EPTI wouldn't discard genetics as a way to become a certain way on a behavioral level. Genes and brain structure are linked, I'm sure.
Ask and answer stupid questions here! - Page 558
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
Uldridge
Belgium5161 Posts
I wouldn't discard genetics as a way to become a certain way on a behavioral level. Genes and brain structure are linked, I'm sure. | ||
|
Thieving Magpie
United States6752 Posts
On December 29 2016 03:47 Uldridge wrote: Why would the clone behave completely different, though? I wouldn't discard genetics as a way to become a certain way on a behavioral level. Genes and brain structure are linked, I'm sure. That's a different discussion entirely. But let me put it this way. What would give you an advantage in raising a clone over raising a random child? Remember, all other children you make will also have your genes, not just your clone. Will this clone grow up with the same friends? Same parents? Same social structure? Same social class? Will he grow up with as much resources as you? Same teachers? Same food? Same illnesses? Same movies? Same books? Same education system? Will he have the same opportunities as you? Will he fall in love with the same people? Do the same drugs? Make the same mistakes? Will he have the same hobbies? If his friends, social practices, hobbies, personal goals, and personal interests are all different and the only difference is that instead of getting only 50% of your genes he has 100% of your genes--what will he do that gives you an advantage in raising him? | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
Thieving Magpie
United States6752 Posts
On December 29 2016 04:05 JimmiC wrote: Likely none of this since he is growing up at a different time period. As for social practices. hobbies, personal goals and personal interests are different or the same that would be a nature vs nurture discussion. I have seen people raise adoptive children (right from birth) and there is some challenges that don't exist in biological situations. If you change from 50% dna different and in 50% gender differences that is pretty significant. edit: the question is not if you raised yourself, its if you raised a clone of you. So the person does nothing similar to you, does not have the same social cues as you, and only has 50% more genetic traits than any other child. What does the 50% more genetic traits give that is different from the first 50% of genetic traits already given? | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
Thieving Magpie
United States6752 Posts
On December 29 2016 05:50 JimmiC wrote: Well it would do lots similar to you, because I'm sure you would raise him/her in a way similar to the way you were raised with some differences. And yes the question is if the identical DNA would make that much a difference. And it is not simply 50% as it could be more or less with how dominant and recessive genes work within your body. It seems like you are full nurture and don't think nature has much to do with who you become. I think it's a factor and after having kids more so. I think a prince thrown into the gutter will end up being a poor beggar. I think that a smart person taught to be stupid will become stupid while a stupid person with enough tutoring can learn to be smart. I think that genetics gives you a baseline that life molds into who a person is. Like clay in the hands of a sculptor. And I think that you haven't even answered the question of "what is it about having the same genes that allows you to have an easier time raising them?" Will the job you need to pay bills be different? Will the costs of schools be different? Will your taxes be different? Will the food you can afford to buy be different? Will your friends be different? What would you change that would be different? What would you be able to affect that someone differently by having a kid with 100% of your genes instead of just 50%? Or, let me put it this way, do you think parents have a hard time caring for their kids because they only share 50% of their genes? Or maybe you think that the kid will act like you. Let me ask you this; if you never met the people you've met would you be the same person? If you were taught different things in school that what you were taught, would you be the same person? If you grew up with half the money you grew up with, or twice the money you grew up with, would you be a different person? Do you think that if you taught someone science, but their genes were smart, they would be just as scientifically informed as a dumb kid taught science? Or do you think that many things in life affect who we become, and that genes simply makes some of those variables easier, harder, or different. We are talking about raising a kid. What does the other 50% give you that makes raising a kid easier? | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
Epishade
United States2267 Posts
| ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
|
Uldridge
Belgium5161 Posts
Answers in chronological order: no; depends on which part of the body is chimp and which is man; depends if people want to see humanzee fire a gun or fill in a form; third party at first, then when first humanzee right group is founded they negotiate, is having sex with a mermaid bestiality?; I guess whatever floats your boat, chimpist; yes, but be ready to be called a chimpist; depends on the STD; yes; then you should major in chimpazeese and figure it out for yourself Prof. Dr. Tur D. Flinger is a great authority on the subject; sometimes; then you lose bananas without knowing for sure if they translated correctly still; yes; no, unless one of your parents was a human and the other was a chimpanzee.. was one if them a human and the other a chimpanzee? | ||
|
Draconicfire
Canada2562 Posts
It's in a fish bowl right now, and since most aquarium heaters are designed for bigger tanks I don't think I can use one. I know I can buy a bigger tank too, but that's not really an option right now. In the mean time, anyone have any ideas for how I can safely heat up the bowl? I was thinking about using a mug warmer (https://www.amazon.com/Cookie-Powered-Coffee-Warmer-heater/dp/B00ANUH7QM/ref=sr_1_cc_2?s=aps&ie=UTF8&qid=1482989613&sr=1-2-catcorr&keywords=cookie+mug+heater) especially since the reviewers say it doesn't get hot, but maybe that's fine because I just need to get a fish bowl to a medium level? I'm just worried it'll like explode or catch fire if in use for a while. | ||
|
Cascade
Australia5405 Posts
