The Woolly Mammoth: Coming Soon to a Zoo Near You?

[Blackmarch]

...

And another question - will it be murder for a religious bigot to murder a human that they do not believe was created by G-d?

The Traveler

well until the laws of the land change, yes it will.

[annewandering]

I would like to see all the "precursors" to man recreated.

[Traveler]

well until the laws of the land change, yes it will.

Are you sure - currently the laws allowing abortion do so because of the "uncertainty" of when a embryo becomes human life and what in reality constitutes human life. This could be quite a difficult legal matter.

The Traveler

[annewandering]

Are you sure - currently the laws allowing abortion do so because of the "uncertainty" of when a embryo becomes human life and what in reality constitutes human life. This could be quite a difficult legal matter.

The Traveler

We already accept that babies conceived invitro are human beings with all rights. Why would this be different?

[Guest]

Are you sure - currently the laws allowing abortion do so because of the "uncertainty" of when a embryo becomes human life and what in reality constitutes human life. This could be quite a difficult legal matter.

The Traveler

You don't have to believe in God to consider something as human. So God doesn't have to come into the discussion.

But yes, there will have to be a discussion on whether human DNA injected into non-human egg is still considered human.

Just like, there is still quite a big discussion on whether the X-men count for human... :)

[annewandering]

The non human egg is really just the shell so it is not involved, in a genetic sense, in what being is conceived.

If the human was surrogatted with a gorilla it would still have no genetic connection to that gorilla. If its human

DNA then its human so what is the debate?

[Vort]

The non human egg is really just the shell so it is not involved, in a genetic sense, in what being is conceived.

If the human was surrogatted with a gorilla it would still have no genetic connection to that gorilla. If its human

DNA then its human so what is the debate?

The mitochondria would come from the host egg, and of course the mitochondrial DNA. Since the arrangement of the mitochondria in the ovum initially drives the development of the embryo, the host egg could potentially have a large impact on the morphology of the individual. And if the cloned individual is a female, she will perpetuate the host mitochondrial DNA throughout her progeny.

[annewandering]

The mitochondria would come from the host egg, and of course the mitochondrial DNA. Since the arrangement of the mitochondria in the ovum initially drives the development of the embryo, the host egg could potentially have a large impact on the morphology of the individual. And if the cloned individual is a female, she will perpetuate the host mitochondrial DNA throughout her progeny.

It is my understanding that in this kind of cloning none of the DNA comes from the host egg. It is stripped from the egg before implanting.

[Vort]

It is my understanding that in this kind of cloning none of the DNA comes from the host egg. It is stripped from the egg before implanting.

Yes, that's nuclear DNA, which is what is generally meant when "DNA" is mentioned. But the mitochondria in the cell have their own DNA, separate from the nuclear DNA. The ovum holds all the mitochondria that will end up reproducing and populating the new individual.

This fact is used to advantage in many genetic studies. It is known that only mothers pass on mitochondrial DNA, so this DNA can be used to trace maternity among different peoples.

[annewandering]

Interspecies Implantation and Mitochondria Fate of Panda-Rabbit Cloned Embryos

I found this article to be quite interesting. Admittedly I do not understand it completely nevertheless it answered some questions, even some not asked.

Most pertinent was that the mitochodria of the donated material was discarded and replaced by the surrogate mitochodria. Unless that can be prevented, serious problems would seem to be inevitable.

[Vort]

Interspecies Implantation and Mitochondria Fate of Panda-Rabbit Cloned Embryos

I found this article to be quite interesting. Admittedly I do not understand it completely nevertheless it answered some questions, even some not asked.

Most pertinent was that the mitochodria of the donated material was discarded and replaced by the surrogate mitochodria. Unless that can be prevented, serious problems would seem to be inevitable.

This is almost incredible. I have never heard anything like this before. If I understand this correctly, it is saying that panda nuclei inserted into rabbit oocytes and developing into embryos shows almost all panda mitochondria, not rabbit!

[...] In the process of somatic nuclear transfer, mitochondria of donor somatic cells, together with the nucleus, are transferred to the recipient oocyte. Thus, the cloned embryo should harbor mitochondria from both the donor cell and the recipient oocyte. In intraspecies cloned animals, mitochondria are derived primarily from recipient oocytes [20, 21, 23–25], and mitochondria from donor cells appeared to be rapidly eliminated during the first few mitotic divisions and were hardly detectable by the blastocyst stage [23–27]. Only in some cases do mitochondria from both donor cells and recipient oocytes coexist [20, 21, 28]. In genetically close interspecies cloned animals, such as the gaur and mouflon [6, 8, 29], mitochondria were also exclusively derived from recipient oocytes. However, our results suggested a possible different pattern of mitochondrial transformation in interspecies cloning. The mitochondria from donor panda cells and those from recipient rabbit oocytes coexist in embryos before implantation, whereas mitochondria from donor panda cells remain detectable and mitochondria from the recipient rabbit oocytes are eliminated after implantation. A possible interpretation of this result is that pandas and rabbits are genetically further correlated, and nuclei from giant panda donor cells support biogenesis of mitochondria from panda cells, but they do not support those from rabbit oocytes.

