Embyonic stem cell research

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SnnY

Are they really clones, by definition, when they've developed simultaneously, rather than had their genetic material harvested from a grown, or at least older individual, albeit that they both initially came from the same cell?

---

Yup they are really clones, there are a few definitions of what a clone is. One of them fits identical twins.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ilw

top answer on google was:

Quote:

---

Bailey and Pillard recruited 110 pairs of male twins, half identical, half fraternal. In each case, they knew that one twin was gay. They then sent a questionnaire to the other brother in each pair, to determine his sexual orientation. Among the identical twins, 52 percent of the brothers were gay. Among the fraternals, the number was 22 percent, high enough above the background population rate to suggest that there was something distinctive in those families. The researchers found a very similar pattern with lesbians.

52% of identical (monozygotic) twins of homosexual men were likewise homosexual
22% of fraternal (dizygotic) twins were likewise homosexual
11% of adoptive brothers of homosexual men were likewise homosexual

J.M. Bailey and R.C. Pillard, “A genetic study of male sexual orientation,” Archives of General Psychiatry, vol. 48:1089-1096, December 1991.
Bailey and Pillard (1993): occurrence of homosexuality among sisters
48% of identical (monozygotic) twins of homosexual women were likewise homosexual (lesbian)
16% of fraternal (dizygotic) twins were likewise homosexual
6% of adoptive sisters of homosexual women were likewise homosexual

Bailey, J. M. and D. S. Benishay (1993), “Familial Aggregation of Female Sexual Orientation,” American Journal of Psychiatry 150(2): 272-277.

---

Other studies found lower correlations, but the same pattern & conclusions, i.e. closest correlation for homosexuality in siblings goes: identical twin then fraternal twin then non twin.


Edit: Snny, identical twins are clones ^_^ just not manmade ones

---

Thanks for that. So it would appear that there may be a genetic element in homosexuality, which then may be effected by environment, then personal choice decides whether a person acts out their desires. See that makes sense.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Busyman

My point is that neither is something you born with nor choose.

---

If you meant

Quote:

---

So it would appear that there may be a genetic element in homosexuality, which then may be effected by environment, then personal choice decides whether a person acts out their desires. See that makes sense.

---

then I'd agree, though that doesn't excuse your intentional shock statement. But compared with limesqueezer you're a bloody saint.

/still drunk
//also Farking

:shuriken:

This thread is getting filled with illogical statements based on something that someone that is fat or gay said or prooven for his type of people in usa. This thread is ignoring almost everything logical anybody before that said and becoming something what you can call a thread where fat or gay people are trying to justify themself. And besides that its way off-topic.

Is embryonic stem cell research ethical ?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by limesqueezer

This thread is getting filled with illogical statements based on something that someone that is fat or gay said or prooven for his type of people in usa. This thread is ignoring almost everything logical anybody before that said and becoming something what you can call a thread where fat or gay people are trying to justify themself. And besides that its way off-topic.

Is embryonic stem cell research ethical ?

---

You need to read about different body types then. How is it that there are fathers then sons lacking in fat but eat lots of food and don't exercise? You think they both just take in bread and water?

Also stop equating obesity to gayetty. Gayetty involves a person's feelings. Obesity doesn't.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MagicNakor

If you meant

Quote:

---

So it would appear that there may be a genetic element in homosexuality, which then may be effected by environment, then personal choice decides whether a person acts out their desires. See that makes sense.

---

then I'd agree, though that doesn't excuse your intentional shock statement. But compared with limesqueezer you're a bloody saint.

/still drunk
//also Farking

:shuriken:

---

No I don't believe there is a genetic element in what in particular a person likes sexually.

Is a fetish genetic?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Busyman

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MagicNakor

If you meant



then I'd agree, though that doesn't excuse your intentional shock statement. But compared with limesqueezer you're a bloody saint.

/still drunk
//also Farking

:shuriken:

---

No I don't believe there is a genetic element in what in particular a person likes sexually.

Is a fetish genetic?

---

How can you extol the virtues of using logic, whilst at the same time totally ignore it yourself. Logic and indeed scientific method dictates that one observes, records and concludes. One does so without pre-conceptions.

