I do, but you don't understand the methodology do you. Specify which animal has ever been created from a somatic cell and a male gamete? The female gamete is uniquely designed to become the zygote - it is the sperm that penetrates INTO the egg, james, not the other way around. (@.@)
Ahem, your point being? I didn't ask you to detail the mechanism. I said cloning involves taking one gamete and one somatic cell, and making a living clone out of the two. At no point does whether a sperm cell is used or an egg cell is used, matter. You surely are a strange person, Godzilla! If this is the quality of your argument... LOL.
BTW james, reproductive cloning generally uses "somatic cell nuclear transfer" (SCNT) to create animals that are genetically identical. This process entails the transfer of a nucleus from a donor adult cell (somatic cell) to an EGG that has no nucleus.
Thanks for the fun facts, Godzilla! Not that it matters an ounce to support your argument. None of this is in dispute, here, your meaningless distractions, notwithstanding.
And then the clone isn't a 'clone', but genetically modified. Gene splicing is not the same as cloning James - and I'm sure you know the difference.
Immaterial, Godzilla. Fact remains that a sentient being ends up as the product of a single gamete and a somatic cell, which is not a twin. Try again, Godzilla. My diaphragm hurts from the free laughs you've provided thus far.
The point I am making is that the fertilization that occurs in a test tube in most aspects is still 'at the whim' of people James - it is adding an artificial layer and location into the mix. In cloning you are taking an existing nucleus/dna and inserting into a female gamete (there are two kinds of gametes James - or did you sleep through that part of sex ed?) - bypassing the natural fusion of the male and female chromosomes and the creation of a genetically unique individual.
Thanks for the facts again, Godzilla, but they still don't matter to support your fallacy. If you fail to recognise the difference between a spontaneous (ahem, deity-created) twinning, and cloning, it is not my problem. Explaining the mechanism of cloning is completely irrelevant to the argument - just as is your nonsensical assumption whether I know two kinds of gametes exist or not. What were you thinking, Godzilla?!! Your tactics are all out in public!
Well, I see that you are now using the singular form of the word. VERY good James, we are making progress.
I BEGAN with the individual case, Godzilla. You made false assumptions, after ignoring what I began with, and of course, continue to employ distractions that have no relevance to what was asked. Bad going, Godzilla!
And yes the individual is real, living and breathing. But then why should you care? You believe there is no God, so no skin off your nose.
A ha! Now we come full-circle, Godzilla! Did you forget what my intent was? Do you remember me telling you about how if I prove an exception to your "absolute" rules from dogma, the entire dogma collapses? Now you know why I care, Godzilla. Now get back, and answer. Quit the meaningless distractions.
Wrong again James, really let me speak for my self and don't try to put words in my mouth. YOUR question was whether it was ethical to perform research on them separately. You said specifically -
Researching the unfertilized egg (waiting for fertilization) and the sperm (that does the fertilizing) SEPARATELY tells me just that. Cloning is not researching them SEPARATELY James. I don't believe cloning to be ethical.
Thanks for the clarification, Godzilla. Cloning does not involve sperm fusing the egg. How do you conclude cloning to be unethical then, Godzilla? (BTW, fun fact: "waiting for fertilization" etc. are irrelevant when the fact remains that both the egg and the sperm contribute 50% each of the genes that comprise the individual.)
I used twins as a parallel situation James. A SCNT-clone would be an identical twin because the nucleus as a whole is transfered into the egg. Life span issues are another reason cloning is unethical - for the pain and suffering inflicted.
If the lifespans are not the same, there is something different beyond mere twinning, isn't there, Godzilla? They just cannot be the same in terms of procedure for creating each one of them. A clone and a twin may share the same genetics, but the formation mechanisms are worlds apart. One forms when the blastocyst splits spontaneously into two ("God did it!") while the other involves taking a gamete and a somatic cell to create an individual. If you fail to see the difference, I am not to blame, Godzilla, LOL!
Once again james, slept through biology. Even Wiki notes that it just isn't ANY gamete - but the female gamete - commonly known as the egg. The cells are designed for specific purposes james. Once again - source where an animal has been cloned using a male gamete (sperm cell) and a somatic cell (crickets)
Thanks for the fun facts, Godzilla! Not that it matters an ounce to support your argument. None of this is in dispute, here, your meaningless distractions, notwithstanding.
well, since you can't even get the basics of cloning presented - the rest of your understanding becomes increasingly weak.
If you fail to recognise the difference between a spontaneous (ahem, deity-created) twinning, and cloning, it is not my problem.
Prove that it is 'deity created' james - that should be an easy non-negative presentation for you. Mechanisms in the creation of the genetic duplicate may be different - but a genetic duplicate they are.
Explaining the mechanism of cloning is completely irrelevant to the argument - just as is your nonsensical assumption whether I know two kinds of gametes exist or not. What were you thinking, Godzilla?!! Your tactics are all out in public!
And your ignorance is as well - kinda pulled a weiner there james. The simple fact that there are two different gametes and that their functions are different make a lot of difference - by showing you shallowness on the subject.
Did you forget what my intent was?
Oh it was that non-defense of your indefensible BELIEF in no God
Now get back, and answer. Quit the meaningless distractions.
LOL, I've answered it as clearly as your obfuscations on the subject at hand permit.
Cloning does not involve sperm fusing the egg.
Ding ding ding, well now you are waking up (a few years too late, but better late than never) Cloning also doesn't involve using the sperm as the 'egg' as its structure and function is not that of the female gamete.
How do you conclude cloning to be unethical then, Godzilla?
Because it is an unnatural method of reproduction james.
BTW, fun fact: "waiting for fertilization" etc. are irrelevant when the fact remains that both the egg and the sperm contribute 50% each of the genes that comprise the individual.
BTW in their separated and unaltered state they are also not an individual either - only afterward do they become an individual.
If you fail to see the difference, I am not to blame, Godzilla, LOL!
No, the only one failing to see things are you james. I've noted several times that they are not identical particularly in the method involved, but for evaluation as to whether or not the clone would have a soul and spirit there is little difference.