X-Message-Number: 7787 Date: Sat, 01 Mar 1997 12:41:40 -0800 From: (Olaf Henny) Subject: Re: CryoNet #7775 - #7781 >Message #7779 >From: >Date: Fri, 28 Feb 1997 21:45:42 -0400 (EDT) >Subject: Thomas, aging and Dolly. > >Date sent: 28-FEB-1997 21:28:12 > >Thomas, the writing is on the wall. If you persist on holding on to >outdated ideas on aging you will be considered inflexible. Cloning >is going to shake the orthodox aging ideas to their very foundation. I do not see this happening at all, at least not at this stage. Granted, with a whole lot more research you may be able to clone a copy of yourself with an undeveloped brain and thereby avoid the taint of equivalent to murder at least in the mind of some. This does not necessarily mean, that in such a case the cranial cavity will develop to sufficient size to accept yours. There is a whole lot of ground to cover from fooling an egg into accepting a cell of a sheep's udder in lieu of a sperm to engineering the DNA of a cell, which is most likely not derived from an udder >:-> so that the resulting embryo will evolve into a perfect copy of yourself, but without a brain and with cranial cavity c/w all the hookup connections for your brain to take over. At least *I* can see the odd minor difficulties there. ;) >Some scientist will try and justify old ideas to protect their research >grants and ego, but eventually they will go the way of the dinosaurs. Why >join them? As you can readily infer from the above, if I was a research scientist, I would hesitate to abandon all other avenues and jumping on the cloning bandwagon. Although I consider myself an optimist, I would not step off the Empire State Building supported by naught, but this optimism. Olaf Henny>Message #7779 >From: >Date: Fri, 28 Feb 1997 21:45:42 -0400 (EDT) >Subject: Thomas, aging and Dolly. > >Date sent: 28-FEB-1997 21:28:12 > >Thomas, the writing is on the wall. If you persist on holding on to >outdated ideas on aging you will be considered inflexible. Cloning >is going to shake the orthodox aging ideas to their very foundation. I do not see this happening at all, at least not at this stage. Granted, with a whole lot more research you may be able to clone a copy of yourself with an undeveloped brain and thereby avoid the taint of equivalent to murder at least in the mind of some. This does not necessarily mean, that in such a case the cranial cavity will develop to sufficient size to accept yours. There is a whole lot of ground to cover from fooling an egg into accepting a cell of a sheep's udder in lieu of a sperm to engineering the DNA of a cell, which is most likely not derived from an udder >:-> so that the resulting embryo will evolve into a perfect copy of yourself, but without a brain and with cranial cavity c/w all the hookup connections for your brain to take over. At least *I* can see the odd minor difficulties there. ;) >Some scientist will try and justify old ideas to protect their research >grants and ego, but eventually they will go the way of the dinosaurs. Why >join them? As you can readily infer from the above, if I was a research scientist, I would hesitate to abandon all other avenues and jumping on the cloning bandwagon. Although I consider myself an optimist, I would not step off the Empire State Building supported by naught, but this optimism. > ************************************************* Ridicule and derision are weapons often employed by those who are intellectually outmatched ************************************************* Rate This Message: http://www.cryonet.org/cgi-bin/rate.cgi?msg=7787