Freethought & Rationalism Archive

sakrilege · 01-05-2003, 05:11 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by RufusAtticus
Is it me or should 2 come before 1?

I thought part of Nic's point in opening this thread was the similarity of the Raelians to IDers.

pz · 01-05-2003, 06:59 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by terrene
PZ: I don't know about that theory. If they can transfer DNA with a little careful syringe work, surely they could take DNA out of a female egg, too. Then it's just a matter of putting the male's DNA in place and inducing cell division. Right?

Right. There's nothing to stop a one-off clone being made of a male. My point was that all of the cloning techniques start with an egg from a female, so females are indispensable. Males are optional.

semyaza · 01-05-2003, 08:49 AM

I'm curious - does anyone know what kind of DNA test would reveal absolute identity? The only possibility that I can see is a complete sequence of both 'mother' and 'child' - which is surely impossible, given current technology. Testing for specific markers would at best reveal a maternal connection - which we already knew.

What am I missing?

sakrilege · 01-05-2003, 09:23 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by semyaza
What am I missing?

Only half of the DNA normally comes from the mother so only half will match. Here's a site that explains how DNA from a crime scene is used to identify an individual, which is the kind of DNA testing that would be done to verify clonedom. I'm sure others would have even better explanations.

Principia · 01-13-2003, 06:33 PM

From an ARN Wedge Update:

Quote:

January 13, 2003

ID and Human Cloning

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

By Paul Nesselroade

Does the Intelligent Design (ID) movement have anything to say about current experimentation with human cloning?

On December 27 the scientific director of a group named Clonaid claimed they had successfully produced the first human clone. Whether or not the Clonaid claim is true (many close to the issue have serious doubts), the prospect of human cloning will not go away and promises to continue to be divisive as lawmakers and ethicists wrestle with this emerging possibility.

Clearly, starting points are critical in shaping how we view the appropriateness of any action. If our starting point is the belief that human life was accidental and brought about solely by the impersonal forces of natural selection and random mutation, then, any purpose or meaning for life has to be assigned by us, chiseled out of the void of meaninglessness with our own hands. Starting here, the idea of cloning new life explicitly for the enhancement of our own lives (through organ replacement, stem cell harvesting, or for reproductive purposes) can be legitimized. The human �cost� associated with both fine-tuning the cloning process (animal cloning rarely results in birth and virtually all of those born have serious abnormalities and/or die early) and creating life expressly for sacrificial purposes, may be considered unfortunate, but can hardly be considered wrong. That�s why the Darwinist Michael Shermer, commenting in a recent L.A. Times article, can unashamedly endorse �[running] the cloning experiment [to] see what happens.�

If however, our lives are the product of intentionality and design, then purpose and meaning as well as right and wrong may not be just arbitrary human constructs. In fact, the reverse might be true. Far from needing us to carve them out, purpose and meaning could form part of the very template from which we ourselves were stamped! With this starting point, cloning looks quite different. Are we just enhancing our lives, as we would with a new invention or tastier dish, or are we hijacking the designer's machinery and pirating it for our own exploitation? And what about the possibility of fundamental human dignity that design implies? Enhancing one life at the expense of another involves value assignments and selection between them. It all starts to feel uncomfortably reminiscent of 1940's Europe. Who assigns the values? Who makes the selections?

Often the critics of the Intelligent Design (ID) movement make the claim that ID is a �science stopper.� Well, if by �science� they mean unrestrained experimentation on human beings, they may be right. After all, if those at the helm of human cloning can justify its necessity and are bent on walking it forward, then, I suppose, any dissenting voice could be labeled a �science stopper.� But let�s not confuse walking forward with progress. If we�re headed down the wrong path, the person who first turns around is the most progressive. If life is intentionally designed, then acknowledging this will be a first step towards a new science that asks new questions and begins to delve deeper into the mystery of human purpose as well as the nature of reality itself. In this sense, ID is really a science starter.

Starting points are important. Because of the relevancy the ID starting point has for many of today�s bioethical dilemmas, it is imperative that its proponents continue to communicate the mounting scientific evidence suggesting intentionality behind human life. Thanks to the recent school-board decisions in Ohio and Georgia, a number of provocative books written by IDers, and some enlightening new videos such as �Icons of Evolution� and �Unlocking the Mystery of Life,� we are well on our way to getting this message out.

A valiant effort to score a few rhetorical cheap shots at Darwinists. If life is not designed, then we can "legitimize" cloning. If life is designed, then it implies fundamental human dignity, and therefore cloning is unjustified. :banghead: Of course, he conveniently leaves out that the Raelians are squarely on the side of ID.

