T-Rex Cloning ...

Discussion of non-phpBB related topics with other phpBB.com users.
Forum rules
General Discussion is a bonus forum for discussion of non-phpBB related topics with other phpBB.com users. All site rules apply.
Locked
Darth Wong
Registered User
Posts: 2398
Joined: Wed Jul 03, 2002 5:20 am
Location: Toronto, Canada
Contact:

Post by Darth Wong »

tOnk3r wrote:
For example, all dogs dig at the carpet in order to make a nice little hollow for themselves to sleep in before laying down for a nap.

You mean your dog does that. I have had 4 dogs and none of mine tried to dig the carpet. So what happened to that trait? did it dissapear?
So why dont mine dig the carpet? because they dont have to.

It is far more likely that your parents scolded them when they tried to do it, just like they scolded them when they chewed on furniture or toys. You can train out an instinctive behaviour, as any soldier will tell you.
haha dont tell me you get all of your knowledge of evolution from your poodle.

No, I got it from books. You should try them sometime.
Artificial selection is still evolution, genius.

Its not natural selection though is it, moron.

It doesn't have to be. You seriously think human evolution (particularly in the wealthy countries where cloning would be most likely) is still primarily directed by natural selection instead of sexual and artificial selection? :roll: The time is gone when weak children were eliminated by wild animals, in case you haven't paid attention to the last 10,000 years of history.

For the second time, you completely ignored my point about how evolution doesn't work without genetically imperfect reproduction. And now you're also ignoring my point about how evolution works, complete with examples of useless inherited traits in humans such as body hair. Do you have a reading problem, or are you just being deliberately dense in order to troll the thread?
Not a three-foot tall green gnome in real-life: My home page.
My wretched hive of scum and villainy: http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/

tOnk3r
Registered User
Posts: 427
Joined: Fri Aug 13, 2004 1:00 am
Location: London
Contact:

Post by tOnk3r »

For the second time, you completely ignored my point about how evolution doesn't work without genetically imperfect reproduction.

Cloning would be done untill everybody has advanced as far as cloning could take them. So basically when everybody is as good as the best are now they will stop it (that would take 2 or 3 generations). Then they move onto genetic modification.
complete with examples of useless inherited traits in humans such as body hair.

Body hair keeps us warm. Eye brows prevent sweat running in our eyes. pubic hair provides protection to our reproductive organs. eye lashes help keep grit out of our eyes. nasil hair prevents dust going into our airways which could cause infection. Hair on our head stops us losing 30% of our body heat, the brain needs to be kept warm.

How is hair useless again?

Evolution has removed the majority of our hair, and may remove more. It dosnt happen over night. We didnt invent clothes and then expect all of our hair to fall out over night just because we invented a means to keep our selves warm.

Darth Wong
Registered User
Posts: 2398
Joined: Wed Jul 03, 2002 5:20 am
Location: Toronto, Canada
Contact:

Post by Darth Wong »

tOnk3r wrote:
For the second time, you completely ignored my point about how evolution doesn't work without genetically imperfect reproduction.

Cloning would be done untill everybody has advanced as far as cloning could take them. So basically when everybody is as good as the best are now they will stop it (that would take 2 or 3 generations). Then they move onto genetic modification.

You honestly have no clue how this works, do you? Without genetic modification, cloning would produce exact copies. There would be no "advancement" at all.
complete with examples of useless inherited traits in humans such as body hair.

Body hair keeps us warm. Eye brows prevent sweat running in our eyes. pubic hair provides protection to our reproductive organs. eye lashes help keep grit out of our eyes. nasil hair prevents dust going into our airways which could cause infection. Hair on our head stops us losing 30% of our body heat, the brain needs to be kept warm.

How is hair useless again?

You honestly think that chest hair is necessary? :roll:

Hint: we have this thing called "clothing". That was developed during those thousands of years of human history that you apparently never read about.
Evolution has removed the majority of our hair, and may remove more. It dosnt happen over night. We didnt invent clothes and then expect all of our hair to fall out over night just because we invented a means to keep our selves warm.

Yet again, you are not understanding. Not only do you have some bizarre notion that evolution would occur over cloned generations, but you think that unnecessary features are automatically removed even if there is no particular evolutionary pressure to do so.
Not a three-foot tall green gnome in real-life: My home page.
My wretched hive of scum and villainy: http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/

Gud
Former Team Member
Posts: 597
Joined: Fri Sep 07, 2001 11:02 am

Post by Gud »

Darth Wong wrote: You honestly think that chest hair is necessary? :roll:


Try playing football without it, those shirts itches like hell on your nipples. ;)
(obviously this is why God created chest hair)

tOnk3r
Registered User
Posts: 427
Joined: Fri Aug 13, 2004 1:00 am
Location: London
Contact:

Post by tOnk3r »

You honestly have no clue how this works, do you? Without genetic modification, cloning would produce exact copies. There would be no "advancement" at all.