Your method would appear to be, decide what I want to believe then totally ignore anything which contradicts it.

There is no excuse for it, only mitigation. Mitigation would be things like a, he's 14 or b, he's quite dense or c, he's a bigot and has no interest in looking at the evidence.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 3RA1N1AC

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

Interesting that the same scientists who see a genetic predisposition to homosexuality insist that pedophiles can be rehabilitated.

BTW-It should be noted that this is the same scientific community that insists that global warming is a man-made phenomena.

---

wait

WHAT

how many scientific communities are there?

---

I speak here of that part of the scientific community which pursues exclusively American funding in order to study nonsensical issues like who (rather than what) is to blame for global warming.

You seriously think there is only one?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MagicNakor

Did you seriously compare homosexuality to pedophila?

And I don't recall ever waking up one day and thinking "Hmm, I think today I'll be gay/straight."

:shuriken:

---

Good Lord. :rolleyes:

I meant that the same group that insists (with the certainty of those who worship exclusively at the altar of science) that homosexuality is a genetic predisposition do not conclude similarly about pedophiles; like this:

THESE are homosexuals, and are to be left to their lifestyle for they cannot change...

However-

THOSE are pedophiles, and can be rehabilitated.

See the difference?

I find this curious, and if no one else does, I wonder why?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 3RA1N1AC

wait

WHAT

how many scientific communities are there?

---

I speak here of that part of the scientific community which pursues exclusively American funding in order to study nonsensical issues like who (rather than what) is to blame for global warming.

You seriously think there is only one?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MagicNakor

Did you seriously compare homosexuality to pedophila?

And I don't recall ever waking up one day and thinking "Hmm, I think today I'll be gay/straight."

:shuriken:

---

Good Lord. :rolleyes:

I meant that the same group that insists (with the certainty of those who worship exclusively at the altar of science) that homosexuality is a genetic predisposition do not conclude similarly about pedophiles; like this:

THESE are homosexuals, and are to be left to their lifestyle for they cannot change...

However-

THOSE are pedophiles, and can be rehabilitated.

See the difference?

I find this curious, and if no one else does, I wonder why?

---

Bingo.

Pedophiliacks (by their very nature) have victims, homosexuals (on the surface)don't and that's why there will always be a separation in folk's minds science-wise.

Homosexuals say they can't help being homosexual. Pedophiles say the same. Even when threatened with jail time, etc.

Since everyone seems to boil everyone down to these two choices:

Born with it
Choose it

What say of pedophiles? Are they born pedos, or did they wake up one day and decide to be sexually attracted to kids.

I say it's neither. I'm not talking action. To act on what one feels is a choice.

What you feel is what you feel whether you act on it or not.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Busyman

Since everyone seems to boil everyone down to these two choices:

Born with it
Choose it

---

By everyone I assume you mean Busyman.

Soo from now on everything is in genes you try to convince me, all is faith, nothing i choose.

Ok let me tell you what all you ignored:

Fat people can lose weight and thats enough of prove that it ain't genetical - Who is born with 200 kg ? Who stays fat when not eating ? (If you are born blind or you are born with one arm less, thats what ain't your faul)

You can't be gay from birth if you have women and another month men or you don't know. - They can't choose what they want soo how can it be from birth(what means it ain't in genes)

A child doesn't even know what sex is until he sees it in some magazine or on tv or parents tell him. - no he doesn't know, i didn't know what sex is.

Even the most popular gays like Freddie Mercury & George Michael had women. - you ignored this one also

Lets make bestiality, pedofilia, shoe licking, scat eating and all other fetishes also genetical than. - The only thing that is in genes is man+woman=baby
Im not religious but even in bible you have it written, there ain't no adam & adam

Who told women or men to dress like they do, parents did, tradition, trends and not genes. - Why do gays dress like women if they like only men ? Why
some gays dress like a women and some like a man in gay relationship if they don't like women ?

Try to give your baby away to some animals and you will see it behave like an animal. - such people can't talk human, don't dress like homos, don't act like homos and don't eat scat, don't lick shoes and don't like little children but maybe they are little bestiality. Why do you think that is ?

Another question: How can they test who is gay and who isn't, what kind of test is that ?

