Quote:

Originally Posted by sgtdmski As I stated, the idea that as humans we each have a unique genetic code, is well established in both science and law. If it were not, we would not worry about genetic profiles when it comes to legal cases. Again, you try to overwhelm with the minute details of science and ignore the larger philosophical issue at hand.

Well, you claim that a human has "a unique genetic code," and this conclusion, as a result, only warrants the question of, "How unique is that genome, really?" And, as a matter of fact, a human, as a whole, doesn't really have a unique genetic code per say...a human has, quite literally, billions of unique genetic codes within him or her.

Look at it this way; a Human genome is comprised of roughly 3.2 billion base pairs of nucleotides. That's a particular sequence and frequency of pairs of the four nucleotides, adenine (A), cytosine (C), guanine (G), and thymine (T) that are grouped in 46 chromosomes. Now, an adult human has roughly 100 trillion cells which comprise his or her body, most of which carry one copy of a sequence and frequency of pairs of A's, C's, G's, and T's. Again, given the limitations of accurate DNA replication during cellular mitosis (division), the efficiency of accurate DNA repair of mutations during cellular mitosis, and the general internal and externally-applied affects of mutagens during and outside of mitosis, every single one of those copies of genetic code within almost 100 trillion cells is possibly different...and even more so the more cell divisions that have occurred in a human (an aging human). So, in essence, a human really doesn't have "a unique genetic code"...a human has, quite likely, billions of different genetic codes within him or her. Thus, your "but a human has a unique genetic code" carries no real weight, in reality, since it is a meaningless conclusion...at least in my mind.

And, regarding DNA tests in court cases, the guilt (or innocence) of a suspect is based on some high probability that that suspect was involved in the crime in question. A DNA test, in short, doesn't prove with 100% certainty that the suspect was involved in a crime...it only demonstrates that there is a high probability that the suspect in question was involved in the crime. And prosecutors, rightfully so, use this data along with other evidence during a trial in order to reach a conviction.

Quote:

Originally Posted by sgtdmski Again, unfertilized eggs only contain 23 chromosomes, a human has 46. In cloning, you are not gaining a unique genetic profile. We are arguing now about potential and actual life. Science is very specific in its definitions, the words zygote, embryo and fetus all contain the words life.

Again, it is possible that, during the first few divisions of a zygote, the genetic code of that organism might change so that the two or more cells comprising the zygote could carry two or more different copies of DNA. And, if the existence of any unique genetic code warrants us to "protect" a cell carrying that unique genetic code, then I find it inconsistent if we don't extract all those particular "unique DNA" cells from a developing zygote and implant them in other women-or extract the genetic code in those cells for cloning purposes and implant the resulting cells in other women-in order for them to all realize their potential (be “protected”).

And, again, the term "life"-as well as other language terms-is ultimately subjective. (Are human germ cells "alive?")

(Actually, there doesn't appear to be any pre-natal application of the US Constitution...if one takes the US Constitution literally. If there is, in your mind, perhaps you aught to point it out.)

i LOVE Caribou Coffee!!! Much preferable to Starbuck$. Looks like Jefferson and I can agree on something! LOL

Crap!

it is a gender issue because you, being male, will NEVER EVER have an abortion.

and i've never had a "pro-choice" group tell me what to do with my life. the fact remains that as long as people are having sex, and that as much care is taken to prevent pregnancy, no method of birth control is 100% effective (not even surgical sterilization). Until such a time as there is 100% effective birth control AND all babies who are brought into the world are loved, wanted and able to be cared for, abortion should be safe, legal and rare.

come on, i'm not all bad. i even like motorcycles! (i can't ride, but i like them.)

Okay, you like Caribou Coffee and motorcycles.

Not bad, NOT BAD!!!!

I use to have a 1970 BSA org chrome, paint and @#$#% lucas elestric. Now I have a bone graft, titanium rod, five screws, in my left femur plus 13 screws in my left hand. And that is just a partial list

Sorry to hear that.

Was that an unavoidable accident, or teenage nonsense accident?

Both my sons had motorcycles. I figured they might as well cut their "riding teeth" riding with me instead of teenage hooligan friends. We've had lots of great rides. But they've both sold their cycles. Seems that rent & groceries have become pretty important to them.

It was a hit and run on a major freeway here. I had gone down before but never had broken bone. Now I'm to gun shy to ride.

I'm sure! That really sucks!

I'm constantly amazed by two things about rank & file drivers:
1. Disregard for the fact that motorcycles are actually motor vehicles.
2. Idiocy when following somebody pulling a trailer. My sons & I used to do a lawn-care business on the side - while they were in high school. I had a 16' tandem axle trailer that I'd pull down the road with 2-5 mowers, and all our equipment on it. It NEVER ceased to amaze me how people would pull up and follow about 5 frickin' feet behind the back of the trailer! It was simply unbelievable! It never happened, but if ANYTHING had fallen off the trailer, it would have gone right through their radiator or windshield.

Enough of the rant...

What kind of cycle was it, again?