Principia · 01-13-2003, 06:50 PM

Here's Shermers' LA Times article:

Quote:

By Michael Shermer, Michael Shermer is the publisher of Skeptic magazine.

Ever since scientists in the 1970s first began cloning experiments on simple organisms, ethicists and lawmakers have been wringing their hands in Ludditean fear and existential angst over what to do when cloning technology approaches the human barrier.

On Friday, Brigitte Boisselier, the scientific director of Clonaid -- associated with the Raelians, a group that believes that life was seeded on Earth by aliens from other worlds -- announced that her team had done just that with a 31-year-old American woman who, they claim, gave birth to the world's first human clone, nicknamed, appropriately, Eve.

Whether the Raelians succeeded is irrelevant. It is clear that someone, somewhere, some time soon is going to generate a human clone. And once that happens, others will be quick to follow through the door and we will learn whether medical complications make cloning impractical as a form of fertility enhancement.

What I find disturbing is not cloning per se but three fundamental myths about it: the Identical Personhood Myth; the Playing God Myth; and the Human Rights and Dignity Myth.

The Identical Personhood Myth is perpetuated by those who say: "It's a horrendous crime to make a copy of someone." But what they should be saying is: "Clone all you like; you'll never produce another you because environment matters as much as heredity."

The best scientific evidence to date indicates that roughly half the variance between humans is accounted for by genetics; the balance is by environment. Because it is impossible to duplicate the near-infinite number of environmental permutations that go into producing an individual human being, cloning is no threat to unique personhood.

The Playing God Myth has numerous promoters, the latest being Stanley M. Hauerwas, a professor of theological ethics at Duke University who responded to the Clonaid announcement with this unequivocal denouncement: "The very attempt to clone a human being is evil. The assumption that we must do what we can do is fueled by the Promethean desire to be our own creators."

He is not alone in his belief. A 1997 Time/CNN poll, conducted on the heels of the news that a cloned sheep, Dolly, had been born, revealed that 74% of Americans said it was "against God's will" to clone human beings.

But cloning scientists don't want to play God any more than fertility doctors do. What's godly about in vitro fertilization, embryo transfer and other fully sanctioned birth enhancement technologies? Absolutely nothing. Yet we cheerfully accept these advances because we are accustomed to them.

The Human Rights and Dignity Myth is embodied in the Roman Catholic Church's official statement against cloning, based on the belief that it denies "the dignity of human procreation and of the conjugal union."

The same sentiment is also found in a Sunni Muslim cleric's demand that "science must be regulated by firm laws to preserve humanity and its dignity."

The reality is that clones will be no more alike than twins raised in separate environments, and no one is suggesting that twins do not have rights or dignity, or that twinning should be banned.

In the interest of assuaging these and other fears, I propose the Three Laws of Cloning.

* A human clone is a human being no less unique in his or her personhood than an identical twin.

* A human clone is a human being with all the rights and privileges that accompany this legal and moral status.

* A human clone is a human being to be accorded the dignity and respect due any member of our species.

Instead of restricting or banning cloning, I propose that we adopt the Three Laws of Cloning.

The soul of science is found in courageous thought and creative experiment, not in restrictive fear and prohibitions. For science to progress it must be given the opportunity to succeed or fail.

Let's run the cloning experiment and see what happens.

Doubting Didymus · 01-13-2003, 07:17 PM

While I mostly agree with Shermer, I just want to point out two things that were a bit glaring to me.

Quote:

The best scientific evidence to date indicates that roughly half the variance between humans is accounted for by genetics; the balance is by environment.

This is a grotesque oversimplification of an issue where scientific consensus is as elusive as meat in a cheap meat pie. Anyone reading this article should know that shermers 50% figure is not authoritative, and that it may not even be possible to reach any clean figure on genetics/environment. The dance of organism development is never simple, and anyone who suggests that X part of it is due to genetics, and Y part is due to environment is probably a bit misled.

Having said that, Shermers conclusion:

Quote:

Because it is impossible to duplicate the near-infinite number of environmental permutations that go into producing an individual human being, cloning is no threat to unique personhood.

Is still valid. See this article that pz recently posted for a laymans run down of the uniqueness of clones.

I agree with shermers three laws, although I would have hoped that they were common sense enough for our existing laws and social rules to be sufficient. However:

Quote:

Let's run the cloning experiment and see what happens.

