Why don't we just clone Einstein, Von Neumann and shit?

I don't know. Can we do the first two without the shit?

why the fuck would you want to clone shit.

I get Einstein but why neumann? He's a below average mathematician who has zero contributions to anything.

We should get the relativity team together and respawn Borh and Lorentz along with Einstein.

>>8322937
No, wtf. Science advances by old scientists dying as the paradigm changes. Einstein was smart in his time, but he wouldn't be able to get his head around QFT, he'd hate it.

That's like saying Newton should have been revived in 1905, this is beyond stupid.

>>8322937
why doesnt whitey just clone my BBC?

>>8322937
unethical

difficult (albeit possible)

>>8322937
All else aside because all we have of them is old man DNA so any clone would only last a few years and probably wouldnt even reach maturity

>>8323650
I dont think that's the way it actually works and am pretty sure that's popsci/urban legend bs

(Or is it? Genuinely curious here)

>>8323656
Thats not the way it works.

You reset the organism when you gestate entirely from a single egg.

Note that without a frozen egg from one of their mothers, the clones wouldn't actually be entirely genetically identical, as the mitochondria would be different. Probably not a big difference there, though.

Environment is an entirely different story.

>>8323650
you're a fucking moron

>>8323702
> frozen egg
Humans aren't birds, wtf are you talking about.

>>8323656
>>8323704
That actually is how it works. DNA degrades as you age, if we took a sample from Einsteins corpse it would be damaged and the clone would not live very long

>>8323702
lol

so you think that when you clone an organism it's just a fresh new organism?

lol


You do actually have to take into account the age of the organisms DNA when cloning, because yes it does have an effect on the growing process. And yes it will be fucked up.

>>8323750
its fucking amazing how old people give birth to young people, isn't it?

>>8323750
Wow. So aging is strictly a function of DNA damage? If only we had some kind of biomechanical mechanism to repair DNA damage, why, everybody could live forever!!!

I mean, that is just amazing. It is so profound, we should probably get to work designing more than one such mechanism, right?

>>8323773
You realise sperm quality decreases as you age right? And that the older a man is when he has a child the more likely it is the child will have genetic defects? Because sperm DNA gets worse as you get older?

>>8323755
>and yes it will be fucked up
this totally explains why old men never sire children, but instead half-mutated man-babies that die before they reach sexual maturity.

>>8323776
>So aging is strictly a function of DNA damage
No there are other factors, but DNA quality probably the biggest one.

> If only we had some kind of biomechanical mechanism to repair DNA damage, why, everybody could live forever!!!
Much longer certainly

>we should probably get to work designing more than one such mechanism, right?
We should

I gather your post is some kind of joke but I cant see what it is

>>8323777
you realize that an increased chance of defects means an increased risk of genetic disease or spontaneous abortion, but that perfectly healthy offspring are still likely?

you realize how statistics works, riiight?

>>8323778
>this totally explains why old men never sire children
It explains why its far less common and has a higher rate of genetic disorder

>>8323781
Im confused as to whether you actually understand that DNA accumulates damage as you age. This is an actual thing that actually happens

>>8323779
>I gather your post is some kind of joke but I cant see what it is
And that is why you shouldn't be posting on this topic and spend some time reading up on genetics instead. It's bad enough you don't recognize the blatantly obvious problems in your argument, but to keep on posting as if you are an authority is beyond the pale.

There are multiple biomechanical functions within the cell to preserve DNA fidelity. They are absolutely crucial to life and are highly preserved across all known living organisms.

Accumulated DNA damage does occur, but it is not the leading factor in aging by any means. And while you may want to clone a young organism to reduce the overall likelihood of incorporating such errors in the offspring, it is by no means necessary, and even if you do include such errors, the offspring will survive to the average age on average completely normally.

You must realize, by the time your parents had you, they had also accumulated some errors? And so it was with their parents, and their parents, and their parents, and so on and so on and so on...

There is no such thing as "pure" DNA. Your entire argument rests on a monumental fallacy.

>>8323748
are you retarded, he is talking about a egg cell

>>8323784
And I am astounded that you do not realize that old men sire children all the fucking time, and these children, for the most part, do not die young because of "accumulated errors", but instead are born perfectly healthy as babies, with a normal life span.

Yes, there can be a slightly higher instance of some defects across the population, but for the most part this is not the norm, nor do these defects tend to have a significant detrimental effect on the child.

So the argument that if you cloned Einstein, the DNA would be too "old man DNA so any clone would only last a few years and probably wouldnt even reach maturity" is patently ridiculous.

>>8323793
My argument rest on the fact that this is an actual issue with cloned organisms and always has been.

I am well aware we have numerous mechanism to prevent and repair DNA damage, but they dont always work and any mistake they make is permanent

And yes, obviously any germline mutations your parents accumulate before conceiving you will be passed on

>what are telomeres?
-this thread

>>8323808
https://www.newscientist.com/article/dn1903-cloned-animals-meet-early-deaths/

>>8323808
So then with Einstein, what you do is take a bunch of cells and start multiple germ-lines, and then you fertilize a bunch of eggs, and then you select the zygotes that seem to be developing most normally, and you take it from there?

And that that is what they actually do when they clone organisms anyways?

And that this is simply reproducing, albeit in a much faster process, the normal selection that happens in the womb when sperm have to make it there, and the egg has to develop properly and attach, and the fetus has to develop normally or it spontaneously aborts?

Once you get past that bottle-neck, either way, the offspring IS HIGHLY LIKELY TO BE NORMAL and does not die before sexual maturity. You are talking completely out of your ass, kid.

>>8323815
You cant tell what the embryo is going to do later in life from how it does as an embryo. Animals cloned from adult cells have an alarming tendency to age rapidly and die young

>>8323795
Sorry to break this to you but humans don't hatch from eggs.

>>8322937
We tried but all we got was a fucking lamb.