Clearing a few myths about Cloning!!!

[Guest guest]

Aum Namah Shivaya

 

 

I posted this on another forum. Since this question seems to have

been raised here too by someone in some manner, I thought that I

could share these thoughts here as well.

 

 

Clearing a few myths about Cloning!!!

======================================

 

 

While I could write a hundred pages discussing cloning, genome, DNA,

astrology, Nature vs Nurture etc, I will do a most needed simple

thing in this post- An attempt to clear away certain myths about

what cloning is and what it is not! And in as simple and as short

explanations as possible. Read on.

 

 

To start with Identical twins are very different from clones. And

neither of them poses a threat to the rationale behind astrology,

especially the clones.

 

 

Identical twins: The story starts with ONE egg, which DIVIDES AND

THEN both parts of the egg evolve into separate human beings.

Scientists don't fully understand as to why the egg divides. Sexual

reproduction is involved in this case.

 

 

Cloning: In contrast, Cloning is a form of Asexual production

(contrast it with **sexual **reproduction as in the case of

identical twins). Unlike a twin, a clone will carry the genome of

only ONE PARENT (or donor). While identical twins are GENETICALLY

IDENTICAL and have the same genome, clones share the same nuclear

DNA only. They DO NOT SHARE THE SAME MITOCHONDRIAL DNA. But

identical twins share even this. Cutting the scientific jargon, let

me just tell you the IMPLICATIONS in a layman's language.

 

 

In spite of sharing the same mitochondrial DNA too, it is well known

that Identical twins are neither physically nor behaviorally

identical to each other. They differ in their belief systems and

values as well as preferences (may I use the word Samskaras here for

all such innate differences?).

 

 

If this is the case with identical twins who share even the

mitochondrial DNA, it doesn't need a Watson to guess what the

case would be with clones who do NOT share the mitochondrial DNA and

just share the nuclear DNA.

 

 

But getting back to the identical twins (because they seemingly pose

a more SEEMINGLY valid threat to astrology's rationale), let me

acquaint you with the Nature vs Nurture debate. There are two major

camps here.

 

 

CAMP ONE: Holds that Human behaviour is PRIMARILY genetic. Main

proponents: Lorenz, Barash Wilson, Dawkins, Lumsden and Wilson, and

Trivers. All of them use various ARGUMENTS and try to convince us

that human behavior is PRIMARILY genetic. And Hamilton, Maynard

Smith and Axelrod give the theoretical support for it.

 

 

CAMP TWO: Holds that Human behavior is PRIMARILY environmental.

Main promoters: The Boston group, Schwartz, Gould, Sahlins and

Dawkins.

 

 

Both camps have their own arguments. I am sometimes tempted to

believe that our behavior is PRIMARILY genetic. Yet the

Environmental camp has some valid points to make. Even otherwise, if

you have noticed I have typed in capitals the word PRIMARILY. So

even if one camp succeeds in convincing a majority (highly doubtful

as it goes deeper than that. Past experience with historical events

suggests that scientific beliefs and paradigms too shift according

to Cultural and Political SWINGS or CYCLES or whatever.) So I repeat

that even if one camp succeeds in convincing a majority, then too

the story is not about the WHOLE PICTURE, because the other factor

becomes SECONDARY, which means that it still has a PROBABILITY. So

we may rest content that the debate will probably never end. Just as

in most philosophical debates, each time and culture favors one

argument which will be replaced by the opposite at another time and

under another cultural influence.

 

 

Simply put, both have their roles to play. The argument is only

about who gets the PRIMARY role. Astrology or rather Metaphysics

provides the link as well as the deciding factor, the missing angle.

Why are identical twins (I will not discuss the clones as they

deserve even less attention in our argument) different in their

belief systems, values, preferences etc? Is there something else too

other than Nature vs Nurture? Or is there something that links them

both meaningfully?

 

 

Bringing my earlier point about Samskaras (individual preferences,

belief systems and values), we as astrologers know that samskaras

(character) are largely reflective of the SANCHITA, while the chart

itself reveals mostly Prarabdha, though it may be possible to catch

the faintest glimpse of character in the chart, at least character

in the sense of Sanchita karmas's resultant Samskaras. Even in

the case of NEAR-IDENTICAL CHARTS, I for one believe that it is

FUTILE to attempt proving the differences between twins' lives

using shastiamsas, sublords, or even sub-sublords!

 

 

Birth charts reflect only Prarabdha, that too in a SYMBOLIC way.

