Aces High Bulletin Board
General Forums => The O' Club => Topic started by: hblair on December 27, 2002, 08:24:54 AM
-
You guys catching this on CNN? "Clonaid" (who are they?) claims they have cloned a little girl and are "happy" with the results. I hope the little girl is happy with her choice of being cloned. Oh yeah, she didn't choose to be...
-
StSanta or any other progressive thinking science boy, why would someone want to clone another person? Is there a reason someone would want to do this? I mean other than just so they could say they did it...
-
Old news.. heard this yesterday. The clone is of a unknown woman in her 40's that donated the DNA aparently..
If this is true I want a clone of myself so i can send the other half to work.. this would mean I can fly all day hehehe:D
-
They have done it (if true, I don't know), because they are a bunch of wacko cultists of the self acclaimed world's largest UFO religion: http://www.rael.org (site seems down).
They have funded italian Dr. Severino Antinori (http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/science/nature/1477698.stm) to do it.
IMHO, nothing wrong in cloning per-se, it's just a reproduction method, but sure opens a big juicy can of fat worms about possible misuses.
-
Twins don't have much say in the matter of being cloned, now do they? Come to think of it, nobody has much say in the matter of being born. Who knew!
-
These people are farther out there than I thought....
Here is why they want to clone:
Here (http://www.cisar.org/990619c.htm)
Something should be done about these screwballs :rolleyes:
-
A company associated with a group that believes extraterrestrials created mankind claimed Friday that it had produced the first clone of a human being.
The company, Clonaid, announced it had created a healthy baby girl who was a clone of the 31-year-old American woman who gave birth to her.
"I'm very very pleased to announce that the first baby clone is born," Clonaid director Brigitte Boisselier, a former research chemist in France, said at a news conference in Hollywood, north of Miami.
Boisselier, who offered no proof of her claim, said the girl was born Thursday at 11:55 a.m., but did not disclose where the cloning had taken place. She said results of genetic testing of the child by an independent expert would be available in eight to nine days.
Clonaid is viewed skeptically by most scientists, who doubt the group's technical ability to clone a human being. A Clonaid spokeswoman said an independent expert will confirm the baby is a clone through DNA testing.
Clonaid is linked to a sect called the Raelians, whose founder, Claude Vorihon, describes himself as a prophet and calls himself Rael. The group believes cloning could extend human life for hundreds of years.
=================================
-
hblair: StSanta or any other progressive thinking science boy, why would someone want to clone another person? Is there a reason someone would want to do this? I mean other than just so they could say they did it...
I am not sure if I qualify as a "progressive thinking science boy" but a few months ago we had an extensive discussion where I listed quite a few rational reasons for a parent to want a clone of himself or even of another person (his other child) rather than a natural "random" child.
miko
-
I REALLLY doubt it.
When a bunch of crackpots come out of the woodwork with such a huge claim, it's hard to believe it anything BUT a hoax.
They have no credentials, no history, EVERYTHING known about it is what has been said at press conferences. On top of that they seem to be exceedingly gullible, and apparently assume(Probably correctly) that the rest of the world is too.
I find it pretty sad that the media is letting such vocal crackpots get on TV with nothing other than thier own claims of a human clone.
A bit more info can be found here. (http://web.archive.org/web/20011031035308/http://www.rael.org/int/english/index.html)
-
Originally posted by Erlkonig
Twins don't have much say in the matter of being cloned, now do they? Come to think of it, nobody has much say in the matter of being born. Who knew!
One thing a natural conception guarantees is individuality (except in case of twins, etc). Whereas a clone is a clone eh? You're a living experiment. You'll continually be compared to somebody else for whatever reason. Just seems a little warped here...
-
"I REALLLY doubt it.
When a bunch of crackpots come out of the woodwork with such a huge claim, it's hard to believe it anything BUT a hoax."
exactly.. just like those guys in Utah who claimed to have developed Cold Fusion...
-
miko, lemme guess, the main reason being to have an organ donor handy?
-
Originally posted by hawk220
exactly.. just like those guys in Utah who claimed to have developed Cold Fusion...
I've developed a true working fusion reactor out of spare parts! Everyone knows cold fusion is impossible, but normal "hot" fusion isn't! It's been used in bombs and labs for years, but I've made it work to produce power!
Send me $15,000 for plans, and you too can have limitless power available from water which produces no harmfull byproducts!
-
Innominate: I REALLLY doubt it.
When a bunch of crackpots come out of the woodwork with such a huge claim, it's hard to believe it anything BUT a hoax.
