Let's assume for a moment that human clones would NOT have souls.

[Hans Blaster]

Somewhat ... don't claim to be a scientist ...

The male genome differs from the female genome in the number of X chromosomes that it contains, as well as by the presence of a Y chromosome. It is the overriding presence of a gene on the Y chromosome (SRY) that results in development of the male gonadal phenotype.

There is manipulation of reproduction going on ..... sure .... and also study on the cellular level and experiments of such going on. Study and manipulation of something that is already there.

Show me where (without using theory) this "one cell" we all "grew from" is?

I guess you need to do some reading. You can start here:

Zygote - Wikipedia

You should have learned this in health class.

 

[Larniavc]

Are there really any issues with cloning people as long as they do not have souls?

I would need to see empirical evidence that clones don't have souls before I could make any judgement.

 

[Larniavc]

What is the one (single cell)?

You know about how all humans are the result of a single fertilized cell that replicates? That's the cell.

 

[eleos1954]

I guess you need to do some reading. You can start here:

Zygote - Wikipedia

You should have learned this in health class.

A zygote is a single cell formed after the fertilization of an egg cell from the female with the sperm from the male.

Egg cell already there.

 

[Hans Blaster]

A zygote is a single cell formed after the fertilization of an egg cell from the female with the sperm from the male.

Egg cell already there.

And then you grew from that single cell -- the zygote. Just like everyone else did and just like a clone would.

 

[eleos1954]

And then you grew from that single cell -- the zygote. Just like everyone else did and just like a clone would.

Ignore the egg cell if you wish ..... produce a zygote without an egg cell.

 

[Tinker Grey]

Show me where (without using theory) this "one cell" we all "grew from" is?

A fertilized egg is the single cell from which you grew.

 

[Hans Blaster]

Ignore the egg cell if you wish ..... produce a zygote without an egg cell.

A. The zygote IS A SINGLE CELL.

2. The "standard" cloning method take an ovum (an egg cell) and replace the genetic material with that from an adult cell and trigger the cell division that would normally happen for a freshly fertilized ovum.

 

[eleos1954]

A. The zygote IS A SINGLE CELL.

2. The "standard" cloning method take an ovum (an egg cell) and replace the genetic material with that from an adult cell and trigger the cell division that would normally happen for a freshly fertilized ovum.

It takes two cells to produce a zygote ... the zygote is the combination of two cells.

Without using theory .... which of these two cells ..... which "one cell" "evolved first and how did the supposedly one cell become two with differences (XX/XY)?

You have to have the two cells for fertilization to take place.

 

[Hans Blaster]

It takes two cells to produce a zygote ... the zygote is the combination of two cells.

Without using theory .... which of these two cells ..... which "one cell" "evolved first and how did the supposedly one cell become two with differences (XX/XY)?

You have to have the two cells for fertilization to take place.

Once fertilization occurs THERE IS ONLY ONE CELL. It has a new and unique genome. This happens millions of times each year. (More times than the birth count.)

This is just basic human (mammalian/vertebrate) biology. Two cells, one from each parent, merge into one and then the merged cell grows into a new organism by cell division.

Cloning works slightly different, in that instead of merging a spermatozoa with an ovum, the genetic material of the ovum is removed and replaced with the genetic material from an adult cell and then chemically triggered to begin the division process.

(The evolutionary origins of sexual reproduction is irrelevant to the cloning/natural reproduction questions.)

 

[eleos1954]

Once fertilization occurs THERE IS ONLY ONE CELL. It has a new and unique genome. This happens millions of times each year. (More times than the birth count.)

This is just basic human (mammalian/vertebrate) biology. Two cells, one from each parent, merge into one and then the merged cell grows into a new organism by cell division.

Cloning works slightly different, in that instead of merging a spermatozoa with an ovum, the genetic material of the ovum is removed and replaced with the genetic material from an adult cell and then chemically triggered to begin the division process.

(The evolutionary origins of sexual reproduction is irrelevant to the cloning/natural reproduction questions.)

No .... it is relevant .... each cell has different genetic material ... the two cells become one cell.

Create genetic material without the ovum. The genetic material already exists.

Without using theory .... which of these two cells ..... which "one cell" "evolved first and how did the supposedly one cell become two with differences (XX/XY)?

You can't get something from nothing (something that does not exist)

 

[Hans Blaster]

No .... it is relevant .... each cell has different genetic material ... the two cells become one cell.

Create genetic material without the ovum. The genetic material already exists.

Without using theory .... which of these two cells ..... which "one cell" "evolved first and how did the supposedly one cell become two with differences (XX/XY)?

You can't get something from nothing (something that does not exist)

No one is creating genetic material in reproduction. Not by sexual reproduction (merging of spermatozoa and ovum) or cloning (using the genetic material of an adult cell) in forming the zygote.

You seem to be wanting to bring in "evolution". Evolution has nothing to do with this. It is about how an individual organism is made -- the old fashion, sexual fashion with the merging of two "half-genomes", or the insertion of a full adult genome from an existing individual via cloning. Once we get past this we can get to the "soul" discussion.