Another question: What are those genes that tell you are gay, can i see a example ? (Cause if we want to clone humans we need to know that)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SnnY

Are they really clones, by definition, when they've developed simultaneously, rather than had their genetic material harvested from a grown, or at least older individual, albeit that they both initially came from the same cell?

---

i think they are clones at least according to the definitions i've seen on dictionary.com. It really just comes down to a difference in technique, since the result is effectively the same

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by limesqueezer

Another question: What are those genes that tell you are gay, can i see a example ? (Cause if we want to clone humans we need to know that)

---

why do we need to know?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ilw

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by limesqueezer

Another question: What are those genes that tell you are gay, can i see a example ? (Cause if we want to clone humans we need to know that)

---

why do we need to know?

---

Let's just not feed the monkeys.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SnnY

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ilw

why do we need to know?

---

Let's just not feed the monkeys.

---

:lol:

Good point, well presented.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by limesqueezer

Soo from now on everything is in genes you try to convince me, all is faith, nothing i choose.

Ok let me tell you what all you ignored:

Fat people can lose weight and thats enough of prove that it ain't genetical - Who is born with 200 kg ? Who stays fat when not eating ? (If you are born blind or you are born with one arm less, thats what ain't your faul)

---

You are looking at it all wrong and illogical. I didn't say all fat people are genetically fat.

People metabolize foods at different rates even with similar exercise schedules.

There's a skinny fella in my crew. He can eat as much as me and not get bigger.

Saying a fat person can lose weight does not prove your point. I can be born with 11 fingers and then have one removed. Wasn't genetics surely involved in determining the number of fingers I was born with?:ermm:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Busyman™

I can be born with 11 fingers and then have one removed. Wasn't genetics surely involved in determining the number of fingers I was born with?:ermm:

---

Yeah but if you grow an extra finger that's environmental conditioning.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Agrajag

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Busyman™

I can be born with 11 fingers and then have one removed. Wasn't genetics surely involved in determining the number of fingers I was born with?:ermm:

---

Yeah but if you grow an extra finger that's environmental conditioning.

---

I just realized you can lose your middle finger by growing an extra one.

Weird, huh? :huh:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Agrajag

Yeah but if you grow an extra finger that's environmental conditioning.

---

I just realized you can lose your middle finger by growing an extra one.

Weird, huh? :huh:

---

I like to think of it more as gaining an extra middle finger, but I'm a glass half full sort of guy.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Agrajag

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by j2k4

I just realized you can lose your middle finger by growing an extra one.

Weird, huh? :huh:

---

I like to think of it more as gaining an extra middle finger, but I'm a glass half full sort of guy.

---

Nah, it's too confusatory.

Instead of "fuck-off" you're making a peace sign, and the glass is overfull by twice, but somehow not spilling.

It defies physical law.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SnnY

One could argue that sexuality might be fluid, and that no one is 100% straight or gay, genetically or hormonally. Sexuality might be more like a spectrum of preferences where each of us prioritize different features in others.

If so, hetero-/and homosexuality might be part choice (conscious or unconcious), and in part dictated by what is more and less accepted/taboo in our own societies.

---

Very eloquently put SnnY. People usually look at me like I've just landed from Mars when I express this view but to me it is blindingly obvious that that is the way it is, in fact I'd even go so far as to say that all of our preferences cultural and I'd argue nurture over nature every time.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by brenda

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by SnnY

One could argue that sexuality might be fluid, and that no one is 100% straight or gay, genetically or hormonally. Sexuality might be more like a spectrum of preferences where each of us prioritize different features in others.

If so, hetero-/and homosexuality might be part choice (conscious or unconcious), and in part dictated by what is more and less accepted/taboo in our own societies.

---

Very eloquently put SnnY. People usually look at me like I've just landed from Mars when I express this view but to me it is blindingly obvious that that is the way it is, in fact I'd even go so far as to say that all of our preferences cultural and I'd argue nurture over nature every time.

---

I would agree also.

Nevertheless, I'm sure the scientific community will not be impressed.

err... which bit would they object to, sounds more like the kind of stuff that religious people are not impressed by (e.g. kinsey type stuff)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ilw

err... which bit would they object to, sounds more like the kind of stuff that religious people are not impressed by (e.g. kinsey type stuff)

---

Well the science community would object cos it goes against popular theories.

