Cloning would be worse than interbreeding. I don’t think you can understand that.

Which of course was NOT me. It was you that said that. And then you thank me for saying it. I did NOT say that. In fact I disputed that. Do you always have this much trouble?

You make the comment:

There is a problem with inbreeding

Finally you at least say it correctly. But you go on to say:

Now, all you have to do, is understand the reason that interbreeding is unhealthy, and you will understand why cloning is worse! Do your homework, and you might be OK after!

I have shown I do understand the problem with inbreeding (I did get an 'A' in my college genetics class btw) I have also shown (has does Crossbowman in his excellent response to your post) that you don't have a good grasp on the genetic process.

Boris comment:When you clone, you DOUBLE that chances, because you replace BOTH sets of genes with identical sets of the donor. This does not only increases your chances, it almost GUARATEES it.

No, it doesn't. It creates a person with the exact same genetic material of the donor. If that donor had no genetic defect, how could the clone? You cannot seem to explain that. You have repeatedly said you replace both sets of genes. But I am not sure you understand what you are saying. Of course you are replacing both sets of genes. Two sets are needed. But they are two functioning sets (otherwise the donor wouldn't be viable). I don't expect you to follow what is being said. But I would advise you seeing if you could meet with a professor in genetics to see if that person could explain it to you with pictures etc. You also made the comment that you double the chances etc. That isn't possible. Why? Because if the donor doesn't have the trait expressed, why would the clone? Answer: It won't because both sets of the allele would be the same as the original.