Human mind cannot understand SYBOLISM FULLY, for the day it

understands, all distinction between the OBSERVED AND THE OBSERVED

ceases. And the observer just will not tell us the result because he

LOSES himself in the ONE. Yet for theoretical purpose let me clarify

further. Even if it is possible to understand the symbolism of

astrology (and thereby an individual's prarabdha), we are totally

dark in the most important area- SANCHITA KARMAS. And Samskaras are

based on Sanchita karma. Our actions, reactions and choices are

based as much (if not more) on our Samskaras as on Prarabdha.

 

 

If I give two people exactly the same BMWs. Can you tell me

how they would drive? No. Because the DRIVERS are different. No

doubt the man with a BMW COULD (that too if he is an accomplished

driver) better with than if he were given a Hyundai Accent. But with

the same car, different drivers drive differently. In the hands of a

novice a BMW could be even dangerous!

 

 

All the while, we do not seem to remember that though the charts are

SEEMINGLY similar, THE DRIVERS (SOULS) ARE DIFFERENT. THEIR

CHARACTERS ARE DIFFERENT. THEIR SANCHITA KARMAS ARE DIFFERENT AND

THUS THEIR SAMSKARAS TOO.

 

 

As for the clones, they definitely do not merit even a discussion,

much less a debate! The genome is not deterministic of many

significant physical and behavioral characteristics, because the

environment acts upon the genetic POTENTIAL in some manner. And the

poor Clone is in a different environment from his parent

(technically the donor).

 

 

Logically it is impossible to provide the same environment and

parental influences etc as his donor/parent had. But as I said

earlier, even in the case of identical twins, because of the

samskaras and sanchita being different (or putting simply, the soul

being different), I for one cannot treat it as an enigma to

astrology. The enigma is in the mind, like all other illusion.

Guess this clarifies some myths about clones, though like all

philosophical debates, the one on identical twins could be carried

on if the mind wants to chatter. And Yeah, chattering is fun at

times...Interesting as well!

 

 

Regards,

Satya

[Guest guest]

Dear Dr. Satya,

 

>>>>Cloning: In contrast, Cloning is a form of Asexual production (contrast it

with **sexual **reproduction as in the case of identical twins). Unlike a twin,

a clone will carry the genome of only ONE PARENT (or donor). While identical

twins are GENETICALLY IDENTICAL and have the same genome, clones share the same

nuclear DNA only. They DO NOT SHARE THE SAME MITOCHONDRIAL DNA. But identical

twins share even this.<<<<

 

When sperm and egg fuse to form a diploid zygote, the new individual gets half

of its nuclear genetic information, 23 chromosomes, from each parent. That

50/50 split is the basis of Mendelian inheritance. However, due to the sheer

size of the egg cell, all (or nearly all) of the mitochondria in the embryo

come from the mother. In other words, mitochondrial inheritance is maternal,

and that's why Leber's is passed only from mother to child.

 

With all due respect is it not so that all offspring (from one mother) carry the

same mtDNA? It's irrelevant whether they're twins or not. Of course I'm not a

geneticist and totally reliant on the research I've done since this news (of

cloned infant) first hit the headlines.

 

>>>>If this is the case with identical twins who share even the mitochondrial

DNA, it doesn't need a Watson to guess what thecase would be with clones who do

NOT share the mitochondrial DNA and just share the nuclear DNA.<<<<

 

To my mind, for siblings not to carry the same mtDNA, they would need to have

different mothers...is this not so? Also, considering that the cloned infant is

an exact (genetic) replica of the (mother) donor, would the infant also not

carry the same mtDna as the donor? Please do correct me if I'm wrong.

 

>>>>In spite of sharing the same mitochondrial DNA too, it is well known that

Identical twins are neither physically nor behaviorally identical to each

other. They differ in their belief systems and values as well as

preferences<<<<

 

According to my limited understanding the inherited genetic code passed on from

parents to offspring is what determines our histrionic, gender, and ethnic

identity. I believe however its the cosmic blueprint (parabdha karma) coded

into the DNA at birth that makes us all unique. If this were not so the divine

science of jyotish would not be the window of creative intelligence (natural

law) that it is. To determine anything about the native at all we would all

have to be geneticists.

 

A soul is born with a parabdha karma (the karma it is destined to experience in

this life). When the Atman creates a new human life, the karma for that life is

coded into the DNA...is this not so? This, to my mind, is the main reason that

organ recipients, of genetically matched (as close as possible) organs, have to

take powerful immune-suppressant drugs for the rest of their lives. The

rejection is due not so much to the mismatched genes but to the incompatible

parabdha karma present in the donor organ's DNA.