May be misleading. I certainly hope that Shermer is not implying that he thinks cloning should be acceptable right now. Cloning technology is nowhere near a level of development that is acceptable for use on humans. So long as Shermers intention is to give a green light to human cloning in the future, when cloning is sufficiently workable, then all is well. However, the technology is far from acceptable at this time.

That's all.

Nic Tamzek · 01-13-2003, 08:12 PM

Quote:

Clearly, starting points are critical in shaping how we view the appropriateness of any action. If our starting point is the belief that human life was accidental and brought about solely by the impersonal forces of natural selection and random mutation, then, any purpose or meaning for life has to be assigned by us, chiseled out of the void of meaninglessness with our own hands. Starting here, the idea of cloning new life explicitly for the enhancement of our own lives (through organ replacement, stem cell harvesting, or for reproductive purposes) can be legitimized. The human �cost� associated with both fine-tuning the cloning process (animal cloning rarely results in birth and virtually all of those born have serious abnormalities and/or die early) and creating life expressly for sacrificial purposes, may be considered unfortunate, but can hardly be considered wrong.

(bolds added)

Strange that this ARN missive doesn't recognize the Raelian's oh-so-crucial "starting point":

Quote:

Evidence
Introduction

Supporting evidence

Welcome to the Evidence page, a subsection of the Raelian Revolution website.

If we truly were created by people from space, then there would be traces of this creation in our history, mythology and religion, be it Judaic, Buddhist, Christian, Islamic or other. Science should confirm this and there should be UFOlogical evidence of them monitoring our progres and even visitations.

In fact, if one takes the trouble to look, this is exactly the case and the horisontal navigation bar above provides links to such evidence including a bibliography section listing references and authors whose totally independent conclusions support the validity of the Raelian Message.

[...]

Supporting evidence p. 3

EMBARRASSING QUESTIONS FOR THE EVOLUTIONISTS
For 20 years, the Raelian vision of "scientific creationism" : a step ahead of science ?

It is striking to note that while the Raelian theory is being confirmed by a continual series of scientific discoveries, the theory of Evolution is, on the other hand, being increasingly challenged as its old questions remain unanswered and even more embarrassing new questions are appearing.

An anti-evolutionist system in our genes:

Perhaps the most awkward question today for the theory of evolution is the one raised by the recently discovered p53 and since then a mutlitude of others - the DNA repair mechanism. This has been found to be common to all mammals and repairs damaged DNA. If the damage is too great to repair, it organises the cell's self-destruction.

Therefore if any defect in the transcription of the genetic code arises, (the foundation on which evolution is based) then this repair or programmed cell death mechanism will remove such a mutation. If not, then the organism as a whole will die of cancer.

This control system is clearly present to avoid all mutation. Thus, if this system is common to all mammals, according to the theory of Evolution, it should also be present in the common ancestors of mammals.

If it were present in our ancestors, how were they able to diversify in order to render so many different species ? This is clearly a major contradiction which can only put a serious doubt on the theory of evolution.

[...]

[Bibliography]

Here you will find other resource material which support the messages given to Rael by the Elohim
- in whole or in part.

[...]

The Triumph of Design

The Triumph of Design clearly and dramatically shows the gaping holes in Darwinian theory and the mounting evidence for the intelligent design of the universe. This video features Phillip Johnson, the distinguished law professor from the University of California, Berkeley whose best-selling book, Darwin On Trial, re-ignited the evolution controversy in the early 1990's. (more info)

Evolution - Fact or Belief ?
( also released in French as "Enquetes & Reportages")

More and more scientists are abandoning the Evolution Theory on the grounds that it is contrary to the basic laws of modern science. They maintain that it is a philosophy, not a science.
This video interviews scientists from around the world to find out why they do not accept evolution as a reasonable explanation for the origin of man and the universe.

I do agree with the ARN wedge update about one thing: your starting point is important. For instance, if you start out by ignoring evidence contrary to your position, there is no end to the silly conclusions you will come to.

Cross-posting to AE...

Nic Tamzek · 01-13-2003, 08:42 PM

Re: Shermer's article.

While he is right to point out the various irrational/wrong reasons to be opposed to cloning (clones *will not* be exact copies, etc.), it does not follow that "that which people think is wrong for the wrong reasons is therefore right".

Some of the many rational reasons to be opposed to cloning:

1) Health problems. This may or may not be solved in the future, but it certainly isn't resolved yet.

2) You shouldn't experiment on non-consenting subjects. This is rule numero uno of science (*even* social science) involving humans. Pretty much any cloning attempt with humans is just such an illegal/unethical experiment. *Any* child born from cloning will be subject to experiment/observation/just-plain-being-watched that they had no say in accepting or rejecting. This is one of the most serious objections, I'm very surprised we don't here more of it.

