4 ms·
> Take 10 identical fertilized eggs and put them in 10 different people and you'll get 10 different humans Well, some would say if you took 10 identical fertil
by sho 2y ago
> Take 10 identical fertilized eggs and put them in 10 different people and you'll get 10 different humans
Well, some would say if you took 10 identical fertilised eggs and put them in the same human in serial you'd get 10 different humans. Some would say there's no such thing as 10 identical fertilised eggs, or 10 identical anything.
The question is how different? 10 identical eggs in 10 well-nourished, healthy people and the results should be pretty similar, no?
- tsimionescu 2y ago> Some would say there's no such thing as 10 identical fertilised eggs, or 10 identical anything. Sure, "identical" is a strong word for anything biological. > The question is how different? 10 identical eggs in 10 well-nourished, healthy people and the results should be pretty similar, no? My understanding is that they would be less similar than "identical" twins, more similar than regular siblings.
- calf 2y agoBut wouldn't "surrogate clones" as the category be closer to twins than siblings? They would be closer to twins than fraternal twins.
- tsimionescu 2y agoHonestly I don't think it's very clear. The practicalities of cloning processes make it so that we are very far from exploring what's in principle possible. All of the cloned mammals so far have died pretty young even when the original organism lived a long and healthy life, so in that sense they are technically way more different than even siblings. Of course, this is almost certainly just a limitation of our currently imperfect cloning technology, so it's hard to judge what a perfected cloning tech would do. Of course, certain aspects of appearance are known to be almost exclusively genetically determined, such as eye, hair, and skin color. Some fine details are known from identical twin studies to not be fully determined, such as fingerprints (twins have slightly different fingerprints). For the majority of other fine details, it's actually pretty unclear.
- pvaldes 2y agoLots of red flags here. To start, in the 99% of the times this question can be answered with: no. I bet that the man being promoted here as the best thing since the invention of Banjo, didn't discovered the effect of chemical gradients in Embryology. (I don't know everything, and I could be wrong. I'm open to discuss his published scientific articles in the field). That the same process that makes your arm will be repeated later to build each one of your fingers is known since many decades ago (count the number of articulations, is always car, car plus a cdr). See the video of U2 "Even better than the real thing" for a graphic representation of the idea. Yes, this is how it works basically. > Take 10 identical fertilized eggs and put them in 10 different people and you'll get 10 different humans You can bet it. This big claims always worry me. They either reveal a basic lack of understanding about biology, or are predatory and directed to select people that don't understand even the most basic concepts on Biology. An spermatozoa can be used just one or zero times. Period. There is not such thing as "10 identically fertilized eggs put in the same woman will get exactly the same human ten times", because is impossible to find 10 genetically identical spermatozoans and 10 genetically identical ovules to match them. Each time meiosis happens what you have is a similar but genetically different cell