Irreducible complexity and Evolution

a reply to: Ruiner1978

I do not believe it is yet possible to clone a human outside a womb...
This may be true for any mammals but I'm unsure...
So if a human was cloned with the abilities of today...
The answer is yes...They would have a belly button...
And thanks for introducing this because their belly buttons would also be unique to them...

a reply to: 5StarOracle

Only because a human chooses where to cut and clamp the cord.

a reply to: Phage

And don't forget the healing process...

a reply to: 5StarOracle

Indeed.

Environmental influences cannot be ignored.

a reply to: Phage

This is where the biggest differences would be especially in humans and concearning their behaviors intelligence beliefs etc...
Every one of them would be unique in these ways...

a reply to: 5StarOracle

Yeah.
But genetically identical. 100%.

...

(pointless ellipses)

originally posted by: 5StarOracle
a reply to: Ruiner1978

I do not believe it is yet possible to clone a human outside a womb...
This may be true for any mammals but I'm unsure...
So if a human was cloned with the abilities of today...
The answer is yes...They would have a belly button...
And thanks for introducing this because their belly buttons would also be unique to them...

Cloning humans is impossible, full stop.
According to Dragonridr in another thread we don't have the computing power to map the human body.

originally posted by: Phage
a reply to: 5StarOracle

Only because a human chooses where to cut and clamp the cord.

It's great we have Cloning experts as well as computer wizards on this site.

Another question for you.
If you spell clone with a K, will the clone come out with a cooler haircut or something like that?

originally posted by: Ruiner1978

originally posted by: 5StarOracle
a reply to: Ruiner1978

I do not believe it is yet possible to clone a human outside a womb...
This may be true for any mammals but I'm unsure...
So if a human was cloned with the abilities of today...
The answer is yes...They would have a belly button...
And thanks for introducing this because their belly buttons would also be unique to them...

Cloning humans is impossible, full stop.
According to Dragonridr in another thread we don't have the computing power to map the human body.

What does mapping the human body to do with cloning? I dont think you know what cloning is. Scientists have cloned a variety of animals, including mice, sheep, pigs, cows and dogs. In 2006, scientists cloned the first primate embryos of a rhesus monkey. Then, in early 2­008, the FDA officially deemed milk and meat products from cloned animals and their offspring safe to eat. Then after that pigs and cows were cloned no coincident there right? Now supposedly no human has been cloned but im not that trusting. Is scientists will do head transplants in china it wouldnt surprise me if they hadnt cloned someone.

By the way telling where each atom is in the human body isnt required for cloning. Your confusing cloning and replicating.

originally posted by: Ruiner1978

originally posted by: 5StarOracle
a reply to: Ruiner1978

I do not believe it is yet possible to clone a human outside a womb...
This may be true for any mammals but I'm unsure...
So if a human was cloned with the abilities of today...
The answer is yes...They would have a belly button...
And thanks for introducing this because their belly buttons would also be unique to them...

Cloning humans is impossible, full stop.
According to Dragonridr in another thread we don't have the computing power to map the human body.

You don't need a map of the human genome to be able to clone. here is a very (very) basic description of the cloning process. Cloning is harder than this, but the basic concept is as follows:

Cloning is done by taking the physical genetic material out of a cell of one fully-developed organism (let's call it organism A) and put that genetic material into an egg cell (such as a mammalian egg from an ovary) of a female donor (organism B) from which the egg's genetic material has been removed.

So now you have an egg from the female organism B that contains only genetic material from organism A. The egg is stimulated in such a way that causes the cells to multiply and become an embryo (although that's a tricky part), and that embryo -- which is an exact genetic copy of organism A...i.e., a clone -- is transplanted back into organism B, at which point female organism B gestates it in its womb and eventually gives birth to it.

The animal that is born is an genetic copy (a clone) of organism A and has no genetic material at all from the mother who birthed it (organism B).

So there is no need to map out the animal's entire genome to be able to clone it.

a reply to: 5StarOracle

If that's your criteria, then you must include all other organisms on this planet because they are unique as well - no two are exactly the same. So that again says that we have a common ancestor. The process is the same. Thanks for reinforcing evolutionary biology.

originally posted by: dragonridr

originally posted by: Ruiner1978

originally posted by: 5StarOracle
a reply to: Ruiner1978

I do not believe it is yet possible to clone a human outside a womb...
This may be true for any mammals but I'm unsure...
So if a human was cloned with the abilities of today...
The answer is yes...They would have a belly button...
And thanks for introducing this because their belly buttons would also be unique to them...

Cloning humans is impossible, full stop.
According to Dragonridr in another thread we don't have the computing power to map the human body.