Their money is as good as yours or mine and money they ahve plenty. Their credentials are irrelevant since they are not doing the cloning but subcidising the real scientists who have plenty of credentials.
Their history is obscure by design - because they are a rather secretive sect.
There are plenty of cases when "crackpots" with power or just money developed major things. Rocket science was developed in nazi Germany and spaceflight in Soviet Union.
and apparently assume(Probably correctly) that the rest of the world is too.
Early christians, muslims, biddhists, etc. were too, apparently - and look where they are now! Billions of followers.
Anyway, if a private organisation wants to spend their money developing knowlege or producing children in novel ways, why should anyone worry?
exactly.. just like those guys in Utah who claimed to have developed Cold Fusion...
Did they convincingly demonstrate cold fusion on mice, cats and goats first?
miko
-
Whats the big deal about being cloned? Every single human on earth shares 86% of their DNA with every other human. There is a mere 14% genetic difference between all humans.
Genetics play a small part in shaping how humans develop. A cloned person might not even look like the person he was cloned from because of blood and nutrient flow during prenatal development.
Cloning? Not a big deal, anthropologists think sex and genetic diversity came about to help increase disease resistance. Now genetic mutations are the big deal. As long as we have that (and we always will), the human race will be ok.
-
I would think the kid would be pissed about looking EXACTLY like its parents - I know I would have :) Not to mention the media hounds following them around for the rest of their lives ...
I think its the parents EGO that is being cloned as THEY, the parents, want immortality in one sense or another
-
Wasn't it determined that the cloned sheep "Dolly" suffered from aged DNA and that as a result could not expect a normal life term? Maybe that was only speculation.
Pretty irresponsible to clone a human without more testing on animals, imo. If the child suffers physical defect I hope it sues them for all they are or ever will be worth.
-
hblair: miko, lemme guess, the main reason being to have an organ donor handy?
Not even close. That kind of motivation would be extremely contrary to my philosophy/morality.
I am pretty sure that even most christians - who's philosophy is very conducive to exploitation of children by parents - would not practice cloning for such purposes. Not that I would care to barge into other people's business if they were - as long as they do it with their resources, not mine.
A cloned person might not even look like the person he was cloned from because of blood and nutrient flow during prenatal development.
They will have exactly as much resemblance as natural monozygothic twins - in appearance, physiology, mental abilities and character traits. Not exact match but awfully close.
miko
-
From the CNN article...
Eventually the group wants to learn how to clone an adult, then "transfer the brain to the clone."
-
All scientists considered authorities in this field say that it is totally unresponsible to clone a human being. All animal clones have been suffering from defunct livers, hearts and more or less all the other vital organs.
I do think that in the future we may find ways to use the enormous potential of cloning in an acceptable way, but this is way out of line. What to do when (not if) they discover that the little girl suffers from those or other 'side-effects'??
-
What if this clone goes mad and tries to take over the world?
-
Thud: All animal clones have been suffering from defunct livers, hearts and more or less all the other vital organs.
There is a huge difference between cloning animals and humans, so you would naturally expect much higher ratio of animals being born defective than humans.
miko
-
Originally posted by Thud
All scientists considered authorities in this field say that it is totally unresponsible to clone a human being. All animal clones have been suffering from defunct livers, hearts and more or less all the other vital organs.
I do think that in the future we may find ways to use the enormous potential of cloning in an acceptable way, but this is way out of line. What to do when (not if) they discover that the little girl suffers from those or other 'side-effects'??
that is what the Clone Abortion clinics will be for ....
"She's not perfect like me, lets remove it and try again please....."
-
I doubt it's a clone in the first place .. Big difference between cloning animals and humans.... Miko how the hell would you know? lolololololololol
-
Originally posted by miko2d
Not even close. That kind of motivation would be extremely contrary to my philosophy/morality.
What reasons then?
-
What if this clone goes mad and tries to take over the world?
mwuahahahaha
-
What if this clone goes mad and tries to take over the world?
mwuahahahaha
-
I could use the spare parts... I'm rough on bodies.
lazs
-
hers or yours ? :eek:
-
everyone around me including myself but... being a selfish man.. I will settle for a clone of...... me.
lazs
-
Could we clone up a dude with my looks and lazs aim?
-
Originally posted by Eagler
that is what the Clone Abortion clinics will be for ....
"She's not perfect like me, lets remove it and try again please....."
LOL of course, never leave a post about children, birth or babies out on the streets unattended where a pro-lifer can see it, it will be abducted/hijacked immediately...
