Cloning?

Xam · 10-08-2008, 10:16 PM

This is actually a question that my friend and I were talking about a few days ago about cloning.

For cloning, he said that it is possible to clone all the living cells of a human body and transport all of those cells in the correct positions, everything, onto another "body". But he says it is impossible to make that new body start up. Theoretically there is that "spark of life" or something that "gives it life" to make that body into a real human.

I'm not 100% convinced that what he truly says is really cloning and I have not looked up any info yet. What are your thoughts?

Tenspace · 10-08-2008, 10:23 PM

Did you know you're not the same person you were two weeks ago? Almost every one of your cells have been replaced. Do you really think that the same cells you were born with, are still around? With the exception of a few bodily systems, cells have much shorter lifespans than the organism they inhabit.

I would pose that to your friend, and ask him how he knows the cells could transport to their correct positions? Maybe he should learn a bit about genetics - specifically, Homeobox (Hox) genes, and gene expression during development.

I'm sure one of the more qualified members here can expand on the subject, and include their knowledge of cloning for you. Me, I'm waiting for the Radio Shack 200-in-1 Home Cloning Kit.

Xam · 10-08-2008, 10:26 PM

So technically you could clone a body, if you could do it very fast?

ubs · 10-09-2008, 04:53 AM

Quote:

Xam wrote

For cloning, he said that it is possible to clone all the living cells of a human body and transport all of those cells in the correct positions, everything, onto another "body". But he says it is impossible to make that new body start up. Theoretically there is that "spark of life" or something that "gives it life" to make that body into a real human.

Sheep have already been successfully cloned and no "spark machine" was involved.

nkb · 10-09-2008, 06:50 AM

Quote:

Xam wrote

For cloning, he said that it is possible to clone all the living cells of a human body and transport all of those cells in the correct positions, everything, onto another "body". But he says it is impossible to make that new body start up.

bolding mine
I'm curious what he's basing the bolded statement on. I'm going to take a wild guess, and say he either pulled it out of his ass, or he took what someone else pulled out of their ass, and accepted it as fact.

nkb · 10-09-2008, 06:52 AM

Quote:

ubs wrote

Sheep have already been successfully cloned and no "spark machine" was involved.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the type of cloning he's talking about is creating a fully assembled body from copied cells, not using genetic information from one specimen to grow a genetically identical clone.

ubs · 10-09-2008, 07:53 AM

Quote:

nkb wrote

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the type of cloning he's talking about is creating a fully assembled body from copied cells, not using genetic information from one specimen to grow a genetically identical clone.

Oh, I see.

Xam, when you say "spark," do you mean "hand of God" or electric jolt, as in a defibrillator?

Sternwallow · 10-09-2008, 06:02 PM

Quote:

Xam wrote

So technically you could clone a body, if you could do it very fast?

If you make a list (what order would you choose, top-down, one organ at a time or what?) of every single cell then make a duplicate of every cell on that list and then "put" each one in the "right" place, you have not addressed the connective tissue and connectivity of the neurons and the large quantities of non-cellular material, water, minerals, trace elements etc. so the result would be a pile of cells as might be produced by a very large Cuisinart, quickly dying for lack of a blood supply.

Remember that squirting a bunch of Hydrogen and Oxygen into a container doesn't produce water. You have to set it on fire to get it to combine. Now imagine an organism (under construction) surviving the ignition of enough Hydrogen and Oxygen to make the 80% or so of water in a human body. Pot roast anyone?

On the other hand, if you took a single adult cell and used technology that we do not currently have, you might get the cell to revert to the state of a newly fertilized egg and continue its development from that point.

That sounds far fetched in those terms, but we do have both a method of getting a second primal cell and the "technology" to develop it into a complete human being. It happens when twins are formed. A twin is a clone that happens to have the same conception data as its sibling.

It is not at all clear why the clerics and politicians are so adamantly opposed to twins. I have even heard a supposed civic leader contend that, if a twin was discovered, it should be destroyed on the spot.

Sternwallow · 10-09-2008, 06:04 PM

Quote:

nkb wrote

bolding mine
I'm curious what he's basing the bolded statement on. I'm going to take a wild guess, and say he either pulled it out of his ass, or he took what someone else pulled out of their ass, and accepted it as fact.

Also likely, he saw "Young Frankenstein" and thought it was a documentary.

Sternwallow · 10-09-2008, 06:05 PM

Quote:

nkb wrote

Correct me if I'm wrong, but the type of cloning he's talking about is creating a fully assembled body from copied cells, not using genetic information from one specimen to grow a genetically identical clone.

You are right, but only because he is apparently unaware of the full meaning of cloning.

Xam · 10-09-2008, 06:34 PM

Quote:

nkb wrote

bolding mine
I'm curious what he's basing the bolded statement on. I'm going to take a wild guess, and say he either pulled it out of his ass, or he took what someone else pulled out of their ass, and accepted it as fact.

I took what someone else pulled out of their ass, and accepted it as fact.

Quote:

Sternwallow wrote

You are right, but only because he is apparently unaware of the full meaning of cloning.

Yes.

DrunkMonkey · 10-10-2008, 09:30 PM

Making an exact copy wouldn't be cloning. A clone would be genetically identical but would have to be born and grow up. It would essentially be an identical twin, only younger.

Something related to this idea: teleportation. If your body was "dissolved" and recreated somewhere else then you would not be the same person. There would be a "new you" that thinks it is the old you since it has all of the memories. However, the old you was actually destroyed.

As for your friend, he clearly doesn't understand biology. There is no such thing as a life "spark". Life is just a giant series of chemical equations. As long as all of the chemicals are there in the right concentrations life will occur.

DrunkMonkey · 10-10-2008, 09:39 PM

Quote:

Tenspace wrote

Did you know you're not the same person you were two weeks ago? Almost every one of your cells have been replaced.

I think you are exaggerating the time span, but that is basically correct.

Red blood cells last 4 months, Neurons last for years and years, and connective tissue lasts awhile.

The molecules that make up the cells are constantly being turned over though. This book says that it takes 4 years on average for all molecules to be replaced.

Sternwallow · 10-11-2008, 05:03 AM

Quote:

DrunkMonkey wrote

I think you are exaggerating the time span, but that is basically correct.

Red blood cells last 4 months, Neurons last for years and years, and connective tissue lasts awhile.

The molecules that make up the cells are constantly being turned over though. This book says that it takes 4 years on average for all molecules to be replaced.

Does that book say that even the molecules in tooth enamel are replaced in that time span?

DrunkMonkey · 10-11-2008, 11:30 AM

Quote:

Sternwallow wrote

Does that book say that even the molecules in tooth enamel are replaced in that time span?

If you look at the link it just says "on average". This was just the only reference that I could find with a quick search. I heard about this concept (molecules being replaced) in one of my classes and I want to say it was my into to psychology course 3 years ago. I think the professor said something like "every molecule is different from when you were born" and most people in the class at that time would have been about 18 or 19 years old. Of course that would cover enamel since you get new teeth between your birth and 18 years later.