Great article, anne. Thanks.

[annewandering]

hmmmm I am reading it both ways. lol now my head does hurt!!! Or maybe it was their head hurting?

Edited March 19, 2012 by annewandering

[Traveler]

You don't have to believe in God to consider something as human. So God doesn't have to come into the discussion.

But yes, there will have to be a discussion on whether human DNA injected into non-human egg is still considered human.

Just like, there is still quite a big discussion on whether the X-men count for human... :)

I do not know of any considerations by the Supreme Court directed by X-men but according to Roe vs Wade DNA is not the deciding factor in determining if a life is human life or not - at least not during the first trimester???? But if a "human" was ever cloned in another life form - the legal ramification would be most interesting - but I am glad that you solved the moral issue so easily.

The Traveler

[Traveler]

The non human egg is really just the shell so it is not involved, in a genetic sense, in what being is conceived.

If the human was surrogatted with a gorilla it would still have no genetic connection to that gorilla. If its human

DNA then its human so what is the debate?

The Supreme Cort has already ruled that a life form with 100% human DNA is not human life as an embryo or fetus. Part of the problem is that human life is not well defined.

The Traveler

[Guest]

I do not know of any considerations by the Supreme Court directed by X-men but according to Roe vs Wade DNA is not the deciding factor in determining if a life is human life or not - at least not during the first trimester???? But if a "human" was ever cloned in another life form - the legal ramification would be most interesting - but I am glad that you solved the moral issue so easily.

The Traveler

Well, that's not quite correct, Traveler. There is NO question - Roe vs. Wade considering - whether a human embryo during the first trimester is considered human. Of course, it is human. But, just because it is human doesn't mean it has a right to life in the eyes of the law. Just like a human who committed a heinous act is, of course, still human, but lost his right to life so it's okay to kill him. Just like a human who is in a vegetative state is, of course, still human, but it's okay to kill him. An enemy combatant is human and can be killed. A baby in its first trimester is, of course, human, but, he is considered on the same degree as a parasite so it's okay to kill him.

Now, a human clone... first, the powers that be will have to classify him as human... and after that, they will have to determine if he ethically has a right to life that trumps the will of whoever has responsibility over him. I can definitely see the possibility that a human clone is subject to the scientist that cloned him and that same scientist could potentially choose to end his life under scientific reasoning - like, hey maybe that clone was only grown so they can harvest his organs or something...

So yes, the legal discussion on this would be most interesting - if, the law would ever approve of human cloning in the first place.

Edited March 20, 2012 by anatess

[Traveler]

Well, that's not quite correct, Traveler. There is NO question - Roe vs. Wade considering - whether a human embryo during the first trimester is considered human. Of course, it is human. But, just because it is human doesn't mean it has a right to life in the eyes of the law. Just like a human who committed a heinous act is, of course, still human, but lost his right to life so it's okay to kill him. Just like a human who is in a vegetative state is, of course, still human, but it's okay to kill him. An enemy combatant is human and can be killed. A baby in its first trimester is, of course, human, but, he is considered on the same degree as a parasite so it's okay to kill him.

Now, a human clone... first, the powers that be will have to classify him as human... and after that, they will have to determine if he ethically has a right to life that trumps the will of whoever has responsibility over him. I can definitely see the possibility that a human clone is subject to the scientist that cloned him and that same scientist could potentially choose to end his life under scientific reasoning - like, hey maybe that clone was only grown so they can harvest his organs or something...

So yes, the legal discussion on this would be most interesting - if, the law would ever approve of human cloning in the first place.

I do not think you quite understand. The right of humans - even those who commit a heinous act have the right of due process - the same for a human in a coma. There are "things" to be considered - and in the case of the coma individual we cannot take their life directly but can remove life support. There is no consideration given to the innocent unborn human child.

But what worries me most - is that mother that has somehow become convinced that for whatever reason, she and the universe, will be better off if she kill that life form that most resembles her more than any other life form in the entire universe.

The Traveler