What does mapping the human body to do with cloning? I dont think you know what cloning is. Scientists have cloned a variety of animals, including mice, sheep, pigs, cows and dogs. In 2006, scientists cloned the first primate embryos of a rhesus monkey. Then, in early 2­008, the FDA officially deemed milk and meat products from cloned animals and their offspring safe to eat. Then after that pigs and cows were cloned no coincident there right? Now supposedly no human has been cloned but im not that trusting. Is scientists will do head transplants in china it wouldnt surprise me if they hadnt cloned someone.

Firstly, I'm glad you mentioned milk.
I have an issue with milk, well, not milk per se, more people's attitude towards it.
I don't want to derail this thread, so I will start a new thread on it soon. If you're adamant to discuss milk issues, you are invited.

Secondly, I don't know what mapping the human body has to do with cloning. This is your field, not mine. I work in Biotechnology, not cloning.
You mentioned mapping the human body in the other thread. If you didn't make clear the distinction between simulation, model, super model, replicant, clone or vise-versa, then that's on you, not me.

Thirdly, are you suggesting that the Chinese are cloning themselves and that's why they have such a large population?
That's quite the claim, where's your proof?

And fourthly,

originally posted by: Soylent Green Is People

originally posted by: Ruiner1978

originally posted by: 5StarOracle
a reply to: Ruiner1978

I do not believe it is yet possible to clone a human outside a womb...
This may be true for any mammals but I'm unsure...
So if a human was cloned with the abilities of today...
The answer is yes...They would have a belly button...
And thanks for introducing this because their belly buttons would also be unique to them...

Cloning humans is impossible, full stop.
According to Dragonridr in another thread we don't have the computing power to map the human body.

You don't need a map of the human genome to be able to clone. here is a very (very) basic description of the cloning process. Cloning is harder than this, but the basic concept is as follows:

Cloning is done by taking the physical genetic material out of a cell of one fully-developed organism (let's call it organism A) and put that genetic material into an egg cell (such as a mammalian egg from an ovary) of a female donor (organism B) from which the egg's genetic material has been removed.

So now you have an egg from the female organism B that contains only genetic material from organism A. The egg is stimulated in such a way that causes the cells to multiply and become an embryo (although that's a tricky part), and that embryo -- which is an exact genetic copy of organism A...i.e., a clone -- is transplanted back into organism B, at which point female organism B gestates it in its womb and eventually gives birth to it.

The animal that is born is an genetic copy (a clone) of organism A and has no genetic material at all from the mother who birthed it (organism B).

So there is no need to map out the animal's entire genome to be able to clone it.

Thank you for the concise info.

One thing though. I was under the impression that genomes didn't actually exist. Are you sure you have that right? Because that part seems a bit outlandish to me...

originally posted by: galadofwarthethird
a reply to: cyberjedi
Intelligent design vs Random design. Evolution can be more then random design you know, and there can be such a thing as complex randomness.

But ain't if funny when the sum of the whole, in all its parts and functions are more complex then the function of the whole itself. And so a woodpecker was created to peck wood, while the sum of all its parts from genes up, well you would need a few supercomputers to run that code for that machinery, none of which I think we have in existence today, and all created just to peck some wood.

And all, just to make something that pecks wood, eats and #s, and rinse and repeat the next day. Its like using the most complex algorithm and computers in the world, as a hammer, and all just to nail in some boards together. Its like having the worlds most complicated and expensive paperweight. Funny no? Life is funny like that.

Interesting. Another great reason to agree with evolution over creationism. I haven't actually thought about it that way before. Good post!

originally posted by: galadofwarthethird
a reply to: cyberjedi
Intelligent design vs Random design. Evolution can be more then random design you know, and there can be such a thing as complex randomness.

But ain't if funny when the sum of the whole, in all its parts and functions are more complex then the function of the whole itself. And so a woodpecker was created to peck wood, while the sum of all its parts from genes up, well you would need a few supercomputers to run that code for that machinery, none of which I think we have in existence today, and all created just to peck some wood.

And all, just to make something that pecks wood, eats and #s, and rinse and repeat the next day. Its like using the most complex algorithm and computers in the world, as a hammer, and all just to nail in some boards together. Its like having the worlds most complicated and expensive paperweight. Funny no? Life is funny like that.

I like your point of view!

a reply to: cyberjedi

This Woodpecker can only operate and survive with its unique features that it has, it cannot survive without them.

Unsubstantiated statement. Woodpeckers have been known to eat fruits, eggs, small animals and other types of food. en.wikipedia.org...

Nature is more flexible than you think.

The concept is considered to be mostly bollocks when applied to evolution because it fails to take into account numerous other pathways that a particular ability can evolve through — it assumes that evolution must go through "additive" processes to achieve its conclusion and this isn't the case. Most evolutionary biologists do not consider it science by any stretch of the imagination because the idea relies on personal incredulity and unwarranted assumptions.

rationalwiki.org...