We are made from 44 genes & whatever informations feeded in these genes, remains effecteve throughout our whole life. During the life time, we also gather some more informations which may be coded in our current genes and then passed on to our new generation via 22+22 genes in sperm & ova egg. Suppose we suffer some disease & get cured, then we may get some resistance/fighting power coding in our 44 genes, which will also be passed to our next genarations. My questions are:-

1. Whether we get some resistance/fighting power coding in our current genes also OR these can only be passed to the next generations without effecting our current genes.

2. This coding if any in current genes is aquired by all our 44 genes or just by one or few genes.

3. Till how many next generations, the effect of this coding will remain present.

4. If we gets some coding during the current life which may manifest or aquired in our genes, then is it posible to alter or remove this coded information from ; (a) the current genes (b) the next generation's genes.

Thanks & best wishes.

There are a few misconceptions presented here, so I will do my best to set them straight, and then answer your questions accordingly.

First of all, the human genome contains more than 30,000 genes, as a rough number. Since this would be an absolutely massive molecule, it is organized into smaller parcels, called chromosomes: there are 23 in humans. However, there are 2 copies of each, giving a total of 46. These are just the basics, there are technicalities, but we can ignore them for the sake of this conversation.

Secondly, when you get an illness, it is not your genetic code that changes in defense. Again, the genetic code will technically change in the case of viral infection, since the virus inserts its genome into the host's, but that is not what contributes to immunity. What happens, is there are cells that 'patrol' the body for foreign particles, and when one is encountered, they produce antibodies. These then act as signals, flagging down the particular particle for destruction next time it enters the cell. I know, this is a major over-simplification, but I don't see it necessary to get into too much detail here.

As far as I know, immunity to such infections doesn't get passed on to future generations. If anyone has anything to add, please do. I'm not sure if I touched on everything I meant to, or if I covered everything properly. I hope this helps somewhat.

Hello Idle Mind,

Thanks fot the reply. You mentioned that human genome contains more than 30,000 genes, In simple language it means humans have 30,000 TYPES of genes. But how they are divided in genetic & non genetic cells. I have heard 22+22 genes in sperm + Ova are combined.

It is usually heard that 'resistance developed against some medicines like anti-biotics OR Pest's resistance to old pestisides'. How this so called resistance is developed in both current & future generations. Is it not related to genatic code of both generations?

I think you mean chromosomes and not genes.

I'm trying a different typography for point for point answers, since there is some sentiment about the bold type answers (not from Kumar):


Q: We are made from 44 genes & whatever informations feeded in these genes, remains effecteve throughout our whole life. During the life time, we also gather some more informations which may be coded in our current genes and then passed on to our new generation via 22+22 genes in sperm & ova egg. Suppose we suffer some disease & get cured, then we may get some resistance/fighting power coding in our 44 genes, which will also be passed to our next genarations. My questions are:-

A: We have 46 cromosomes that contain in total some 30,000 genes.

Q: 1. Whether we get some resistance/fighting power coding in our current genes also OR these can only be passed to the next generations without effecting our current genes.

A: No, our genes do not change except for possible mutations. Resistance may be passed on to future generations only in the way that more resistant individuals may survive better and have more offspring.

Q: 2. This coding if any in current genes is aquired by all our 44 genes or just by one or few genes.

A: As mentioned, there is no new coding generated. How genes code for various things is still not completely understood. In some cases, it seems a single gene contains the code, in other cases it appears to be a combination of several genes.

Q: 3. Till how many next generations, the effect of this coding will remain present.

A: Again: No new coding while you live, but the genetic coding you pass on to your descendant may last indefinitely, it may be changed by mutation, or it may be overridden by other genes (from the other people's genes that are mixed with yours). In the latter case, it may later resurface if the overriding gene is no longer present.

Q: 4. If we gets some coding during the current life which may manifest or aquired in our genes, then is it posible to alter or remove this coded information from ; (a) the current genes (b) the next generation's genes.

A: As already explained, we don't get any recoding.


Hans

Originally posted by Kumar ]

Q: Thanks fot the reply. You mentioned that human genome contains more than 30,000 genes, In simple language it means humans have 30,000 TYPES of genes. But how they are divided in genetic & non genetic cells. I have heard 22+22 genes in sperm + Ova are combined.

A: The 30,000 genes are distributed between 46 (2x23) chromosomes. Chromosomes are contained in the cells. Each of our body cells have a full complement. Sperm and ovula cells have a half complement.

Q: It is usually heard that 'resistance developed against some medicines like anti-biotics OR Pest's resistance to old pestisides'. How this so called resistance is developed in both current & future generations. Is it not related to genatic code of both generations?

A: Yes, this is a common misunderstanding, really created by inadequate language. Micro-organisms and pests do not "develope resistance", but the most resistant survive, and if this resistance is based on a genetic difference, then their offspring inherit the trait that makes them more resistant, etc.

It is really a case of selective breeding.



Hans

No, our genes do not change except for possible mutations. Resistance may be passed on to future generations only in the way that more resistant individuals may survive better and have more offspring.
It looks bit doubtfull. Some changes in coding of genes is definetly possible. Otherwise how you will propose the inherited/heriditary disorders like diabetes.
Again: No new coding while you live, but the genetic coding you pass on to your descendant may last indefinitely, it may be changed by mutation, or it may be overridden by other genes
But it will go on diluting generation to generation as ... A: Yes, this is a common misunderstanding, really created by inadequate language. Micro-organisms and pests do not "develope resistance", but the most resistant survive, and if this resistance is based on a genetic difference, then their offspring inherit the trait that makes them more resistant, etc.

As above. Also how we will then justify Immunization due to vaccinations. Current Medical Science is developing lot of resistant antibiotics etc. Do you feel all these are fake things.

Originally posted by Kumar
But it will go on diluting generation to generation as ...


genes do not dilute.

Otherwise how you will propose the inherited/heriditary disorders like diabetes.
There are several types of diabetes. Some are hereditary, some are not.
Also how we will then justify Immunization due to vaccinations.
Vaccinations work by using viral 'ghosts', or a similar virus to which the vaccine is to defend against that is benign, and having the body create antibodies against them. In other words, a vaccine puts a virus into your body to tell your body what to look out for. This doesn't change the genetic code in any way, but the person is immune. Keep in mind, most infants must go through a series of vaccinations in order to be immune to infections, they are not inherited.

Originally posted by Kumar
Also how we will then justify Immunization due to vaccinations.

vaccinations help the endogenous immune system to overcome a pathogen. It does not attack any pathogens itself.

Hello all,

I am sorry, I am mistaken in mentioning, Actually these are 44 Autosomes+ 2 Hetrosomes making total 46 chromosomes. Any way we are talking about genes. Whatever we aquire in our life time (which is called as inherited) will be stored in our body ready to pass to our offsprings. I want to know how & where it is stored in our body during our lifetime & how it will be passed to our next generations. Diluting means we pass half the chromosomes(23) mixed with 23 of our partner. In next generation half of ours 23 & half of our partner's 23 plus 23 of the new partner of our offspring will be tranfered resulting in diluting our chromosones in next generations i.e. 23>>11.5>>5.75....so on.

I think I made it bit clear. Thanks.

Originally posted by Kumar
*snip*

Any way we are talking about genes. Whatever we aquire in our life time (which is called as inherited) will be stored in our body ready to pass to our offsprings. I want to know how & where it is stored in our body during our lifetime & how it will be passed to our next generations.

No, you must have misunderstood this. Aquired properties do not get inherited. You can be immune to a number of diseases, and your mate too, but your offspring will not be immune to it. Nothing is stored in a way that transfers to the offspring.

Diluting means we pass half the chromosomes(23) mixed with 23 of our partner. In next generation half of ours 23 & half of our partner's 23 plus 23 of the new partner of our offspring will be tranfered resulting in diluting our chromosones in next generations i.e. 23>>11.5>>5.75....so on.

Uhh, yes, you are mostly right. However, it is a bit more complex than that; the genes coming from the partner will be for the most part identical to yours, and there is such a thing as recessive genes.

I think I made it bit clear. Thanks.

As already explained, vaccine sort of programs your immune system against the disease. The immune system stores this information, but not in genes. Natural immunity works in the same way, thus, you only get, say, chicken pox once.

Hans

Dear Mr.Hans,

Thanks again. I have to clear the followings:-

No, you must have misunderstood this. Aquired properties do not get inherited.

It is quite surprising. It meand we do not get anything as inherited form our parents & GOD makes us ' JUST A FRESH ' . Are you sure that you are not mistaking it with only Infectious diseases insted of non-infectious disorders like Diabetes. You mean to say that this disorder or its part is also not inherited by us. I think it a commonly accepted science/theory that diabetes is an heriditary disorder or disease.

the genes coming from the partner will be for the most part identical to yours, and there is such a thing as recessive genes

If we are not agreeing that there are some manifestations of any kind in genes, which are parent based(acquired by them ) , then this point is irrelavant.

I would prefer to have broad views of other members also in this regard. Pls.

It is quite surprising. It meand we do not get anything as inherited form our parents & GOD makes us ' JUST A FRESH ' . Are you sure that you are not mistaking it with only Infectious diseases insted of non-infectious disorders like Diabetes. You mean to say that this disorder or its part is also not inherited by us. I think it a commonly accepted science/theory that diabetes is an heriditary disorder or disease.


There are genetic predispositions to certain illnesses like diabetes however these genetic predispositions are not acquired throughout the lifetime of the parents, any genetic disease or genetic predisposition has been brought about by random mutation, which arose in the egg or sperm, not within the cells of the parent. Any mutations that occur within body cells of an individual are somatic mutations and they are not passed onto the offspring. Only mutations that occur in the gametes will be passed on, and these mutations will not affect the original parent, but will affect their children and their progeny. There are certain genetic diseases like sickle-celled anemia which do give rise to immunity to certain other diseases in certain circumstances. In the case of sickle-celled anemia if the offspring receives one allel (copy of the gene from one parent) which is normal, and one allel for sickle-celled anemia, the offspring is immune to getting Malaria. This is because the mutation which causes sickle-celled anemia changes the shape of the red blood cells in a way that the Malaria-causing mosquitoes can no longer infect the cells! I don’t think that this type of situation is overly common in nature however.

Predisposition to diabetes can be inherited from parent in some cases. There are two types of diabetes. Type I diabetes usually starts in childhood, and is believed to have a genetic component, and thus could be passed on from parent to offspring. It results from the inability to produce sufficient levels of insulin to regulate blood sugar levels, and is usually controlled by insulin injections. Type II diabetes is more diet related, and can usually be controlled by oral medications, or by monitoring your diet. This type of diabetes may also be influenced by genetic predisposition, however I don’t believe that research has determined a clear explanation for the genetic predisposition to diabetes.

I hope this helps, I don't have a lot of information on the subject, but from my understanding, that's how it works. :)

Originally posted by Kumar
Dear Mr.Hans,

Thanks again. I have to clear the followings:-

It is quite surprising. It meand we do not get anything as inherited form our parents & GOD makes us ' JUST A FRESH ' . Are you sure that you are not mistaking it with only Infectious diseases insted of non-infectious disorders like Diabetes. You mean to say that this disorder or its part is also not inherited by us. I think it a commonly accepted science/theory that diabetes is an heriditary disorder or disease.

More clearing up: Immunity from infections, scars, muscle training, knowledge, habits, beliefs, in short phenotype traits are not passed on via genes (some are passed on via social contact, however ;) ).

Hair color, basic body build, disposition for certain diseases ( e.g. diabetes), some actual (genetic) diseases, etc. (called genotype traits) ARE passed on in genes. Futher, traits brought on from mutation is delivered to you via the genes, but NOT really from your parents. The mutation affects the actual sexual cell that forms the fetus (it can also happen in the zygote and very early foetal state). Thus parents and siblings will not share the mutation, but your offspring will.

(the genes coming from the partner will be for the most part identical to yours, and there is such a thing as recessive genes)

If we are not agreeing that there are some manifestations of any kind in genes, which are parent based(acquired by them ) , then this point is irrelavant.

How is it irrelevant? There is still a host of inherited traits.

I would prefer to have broad views of other members also in this regard. Pls.

Yes, come on folks! Don't let me handle this all alone.



Hans

but you are handling it so well Hans!

(a) Hair color, basic body build, disposition for certain diseases ( e.g. diabetes), some actual (genetic) diseases, etc. (called genotype traits) ARE passed on in genes.

(b) Futher, traits brought on from mutation is delivered to you via the genes, but NOT really from your parents. The mutation affects the actual sexual cell that forms the fetus (it can also happen in the zygote and very early foetal state). Thus parents and siblings will not share the mutation, but your offspring will

(a) It means, our genes passes the genotype traits which are either inherited by us from our parents or acquired (added or deducted) by us during our life time(till the offspring) subject to mutation effects of our partner's genotype traits. Partner's genotype may suppress or enhance the genotype mutation effects.How is it irrelevant? There is still a host of inherited traits. Due to your definition of genotype traits now this & next para is clear.:)

Now one more important thing. As mentioned above, we may be manifesting some genetic diseases OR some resistance to these diseases in our genes(inherited & acquired) which is necessary for survival. Is it possible that with any medication or other alternative therapies we may remove these manifestations.:)

Originally posted by Kumar
(a) It means, our genes passes the genotype traits which are either inherited by us from our parents or acquired (added or deducted) by us during our life time(till the offspring) subject to mutation effects of our partner's genotype traits. Partner's genotype may suppress or enhance the genotype mutation effects. Due to your definition of genotype traits now this & next para is clear.:)


our genotype forms a phenotype, which is partly inherited by the combined genotype of our parents and partly by the environment. And our phenotype is not reverted back into our genotype or is it passed along again to our offspring. The combined genotype of both partners in their offspring may suppress or enhance the mutations accumulated in this genotype over time.

is that what you are trying to say?

Originally posted by Kumar
(a) It means, our genes passes the genotype traits which are either inherited by us from our parents or acquired (added or deducted) by us during our life time(till the offspring) subject to mutation effects of our partner's genotype traits. Partner's genotype may suppress or enhance the genotype mutation effects.

Red sentence: No, no! Only changes that might affect the PARTICULAR sexual cell (sperm or ovum) involved in conception will be passed on! Suppose you are subjected to some radiation that causes a lot of mutaions in your cells (which would probably result in cancer, but that's another story), and afterwards, you father a child (assuming you are male ;)). If the particular sperm cell that finds the ovum is not mutated, no mutation will be passed on. On the other hand, if that sperm cell, as the only cell in your body was mutated, then the mutation would affect the offspring.

Now one more important thing. As mentioned above, we may be manifesting some genetic diseases OR some resistance to these diseases in our genes(inherited & acquired) which is necessary for survival. Is it possible that with any medication or other alternative therapies we may remove these manifestations.:)

Not at the moment, but genetic therapies are just over the horizon. Apart from the practical challenges, there are serious ethic questions involved, though.


Hans

we develop from a fertilized egg into an adult. During this development the germ line (which are the cells that will produce eggs and sperm) are set apart early on from the somatic cells (those cells that will form the body). These two cells do not mix anymore.

Any mutation picked up in the somatic cells, such as the immune system, can never be part of the germ cell line. Hence an acuired phenotype after fertilization cannot manifest itself in any other cell than the mutated cell or its offspring. Since germ cells and somatic cells DO NOT mix, only mutations in the germ cells can be passed on to the offspring.

Thanks all for your expanations.

Now , there ate two types of constitutions i.e Phenotyoe & Genotype.

Phenotype: The physical characteristics of an organism or the presence of a disease that may or may not be genetic. The observable and measurable characteristics of an organism. These are genotype+environment.

Genotype: The genetic constitution of an individual. The structure of DNA that determines the expression of a trait. The genetic constitution of an organism, as distinguished from its physical appearance (its phenotype).

Now, there are two type of diseases/manifestations i.e. Genetic & Environmental. Genetic diseases can be inherited & acquired genetic type only, but the Environmental type diseases are acquired only

Phenotype may consist of a disease or diseases which can be either inherited genetic type or acquired environmental type but not the acquired genetic type.

Genotype may consist of a disease or diseases of genetic type inherited from his parents or acquired genetic type during his lifetime but not the environmental type.

It may be possible that all the genetic cells (sperm or ova) may not contain this genetic type diseases & if by chance as a result of mutation of diseased genatic cell, offspring will also inherit those genetic diseases.

I think I made it bit simple & clear.

Now the question is that wheter we can remove by any mean or any alternative therapy, these inherited genetic predipositions, acquired genetic manifestations & acquired environmental maifestations/dipositions.:)

Yes, your summary appears to be precise :).

Now for your question:

Some genetic effects can currently be treated in one or more of the following ways:

1) Replacement therapy (e.g. growth hormone, insulin, bleeder medicine).

2) Surgery (for physical defects).

3) Transplantation (e.g. bone marrow transplantation).

None of these therapies change the gene composition of the patient, so any offspring may still inherit the disease.

Under research are methods for actually altering the gene composition of the patient. Such therapies may or may not involve germ cells. None of this research has (as far as I know) reached the application state.

Now you ask for alternative therapy. This cannot be answered, since, by definition, alternative therapies have not been verified.

I'm sure you can find proponents of some alternative therapy, who will CLAIM that they can do this :rolleyes:.

Hans

Mr.Hans,

Thanks for specific & meaningful;) reply. It looks that all the ways which you mentiond can handle (not treat) the current life complications but can't altered the genetic inheritance. On the contrary there can be some possibility of furthur enhancement. But I think if some good healings(sprituals & natural healthy living/practices etc.) is followed during the lifetime for long, then these genetic defects may some what alter.Now you ask for alternative therapy. This cannot be answered, since, by definition, alternative therapies have not been verified.

We have two types effects i.e Phenotype & Genotype. Some of the alternative therapies like homeopathy are said to effect very minutely & can purify the predipositions & manifestations of genetic and/or environmental types. What do you comment for the same.

Depositions & manifestations can be of both good & bad types.:)

Well, those are your beliefs. You are entitled to them. Just don't treat them as facts ;).

Hans

Now it is upto you to understand.:)

I'm afraid he understands.

But not really what I mean.

does anyone?

DON"T KNOW, BUT SOME CAPABLE/ENTITLED CAN, * THE MANIFESTATIONS, GOOD OR BAD *. :) HE WHO UNDERSTOOD WILL EXPLAIN NOT ME.

why don't you explain it to us mortals in plain english?

DON'T ASK, OTHERS MAY NOT BE SO HAPPY. LET MR. HANS COME.


SECOND QUESTION

HOW CLONING IS DONE IN HUMANS, IS IT DESIRABLE/PRACTICAL IN CONSIDERATION OF ITS FUTURE APPLICABILITY ??

don't ask, others may not be so happy.

BUT WHY?? IF WE GO ACCORDING TO SCIENCE WE CAN'T IGNORE ALL OF ITS GOOD & BAD TECHNOLOGIES FOR FUTURE NEED. OTHERWISE EVERY UNNATURAL & UNHYGINIC CREATIONS SHOULD BE RECONCIDERED. :confused: SORRY IF WRONG.

What are you talking about and why are you using capitals?

About Cloning. I feel very BOLD in capital & bold letters.

human cloning is not feasible at the moment, and only an idiot would like to clone someone if they are aware of the current knowledge on cloning

But what about for the future when our next generations may come with so many organs damaged. But how it is done? Just for future knowledge sake otherwise I am fine.:D

why would the next generation come with so many damaged organs?

Due to increasing unhygeinic , unnatural & unbalanced created conditions.:(

why would you want a clone a human then. It is not going to help any of these things you mentioned.

I therefore asked tell me the procedure. May develop organs.

you can't develop organs without the organism at the moment and I doubt we could within the next 50 years, or even after that.

See the site:-

http://www.humancloning.org/benefits.php

see my chapter in 'Bio implant interface - improving biomaterials and tissue reactions' on stem cells in teeth.

Rejuvenation. Dr. Richard Seed, one of the leading proponents of human cloning technology, suggests that it may someday be possible to reverse the aging process because of what we learn from cloning.

that is not cloning and just an opinion

Human cloning technology could be used to reverse heart attacks. Scientists believe that they may be able to treat heart attack victims by cloning their healthy heart cells and injecting them into the areas of the heart that have been damaged. Heart disease is the number one killer in the United States and several other industrialized countries.

growing cells in culture is not cloning

There has been a breakthrough with human stem cells. Embryonic stem cells can be grown to produce organs or tissues to repair or replace damaged ones. Skin for burn victims, brain cells for the brain damaged, spinal cord cells for quadriplegics and paraplegics, hearts, lungs, livers, and kidneys could be produced. By combining this technology with human cloning technology it may be possible to produce needed tissue for suffering people that will be free of rejection by their immune systems. Conditions such as Alzheimer's disease, Parkinson's disease, diabetes, heart failure, degenerative joint disease, and other problems may be made curable if human cloning and its technology are not banned.

speculation and based on stem cell technology, not cloning


Infertility. With cloning, infertile couples could have children. Despite getting a fair amount of publicity in the news current treatments for infertility, in terms of percentages, are not very successful. One estimate is that current infertility treatments are less than 10 percent successful. Couples go through physically and emotionally painful procedures for a small chance of having children. Many couples run out of time and money without successfully having children. Human cloning could make it possible for many more infertile couples to have children than ever before possible.
why not adopt? Especially since cloned animals often have severe health problems.


Plastic, reconstructive, and cosmetic surgery. Because of human cloning and its technology the days of silicone breast implants and other cosmetic procedures that may cause immune disease should soon be over. With the new technology, instead of using materials foreign to the body for such procedures, doctors will be able to manufacture bone, fat, connective tissue, or cartilage that matches the patients tissues exactly. Anyone will able to have their appearance altered to their satisfaction without the leaking of silicone gel into their bodies or the other problems that occur with present day plastic surgery. Victims of terrible accidents that deform the face should now be able to have their features repaired with new, safer, technology. Limbs for amputees may be able to be regenerated.

once again, tissue culture is not cloning. Regeneration is actually a very complex process, which only a few species have mastered. We haven't got the faintest clue how they do it.

Breast implants. Most people are aware of the breast implant fiasco in which hundreds of thousands of women received silicone breast implants for cosmetic reasons. Many came to believe that the implants were making them ill with diseases of their immune systems. With human cloning and its technology breast augmentation and other forms of cosmetic surgery could be done with implants that would not be any different from the person's normal tissues.
that is not cloning


Defective genes. The average person carries 8 defective genes inside them. These defective genes allow people to become sick when they would otherwise remain healthy. With human cloning and its technology it may be possible to ensure that we no longer suffer because of our defective genes.

if you clone a person you clone also the 8 defective genes + numorous alterations to the DNA, which can cause many defects at older ages

Down's syndrome. Those women at high risk for Down's syndrome can avoid that risk by cloning.
and have a high risk of other defects

Tay-Sachs disease. This is an autosomal recessive genetic disorder could be prevented by using cloning to ensure that a child does not express the gene for the disorder
liver failure. We may be able to clone livers for liver transplants
kidney failure. We may be able to clone kidneys for kidney transplants
that is not cloning, that is making a transgenic. How do you make a kidney?

na ja...and it goes on.

You just displayed a case of wishful thinking.
science is not about what is convenient for a person.

OK as you say. Misprinting ! not cloning. But still do you agree on all these mentionings?

not really

Then what!! Nature is/may not be happy with us now & in future. May not take care of us as it is entitled to balance not to correct the created imbalances. So, we may have to handle it ourselves by our own means with equivalent technologies.:m: :o

i think that you have a strange view on nature.

Truth can look like strange because dificult to accept or follow.

History has taught us that people who claim to know to truth are usually mentally ill.

Means, truth is not existing or most are mentally ill?

Originally posted by Kumar
Truth can look like strange because dificult to accept or follow.

Nothing to difficult to accept or follow. You just plain don't make sense. You say you have an open mind but guess what? You're so locked into your thinking that silica and homeopathy are interconnected (without any proof, mechanism, valid theory or experimentation) and you claim that nature is somehow "mad" at us. You come to a forum dedicated to science but you desicrate with your belief system what science is. You try to impose your belief system onto us without any proof and you claim to know how the world works but I've failed to see any correctness in ANY of your posts in any of your threads so far. And because you celebrate the fact that you think you know what is best for us, I believe you're a crackpot because of it. If I was sick, I certainly wouldn't ask you for advice.

Whatever you say can say because you consider it as your HOME not ours. Proving or finding logics on any existing aspect is also a part of science. You see my topics like PE, what I am doing, I am trying to find only science or logic of existiong aspects but not yet proved in science language. About silica, just read 'Dr.Schussler biochemic twelve tissue remedies system' you can find 60-70% of all disorders are covered by homeopathic doses of silica. How! this is not an existing proof. One day or the other, when God will be on mercy to us, then all these things will be followed, but certainly not now.

If we accept all CS new technologies, why we hesitate for cloning. This is also a new technology like other current technologies?/

the first succesful cloning was done in 1952.

May be.Then the history of other scientific facts may be farther long back.

Originally posted by Kumar
May be.Then the history of other scientific facts may be farther long back.

not may be...

in 1952 Briggs and Kings did the first somatic nuclear transfer on a frog. They used the nuclei of blastula cells though. In 1956 they used nuclei from more advanced stages.

and once again, you assume too much. Just because they cloned the fist animal already in 1952 it doesn't mean that other scientific facts are even be farther back. It has to be reviewed on a case basis.

and cloning is not a fact, it was the development of several techniques who when put together made somatic nuclear transfer possible.

Thanks. But it may not be now fully scientific but can become afterwords if experiments are continuing.

Sometimes, I suspect about natural cloning.

what experiments?

Improving the technique for cloning of damaged orgons.

You have any idea about natural cloning. Is it possible that in some rare circumstances, the offspring is from one partner only. We do sometimes found that few persons are 90% alike one partner.

are you aware that it is not possible at this point in time to clone primates?

and how are you going to make organs without making a human?

I have found this similarity in the offsprings of least produtive partners who may have only one child. Although it is said, it is not possible in primates but may be some relation with cloning .

Organs, as they propose. This may not be exactly cloning but can be one kind of biotechnology by cloning procedre.

What they mean by this; see the site;
http://www.humancloning.org/benefits.php

identical twins are natural clones.

Natural clone but from two partners. I am talking from one partner. Is it possible that cell (not fertilized ova) due to some injury etc. or its DNA got embedded in uterus & develop as child of one partner.(just speculating) as 90% similar(non twins) are there.

No, that is not possible.

Then how cloning is possible?

You take an egg, enucleate it (fancy word for taking the nucleus out) and insert a nucleus from a somatic cell.

The key word is 'egg'.

Thanks for details. If we look at all three types of clonings i.e. Embryo cloning,DNA cloning & Therapeutic cloning , Therapeutic cloning seems to be much usefull. No doubt cruelty & unnaturality is involved. But there are so many allowed cruelities like abortion are allredy existing. Most of the ova(say 99%) are naturally dying & if some life is given to some of them, is it a bad thing.

Now the other question, DNA in enucleated ova can develop a embryo. Now, suppose a women naturally have blank ova(if possible) than some how DNA from male or her own cell enter in that ova & then develop in to embryo. Is it possible.

Originally posted by Kumar

Now the other question, DNA in enucleated ova can develop a embryo. Now, suppose a women naturally have blank ova(if possible) than some how DNA from male or her own cell enter in that ova & then develop in to embryo. Is it possible.

no, because there are some serious technical hurdles. There is a thread somewhere in sciforums about it. But I can't be bothered to look for it.

It is always simple on paper. Try to do research yourself and you will see that things are very different in real life.

It is always simple on paper. Try to do research yourself and you will see that things are very different in real life.

Very true words. Thanks. Today, I studied on cloning definition & some details. Discussions with you remained very specific & usefull.I leared a lot. Thanks & best regards.

Btw, can we discuss something about diabetes(some unusual thing) read at;

http://www.homeopathyhome.com/ultimate/ultimatebb.php?ubb=get_topic;f=9;t=000258;p=1#0000 09

i'm not interested in homeopathy

But this subject is on some 'can be mistake' in diabetic current theory on insulin resistance. If this forum is suitable to discuss medical issues.

have i mentioned that lamarck rules?

Originally posted by Kumar
But this subject is on some 'can be mistake' in diabetic current theory on insulin resistance. If this forum is suitable to discuss medical issues.

YES, medical issues. Not homeopathy, which by all accounts isn't real and does not work.

YES, medical issues. Not homeopathy, which by all accounts isn't real and does not work.

OK. As a guest, I have to give respect to host. Posted in other topic 'Observation & Opinion on Diabetes' in this forum.

I have two questions also posted in other topic:-

1. Sugar is a simple food whereas insulin is a highly sensitive
hormone. Diabetes is a hereditary disease. If sugar can be the responsible factor for this hereditary inheretance or Insulin? In other words, In Diabetes two changes takes place in type2. First, the blood sugar increases, second, the insulin secretion in blood also increases side by side till pacreas is working properly. Now which of these two will be the responsible factor which can cause additional genetic manifestations/hereditory inheritance or additional polyphenism. Sugar or Insulin?

2. If it is insulin, then if Insulin resistance will be caused by insulin or sugar(read ist posting)

Originally posted by Kumar
I have two questions also posted in other topic:-

1. Sugar is a simple food whereas insulin is a highly sensitive
hormone. Diabetes is a hereditary disease. If sugar can be the responsible factor for this hereditary inheretance or Insulin? In other words, In Diabetes two changes takes place in type2. First, the blood sugar increases, second, the insulin secretion in blood also increases side by side till pacreas is working properly. Now which of these two will be the responsible factor which can cause additional genetic manifestations/hereditory inheritance or additional polyphenism. Sugar or Insulin?

2. If it is insulin, then if Insulin resistance will be caused by insulin or sugar(read ist posting)

diabetes is not a polyphenism

Ok, I just want to know that which is out of Sugar and Insulin can be a responsible factor for causing Insulin resistance?

maybe both are

Diabetes

Causes

Type 1 diabetes is believed to be an autoimmune disease. The body's immune system attacks the cells in the pancreas that produce insulin.

Type 1 diabetes may run in families.

Environmental factors, such as certain types of viral infections, formula feeding beginning before age 3 months (that is, breastfeeding for less than 3 months, or not at all), and exposure to certain food additives, such as nitrates and nitrosamines, may also contribute.

Type 1 diabetes is most common in people of non-Hispanic white persons of Northern European descent, followed by African Americans and Hispanic Americans. It is relatively rare in those of Asian descent.

Type 1 diabetes is slightly more common in men than in women.
Type 2 diabetes: Type 2 diabetes is believed to have a strong genetic link, meaning that it tends to run in families. Several genes are being studied that may be related to the cause of Type 2 diabetes.

Ethnicity: Certain groups, such as African Americans, Native Americans, Hispanic Americans, and Japanese Americans, have a greater risk of developing type 2 diabetes than non-Hispanic whites.

Aging: Increasing age is a significant risk factor for type 2 diabetes. Risk begins to rise significantly at about age 45 years, and rises considerably after age 65 years.

"maybe both are"

Pls tell me direct responsible thing which triggers the cells for insulin resistance. Not like this; sugar causes increased insulin secretion>>increased insulin causes IR.

do a pubmed search

pubmed (http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/PubMed/)

I read previously, but they mentions it is lipotoxicity & glacutoxicity. But I doubt.

do your own experiments then. Opinions do not count for much in the scientific world, especially if you do not have any authority.

Thanks for the suggesions. My own experiment only indicates the same. Authorities? any one can be wrong and any other can be right in unsolved & with complication's issues.

Now another question;

During anyone's life, one may get some hereditary predipositions by lamarckism, of immunity & resistance to some diseases & disorders. One can also acquire some immunity and resistance by getting him exposed to several diseases & disorders. Now my question is that;

If a person gets hereditary predipositions & acquire during his lifetime by lamarckism , the immunities & resistances from certain diseases & disorders to which he or his parents were exposed? If these immunities & resistances will be passed on to his new generations or not by lamarckism ?

nothing that is acquired during ones lifetime will be passed on. That is lamarckism.

I agree, technically it is lamarckism which is defined as;

Lamarckism holds that traits acquired (or diminished) during the lifetime of an organism can be passed to its offspring. Lamarck based his on two observations considered to be true in his day:
Use and disuse - Individuals lose characteristics they do not require and develop those which are useful.
Inheritance of acquired traits - Individuals inherit the acquired traits of their ancestors.

With this in mind, Lamarck developed two laws:
"In every animal which has not passed the limit of its development, a more frequent and continuous use of any organ gradually strengthens, develops and enlarges that organ, and gives it a power proportional to the length of time it has been so used; while the permanent disuse of any organ imperceptibly weakens and deteriorates it, and progressively diminishes its functional capacity, until it finally disappears."
"All the acquisitions or losses wrought by nature on individuals, through the influence of the environment in which their race has long been placed, and hence through the influence of the predominant use or permanent disuse of any organ; all these are preserved by reproduction to the new individuals which arise, provided that the acquired modifications are common to both sexes, or at least to the individuals which produce the young"

Now please awnser my question in this refeance. Thanks for correcting me.

The genetic mutations causing these diseases were never acquired. They already had a genetic predisposition for the disorder.

Yes, sorry, I edited the previous two posts.

"In every animal which has not passed the limit of its development, a more frequent and continuous use of any organ gradually strengthens, develops and enlarges that organ, and gives it a power proportional to the length of time it has been so used; while the permanent disuse of any organ imperceptibly weakens and deteriorates it, and progressively diminishes its functional capacity, until it finally disappears."

Do these words advocates for the early marriage & other similar types works in early life before the development limit is passed??

sorry to bring you the bad news, but lamarckism is dead.

Then what is existing in this respect ??

Beauty due to elasticity of the science >>> Yesterday's Dead >> Today Alive >>Tomorrow Dead, OR Yesterday's Alive >> Today Dead >>Tomorrow Alive.....Alas!!... so on???:mad:

nothing is existing in this respect, except maybe if you really start fishing the retrovirus. It will add its genetic material to that of the host. If it would do this to a germline cell there is a chance that an acquired genetic change is passed on to the next generation. But it certainly isn't what you are hoping for to support your strange ideas.

Then, what do you mean by hereditary diseases & inheritance of chatacteristics?

I have explained it before. Look it up, or look at a biological textbook

Does my question not come under the Genes & Diseases details as mentioned under following link;

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/bv.fcgi?call=bv.View..ShowSection&rid=gnd

Is it possible that a woman can produce blank ova/egg i.e. without DNA but otherwise intact?

Is it possible that a woman can produce blank ova/egg i.e. without DNA but otherwise intact?

Is there any awnser to my above question. If this can be possible then whether natural cloning can be possible in this type of blank ova?

I believe it is possible, if there is an error in the last stages of meiosis, but it certainly isn't common enough to have these eggs utilized for cloning.

Idle Mind,

Thanks for the reply. Actually, we sometimes found some rare offsprings matches about 90% in appearance & character, with any one of the partner. So, can it be possible that the mutation/fertilization of DNA is in the blank ova of any one partner only like it happened in cloning. It may be related to some partners who may be having some problems in carring out the natural process & may get only one child. It can be a very important & rare condition.

No, anuclear eggs [lacking a nucleus, and therefore lack DNA (in eukaryotes)] cannot be fertilized, and therefore will not form into a human. There are no haploid humans, as far as I know.

Thanks. How then it happened in cloning ?

In cloning, the nucleus is taken out of the ovum, and a new nucleus (from a cell taken from the animal you wish to clone) is inserted. This is then implanted into the uterus of an adult, and allowed to develop. This cannot be done with humans at the moment, due to complications with nuclear transfer.

Is it sure that it can't be possible that some ova's are naturally produced in humans without nucleous?

yes..it is for sure

kumar you keep asking the same questions because you don't like the answers. Such as can an acquired disease be inherited in the offspring (well, aids goes from mother to child, not because it is assimilated into the DNA, but because the virus particle is passed on). Or this cloning stuff.

an ovum without nucleus is nothing. An ovum without a nucleus could never have developed into a nucleus. It is as simple as that. Development is also a very sensitive process. More than half of the fertilized eggs abort prematurely.

Thanks for clarifying. Actually I have seen few cases in which all characters of only one partner are present & nothing like 2nd partner. I recently heard that in one abortion of 3/4 month foetus it was was somethig like as not properly fertilized.

Now it means ova can be made blank for cloning but can't be naturally blank.

an ova is not entirely blank of course before cloning. It is loaded with information. However, most of this information or all will never be visible in the adult phenotype.

as mentioned in another thread in this biology forum, and egg is loaded with proteins, mRNAs and such which all contain information. It is just that this information is used during early development and that it is not transferred in any way into the DNA. It is a one-way stream of information. Otherwise you could be quite right in your assumptions.

an ova is not entirely blank of course before cloning. It is loaded with information

I was actually considering this type ova i.e. (ova(-) only DNA) as blank ova. Means ova with other informations loaded but no DNA.

Btw can it be possible that some early development is possible without fertilization by this loaded informations in egg which ultimetely abort after 3/4 months of just initial development.

No, it is not possible as far as I know. The egg won't begin to develop unless it is fertilized (fertilization acts as a trigger, so to speak). It has all the information handy to begin development, but it needs to be activated, which comes in the form of fertilization.