Thats why i said only the best will be cloned , everyday people won't be reproducing at all. People with inferior genes will be removed.
Then when everybody has the same genes as these "elite" we will start genitic modifications, probably mixing the genes of the few elite, and then modifying them.
You honestly think that chest hair is necessary?

Not all men have chest hair, women dont have chest hair.
It's on its way out. It dosnt happen over night.
but you think that unnecessary features are automatically removed even if there is no particular evolutionary pressure to do so.

What evolutionary pressure was there for the gradual loss of thick hair all over our bodies? Why have people living in freezing cold enviroments lost thier body hair?
There is no need for evolutionary pressure to lose an ability or trait if that ability or trait is no longer needed. Its in our interest to not have to put energy into something we dont need.

To prove this i will give the example of all life starting in the ocean. Now if what you are saying was true, every land based animal would be able to breath in air and in water. But we lost the ability to breath underwater with no evolutionary pressure to do so. We just didnt need that ability anymore.

bennyb
Registered User
Posts: 47
Joined: Sun Jan 30, 2005 6:28 pm
Location: on the hop

Post by bennyb »

tOnk3r wrote: Thats why i said only the best will be cloned , everyday people won't be reproducing at all. People with inferior genes will be removed.

Ummm if that's the case...who's going to be left to take all those McDonalds drive-thru orders? :wink:

To set the record straight (I've completely lost what y'all are fighting for) gene mutations brought on by environmental exposure can bring about trait changes, albeit at a much lower rate than sexual reproduction. So unless we develop some form of genetic armor, your clone could still turn into Spiderman someday with exposure to radioactivity or another form of energy.

Darth Wong
Registered User
Posts: 2398
Joined: Wed Jul 03, 2002 5:20 am
Location: Toronto, Canada
Contact:

Post by Darth Wong »

tOnk3r wrote:
You honestly have no clue how this works, do you? Without genetic modification, cloning would produce exact copies. There would be no "advancement" at all.

Thats why i said only the best will be cloned , everyday people won't be reproducing at all. People with inferior genes will be removed.

Nice change of subject. First you said that cloning would remove the sex drive, now you've suddenly switched from cloning to full-blown Nazi eugenics in order to save your abortion of an argument.

Since when does "cloning" automatically mean this Master Race cloning program you're talking about, never mind the elimination of breeders?
You honestly think that chest hair is necessary?

Not all men have chest hair, women dont have chest hair.
It's on its way out. It dosnt happen over night.

Actually, even women have chest hair; it's just very fine and light. Adult human beings have chest hair; it only varies in density.
but you think that unnecessary features are automatically removed even if there is no particular evolutionary pressure to do so.

What evolutionary pressure was there for the gradual loss of thick hair all over our bodies? Why have people living in freezing cold enviroments lost thier body hair?

No one lost their body hair; some people just have finer and thinner hair than others. And the reason for the wide range of body hair characteristics is precisely because there is no particular evolutionary pressure to kill off people with too much or too little body hair.
There is no need for evolutionary pressure to lose an ability or trait if that ability or trait is no longer needed. Its in our interest to not have to put energy into something we dont need.

Oh for Bob's sake, you honestly don't understand at all how evolution works, do you? If there's no evolutionary pressure, then the trait will not be removed. And for the umpteenth time, you are ignoring the fact that cloned people will not be evolving.
To prove this i will give the example of all life starting in the ocean. Now if what you are saying was true, every land based animal would be able to breath in air and in water. But we lost the ability to breath underwater with no evolutionary pressure to do so. We just didnt need that ability anymore.

It wasn't because we just didn't need that ability. It was because anything which was sub-optimal was ruthlessly killed off in marginal survival conditions. Humans don't live that way any more. We keep our sub-optimal children alive.

And yet again, I must remind you: YOU ARE IGNORING THE POINT, ALREADY MADE THREE TIMES, THAT CLONES WILL NOT EVOLVE. Evolution is genetic change, and there is no genetic change between a person and his clone. What part of this do you not understand?
Not a three-foot tall green gnome in real-life: My home page.
My wretched hive of scum and villainy: http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/

tOnk3r
Registered User
Posts: 427
Joined: Fri Aug 13, 2004 1:00 am
Location: London
Contact:

Post by tOnk3r »

Nice change of subject. First you said that cloning would remove the sex drive, now you've suddenly switched from cloning to full-blown Nazi eugenics in order to save your abortion of an argument.

