Re: [MLUG - DISCUSSION] cloning

["Jonathan King" <EMAIL:PROTECTED>]

On 10/5/06, Vern Green <EMAIL:PROTECTED> wrote:
> I would argue that a clone would indeed not act the same. Most of what makes
> us who we are is through our experiences. We act the way we do based on
> external influence.

Indeed, and that's what makes it a little spooky when you see the far
more moderate correlations between monozygotic twins raised together
when you look at IQ or even a fairly intuitive personality trait like
extraversion. These are clones raised in an environment that is as
alike for them as you can get, but still there is variability.

> My character is in no small part developed from
> interaction with my father, which no clone of me will have access to.

Indeed.

> Even in terms of the way I look. A clone might resemble me in many ways, but
> there are no guarantees that certain genetic traits would crop up.

Well...if they are strongly enough genetically determined, then the
chances are really good, barring some substantial prenatal event.

> For
> instance, I have a crooked little finger. I learned in biology (one of the
> only things I learned in biology) that this is a genetic trait, similar in
> nature to the "widow's peak". There is no guarantee that a clone of me would
> have that same trait. Some of the scientists on the list would correct me if
> I am wrong.

OK, so I'm guessing you're talking about camptodactyly? Where your
little finger is crooked and does not flex? The issue there is that
some cases of this are strongly genetically determined, while in other
cases, the genetics are less clear. The condition certainly can be
inherited, but I don't think it has to be. The situation is a lot more
complicated than (say) blood type, that's for sure.

Now, a hot topic in the field these days is looking for so-called
endophenotypes of more complex disorders or conditions. So trying to
figure out the genetics behind schizophrenia is a nightmare (I think
concordance between identical twins is only 50%), but if you could
find one or more phenotypes (observable characteristics) that were
more easily observable yet predictive of the disorder you are
studying, the idea is that you might be able to make  more headway.
(This is not my area of expertise; listen to Mike if you really want
to know about this, since he really and truly is an expert on this
stuff.)

So there is one endophenotype that I guess has turned out to be quite
strong, but is still fairly mysterious and actually a bit funny. We
can think of left handedness as a condition that has an obvious
genetic component, but which has environmental influences as well, and
it has pretty much stumped scientists what gene or genes are involved.
As it turns out, one really good predictor of right-handedness is
having a clockwise swirl direction for the hair on your head (the
midwest is a great place to study this, since so many guys have buzz
cuts :-)).  Counter-clockwise swirl direction is much less common, but
apparently just about 50% of these people are left handed. This has
suggested to some a model whereby the gene or genes that are
responsible for hair swirl direction play a large role in handedness
determination.  Basically, one variant of the gene may strongly bias
the situation and cause clockwise hair swirl and a shift towards left
hemisphere dominance (and handedness is tightly coupled there) while
the other variant causes no such bias, so that right hemisphere
dominance or no dominance occurs, and left-handedness becomes more
probable.  It's a fun idea, but so far...not too many papers.

> Most certainly, the scars I have, the crooked nose I have from a old break
> would not be present in a clone.

Maybe your clone would be just as annoying as you and somebody would
break his nose, too. :-)

jking

_______________________________________________
discussion mailing list
EMAIL:PROTECTED
http://mlug.missouri.edu/mailman/listinfo/discussion