 

[eleos1954]

No one is creating genetic material in reproduction. Not by sexual reproduction (merging of spermatozoa and ovum) or cloning (using the genetic material of an adult cell) in forming the zygote.

You seem to be wanting to bring in "evolution". Evolution has nothing to do with this. It is about how an individual organism is made -- the old fashion, sexual fashion with the merging of two "half-genomes", or the insertion of a full adult genome from an existing individual via cloning. Once we get past this we can get to the "soul" discussion.

The point is ..... something can not come from nothing .... whether evolution or otherwise.

 

[Hans Blaster]

The point is ..... something can not come from nothing .... whether evolution or otherwise.

This isn't "evolution". This isn't "something from nothing".

Cloning is taking the existing genetic material from an adult cell of an animal (human or otherwise) and placing it into an ovum and triggering growth into a new organism that is the genetic duplicate of the original. Every "something" here (the ovum, the genetic material, the grown organism) comes from existing stuff.

Sexual reproduction involves creating a new genome in a new zygote by combining the half-genome of the ovum with another from a spermatozoon to form the zygote which then grows to a new organism. No "something from nothing" here either.

The only difference (and this is the point I've tried making for several posts and days) is how the genome is assembled: one by merging the half-genomes from two gametes, the other by using the genome from a grown organism. That is all.

 

[eleos1954]

This isn't "evolution". This isn't "something from nothing".

Cloning is taking the existing genetic material from an adult cell of an animal (human or otherwise) and placing it into an ovum and triggering growth into a new organism that is the genetic duplicate of the original. Every "something" here (the ovum, the genetic material, the grown organism) comes from existing stuff.

Sexual reproduction involves creating a new genome in a new zygote by combining the half-genome of the ovum with another from a spermatozoon to form the zygote which then grows to a new organism. No "something from nothing" here either.

The only difference (and this is the point I've tried making for several posts and days) is how the genome is assembled: one by merging the half-genomes from two gametes, the other by using the genome from a grown organism. That is all.

I'm not talking about evolution here ..... and yes it is something from nothing ..... genetical material .... is something .... nothing is non extent

Every "something" here (the ovum, the genetic material, the grown organism) comes from existing stuff.

Yes .... correct existing stuff (more than one) .... not nothing. The combination of existing stuff .... THEN it becomes one cell .... it don't start out that way (one single cell). It's a simple point that I've been bringing up .... That is all.

 

[Hans Blaster]

I'm not talking about evolution here ..... and yes it is something from nothing ..... genetical material .... is something .... nothing is non extent

The genetic material all existed beforehand, either in the parents for sexual reproduction or the donor individual for cloning.

Yes .... correct existing stuff (more than one) .... not nothing. The combination of existing stuff .... THEN it becomes one cell .... it don't start out that way (one single cell). It's a simple point that I've been bringing up .... That is all.

That's literally something from something. (one cell from 2)

 

[eleos1954]

No one is creating genetic material in reproduction. Not by sexual reproduction (merging of spermatozoa and ovum) or cloning (using the genetic material of an adult cell) in forming the zygote.

You seem to be wanting to bring in "evolution". Evolution has nothing to do with this. It is about how an individual organism is made -- the old fashion, sexual fashion with the merging of two "half-genomes", or the insertion of a full adult genome from an existing individual via cloning. Once we get past this we can get to the "soul" discussion.

well .... lets get back to the original topic ....

Are there really any issues with cloning people as long as they do not have souls?

In a theoretical scenario where their consciousness is limited to bodily and physical awareness as well as rationality and logic. They would not question their purpose.

Would there really be any issue?

(This is a question that was posed to me.)

First it depends on what one's definition of a "soul" is ....

bodily and physical awareness as well as rationality and logic.

These are things that develop from experiences over a course of a human life. All living creatures are purpose-driven: such as in animals they are instinctual .... humans are instinctual to certain degrees .... humans have the capability to exceed that (abstract thinking).

That being the case ... IF an exact clone were possible .... then sure they would ponder their purpose .... how they would define their purpose would vary .... just as it does now.

 

[maves]

I would need to see empirical evidence that clones don't have souls before I could make any judgement.

i personally disagree with it very much, as clones would most likely have souls, but i was in a debate where this was assumed on the other side, and i wanted a good rebuttal.

 

[Hans Blaster]

well .... lets get back to the original topic ....


First it depends on what one's definition of a "soul" is ....



These are things that develop from experiences over a course of a human life. All living creatures are purpose-driven: such as in animals they are instinctual .... humans are instinctual to certain degrees .... humans have the capability to exceed that (abstract thinking).

That being the case ... IF an exact clone were possible .... then sure they would ponder their purpose .... how they would define their purpose would vary .... just as it does now.

So in short, human clones are people no different than anyone else. So the answer to the titular question is then:

Clones posses souls in the same fashion as any other human.

(Just like anyone else, they don't have a "soul", but do have consciousness.)

 

[Larniavc]

i personally disagree with it very much, as clones would most likely have souls, but i was in a debate where this was assumed on the other side, and i wanted a good rebuttal.

To be fair I would also like empirical evidence that non clones have souls as well.