-
it'll all turn out just fine.. don't you guys ever watch the Twilight Zone or Start Trek? jeez.. by then we won't care that we all look alike (yikes)
-
hblair: What reasons then?
I will just list only a few of them briefly without much substantiation. That does not mean there is no substantiation. Also, this case is personal. It can be generalised but only to a certain degree.
1. Knowing myself intimately - personality traits, abilities, etc., I could provide my clone child with upbringung and education much more conducive to his development and realisation of his potentials and talents - unlike with regular "random" child where it's trial and error process against the active resistance of a child.
The child will have more trust in my judgements since I would have very good idea how he feels about things.
Of course it goes without saying that I am satisfied with my personality traits as well as my physique enough to wish them on my child.
2. My IQ is 130+ even now, my wife's, adjusting for narrower sigma of women would translate to similar genetic potentiality. Statistics, specifically the principle of reversal to the mean, suggests that average intelligence of our children would be quite lower than ours. There is a great chance that the clone would be smarter than a natural child who's place he takes - assuming the number of children is held constant.
With those two items there is a great chance that I will have a person more capable than myself (due to more fully-realised potentials and somewhat better nutrition) who would most likely adopt the same philosophy and worldview that I ended up adopting. Including having no problems with being cloned or being saddled with extra responcibility.
So when I am gone, he could look after his siblings the way I would and hold the family/clan together. Obviously, I would try to bring up all my children willing to take care of each other, but only with a clone I am practically guaranteed a success.
Of course there is a benefit of having compatible organs available but they would be expected to go his way, not mine.
I could list more but those are the major ones.
miko
-
Thud: LOL of course, never leave a post about children, birth or babies out on the streets unattended where a pro-lifer can see it, it will be abducted/hijacked immediately...
It is a valid concern, though, integral to the matter of cloning. Cloning does have a considerable chance of producing malformed children. Unlike with animal research, we have advanced and pretty accurate pre-natal diagnostics and financial/moral insentive to screen such cases before birth.
For this single girl born, many pregnancies most likely aborted spontaneously - much like 25% of natural pregnancies are - and quite a few must have been terminated intentionally.
Some people might have problems with that - especially if their tax money are used to subcidise such activities.
miko
-
Originally posted by miko2d
Thud: All animal clones have been suffering from defunct livers, hearts and more or less all the other vital organs.
There is a huge difference between cloning animals and humans, so you would naturally expect much higher ratio of animals being born defective than humans.
miko
Did you really post that...lol
Love your logic..
If there had been no issues with animals then would you naturally expect lots of troubles with humans...
-
I just hope its a good looking chick and not a Rosie O'Donell
Yes yes, clone more Cindy Crawfords, Ashley Judds, etc :D
-
If you look closely at the clone donor you can easily see that she is definately an alien:
Here (http://us.news1.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/rids/20021227/i/1041005420.3087523874.jpg)
-
Pongo: Did you really post that...lol
Love your logic..
If there had been no issues with animals then would you naturally expect lots of troubles with humans...
I can see that you posted this "sarcastic" remark at 12:24 - 5 minutes later than 12:19 when I posted a quite comprehencive explanation why there will be much lower proportion of defective humans born than animals.
It's right above your post.
But I guess since you apparently have problems recongizing applicable information by yourself and have to be pointed to every little thing explicitely, I can repeat it for you in a simplified manner.
My opinion is certainly not based on just the fact that humans are not animals - not the least because humans are animals. I just though that most people who could read my post would understand that by "animals" I ment "laboratory animals" which humans are very different from for plenty of real tangible reasons. Having money, religion, right to vote and access to lawyers are just some of them.
First. The technology available for non-destructive fetus testing of various kinds of lab animals is nowhere as developed and extensive as one existing for humans. I am talking about amniosynthesis, various kinds of scanning, direct viewing through optical devcies, measuring and analyzing fetuses - that many pregnant woman gladly pay for now. There was never need or financial insentive to come up with it for lab animals. Birth of a defective mouse or even a goat was never as much a tragedy as birth of a defective human.
Second. Even if such technology were awailable for every kind of laboratory animal (some are impossible due to small size of most lab animals), it would be too expencive to use it on lab animals anyway. It costs thousands of dollars per case. Much easier and cheaper to allow defective animals to be born and then destroy them. Also, no moral or legal issues.
