Boris> Technically no. When you are cloning, you are replacing BOTH sets of chromosomes with that of the donor. The donor’s parents are totally out of the picture, or you would be producing a sibling rather than a clone.

Boris> This is how it will be at least until we can figure out a way to clone without altering the reproductive procedures.

SKB> Then it wouldn't be cloning.

Boris> Correct. It wouldn’t be cloning, at least until we can find a different way.

SKB> IOW, if you make a copy of a human, it's parents would be the original ones. NOT the donor. And if it is a true copy, there is no more danger from the clone then from the original since they would be identical (aside from the component that is affected by enviorment) No changes in their DNA. The cloning process is more like that of digital copying then analog copying after all.

Boris> You cannot duplicate or clone a human without having the exact chromosomes other than identical twins, (Which is splitting the unified cell after conception, and NOT cloning. The ONLY way to do this, is to replace BOTH sets of chromosomes which are identical to the donor or source. This is NOT the same as a normal conception where you have two different sets of chromosomes, as you do when you have a normal conception with both parents. In a natural conception, you have two complete sets of chromosomes that are different. In cloning, you have two complete sets of chromosomes which are identical. This is something that cannot be disputed. A clone is always going to be different from a natural conception because of the perfect match of chromosomes.

SKB> Except that a clone isn't coming from reproduction. In reproduction, you have a mixing of the genes. You get traits from each parent and these traits are bound by certain rules (dominance for example) and randomness. These aren't involved in cloning. So if a brown eyed man with a 'hidden' blue eye gene produces an offspring with a blue eyed woman, they have a 50-50 chance of a blue eyed child. A clone of such a man would not have that 50-50. He would only produce a brown eyed clone. Unless you can show a problem with the clone based on that, you don't have a rational argument. Other than the mitochondria being older (as already discussed) there is no problem with the DNA individual. If you think differently, please show sources for your assertion. Remember that the clone's DNA is the same as the donor. Can you show why it should be a problem if it isn't a problem with the donor?