[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
Every generation of clones is supposed to be worse than the one before. Since there is no new genetic code being introduced there is no way to fix the genetic errors that occur and get passed down.
Uhhhh…they are exactly the same – hence copies. No better, no worse.
The parent material is used. Not material from the copy. That would be considered a 2nd gen. clone copy.[/quote]
Uhhhh…when has perfection existed anywhere, ever? Flaws always occur when something is reproduced. When you make copies of the copy the flaws get carried over and multiply until the thing breaks down.
Basically, they will be taking inbreeding to a whole new level.
They tried something like 140 times before they could get a successful clone of a sheep (Dolly). Cloning complex organisms like sheep and cows is a very imperfect and unstable procedure. Personally, I think it’s premature to OK cloned meat, given the current state of cloning technology.
We just don’t know how their genetic material will hold up in the long run. And isn’t the fact that they had to euthanize Dolly early possible evidence of genetic instability in clones? We should at least be told we’re eating cloned meat or not.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
jsbrook wrote:
I don’t like it. At all. And it’s way to early to tell no matter what their trials show. They release drugs onto the market all the time that have passed Phase III clinical trials that prove to be dangerous and have to be pulled once widespread distribution begins.
Simple solution: pay some homeless people to eat the first generation of clones and then we’ll know since every generation after that will be the exact same. What will differ is its health and how it is raised – which we hardly require the FDA to monitor.[/quote]
Right. Since homeless people are such a healthy segment of the population and there aren’t a million confounds to confuse any ill effects they might experience.
Personally I don’t subscribe to the fear of GM food or genetically modified life forms in general. I don’t jump on the “man has become so arrogant he now wants to play God”; the “it’s wrong to play God” bandwagon, or the fears of science going mad.
I think it all started with the novel Frankenstein and snowballed from there.
I mean, for example and correct me if I’m wrong, but I believe the genetic code of something we eat as food does not get assimilated into our own DNA!
Cloned sheep meat is the same as non-cloned sheep meat in the sense that it is a piece of dead animal tissue. In what way could GENETIC modification of a meat substance be harmful, as long as there are no harmful toxins, carcinogens or bacteria in the meat?
Same thing with GM plants - the genetic code does not cross over through ingestion.
Modified DNA won’t ‘jump’ into us when we eat it and cause us to grow third legs or extra eyes or glow in the dark! DNA is quite fragile and most of it would be destroyed in the acids of the stomach or pass through the intestines in undigested fragments.
I mean, for example and correct me if I’m wrong, but I believe the genetic code of something we eat as food does not get assimilated into our own DNA!
Cloned sheep meat is the same as non-cloned sheep meat in the sense that it is a piece of dead animal tissue. In what way could GENETIC modification of a meat substance be harmful, as long as there are no harmful toxins, carcinogens or bacteria in the meat?
[/quote]
Thats correct.
[quote]JohnnyBlaze wrote:
Same thing with GM plants - the genetic code does not cross over through ingestion.
[/quote]
GM is a bit tricky. There are thousands of different substances inside a plant, most of them in very low concentration. You really can only ‘find’ a certain substance if you test more or less specifically for it. When you use, say parts of jellyfish DNA in a wheat plant to make it more resistant against a certain pesticide that is very cheap and potent but would kill the wheat itself as well if it wasn’t for the jellyfish DNA, you really have no idea what else you just changed among he thousands of ultra low concentrated substances.
Only real way to find out is to make long term studies (long term as in several years)
Cloning on the other hand is perfectly safe and people’s fear for their health in not justified in any way, its media hype combined with lack of knowledge (or lack of information)
[quote]Uncle Gabby wrote:
Basically, they will be taking inbreeding to a whole new level.[/quote]
It’s not a question of perfection. It is a question of getting the same exact product every single time. For example, a farmer may not care about an animal’s genetic disposition for bad eye sight if it leads to a leaner tastier meat product. Breeders will breed for specific traits and then be able to copy them. I have seen the fruits of cloning in and it is a good thing.