Unlike lab nimals, human fetuses can be non-destructively tested in-utero in many different ways to assure they are fine. Any defective fetuses are aborted quite early. It does make sense to spend few thousand dollars for diagnostics per human pregnancy, unlike an animal pregnancy, especially in scientific experiment. It has already cost them millions. What's a few more hundreds of thousands to detect and abort abnormal pregnancies?
Experiments on humans are conducted very differently than experiments on laboratory animals. Is that enough logic for you?
So as I've said, "...you would naturally expect much higher ratio of animals being born defective than humans".
miko
-
Can I order myself a clone of Raquel Welch? I'm willing to wait till she grows up :D
-
hmm.. what a great idea for a new company ;)
-
StSanta or any other progressive thinking science boy, why would someone want to clone another person? Is there a reason someone would want to do this? I mean other than just so they could say they did it
Heh, religious conviction. That doctor is a member of a scet (actually a minister) called Raelian. They believe that life on planet Earth was populated by aliens that modified DNA and put it on our planet. Jesus, Buddha etc were 'ambassadors' to the people who had to work under the conditions of the day - thus not being able to tell the truht, but inventing God stories. Their current 'Guide of guides' (their words, not mine) says he's the current prophet and have been told that the time is right to set up alien embassies on earth.
At any rate, it is their religious belief that coning humans should be done. Only Raelian cult followers will ahve themselves cloned in the future, and thereby 'living forever' (their words again).
So you see Hblair, the problem isn't us 'science boys'. The problem, as usual (you set yourself up for this :D) is religious nutcases who uses a tool inappropriately.
I'm 100% against the cloning of humans. On medical grounds (because lots of failures, odd mutations etc) and on ethical grounds (we do not know what we're dealing with here). Morally, I think it's disgusting to be so self absorbed as to want a copy of oneself.
-
^^^ Agreed
-Jango Fett
-
If they went to all that trouble, I hope they cloned a babe-ette.
It this thing doesn't work out....... I hope they'll accept the responsibility. Not like you'll be smiled upon if you put it down like a sick dog.
-
Miko wrote:
1. Knowing myself intimately - personality traits, abilities, etc., I could provide my clone child with upbringung and education much more conducive to his development and realisation of his potentials and talents - unlike with regular "random" child where it's trial and error process against the active resistance of a child.
The child will have more trust in my judgements since I would have very good idea how he feels about things.
Of course it goes without saying that I am satisfied with my personality traits as well as my physique enough to wish them on my child.
Mm, but changing the conditions means the child will deviate from what you are. if brought up in an affluent family instead of a poor one for example, it might develop into another being, one that you potentially could have been. This might alter his personality so much that you will not know more about what/how he feels than about a natural child.
Find a mate who have physique and mental traits that you're satisfied with. Combine your DNAs and you should have a child that's gonna do well in life. It's the the ultimate form of...what's the English word...being all to happy about oneself, egoistic and generally full of oneself? Well, that word.
2. My IQ is 130+ even now, my wife's, adjusting for narrower sigma of women would translate to similar genetic potentiality. Statistics, specifically the principle of reversal to the mean, suggests that average intelligence of our children would be quite lower than ours. There is a great chance that the clone would be smarter than a natural child who's place he takes - assuming the number of children is held constant.
Mine is 138 (at least last time I took a two day evaluation by a psychiatrist). I'll find an acceptable mate and give my half of the traits to the child. No need for cloning there; there's plenty of smart, attractive women in the world. In addition, there are some worrying mental and physical traits that I'd like to water out, and finding a decent mate is a good way to do so. Genetic diversity is also important and if everyone started cloning themselves and this was how we reproduced, eventually small mutations would cumulate, with a devastating result.
With those two items there is a great chance that I will have a person more capable than myself (due to more fully-realised potentials and somewhat better nutrition) who would most likely adopt the same philosophy and worldview that I ended up adopting.
There's no guarantee for that. Humans are open books in many regards. You'll have the base architecture done, but within those limits, the actual code might be very different. He might have your limitations and capacity *potentially*, but how much he realises of it depends on the conditions. He'll be subjected to much different conditions than you were and this will make his 'code' unique. he might even adopt opposing views. that would be a squeak - disagreeing with what is in a physical respect yourself.
Of course, if you make the assumption that what we are has more to do with nature or nurture your point might be valid. One would have to have lots of evidence to support it, and from what I've read, both camps have extensive evidence supporting their claim, so the truth probably is somewhere in the middle of the two.
Of course there is a benefit of having compatible organs available but they would be expected to go his way, not mine.
That would be an advantage.