On December 29 2016 14:35 Draconicfire wrote: So I recently got a betta fish for a gift. My room gets pretty cold and I can't leave the heating on all the time, so I worry about it because it's a tropical fish and needs to have sufficiently warm water. It's in a fish bowl right now, and since most aquarium heaters are designed for bigger tanks I don't think I can use one. I know I can buy a bigger tank too, but that's not really an option right now. In the mean time, anyone have any ideas for how I can safely heat up the bowl? I was thinking about using a mug warmer (https://www.amazon.com/Cookie-Powered-Coffee-Warmer-heater/dp/B00ANUH7QM/ref=sr_1_cc_2?s=aps&ie=UTF8&qid=1482989613&sr=1-2-catcorr&keywords=cookie+mug+heater) especially since the reviewers say it doesn't get hot, but maybe that's fine because I just need to get a fish bowl to a medium level? I'm just worried it'll like explode or catch fire if in use for a while. Before you do anything else, you read up (or ask someone in a pet shop or something) on which temperature range is good for this fish, then you get a reliable thermometer (or two to be sure) and check the temperature in the water. Then you decide if you need to heat the bowl or not. Keep the heater on until you've done that I guess. | ||
|
Acrofales
Spain18292 Posts
On December 29 2016 02:02 Thieving Magpie wrote: False conclusion: Assuming a clone of you would act the same as you. Being as you were never raised by a copy of you, your life has different variables than his and hence requires different responses which creates different lessons. *However* lets assume this is a repeated process. Each clone of yours that grows up then clones himself and raises that child, and then their child clones themselves and raises that child. At N progenies where N is, what I would assume, a fairly high number, I could imagine a genetic evolution where each generation gets easier and easier to raise. If each population has size 1, there is no selection possible, and if the cloning process is accurate, no generic change can take place, so how the hell do you see genetic evolution occurring?! What would work is a field guide to raising yourself, in which each generation records the best practices and records what does/doesn't work. | ||
|
Thieving Magpie
United States6752 Posts
On December 29 2016 17:54 Acrofales wrote: If each population has size 1, there is no selection possible, and if the cloning process is accurate, no generic change can take place, so how the hell do you see genetic evolution occurring?! What would work is a field guide to raising yourself, in which each generation records the best practices and records what does/doesn't work. Population can't be size 1, that would assume (a) exact same death rate and (b) exact same interest by progeny to continue the work. You would need X clones per generation to account for continual research bodies. I also assumed these clones would be the same as current clones, grown from a primary gene source. But when it comes to X generations, the original gene source would die out quickly and you would have several sources of genetic code over the years, each one with mutations and variations. | ||
|
Thieving Magpie
United States6752 Posts
On December 29 2016 07:23 JimmiC wrote: Man you make a lot off assumptions about what I think. My question: It was the question that you are now asking me with you never answering it (although from your long rambling posts it appears you think the answer is no.) and putting out like I somehow think one way or another. I think you should work on the assumptions you put on people if you do it here you likely do it throughout your life. Probably causes you all sorts of issues that don't even exist in reality because assumptions are not facts, and in fact lead to many fuck ups. You had one question: "Do you think you could do a better job of raising a clone then a child?" So when you asked: "Do you think you could do a better job of raising a clone then a child?" Did you not mean: "Do you think you could do a better job of raising a clone then a child?" So when I ask you: "We are talking about raising a kid. What does the other 50% give you that makes raising a kid easier?" How is that making assumptions? I'm literally pointing you back to the specific question you asked. | ||
|
Oshuy
Netherlands529 Posts
On December 29 2016 18:10 Thieving Magpie wrote: Population can't be size 1, that would assume (a) exact same death rate and (b) exact same interest by progeny to continue the work. You would need X clones per generation to account for continual research bodies. I also assumed these clones would be the same as current clones, grown from a primary gene source. But when it comes to X generations, the original gene source would die out quickly and you would have several sources of genetic code over the years, each one with mutations and variations. If you intend to clone based on genetics alone, over the long term you wouldn't work from source samples: You store them on file and use a synthetic genome. It is currently not reliable for something as complex as a human, but we're up to synthetic bacteria. Targetting humans isn't that far off (www.nytimes.com for example). Not workable in the next 10, but usable long before you would get any decay in samples. | ||
|
xM(Z
Romania5299 Posts
I think that a smart person taught to be stupid will become stupid while a stupid person with enough tutoring can learn to be smart. just want to throw that in and emphasize that it would never happen. the part about the poor sure, but the quoted bullshit? ... never. about the whole 100% DNA and things: - you are not 100% your DNA. you are a combination of your initial DNA and a host of other DNA and RNA with which you interacted through out your life time(bacteria/viruses and such). + Show Spoiler + valid argument here is what effect did those had on you, if any - even if you were to clone yourself(assume duplication of somatic cells(?) and not only of gametes/germ cells) you'd have to make sure the initial DNA remains intact and you can't do what because you can't live without (some)bacteria/viruses. - even if you manage to keep the clone DNA intact, you will likely to change then blame the clone for sucking at being you. Edit: the answer to your questions would be a big fat no. | ||
|
Deleted User 101379
4849 Posts
Nurture plus potential provides your abilities. Someone born smart growing up around dumb people will have less knowledge than someone born smart in an environment that allows hin to learn. Someone born with a talent for swimming wont become a good swimmer if he grows up in a desert. Success is ability plus luck. | ||
|
JimmiC
Canada22817 Posts
| ||
| ||
