It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Frankenstein and the "Genes Of Isis."

page: 1

log in


posted on Nov, 3 2006 @ 02:11 PM

Frankenstein and the
“Genes of Isis”

Isis And Osiris

Watcher Magazine

IT’S CALLED DNA, and it’s both hard science and the ’stuff dreams are made of’. Modernists claim credit for the ‘discovery’ of the germ of humanity, all the while nodding graciously to earlier researchers such as Felix Mendel. The magical double helix served as a platform for the elevation of Watson and Crick to demi-god status and as the backbone of a brand new branch of science — chimeric cloning (aka ‘transhumanism’).

Mary Shelley imagined a hideous creature — the modern Prometheus — compiled of stitched parts and a humanist soul. Some may call Shelley’s Frankenstein monster a metaphor for government devoid of religion, others a post-apocalyptic picture of evolving mankind in its inevitable chaotic end. No matter how one interprets the story, the 19th century mind of Mary Shelley painted a literary portrait of the true monster we face today — science unbridled.

To understand the connection between Frankenstein and the culture of cloning, one needs to rediscover classical mythology. Once upon a time, nearly every college freshman spent at least one semester immersed in Ovid’s tales of the ancient gods. This ‘classical education’ has fallen out of favor today. Students now want the ‘fast track’ to a degree, seeking out core curricula fine-tuned to a specific trade or profession.

Cloning is an issue that is a "hot button" topic with many people. I personally can see some benifit to the process, even on the spiritual side of things,but I am not going to delve into that here..

However, I think most people oppose the cloning issue from a moral standpoint of view, rather than from an unbiased point of view. Would I'd be in favor of cloning? Depends. If you are talking about cloning organs that could be used for transplant therapies, then yes. However, I think that when we start talking about recreating a whole human organism,which is essentially what cloning is, I have some questions that need to be answered first.

Firstly,it would seem to me that any cloned being would be spiritless. Since, at least in my opinion, spirit only comes from the Prime mover. Is science going to lay claim to being able to create spirit as well? I think not.

Secondly, what kind of a consciousness, without spirit, will these clones maintain. It would seem to me that they would have very little concept of right or wrong.

These are just a couple of pressing questions I would have to have answered before I'd even consider supporting a move to clone.

[edit on 3-11-2006 by SpeakerofTruth]

[edit on 3-11-2006 by SpeakerofTruth]

posted on Nov, 3 2006 @ 02:34 PM

Now mankind has discovered a new process which affects the manifestation of material life: cloning. Although a person may be cloned to be an exact biological replica of its original, scientists do not realize that it has a spirit which will be completely unique. This is the same situation with identical twins. Currently, the process to clone is at its beginning stages and imperfect; even the cloning of animals has brought about genetic defects and the natural life cycle of these beings seems to have also been affected. Again mankind, regarding this new scientific process, does not understand that there are spiritual ramifications that will affect the spirits of any "cloned beings."

But what about breeding embryos for stem cells to alleviate conditions such as Parkinson’s disease, diabetes, and others? We know that natural spiritual law dictates that a spirit becomes attached, at first loosely, to its preordained organic host at the precise moment of conception, with the process complete upon the birth of a child. (See Kardec’s The Spirits Book, Chapter VII for more detailed information regarding this process). We know this natural law process is automatic and continues to completion (to a viable birth) unless the material of that particular physical body is such that a live birth is not possible due to any number of organic defects, or, it had already been preordained that that particular body have no spirit assigned to it. This being the case, although God knows the future, we do not, so in the cloning process, natural law continues to dictate that spirits will continue to be assigned to these embryos as well, because universal natural laws are not subject to mankind’s arbitrary actions and ignorance. There is always cause and effect involved and there will be many spirits who will start the process of incarnation only to be terminated in this cloning process because mankind does not allow the embryo to continue its natural growth process.

Spiritist perspective

I think this is something else that needs to be considered, When exactly does life begin? We talk about using embryonic stem cell research as if it is nothing. However, this is a real problem for many,such as myself, who think that life begins at conception.

posted on Nov, 3 2006 @ 02:40 PM
Your questions assume we have a spirit in the first place.

I personally think that the fear of cloning is the fear of being wrong about so much of what we hold as truth.

What if we clone a person as the person acts, reacts, feels, thinks, and otherwise acts exactly like any other person?

What if we clone a gay man and the clone isn't gay? Vice versa?

I think the fear of cloning is the same old fear of the unknown that humans have about everything.

Personally, I wouldn't be opposed to cloning humans. Although, I don't understand why science would WANT to do it other than to simply say it was done, so I dont really see the point in it, either.

posted on Nov, 3 2006 @ 02:44 PM
Well,naturally my post "assumes" that we have a spirit. I personally believe in one.

Although, your whole "fear of the unknown" bit is probably true.

posted on Nov, 3 2006 @ 02:50 PM
Yes, but seeing as this is the Science and Technology Forum, that's quite an assumption. The feeling I am getting from your posts is more of a moral concern over the science and not the science itself.