-
Originally posted by StSanta
So you see Hblair, the problem isn't us 'science boys'. The problem, as usual (you set yourself up for this :D) is religious nutcases who uses a tool inappropriately.
Set myself up for what? Where did I elude to scientists being the problem, I was asking for o'club cience guys' angle on this. And don't put all religion in the same basket with these people.
LOL the problem is religious nutcases misusing science as usual ?
Which religious sect was hitler a member of anyway?
-
Clonaid ... so what are they..
a group of cover-band musicians trying to raise money ?
-
lol, I was thinkin the same thing wlfie. Wondering if this turns out to be a hoax..
-
Hblair, I believe he was a Christian :D.
At least the SS troops had daggers with the inscription "Gott mit uns" (God with us). In reality, the offical nazi state religion was one of mysticism, loosely based on Christianity - I have some nice books on the subjects.
I was making the comment because it seemed you were baiting me suggesting that those darned evil scientists/evolutionists were at it again. if I misunderstood your tongue in cheek intent, I apologize :).
-
No problem Stsanta. I know you still love me. ;)
BTW, does the "St" in Stsanta stand for saint? Does this mean you are a religious nut? Like those nazi mystics?! :D
lol loosely based on christianity..
-
StSanta: ...but changing the conditions means the child will deviate from what you are.
That's the whole intent of an exercise. I would not want a child to be a duplicate me, I would want him to be a better, more accomplished me.
if brought up in an affluent family instead of a poor one for example
"for example" is inapplicable here. I would not be cloning some random person of who's circumstances I would know nothing about.
Mine is 138 (at least last time I took a two day evaluation by a psychiatrist). I'll find an acceptable mate and give my half of the traits to the child. No need for cloning there
I do not see how you've addressed the regression to the mean here - unless you intend to have 6-7 children to increase a chance of one being as smart as you are.
...but how much he realises of it depends on the conditions
Which are exactly known. I would not be cloning someone else and than letting him develop randomly. I doubt anyone would.
...this will make his 'code' unique. he might even adopt opposing views
You are talking as if a presence of an educator with special knowlege is no better than random influence. That is self-contradictory. You can reject nature or nurture but not both. My position actually relies on both but would work with either.
I've read, both camps have extensive evidence supporting their claim, so the truth probably is somewhere in the middle of the two.
What I actually propose is based on large role I attribute to of nature plus the best individually tailor-made nurture.
That would be an advantage.
Probably not much with such a discrepancy in age and rough life I've led. But in general it could be.
miko
-
What's a Clon?
-
Hblair, the meaning of St is a compilers nightmare - an ambiguous one. For some, it's Saint. The chaps in my squad are convinced its short for Satan, though. I'm not presumptous enough to think I'm a fallen angel - or any angel for that matter. But I am so important that at least I should be a saint.
Miko wrote:
That's the whole intent of an exercise. I would not want a child to be a duplicate me, I would want him to be a better, more accomplished me.
Even with a clone, there's no guarantee that this will happen. Perhps it is the very hardships and traumas you've went through who has formed the essence of you. You've probably experienced things you'll do what you can to make sure your son won't. Would it not be enough for you to have a son that was happy - regardless of how accomplished he is? Must he better you for you to be satisfied? From what I know of you from this board, I know the answer is 'no', and that you're just making a logical case for cloning. Still, cloning doesn't give you any guarantees - it might increase your chances, but e do not have the empirical basis for saying how much.
"for example" is inapplicable here. I would not be cloning some random person of who's circumstances I would know nothing about.
No, but if the kids grow up under different conditions than you, he'll probably not be like you. The environment in which you grow up has a huge say in what you become. It's no accident that children of poor families with uneducated parents have a lower education (in general) than kids from the middle class.
I do not see how you've addressed the regression to the mean here - unless you intend to have 6-7 children to increase a chance of one being as smart as you are. ]/b]
If my partner has an equal intelligence, chances are my kid will be on par. Or higher or lower within a certain limit. It won't be a stupid child whichever way it goes.
Which are exactly known. I would not be cloning someone else and than letting him develop randomly. I doubt anyone would.
They are known, but *different* from the conditions that were there when you grew up. Different conditions make for different personalities. Take a child and let it have no contact with humans and it'll end up with horrible mental problems. Make contact more random, add violence etc, and another personality will be the result. And so on. The conditions you will raise the kid in will be dissimilar to the ones you yourself was raised in, which will give your kid a different personality. Of course you could coach and brainwash the kid to be your mirror image but chances are that'll lead to deep divisions within him that'll manifest themselves sooner or later in life.