HAHA classic. I didnt change any subject. Its you, who in every thread, takes the topic off on some tangent in a desperate attempt to prove A point instead of trying to prove the point.
It would cause us to not think sexually because sex wouldn't be a part of reproducing anymore. Do you understand that instincts are not genetic?
Oh for Bob's sake, you honestly don't understand at all how evolution works, do you? If there's no evolutionary pressure, then the trait will not be removed..

There was no evolutionary pressure to lose the ability to breath underwater. There is no situation when the ability to breath underwater would be a downside. Creatures won't die because they can breath underwater, yet we have completely lost that ability, with no evolutionary pressure. Why didn't we retain the ability to breath underwater and obtain the ability to breath in air? If what you are saying is true that is what would of happened. We lost the ability to breath underwater purely because we didnt need it any more. There was no reason to keep it.
And for the umpteenth time, you are ignoring the fact that cloned people will not be evolving

I dont think you quite understand. If we get the top 10% of people and clone them, then get the top 10% of them clones and clone them, then get the top 10% of them clones and clone them eventually we would of removed all inferior genes from the gene pool.
There would be no more crap genes, this would make the human race better, that by defininition is evolution, its a change. Its not a mutation but its still an advancment. Then we would probably start genetically modifying.

Kazer0
Registered User
Posts: 876
Joined: Sun Nov 10, 2002 2:05 am
Location: {postrow.POSTER_FROM}
Contact:

Post by Kazer0 »

Grar.. I'ma T-Rex wondering what happened to this topic.

Its safe to say, weither we clone or not, there will be people who despise the decision.

We clone, and anti-cloning anti-god-playing people go nuts, we dont clone, and nerds (Dinosaur nerds) and scientists go nuts.

The truth is that if we cloned a T-Rex, we could control it. I don't see the problem here. If we can build buildings that stand up to tornado's and hurricanes, what the hell is a dinosaur gunna do if we lock them in a building?
Andrew Charron || alexis support forum || Specializing in phpBB website template integration
Hurry up, my feash is siek.
AndrewCharron.com version 5 released!

Darth Wong
Registered User
Posts: 2398
Joined: Wed Jul 03, 2002 5:20 am
Location: Toronto, Canada
Contact:

Post by Darth Wong »

tOnk3r wrote: HAHA classic. I didnt change any subject. Its you, who in every thread, takes the topic off on some tangent in a desperate attempt to prove A point instead of trying to prove the point.

Do you really think that anyone who reads this thread will believe this feeble attempt to divert attention from your own ridiculous thread hijack where you tried to change "cloning" into "Nazi eugenics"?
It would cause us to not think sexually because sex wouldn't be a part of reproducing anymore. Do you understand that instincts are not genetic?

Actually, instincts are genetic. You have just demonstrated truly spectacular ignorance of the highest order.
There was no evolutionary pressure to lose the ability to breath underwater. There is no situation when the ability to breath underwater would be a downside. Creatures won't die because they can breath underwater, yet we have completely lost that ability, with no evolutionary pressure. Why didn't we retain the ability to breath underwater and obtain the ability to breath in air? If what you are saying is true that is what would of happened. We lost the ability to breath underwater purely because we didnt need it any more. There was no reason to keep it.

Yet again, you demonstrate truly spectacular ignorance and totally ignore the point. Efficiency is paramount under natural selection, and when animals move farther away from the sea, those which do not waste energy and food sustaining unnecessary biological structures will have a competitive advantage. In humans, however, competition with natural predators is no longer a serious factor for us. We have weapons. I already explained this in my last post; you obviously just don't get it.
And for the umpteenth time, you are ignoring the fact that cloned people will not be evolving

I dont think you quite understand. If we get the top 10% of people and clone them, then get the top 10% of them clones and clone them, then get the top 10% of them clones and clone them eventually we would of removed all inferior genes from the gene pool.

No, you don't understand. If you take the top 10% of people and clone them, and then take the top 10% of the clones, the result would be identical to taking the current top 1% of people because there is no genetic change between generations. All you would do is make humankind mostly extinct. Not to mention the utter absurdity of keeping the rest of the population from reproducing; how do you plan to achieve that?
There would be no more crap genes, this would make the human race better, that by defininition is evolution, its a change. Its not a mutation but its still an advancment. Then we would probably start genetically modifying.

Wrong. What part of "a clone has identical genes to the original" do you not understand? Your reading comprehension level is pathetic; you consistently ignore points that demolish your argument as if you never even saw them or do not understand what they mean. Do you seriously lack the ability to comprehend why evolution does not work without genetic change between generations? Selection from a static, repeating population will not benefit from multiple generations; this is blatantly obvious.
Not a three-foot tall green gnome in real-life: My home page.
My wretched hive of scum and villainy: http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/

Shanana
Registered User
Posts: 368
Joined: Sat Aug 28, 2004 4:03 am
Location: USA [from London, England]

Post by Shanana »

Whoever said that they'll have to think about how they'd control it is right on the money.

