ideas are like that too, and feelings too. Jiggle away and explore them until they fit better. It probably will make you feel better about them and yourself.

>I don't know what else to say. You tore apart my words and revealed them to be childish and inadequate…<

Don’t abuse your talents like that. I don’t know how old you are, but mentally one can grow at any age. What you are going through is growth. It may hurt sometimes, but that comes with the reality of living. It is part of the price for the rewards. When you come to a conclusion about anything that needs thought, examine your conclusions. You certainly should be ruthless in running down an answer, but you don’t have to be brutal. “Tearing apart” sounds too angry. Think in terms of teasing apart coloured threads, or the stamens of a flower. It works better and is better for your spirit, fulfilling, honest rather than bitter.

>..and I am a writer. I'm good with words. <

I know. Respect that. Don’t waste it. If some time you feel like telling me more about your writing, I’d like that.

Go well,

Jon

Jon,
Unless YOU are embarrassed by this conversation, I'm okay with having it here. If you would like to switch to a more private place...
I am not embarrassed to know what I know and no, I am not sad. I WAS sad and angry but, since I came to know this thing, all that is gone.

I understand what you mean about 'jiggling' ideas and concepts to suss out more and try them against other things to see if they hold up. I am a writer. That is sort of a stock in trade thing for me. Writing is 95% research, 4.5% editing and the rest is getting the words down. I change my mind quite easily. Arrogance in writing is a death knell.

When I had religion, and I did, big time, I used to 'jiggle' things quite a bit but, this new thing can't be jiggled or compared. I can compare other things to it, but not the other way around. Maybe that makes no sense except in my mind, but there you have it.
I can't make it make sense.
It IS.
that is all

Dawn

We had thechnolgy to cloning for years and clond meany things the cat may be curios but curiosty did not kill the cat yet