You are talking as if a presence of an educator with special knowlege is no better than random influence. That is self-contradictory. You can reject nature or nurture but not both. My position actually relies on both but would work with either.
I reject neither. I'm simply trying to make a point about the nurture bit. When conditions vary, so does the result.
What I actually propose is based on large role I attribute to of nature plus the best individually tailor-made nurture.
And still he might not be like you. He might surpass you, but I believe he'll develop a unique personality somewhat different from yours.
Of course maybe this is a moot point. Maybe I should understand it as you wanting a person that was similar to you but surpassed you. On the other hand, a naturally produced son or daughter could also do that.
Do you have kids already?
-
Get your own CLONCO Cloning Kit for just 4 easy payments of only $19.95!
Make your own clone! A low-cost, no hassle, maintenance free alternative to common everyday time consuming tasks....and they last a LIFETIME!
Tired of the same old daily routine of cleaning the house? MAKE A CLONE! How about going to work?... yuck! MAKE A CLONE!!
For just 4 easy payments of only $19.95, you get all the required equipment, an easy to read 5 step instruction manual, a list of pre-screened and willing to work surrogate mothers and your own copy of "The ethical treatment of clones" pamphlet!
Get your own CLONING KIT!!...by CLONCO!
-
I find it very , very, very disturbing if true.
That it was this group... no, CULT that made it is even more disturbing. If they could do it, any government can do it.
Cloning is a great tool to help humanity, im sure it will eventually even allow for the re-construction of lost body parts (limbs, organs, etc).. in fact they already have made good progress in that area as rats have been growing human kidneys using the technology.
I really hope this girl will be healthy, as all animal clones (dolly, etc) have suffered organ problems after their initial years. The tech. is still in its infancy and we still dont understand things very well. Its horrible to think this cult has so irresponsably given life to a child knowing for a fact that she has a high probability of not surviving past her teens. Its murder in the 1st degree if you ask me. :mad:
Upping the ante, this group, if they did indeed clone this girl, have shown that a human being can be manufactured. This is what disturbs me on the macro scale. What will happen then? Humans being designed and built? I dont need to tell you of all the scenarios that could bring, you've watched hundreds of them on those science fiction tv shows and books... cheap soldiers, cheap potatos, clones for spare parts, as lab animals, slaves, modified genetics for specific jobs (a-la brave new world), etc etc.
I am agnostic, but just seeing what this girl will go through because of the greed for money or recognition of this cult... and how she will be exploited makes me wish I could truly pray for her. *sigh*
-
Pongo: What if this clone goes mad and tries to take over the world?
oh god.. George Bush is a CLONE?
-
Originally posted by OIO
I find it very , very, very disturbing if true.
That it was this group... no, CULT that made it is even more disturbing. If they could do it, any government can do it.
no no, nothing to worry about here .. the likes of Saddam would NEVER clone up an army of supermen or hordes of suicide bombers - nah - nope - never.
the entire cloning project is so the likes of a miko may attain immortality :rolleyes:
-
There's really nothing new about this cloning fiasco. It's the manifestation of the same sort of things that has passed by in human history for thoudands of years - namely, the hope of immortality. An eruption of old ideas and desires with a new, scientific twist.
The hopes of intervention to the natural cycle of life and death. Cloning the physical body is the first step, so they say, and the next objective will be "scooping out" the "consciousness" and "implanting" it to the new body. In such procedures the Raelians hope to achieve immortality.
...
I've seen some of the books by Raelians, and I must say, how come all of their "futuristic" visions aquired from advanced, alien races seem like a remake of old sci-fi films i sbeyond me :rolleyes:
-
A clone isn't even 100% genetically identical to the it's "blueprint" since the genom is "doubled" (2 x 23 chromosomes) for safety purpose. So every cell has a random pattern of active alleles --> most evident with genetic diseases where individuals show different severeties in the expression if the disease since they are "genetic mosaics" (even possible with sex-chromosomes).
As for enviromental influence on developement. From what I heard (during med school), exeperts agree on a 50/50 setup: half of an individual is determined by its genes, the other half by the enviroment. That sounds very believable to me, rather than the extremists on either side.
---
Nature used cloning before it "invented" sex. But for the obvious reasons (combination of the best attributes of a individual/keeping genetic diseases at hold) sex proofed to be the better way of reproduction. Now humans go back to cloning - hmm... although the most succesful lifeforms on earth still clone mostly - well, they didn't develop far in the last few million years either... :)
---
Santa, was the word you were looking for Narcism?
---