You don't just find T-Rex DNA & say "I'm cloning this." You have to think about the consequences that will come with it. The T-Rex was no innocent friend.

Darth Wong
Registered User
Posts: 2398
Joined: Wed Jul 03, 2002 5:20 am
Location: Toronto, Canada
Contact:

Post by Darth Wong »

Shanana wrote: Whoever said that they'll have to think about how they'd control it is right on the money.

You don't just find T-Rex DNA & say "I'm cloning this." You have to think about the consequences that will come with it. The T-Rex was no innocent friend.

Would it kill you to actually read the thread before commenting on it?
Not a three-foot tall green gnome in real-life: My home page.
My wretched hive of scum and villainy: http://bbs.stardestroyer.net/

User avatar
warmweer
Jr. Extension Validator
Posts: 3875
Joined: Fri Jul 04, 2003 6:34 am
Location: Van Allen Bel ... gium

Post by warmweer »

I just read through this topic (since it was referred to in the topic about human cloning) and it's full of bullshirt (without the "r"). I'm not going to remark on all errors but there are 2 which are really worth pinpointing. One interesting comment, and one completely off track.
bennyb wrote: To set the record straight (I've completely lost what y'all are fighting for) gene mutations brought on by environmental exposure can bring about trait changes, albeit at a much lower rate than sexual reproduction.


Not quite complete ;): natural evolution (as described bij Darwin) is much too slow to explain why certain changes in populations occured. Mutations are a key factor in giving a population that extra edge which allow it to survive sudden changes. Natural selection only works when (environmental) changes occur slowly. Natural selection also only has a chance of working when the initial population is large enough (read has a large enough gene pool). If the initial population is too small, it's doomed ... unless ... mutation occurs and the gene pool is increased. In the case of a really benefical trait, asexual reproduction (in organisms which do) is the fastest way of spreading the gene (increased probablity of then spreading it through sexual reproduction)
tOnk3r wrote: I dont think you quite understand. If we get the top 10% of people and clone them, then get the top 10% of them clones and clone them, then get the top 10% of them clones and clone them eventually we would of removed all inferior genes from the gene pool.
There would be no more crap genes, this would make the human race better, that by defininition is evolution, its a change. Its not a mutation but its still an advancment. Then we would probably start genetically modifying.


Selecting the top 10%, cloning them and reselecting, and a couple of times more will in fact result in the next selection having a smaller gene pool to select form than the previous one. The funny thing is that in selecting the 10% best (according to your criteria) you have probably eliminated 90% of genes which would allow adaptation when environment changes. You seem not to grasp the concept of variability (something Darwin certainly did grasp).

BTW, crap genes (very unfortunate choice of wording) may be very important. I'll give you a simple example. Ever heard of malaria?? You probably have. Well, without treatment it's fairly lethal. How come then (and we're not talking medical treatment here) than in areas in Africa infested with Anopheles (the vector or transmittor) carrying Plasmodium (the organism causing the disease), people actually live and survive?
No idea?
It's because of one of those crap genes, which cause sickle cell anaemia, which is an aneamia (and as such not beneficial at all) but has the interesting side effect that Plasmodium cannot enter the malformed red blood cells.

Al these selection programmes (for cattle and crop) have improved production yes, but in many cases resistance to environmental stress was (sometimes necessarily) neglected, resulting in more protective measures having to be taken for the breed (or crop) to even survive the slightest stress. The population has in this case been severely crippled and is not able to survive without external aid.

tOnk3r: your statement (quoted) and other statements clearly show you don't understand half of the words used in this topic, you don't understand cause and effect, you don't see a difference between cause and reason, you have no idea what instinct is about or how it is caused, nor evolution for that matter. I suggest you (at least) Google a bit before entering a topic like this (and like Darth said, reading something decent might also help).


To the moderators, I'm not trying to resurrect this topic at all. (natural selection did in fact kill it). Just consider me a mutation.
We should embrace problems, without which there wouldn't be any solutions.

TehBooster
Former Team Member
Posts: 590
Joined: Mon Oct 14, 2002 4:54 pm

Post by TehBooster »

warmweer wrote: To the moderators, I'm not trying to resurrect this topic at all. (natural selection did in fact kill it). Just consider me a mutation.


*buzzer* Incorrect. You have resurrected this topic by posting in it. Meaning I am now locking it.

Locked

Locked

Return to “General Discussion”