State of the Union Address

[BusaDave]

Originally Posted by hybrid

But keep on keeping on witcha' bad self. I forgot how superior your intellect was..........

Identical twins share the same DNA (true or false)?

[bush]

Originally Posted by hybrid

I seriously think we should clone me. Specificaly for the purpose of crushing the debate on GOD

If man makes a copy of me, and it has a "soul" then God is a farce. It should be impossible to recreate me with technology.

So this is why they want to illegalize human cloning...

And by 'they', I mean THE RELIGIOUS RIGHT!

I think it should be done just so we can see if we can do it.

[hybrid]

Originally Posted by BusaDave

Identical twins share the same DNA (true or false)?

I share the same DNA with my sister who happens to be 2 years younger than I. Whats your point Dave?

I stand by the same idea that the term IDENTICLE is false.

Sure twins share the same DNA.......but it obviously is not exactly the same DNA.

Even the idea of mitochondria problems should be vexing assuming that twins share that. So instead of us debating the finger print idea, lets assume that people really dont want to find out that GOD doesnt exist when my clone who was born of TECHNOLOGY instead of INTELLIGENT DESIGN has the same idea of a soul as I do.

This is the ethical problem faced. Not that technology isnt quite there with it yet to do it completely safe. Besides, when has normal human conception been completely safe?

[EEfz6]

I have only done a very limited research into cloning so correct me if I am wrong. In cloning, both a sperm and an egg are still required. The genetic makeup is simply stripped from one of the two, so that there is no mixing of DNA. The offspring only gets your DNA, and is thus called a clone. Therefor, a clone, by the definition used on cloning today, would be no more a clone than one so called identical twin is a clone of the other. If this is true, you have not actually made a clone, but a test tube baby, which doesn't disprove the existence of God anymore than the test tube babies created everyday disprove the existence of God.

[license2ill]

Originally Posted by hybrid

I sure do understand what your interpretation of "identicle twins" is. I say it not true. There is no such thing as identicle when it comes to people. Its not possible.

So Dave, are you telling me you know about cloning? Done any recently?

Please do tell me how my clone which is nothing more than an EXACT copy of my cells could possibly have different fingerprints.

We arent talking about a fetus that split at the cellular level made of two parents chromosomes........we are talking about having an EXACT copy of me. So if its possible, it should be me to the last degree.

It's identical, Engrish major.

[hybrid]

Originally Posted by license2ill

It's identical, Engrish major.

Youre a smart one. Im glad you have all the time in the world to worry about my spelling. Oh thats right your just a hate monger with no solid ideas to go on............

[jim schmidt]

Originally Posted by BusaDave

Thanks! Not quite enough to cover the entire cost, but I think worth mentioning.

So, where's all the outrage about the debt?

Add in the Iraq debacle and I think you are there.

[hybrid]

Originally Posted by EEfz6

I have only done a very limited research into cloning so correct me if I am wrong. In cloning, both a sperm and an egg are still required. The genetic makeup is simply stripped from one of the two, so that there is no mixing of DNA. The offspring only gets your DNA, and is thus called a clone. Therefor, a clone, by the definition used on cloning today, would be no more a clone than one so called identical twin is a clone of the other. If this is true, you have not actually made a clone, but a test tube baby, which doesn't disprove the existence of God anymore than the test tube babies created everyday disprove the existence of God.

Negative, a clone does not require both sex cells. It requires a DNA stripped egg cell and some of your existing DNA. This is then placed in a host or surrogate mother to be "grown".

A test tube baby does require both sex cells and hence forth does not disprove the existance of god.

A human clone would. It could tell you it has a "soul" and hence solidfy my argument that the term "soul" is nothing more than an expression of our life energy. Something that people cling to to ease themselves from the idea that dieing is truely the end.

[EEfz6]

Originally Posted by hybrid

Negative, a clone does not require both sex cells. It requires a DNA stripped egg cell and some of your existing DNA. This is then placed in a host or surrogate mother to be "grown".

A test tube baby does require both sex cells and hence forth does not disprove the existance of god.

A human clone would. It could tell you it has a "soul" and hence solidfy my argument that the term "soul" is nothing more than an expression of our life energy. Something that people cling to to ease themselves from the idea that dieing is truely the end.

Ok, so let me revise my previous statement.

The offspring only gets your DNA, and is thus called a clone. Therefor, a clone, by the definition used on cloning today, would be no more a clone than one so called identical twin is a clone of the other. If this is true, you have not actually made a clone, but a test tube baby, which doesn't disprove the existence of God anymore than the test tube babies created everyday disprove the existence of God.

Maybe a true clone (an exact replica of yourself) would help your argument against the existence of God, but that is still science fiction. What we call cloning is not an actual replica, just another being composed of the same DNA, the same as an identical twin.

[BusaDave]

Originally Posted by hybrid

Even the idea of mitochondria problems should be vexing assuming that twins share that. So instead of us debating the finger print idea, lets assume that people really dont want to find out that GOD doesnt exist when my clone who was born of TECHNOLOGY instead of INTELLIGENT DESIGN has the same idea of a soul as I do.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on the twins and cloning issue.

Where your reasoning that either has anything to do with the existence or nonexistence of God totally escapes me, and is not a conversation I care to have other than to mention I don't see the logic.

What would be incredibly interesting would to be an observer watching yourself and your clone disagree with each other.

[hybrid]

Hence my stance on the idea of an identical twin.

My brothers are twins and each has his own unique nuance to him. A mole here and freckle there. A birth mark so on and so on. So to assume that the DNA is truely identicle for each one is false. If it was they would be true carbon copies of one another, meaning mentality as well.

So yeah it would be science fiction at this point but the fact still remains. If you can replicate life........my life meaning using my exact DNA sequence down to the fingerprints, moles, marks or what have you. There can be no such thing as a soul. As my replica would need to have mine.

[hybrid]

Originally Posted by BusaDave

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on the twins and cloning issue.

Where your reasoning that either has anything to do with the existence or nonexistence of God totally escapes me, and is not a conversation I care to have other than to mention I don't see the logic.

What would be incredibly interesting would to be an observer watching yourself and your clone disagree with each other.

HAHAHAHAHAHA you got me Dave Im laughing my ass off! Thats comedy right there!!

My reasoning is self evident. The same as why people say cloning is playing god, they dont want proof that god doesnt exist.

I dont claim to be a geneticist nor an expert in cloning but I do know that I am seriously interested in the outcome of a true human clone.

[BusaDave]

Originally Posted by hybrid

Hence my stance on the idea of an identical twin.

My brothers are twins and each has his own unique nuance to him. A mole here and freckle there. A birth mark so on and so on. So to assume that the DNA is truely identicle for each one is false. If it was they would be true carbon copies of one another, meaning mentality as well.

Which leads us back to the original question you took exception to, do you understand the definition of identical twins?

Of or relating to a twin or twins developed from the same fertilized ovum and having the same genetic makeup and closely similar appearance; monozygotic.

I believe that your assumptions regarding genetics are simply wrong, especially in regards to the nature/nurture aspects of personality, and that you are focused on a definition of "identical" that is not applicable to the situation. It was my observation of that belief and associated application of logic that led to the followup rather than get bogged down in a conversation where nothing was going to change.