I remember being alone in the assumption that it is neither genetic nor or a choice before. Now folks are coming around.:whistling

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ilw

err... which bit would they object to, sounds more like the kind of stuff that religious people are not impressed by (e.g. kinsey type stuff)

---

It seems to me the scientific types are sold on the idea of genetic predisposition, which the above-stated view is most assuredly not.

Hmm I interpreted it slightly differently, but i can see your point

Snny if you read this, any chance you could say if you believe there is an element of predisposition for sexual preference? (just out of interest)

J2 just to clarify, do you believe that no part of your sexual preference is determined by instincts hard wired into your genes? I mean at the most extreme level, i.e. even a preference for your own species...

Does this belief extend to other creatures, i.e. in non-social creatures there are still clear sexual signs (peacocks fanning their feathers) is none of the arousal or courtship there influenced by genes?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ilw

Hmm I interpreted it slightly differently, but i can see your point

Snny if you read this, any chance you could say if you believe there is an element of predisposition for sexual preference? (just out of interest)

J2 just to clarify, do you believe that no part of your sexual preference is determined by instincts hard wired into your genes? I mean at the most extreme level, i.e. even a preference for your own species...

Does this belief extend to other creatures, i.e. in non-social creatures there are still clear sexual signs (peacocks fanning their feathers) is none of the arousal or courtship there influenced by genes?

---

First, while I do not deign to lump humans in with the rest of the animal kingdom, it must be said that there is much more in common between the two than many would believe.

While I have heard and seen many incidences of "homosexual" behavior in the wild (and in the "tame" :P ), I have no recollection of ever hearing of any animal-that is to say, apart from humans-exhibiting exclusively "homosexual" tendencies.

Now comes the the gay community saying that they are "hard-wired" as homosexuals, and, sure enough, scientific "evidence" to that effect emerges shortly thereafter.

Can I dispute this theory?

No...I am not a scientist.

While my personal inclination is to denounce such conclusions as bullshit, I have made my peace with the fact of homosexuality, and while I am disposed to judge anyone over anything if the urge strikes me, I'll leave that particular issue to the hereafter.

I consider myself tolerant and I do not proselytize.

In any case, I'll have all the fun I can with the goofy "logic" employed by those who make the claim in one case, but not in the other.

A few innocently asked questions is all if takes, you see. :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ilw

Hmm I interpreted it slightly differently, but i can see your point

Snny if you read this, any chance you could say if you believe there is an element of predisposition for sexual preference? (just out of interest)

---

Really tired so I'm rambling a little (trying to explain how I see things), but here goes...

I think I originally picked up the notion of fluid sexuality in something Asimov, or maybe Arthur C. Clarke wrote. And it seem to make more and more sense to me the older I get, going by how I actually see people behave :dabs:

In that "spectrum of preferences" I referred to, I assume that such features as are gender-specific would have a place.
But it seems that such features are getting less and less distinct from other, non-gender specific qualities in prospective partners, the more elaborate the organism, as sex becomes less and less about just carrying on ones lineage. If that makes sense.

In insects, procreation is everything, in birds, like your peacocks, I believe it's about the same :unsure: So they would go for those features as are specific to the other gender. But looking at even "higher" life forms, sex is more and more becoming something other than just a means to further ones genes.
In primates it can be a method of establishing rank or tribal solidarity, or just a means for recreation, looking at chimpanzees.

And us humans, well, sex seems to be recreation more than anything, these days.

And while there probably are gender-specific factors we consider, again consciously or subconsciously, they are just part of what we look for. People most certainly prioritize differently when it comes to what they like in a partner.

What determines the "choices" we make, I can't say for certain. Something in our genes may certainly be calling, urging us to seek someone we can create the best possible offspring with. But who is to say that someone cannot possess a whole lot of the qualities wanted, except for that wee problem with them having the wrong set of genitalia?

It seems unlikely, I think, that there would be someone who only seeks qualities that are specific to one gender. And, in my thinking the nature of a creature's sexuality is determined by the function that entity's sexuality fulfills.