A copy is a copy is a copy. I will concede with Zap’s point about making copies of copies. Information could possibly be lost just like when using a Xerox machine.
[quote]JohnnyBlaze wrote:
Cloned sheep meat is the same as non-cloned sheep meat in the sense that it is a piece of dead animal tissue. In what way could GENETIC modification of a meat substance be harmful, as long as there are no harmful toxins, carcinogens or bacteria in the meat?
Same thing with GM plants - the genetic code does not cross over through ingestion.
[/quote]
Ding. Ding. Give this man a prize.
We eat cloned fruit all the time. Farmers have know how to clone fruit trees for centuries.
Though, it should be noted cloning and genetically modifying are two separate activities. Genetically modifying means breeding for specific traits and cloning would be copying precisely the DNA of what was bred for in the previous generations.
Say I was a tomato farmer and I was cross pollinating to get the biggest, juiciest fruit I could. After I was satisfied with my parent plant I could take stem cuttings from the parent and then attempt to root them in the hopes of getting clone copies to eventually produce fruit. Mmmm, mmmm, Genetically modified, cloned, juicy goodness.
If I am not mistaken, a cloned cow/pig/chicken will still genetically be a cow/pig/chicken and as a result will be made out of meat and therefore, delicious.
Now they need to get started on that turducken.
Or how bout a cow that has bacon-wrapped steaks grown into it!?!
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Uncle Gabby wrote:
Basically, they will be taking inbreeding to a whole new level.
It’s not a question of perfection. It is a question of getting the same exact product every single time. For example, a farmer may not care about an animal’s genetic disposition for bad eye sight if it leads to a leaner tastier meat product. Breeders will breed for specific traits and then be able to copy them. I have seen the fruits of cloning in and it is a good thing.
A copy is a copy is a copy. I will concede with Zap’s point about making copies of copies. Information could possibly be lost just like when using a Xerox machine.[/quote]
I think they will be making copies of copies. It is my understanding that they will not have enough genetic material of the original stored to just make copies of the original.
I am pretty sure that many of the fruits we eat are essentially clones as you pointed out and are copies of copies. I am not aware of any problems this has caused.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
I think they will be making copies of copies. It is my understanding that they will not have enough genetic material of the original stored to just make copies of the original.
[/quote]
How many protein cells do you think there are in an ounce tissue? It will be virtually unlimited. Even if only 1 out of 100 DNA samples produce viable embryos there will be plenty of cells that could be harvested from a living parent specimen until it’s eventual death – at which point the entire animal could be used to produce embryos.
[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
Zap Branigan wrote:
I think they will be making copies of copies. It is my understanding that they will not have enough genetic material of the original stored to just make copies of the original.
How many protein cells do you think there are in an ounce tissue? It will be virtually unlimited. Even if only 1 out of 100 DNA samples produce viable embryos there will be plenty of cells that could be harvested from a living parent specimen until it’s eventual death – at which point the entire animal could be used to produce embryos.[/quote]
That is well and good for the first few years or decade but I don’t think they intend on using 50 year old frozen cells to create a herd of livestock.
[quote]Zap Branigan wrote:
I am pretty sure that many of the fruits we eat are essentially clones as you pointed out and are copies of copies. I am not aware of any problems this has caused.[/quote]
Actually, to make a point I fibbed a little bit.
With annuals it is essential to keep the parent alive to get cuttings for grafts or rooting. For this many farmers will keep the parent plant in a stunted state by mimicking artificial conditions that keep it from producing fruit or seed which would signal the plant to end its life cycle.
One can imagine how difficult it would be to raise enough produce from the clones of a single parent. What many farmers do is clone for seeds. They can collect and store pollen from a plant with the traits they like and cross pollinate with clone plants to make as many genetically similar seeds as possible. What we end up eating in the grocery store are not clones but rather the result of mass producing seeds from clones.
Once a farmer goes to seeds to grow a plant it is essentially no longer a clone product because seeds are the result of sexual production which requires the genetic material of two different plants.
Tree fruit is different because trees do not die at the end of their fruit production and thus there is no starting from scratch at the beginning of a new growing season.