 

Of course, as I said, I'm not a geneticist and I trust you'll correct me if my

understanding is incorrect.

 

Best Wishes,Wendyhttp://www.ganesh-astro.iinet.net.au

[Guest guest]

Wendy,

 

mtDNA comes from the egg cell. Sperm only affect the nucleus, not the

organelles (mitrichondira, etc.) of the egg cell.

 

In a clone, if the egg donor was the person being cloned (or a sibling,

sister in this case) the mtDNA would be identical.

 

If the egg donor was from a random donor, then if and only if the person

being cloned and the donor came from the same female branch of

the genetic tree. That is they shared at least a single

common female in their lineage but no non-common females. then the mtDNA

would

be the same. If they shared non-common females that sprung from the

same lineage as a the single common female, then the mtDNA would

match. Otherwise there is no guarantee of mtDNA match.

 

The nuclear DNA would be identical of course. Interestingly, studies

have been done on human mutation using mtDNA and people who

have a common heritage, tend to have a common mtDNA pattern. mtDNA

analysis would have to be performed to determine the match level

between the donor and the clone.

 

This leads us to an interesting point. You have potentially four

cases of human genetics at this point:

(mtDNA=, DNA=) the true clone from a clonal nucleus and a sibling / self

gamate cell.

(mtDNA<>.DNA=) the clone from a clonal nucleus and a dissimilar mtDNA

gamate cell

(mtDNA=,DNA<>) the sibling, twin or otherwise.

(mtDNA<>,DNA<>) the "outsider" (different mtDNA subspecies,

different nuclear DNA)

 

So, that is the corner cases, so to speak. We have dealt with the 3rd

and 4th case above, the really new ones are the 1st and the 2nd. It

will be important to consider that 1st and 2nd are independent cases when

we generalize in any study, be it astrology or biophysics and not

to lump them into one big CLONE bin.

 

BTW, sexuality is just nature's way of making sure the species can adapt

and survive. Since the DNA is donated by both parents, there is a

higher chance of passing along positive (dominant) survival

characteristics, and burying negative ones. Thus we still have diabetes

(type I), sickle cell

anemia and hemophilia, but they have not decimated the populace since

they are recessive (or haploid dominant, like diabetes) and thus can be

submerged

in a sufficiently diverse gene pool.

 

-- John M*********** REPLY SEPARATOR

***********On 12/28/02 at 7:27 PM Wendy Vasicek wrote:

Dear Dr. Satya,

 

>>>>Cloning: In contrast, Cloning is a form of Asexual

production (contrast it with **sexual **reproduction as in the case of

identical twins). Unlike a twin, a clone will carry the genome of only

ONE PARENT (or donor). While identical twins are GENETICALLY IDENTICAL and

have the same genome, clones share the same nuclear DNA only. They DO NOT

SHARE THE SAME MITOCHONDRIAL DNA. But identical twins share even

this.<<<<

 

When sperm and egg fuse to form a diploid zygote, the new individual gets

half of its nuclear genetic information, 23 chromosomes, from each parent.

That 50/50 split is the basis of Mendelian inheritance. However, due to the

sheer size of the egg cell, all (or nearly all) of the mitochondria in the

embryo come from the mother. In other words, mitochondrial inheritance is

maternal, and that's why Leber's is passed only from mother to child.

 

With all due respect is it not so that all offspring (from one mother)

carry the same mtDNA? It's irrelevant whether they're twins or not. Of course

I'm not a geneticist and totally reliant on the research I've done since this

news (of cloned infant) first hit the headlines.

 

>>>>If this is the case with identical twins who share even

the mitochondrial DNA, it doesn't need a Watson to guess what thecase

would be with clones who do NOT share the mitochondrial DNA and just share

the nuclear DNA.<<<<

 

To my mind, for siblings not to carry the same mtDNA, they would need to

have different mothers...is this not so? Also, considering that the cloned

infant is an exact (genetic) replica of the (mother) donor,

would the infant also not carry the same mtDna as the donor? Please

do correct me if I'm wrong.

 

>>>>In spite of sharing the same mitochondrial DNA too, it is

well known that Identical twins are neither physically nor behaviorally

identical to each other. They differ in their belief systems and

values as well as preferences<<<<

 

According to my limited understanding the

inherited genetic code passed on from parents to offspring is what

determines our histrionic, gender, and ethnic identity. I believe

however its the cosmic blueprint (parabdha karma) coded into the DNA at

birth that makes us all unique. If this were not so the divine science of

jyotish would not be the window of creative intelligence (natural law) that it

is. To determine anything about the native at all we would all have to be

geneticists.

 

A soul is born with a parabdha karma (the karma it is destined to

experience in this life). When the Atman creates a new human life, the karma

for that life is coded into the DNA...is this not so? This, to my mind, is the

main reason that organ recipients, of genetically matched (as close as

possible) organs, have to take powerful immune-suppressant drugs for the

rest of their lives. The rejection is due not so much to the mismatched genes

but to the incompatible parabdha karma present in the donor organ's

DNA.

 

Of course, as I said, I'm not a geneticist and I trust you'll correct me

if my understanding is incorrect.

 

Best Wishes,Wendyhttp://www.ganesh-astro.iinet.net.auOm

Namo Bhagavate Vasudevaya; Hare Krishna; Om Tat SatTo , send an

email to: gjlist-http://www.goravani.comYour

use of is subject to the

[Guest guest]

John,

 

I understand what you're saying however, to the best of my knowledge, unlike

nuclear DNA with a complement of two copies per cell, mtDNA molecules are

present in hundreds to thousands of copies per cell. One article I researched

stated that, due to this; muscle, bone, hair, skin, blood and other body

fluids, even if degraded by environmental insult or time, may provide enough

material for typing the mtDNA locus.

 

Because of this, I don't see how the mtDNA could be (successfully) removed from

the donor sample and 1) still remain an identical clone or 2) not corrupt and

destroy the donor sample completely. The question then remains that if the

donor egg is not from the same maternal lineage how could it possibly be

compatible with the donor sample, and if so incompatible the normal response

from nature would be spontaneous abortion. If abortion is prevented the

possibility of deformities is enormous.

 

However its all hypothetical at this point as there's no proof that the claim is

at all genuine. My main concern, as an astrologer, is the incompatibility of

parabdha karma...this after all is what jyotish is all about.

 

Unfortunately commitments elsewhere prevent any further discussion at the moment

but I certainly do appreciate your input :-)

 

Best Wishes,WendyJyotishVidyahttp://www.ganesh-astro.iinet.net.au

- John Melka

gjlist

Sunday, December 29, 2002 6:51 AM

Re: [GJ] Fw: Clearing a few myths about Cloning!!!

Wendy,

 

mtDNA comes from the egg cell. Sperm only affect the nucleus, not the

organelles (mitrichondira, etc.) of the egg cell.

 

In a clone, if the egg donor was the person being cloned (or a sibling, sister

in this case) the mtDNA would be identical.

 

If the egg donor was from a random donor, then if and only if the person being

cloned and the donor came from the same female branch of

the genetic tree. That is they shared at least a single common female in their

lineage but no non-common females. then the mtDNA would

be the same. If they shared non-common females that sprung from the same

lineage as a the single common female, then the mtDNA would

match. Otherwise there is no guarantee of mtDNA match.

 

The nuclear DNA would be identical of course. Interestingly, studies have been

done on human mutation using mtDNA and people who

have a common heritage, tend to have a common mtDNA pattern. mtDNA analysis

would have to be performed to determine the match level

between the donor and the clone.

 

This leads us to an interesting point. You have potentially four cases of human

genetics at this point:

(mtDNA=, DNA=) the true clone from a clonal nucleus and a sibling / self gamate cell.

(mtDNA<>.DNA=) the clone from a clonal nucleus and a dissimilar mtDNA gamate cell

(mtDNA=,DNA<>) the sibling, twin or otherwise.

(mtDNA<>,DNA<>) the "outsider" (different mtDNA subspecies, different nuclear DNA)

 

So, that is the corner cases, so to speak. We have dealt with the 3rd and 4th

case above, the really new ones are the 1st and the 2nd. It

will be important to consider that 1st and 2nd are independent cases when we

generalize in any study, be it astrology or biophysics and not

to lump them into one big CLONE bin.

 

BTW, sexuality is just nature's way of making sure the species can adapt and

survive. Since the DNA is donated by both parents, there is a

higher chance of passing along positive (dominant) survival characteristics, and

burying negative ones. Thus we still have diabetes (type I), sickle cell

anemia and hemophilia, but they have not decimated the populace since they are

recessive (or haploid dominant, like diabetes) and thus can be submerged

in a sufficiently diverse gene pool.

 

-- John M