I do consider myself heterosexual, btw, but I honestly think that is much more nurture than nature.

Indeed we humans are the only species that is having sex all year long and not thinking about anything else most of the time than to have some pleasure. Most of humans in specific cultures are looking for a partner that has some qualities that tv makes us belive that are needed. When you listening to everything some may say that is sexy you might end up loving clothes; the birth of fetish. I like the way how japanese people think, the type of blood decides most of things there.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tracydani3

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gamer4eva

But the fact that life is brought is hard to imagine....i mean i would believe that its not just as simple as assembling the bodily parts together......if so you could chop parts of each human and stick em together with super glue but...it is impossible. Also the clone would not be concious and it would lack the ability to think. I think no sorry i know that if cloning is possible then bringing back the dead would mean the same. You could take the cells of the dying person and bring him back. But no tis all impossible.:lol: :lol: :lol:

---

Ahh.. I understand what you are saying now.

I don't believe the idea is to clone a bunch of body parts and put them together into one person. If that was the case, I would tend to agree with you.

As far as I understand it, there are 2 possibilities.

1- Clone an entire person all in one shot from the cells of one person.

2- Clone parts of a person to graft back on to them or another person or to grow materials in a person to fix parts that are wrecked.

I suppose another idea is to clone a whole persons body and put the original persons brain into it, but I think that will be a ways away:D

---

What they doing isn't really cloning, they are just injecting dna into core of cell. Not even twins are the same, but they are in the same matrix and that makes them similar when they get born, later on they go their way. While if you wanted to make a fotocopy of a human, that human wouldn't be the same person. It is only possible if he gets born again but than he dies and his dna is used to make a copy of him and that clone doesn't know he exsisted before, it is without meaning. Nobody can clone a grown human adult with his knowledge in his brain, cause if they wanted to do that they need to know first how cells split themself and than they would need to know how brain works. And later on you could ask yourself how to clone your memory and if you would be the same with no memories of anything you did before. Cause cloning isn't like transfering data to another disk. Your brain gets old and memories of your brain will never be possible to clone, you can have all replaced, but you will die because of your brain gets old. Cloning doesn't exsist and will never fully exsist, the only thing that exsist is injecting skin into cells and that what we call cloning these days. Nobody cloned anything that has a shape of grown human.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by limesqueezer

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tracydani3

Ahh.. I understand what you are saying now.

I don't believe the idea is to clone a bunch of body parts and put them together into one person. If that was the case, I would tend to agree with you.

As far as I understand it, there are 2 possibilities.

1- Clone an entire person all in one shot from the cells of one person.

2- Clone parts of a person to graft back on to them or another person or to grow materials in a person to fix parts that are wrecked.

I suppose another idea is to clone a whole persons body and put the original persons brain into it, but I think that will be a ways away:D

---

What they doing isn't really cloning, they are just injecting dna into core of cell. Not even twins are the same, but they are in the same matrix and that makes them similar when they get born, later on they go their way. While if you wanted to make a fotocopy of a human, that human wouldn't be the same person. It is only possible if he gets born again but than he dies and his dna is used to make a copy of him and that clone doesn't know he exsisted before, it is without meaning. Nobody can clone a grown human adult with his knowledge in his brain, cause if they wanted to do that they need to know first how cells split themself and than they would need to know how brain works. And later on you could ask yourself how to clone your memory and if you would be the same with no memories of anything you did before. Cause cloning isn't like transfering data to another disk. Your brain gets old and memories of your brain will never be possible to clone, you can have all replaced, but you will die because of your brain gets old. Cloning doesn't exsist and will never fully exsist, the only thing that exsist is injecting skin into cells and that what we call cloning these days. Nobody cloned anything that has a shape of grown human.

---

I'll tell you what cloning is shall I, because you seem to be failing to grasp the simple concept.

Cloning, by definition, is the creation of a genetically identical organism to another. How you do it, is irrelevent.

Identical twins are clones, because genetically, they have the same DNA.

You're talking about a special type of cloning which is popular in science-fiction, where a full-grown human is created almost instantaneously from the cells of another. Using current technologies, this is well beyond our capabilities, but this may not always be the case.