I am not totally familiar with the S&T forum, however, so I will concede the point willingly.

posted on Nov, 3 2006 @ 03:17 PM

Your questions assume we have a spirit in the first place.

If spirit equals consciousness then there is alot of scientific evidence that spirit exists.

"Reality is merely an illusion, albeit a very persistent one." Albert Einstein

posted on Nov, 3 2006 @ 05:21 PM
Well, Hank,I will concede that a spirit is hard to find empirical evidence for. I don't really think it's possible. However, with that being said,I don't think science has really made an honest attempt to find evidence for it.

Hank, and you probably are right in your assumption that I am more concerned with the morality of cloning than the actual science behind it. However, there are some scientific concerns as well. Birth defects, mental health of the clone, et cetera.

posted on Nov, 3 2006 @ 05:33 PM
I suspect that many of the fears and questions we have regarding cloning will not be answered until someday, when either by design, or by accident we all wake up with a complete, cloned human being on our hands. Then... Spirit or not ... Divinity or not ... The poor cloned being will become simply another guinea pig ... Or worse, a pariah.

"Would you want one living next to you"?
"Why in the world would your son or daughter marry one"?
"They don't have a soul! They can't be human! Let's put a season and a bounty on 'em"!

The above three are a few of the typical responses people have had, in the past, to others who are simply different humans (skin color, religion, place of national origin)... Why do we think things might be any different for the clone.

Not given to any particular set of conspiracy theories, myself, I have often thought that I wouldn't be too terribly surprised to find that there has already been full scale cloning(s) performed.

It might pay to continue looking, with a weather eye, at you neighbor.

posted on Nov, 3 2006 @ 05:39 PM
Sigung,I wouldn't be a bit surprised to find out that science has already created a clone. As a matter of fact, it would surprise me if they hadn't.

I do think that there can be health benefits to cloning. However, until they manage to figure all of the ins and outs of it, I don't think it should even be attempted.

posted on Nov, 3 2006 @ 06:27 PM
Here are some problems with cloning from the scientific perspective.

1. High failure rate

Cloning animals through somatic cell nuclear transfer is simply inefficient. The success rate ranges from 0.1 percent to 3 percent, which means that for every 1000 tries, only one to 30 clones are made. Or you can look at it as 970 to 999 failures in 1000 tries. That's a lot of effort with only a speck of a return!

Why is this? Here are some reasons:

The enucleated egg and the transferred nucleus may not be compatible
An egg with a newly transferred nucleus may not begin to divide or develop properly
Implantation of the embryo into the surrogate mother might fail
The pregnancy itself might fail
2. Problems during later development

Cloned animals that do survive tend to be much bigger at birth than their natural counterparts. Scientists call this "Large Offspring Syndrome" (LOS). Clones with LOS have abnormally large organs. This can lead to breathing, blood flow and other problems.

Because LOS doesn't always occur, scientists cannot reliably predict whether it will happen in any given clone. Also, some clones without LOS have developed kidney or brain malformations and impaired immune systems, which can cause problems later in life.

3. Abnormal gene expression patterns

Are the surviving clones really clones? The clones look like the originals, and their DNA sequences are identical. But will the clone express the right genes at the right time?

In Click and Clone, we saw that one challenge is to re-program the transferred nucleus to behave as though it belongs in a very early embryonic cell. This mimics natural development, which starts when a sperm fertilizes an egg.

In a naturally-created embryo, the DNA is programmed to express a certain set of genes. Later on, as the embryonic cells begin to differentiate, the program changes. For every type of differentiated cell - skin, blood, bone or nerve, for example - this program is different.

In cloning, the transferred nucleus doesn't have the same program as a natural embryo. It is up to the scientist to reprogram the nucleus, like teaching an old dog new tricks. Complete reprogramming is needed for normal or near-normal development. Incomplete programming will cause the embryo to develop abnormally or fail.

4. Telomeric differences

As cells divide, their chromosomes get shorter. This is because the DNA sequences at both ends of a chromosome, called telomeres, shrink in length every time the DNA is copied. The older the animal is, the shorter its telomeres will be, because the cells have divided many, many times. This is a natural part of aging.

So, what happens to the clone if its transferred nucleus is already pretty old? Will the shortened telomeres affect its development or lifespan?

When scientists looked at the telomere lengths of cloned animals, they found no clear answers. Chromosomes from cloned cattle or mice had longer telomeres than normal. These cells showed other signs of youth and seemed to have an extended lifespan compared with cells from a naturally conceived cow. On the other hand, Dolly the sheep's chromosomes had shorter telomere lengths than normal. This means that Dolly's cells were aging faster than the cells from a normal sheep.

To date, scientists aren't sure why cloned animals show differences in telomere length.
Need a refresher?
See the Tour of the Basics for an introduction to DNA, chromosomes and cells.

©2006 The University of Utah, Genetic Science Learning Center
15 North 2030 East, Salt Lake City, Utah 84112-5330, (801) 585-3470 Disclaimer v3.1
Problems with cloning


log in