Clearing a few myths about Cloning!!!

[Guest guest]

Aum Namah Shivaya

 

 

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