You're also talking about the transference of intelligence from one brain to another. Again, current knowledge of how the brain works means that this is not possible, but with a bit of effort, starting off with some very simple cases, I can see this happening in the future also.

For some brains this could be easier than others. ;)

I have never seen a twin that dressed the same like his twin, they don't even weight the same, they are similar, they are the same maybe only while in same egg in same mother. For example when you clone and take another mother its different enviorement in mother, it developes different altrough with same dna of someone that died, soo that you understand. ;)
We know that you can inject dna into cell but we don't know how the process work, we don't know absolutly nothing about how brain works, they arn't even sure where is the brain for speach if that even exsist. What scientists are doing now is not grown human cloning, don't mix that with embyonic stem cell research.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by limesqueezer

I have never seen a twin that dressed the same like his twin, they don't even weight the same, they are similar, they are the same maybe only while in same egg in same mother. For example when you clone and take another mother its different enviorement in mother, it developes different altrough with same dna of someone that died, soo that you understand. ;)
We know that you can inject dna into cell but we don't know how the process work, we don't know absolutly nothing about how brain works, they arn't even sure where is the brain for speach if that even exsist. What scientists are doing now is not grown human cloning, don't mix that with embyonic stem cell research.

---

Twins are not even exactly the same in the womb.:ermm:

Identical twins arn't really identical, like clones arn't machines, some may think its like in movies, when they all act and behave the same, for now its just experimenting with cells that they don't even understand fully. Some things will forever be Sci-fi and some will change a bit but not like in games. It will never be like printing a full-grown human like a papper soo you could live forever.
I would like to see my memories stored on disk, soo i could use them for a new body. :D :D

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by limesqueezer

I would like to see my memories stored on disk, soo i could use them for a new body. :D :D

---

http://img209.imageshack.us/img209/1...ppydiskak0.jpg

This should do the job for you, with room to spare :smilie4:

http://euroross.blogspot.com/Fat%20and%20Smoking.jpg
Cloning Barbarossa style: you take 1 large Barbarossa and make 2 big Barbarossas, 2 identical idiots.

But Barbarossa doesn't even need to store his knowledge with one of those things: http://www.sip.be/hardware/floppy-schijf-5-inch-kl.jpg
Barbarossa is a Serpent Priest, he was born with his wisdom, soo he doesn't have anything to loose, he has as much knowledge as when born (all in genes).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Barbarossa

Cloning, by definition, is the creation of a genetically identical organism to another. How you do it, is irrelevent.

---

Long live Barbarossa logic, wisdom right out of games and lounge, withouth explanation, it is irrelevent to ask that.

When I refered to cloning an entire person, I was not speaking of the near instant process on movies. I was speaking of growing it from day one throgh however many years needed to reach the age of the physical body being cloned.

I also am not refering to getting an identical person with respects to the brain and memories. I was saying you would clone the person (say from birth at the same or near the same time the original is born) and then if the original body is comprmised, transfering the hopefuly working brain into the other body.

Not realy an effective way to do things, but that is the type of cloning I was refering to.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by limesqueezer

http://euroross.blogspot.com/Fat%20and%20Smoking.jpg
Cloning Barbarossa style: you take 1 large Barbarossa and make 2 big Barbarossas, 2 identical idiots.

But Barbarossa doesn't even need to store his knowledge with one of those things: http://www.sip.be/hardware/floppy-schijf-5-inch-kl.jpg
Barbarossa is a Serpent Priest, he was born with his wisdom, soo he doesn't have anything to loose, he has as much knowledge as when born (all in genes).

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Barbarossa

Cloning, by definition, is the creation of a genetically identical organism to another. How you do it, is irrelevent.

---

Long live Barbarossa logic, wisdom right out of games and lounge, withouth explanation, it is irrelevent to ask that.

---

If you don't stop right now, I'm going to come over and kick Barbarossa's dick outta your mouth.

Keep on topic guys, or I'm going to be forced to modulate.

:shuriken:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by MagicNakor

Keep on topic guys, or I'm going to be forced to modulate.

:shuriken:

---

OK, but I got him to post in a format other than a word-brick, I'm pretty happy with that :dry: