9-11 GSD Cloned - Page 2

I read or heard that Trakr was 16 when he died.  That is pretty darn old for a GSD -- especially a Working Dog.

Maggie, that is an old age for a GSD. However, if I do recall,  it was shown that the sheep clones' cells where aged prematurely compared to that of a natural born. Meaning their "aging" molecular, clock was accelerated, or maybe it was started at a later age?

Beetree - yep, I understand.  Cloning is scary business, and I don't like it.

I saw the special report on Fox News. Interesting. They figure the cost to the public for cloning at about $160K.
I don't have aproblem with cloning animals, just not PEOPLE! If God didn't want us to have the technology he wouldn't have given it to us IMO. People, on the othere hand, are HIS domain.. ONLY.
If I had unlimited funds and enough cells from Onyx...
Well, maybe not, unless they could throw in a genetic marker to improve those a5 hips, LOL

Still, it will be interesting to see how the pups turn out.
I don't think cloned animals live so long as naturally produced ones. If I am not mistaken cell aging occurs more rapidly in clones. I know Dolly the Sheep didn't live too long.

SS

Another thing to think about, purely economical:

I can see paying a couple thousand dollars for a dog, or in some cases, even nearly 10K for a well-bred, titled, show rated one. 

But I can have a whole kennel built, and fill it with dogs, for between 150K and 200K.  Why would anyone want to pay that much for a dog, a copy, at that?

Aside from the creepy and unnatural aspect of cloning, as we all know, there is a vast number of traits within genetic structure, and messing with that, even a tiny bit, can have disasterous effects.  Cloning supposedly gives you a guarantee that the end product will be whatever you started with.  But if your dog only lives for a fraction of his or her original lifespan, and then dies, because somewhere, something got messed up, is it really worth the fortune it costs to have this done?

We mortals, be it dog or man, are put here for a limited lifetime.  When our time is up, it is up.  A duplicate won't extend our life any longer, nor will it give our dog another life.  The copy will be just another dog, or another human being, most likely riddled with health issues.

I think breeding and reproduction should be left to the one who's been doing it since before man's head got enlarged.  Just my opinion, of course.

Crys

It is the length of the telomeres.  That is why Dolly bit the dust and aged so quickly.

I think they now have some method of lengthening the telomres.

Any scientists out there?

Michele

Also, since he was sick, does that effect the dna they took from him? Amazing he lived to be 16 years old, I have heard most died early due to health problems associated with ground zero.

I have no problem with cloning.   Better living through chemistry, LOL.  Pharoaoh, I would be very interested in any information on the lengthening of the telomeres.  It is my understanding that telamerase (sp?) is the enzyme that us used by the body to lengthen telomeres.  With an adequate amount of telamerase, one could theroetically live to be 150 to 200 years old - not because it makes you live longer, but it reduces age related disease. 

I THINK the biggest problem with that kind of longevity is our (humankind) refusal to consider a reduction in our procreative abilities - the globe couldn't stand the  burden of a population of people living that long and continuing to procreate, LOL!

Still, with the potential of wisdom and potential for economic stability that might come from a long and healthy life that would be possible with telomere intervention in humans, I can only imagine the  world that might be a result.   It's an interesting philosophical and scientific topic.

And if the environment creates a different personality in the clones, then what you have are some very expensive, but different, dogs, ones that might not live as long as the original.

Morality and ethics aside, why pay 160K for a dog to be cloned, when you can get the very best of the best for far less?

I just don't agree with cloning at all.  Where is the need for science to get involved in trying to mimic life, when reproduction works perfectly fine? 

As for Luvdemdogs' assertions above, I'm not certain how you figure that genetic altering to increase lifespans in humans would be beneficial for economic stability.  Unless you reduced the amount of children being born by a vast amount, the population will still grow rapidly, and the majority of that growth is in third-world countries, not in soon to be third world countries like the US and the countries of Europe.

All living creatures have been given the ability to reproduce, and in that reproduction, is the contribution to the future of life, to immortality.  Copies aren't perfect reproductions of the original.  The more copies, the worse the problem gets to be.  Why tamper with something that we already know works? 

I'm just wondering what your reasoning is for thinking that cloning is a better option than what we have already. 

Crys