3) There are approximately zero good reasons to clone. All reasons that I've seen put forward are selfish ones (perpetuate myself, replace my lost child, etc.) and/or deluded (download my brain, recreate famous person X whether clone of X likes it or not, etc.). The interests of the child should always be primary, but they never are when cloning is advocated.

4) In contrast to 3, there are dozens of ways "it could go bad" (to paraphrase Bruce Campbell from Army of Darkness).

a) first, there are the religious nuts (both pro- and anti- cloning) who will be messing with the life of the clone for their own purposes

b) then there are the people who think that clones are/should be superior to regular humans

c) and of course the people who think they are inferior/evil

d) and those who want to use them for spare parts

etc.

(PS: Those desiring spare parts without the problem of clones objecting to having their organs removed should instead encourage stem-cell research, which has the potential to be able to grow you organ replacements from stem cells without all that mucking around with pregnancies and mini-Me jokes and such)

5) And, I think, the "we shouldn't play God" objection has significant merit. Not because of some Bible verse, but because we've seen the universally bad results of unrestrained God-complexes (literal or figurative) on people. Lesse, Koresh and Hitler for starters. Some of the best things in human history, say, democracy and science, have occurred as a result of institutionalizing *self-restraint* (limiting individual power in a democracy, limiting the goals and methods of science).

There are probably more, but that's for starters. Oh yeah:

6) We already have rather more people than the planet can handle.

7) Traditional methods of baby creation are better anyway.

RBH · 01-13-2003, 09:50 PM

Nic wrote

Quote:

7) Traditional methods of baby creation are better anyway.

And a Helluva lot more fun, too!

RBH

01-05-2003, 08:49 AM	#33
semyaza Regular Member Join Date: Sep 2002 Location: Florida, USA Posts: 104	Re: Cloner boner I'm curious - does anyone know what kind of DNA test would reveal absolute identity? The only possibility that I can see is a complete sequence of both 'mother' and 'child' - which is surely impossible, given current technology. Testing for specific markers would at best reveal a maternal connection - which we already knew. What am I missing?

01-13-2003, 08:42 PM	#39
Nic Tamzek Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2002 Location: California Posts: 646	Re: Re: ID spin -- ARN style Re: Shermer's article. While he is right to point out the various irrational/wrong reasons to be opposed to cloning (clones will not be exact copies, etc.), it does not follow that "that which people think is wrong for the wrong reasons is therefore right". Some of the many rational reasons to be opposed to cloning: 1) Health problems. This may or may not be solved in the future, but it certainly isn't resolved yet. 2) You shouldn't experiment on non-consenting subjects. This is rule numero uno of science (even social science) involving humans. Pretty much any cloning attempt with humans is just such an illegal/unethical experiment. Any child born from cloning will be subject to experiment/observation/just-plain-being-watched that they had no say in accepting or rejecting. This is one of the most serious objections, I'm very surprised we don't here more of it. 3) There are approximately zero good reasons to clone. All reasons that I've seen put forward are selfish ones (perpetuate myself, replace my lost child, etc.) and/or deluded (download my brain, recreate famous person X whether clone of X likes it or not, etc.). The interests of the child should always be primary, but they never are when cloning is advocated. 4) In contrast to 3, there are dozens of ways "it could go bad" (to paraphrase Bruce Campbell from Army of Darkness). a) first, there are the religious nuts (both pro- and anti- cloning) who will be messing with the life of the clone for their own purposes b) then there are the people who think that clones are/should be superior to regular humans c) and of course the people who think they are inferior/evil d) and those who want to use them for spare parts etc. (PS: Those desiring spare parts without the problem of clones objecting to having their organs removed should instead encourage stem-cell research, which has the potential to be able to grow you organ replacements from stem cells without all that mucking around with pregnancies and mini-Me jokes and such) 5) And, I think, the "we shouldn't play God" objection has significant merit. Not because of some Bible verse, but because we've seen the universally bad results of unrestrained God-complexes (literal or figurative) on people. Lesse, Koresh and Hitler for starters. Some of the best things in human history, say, democracy and science, have occurred as a result of institutionalizing self-restraint (limiting individual power in a democracy, limiting the goals and methods of science). There are probably more, but that's for starters. Oh yeah: 6) We already have rather more people than the planet can handle. 7) Traditional methods of baby creation are better anyway.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Freethought & Rationalism Archive

The archives are read only.