NationStates Jolt Archive

I just came across an interesting article concerning female artificial reproduction:

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn4909


'Virgin birth' mammal rewrites rules of biology


A mammal that is the daughter of two female parents has been created for the first time.

Until now such a feat had been considered biologically impossible. But the mouse, called Kaguya, was born without the involvement of any sperm or male cell - only female eggs were needed.

In the same way that the birth of Dolly the sheep in 1997 shattered the dogma that an adult cell could never be reprogrammed to make a new individual, the fact that Kaguya lives challenges another one of long-held rule: that two mammals of the same sex cannot combine their genomes to give rise to viable offspring....

So, to all those homophobes out there : as it will be possible in the near future for two women to have a child together, you need to come up with some new arguments as to why they should not be allowed to marry....

Becuase deep down, in every womans heart.....shes not truly happy unless theres something burping, and farting, and swearing at the T.V.


*Nods*

Hmmm, I suspect the homophobes will argue that this is precisely why they shouldn't be allowed to marry, so they can't have kids. Presumably under the belief that gay parents will always raise gay kids, or that just because they feel uncomfortable around gays, so must the kids.

Don't know why, but that just doesn't feel right to me.

Meh.

Not that I'm one to impede discovery and progress, but it just doesn't *feel* right.

Then again, I also worship Baal and had several pet R.O.U.S.es, so who am I to talk about what's "right"?

First off, the government should stay out of marriage.
Secondly, I do believe that the presence of a responsible, loving father figure helps to raise better adjusted children. Various studies have shown that children with fathers are less likely to get involved with drugs and other crime, and also tend to do better in school. These studies are all US based, however. I have no idea how things work in other parts of the world.

Once again us humans prove how immoral and foolish we really are and how much we love messing up the world and natural order of things... makes me ashamed to be human actually

Why shouldn't we advance our knowlage?

Well i know the whole appealing to nature thing can annoy people but this has actually happened a few times in nature (the males being eliminated) and the species began a decline very soon after.

note: this post has nothing whatsoever to do with homosexuality in nature.

because we ruin everything we touch, thats why

The natural order dictates we should let ourselves die from disease, or the elements, or other predators, or a lack of resources. So lets burn our houses and clothes and treatments!

Don't give us that natural order crap. If you want to be natural, strip off your clothes, eat raw meat and live like a caveman. And don't shave, brush your teeth or wipe your arse after going to the loo (behind a bush, none of that fancy toilet stuff).

To be completely honest, I for one really couldn't care less.
Whether I'm going to end up in a permanent heterosexual or homosexual relationship, I've got no intention to marry, and no intention whatsoever to ever put another child on this planet. It's bad enough that moy mother thought it was a good idea, I don't have to make the same mistakes.

However, I find this research extremely interesting and fascinating. There's a lot of information that has been gathered in the course of these experiments that will be useful in medical science.
My opinion still is, if two people want a child but can't have one, adopt one. There are more than enough out there who need a good loving home.
And, no, a father figure isn't essential. Better have none than have one like I did...

The natural order dictates we should let ourselves die from disease, or the elements, or other predators, or a lack of resources. So lets burn our houses and clothes and treatments!

Don't give us that natural order crap. If you want to be natural, strip off your clothes, eat raw meat and live like a caveman. And don't shave, brush your teeth or wipe your arse after going to the loo (behind a bush, none of that fancy toilet stuff).

was that directed at me?

because we ruin everything we touch, thats why


If thats true, then we are as our creator must have intended us to be.

because we ruin everything we touch, thats why
My computers fine at the moment, and I'm touching it.

alright then, live in a morally corrupt world, try to please everyone, have fun breathing through tubes when the atmosphere collapses and every bit of exposed flesh is fried from radiation and every bit of privacy is taken away by means of keeping security, have fun in the army too because we will all be fighting each other, natural order doesn't mean natural living

was that directed at me?

Nope, Dirgecallers

If thats true, then we are as our creator must have intended us to be.
We are being tested by our creator and we are failing badly

We are being tested by our creator and we are failing badly
How do you know, did he tell you?

Don't you just love people who think they have any idea what god wants (if he actually exists)?

so you think we were put here for no reason? you think that an afterlife (if one exists in your belief) is achieved by destroying everything?

We are being tested by our creator and we are failing badly


Bah!

Then that would mean that God is quite fallable, and didnt possess the foresight to see the inevitable failure of such a test.

Everything we touch turns to shit, becuase everything eventually falls to entropy.

Don't you just love people who think they have any idea what god wants (if he actually exists)?

and by disagreeing with me you also think that you do

Bah!

Then that would mean that God is quite fallable, and didnt possess the foresight to see the inevitable failure of such a test.

Everything we touch turns to shit, becuase everything eventually falls to entropy.
Possibly. I'll tell you at the end.

Bah!

Then that would mean that God is quite fallable, and didnt possess the foresight to see the inevitable failure of such a test.

Everything we touch turns to shit, becuase everything eventually falls to entropy.

it means that we are not even close to perfect beings and that we should aspire to be better

What's all this have to do with the future biological function of men?

We've done some bad things, sure enough. Like stopping loving couples from marrying when it won't make a blind bit of difference to how the world operates.

"Gays can marry! I must divorce my wife, put my kids into foster care and kill lots and lots of people! I must kill children, so they can't become more tolerant and harbour less hatred in their hearts!"

it means that we are not even close to perfect beings and that we should aspire to be better


Wich is impossible if we are so truly flawed beings.

and by disagreeing with me you also think that you do
*Sigh* No, I don't. I don't know what he thinks. If I happen to get it right, then it was not because I actually knew what he wanted, it was just a coincidence.

and by disagreeing with me you also think that you do

Not necessarily.

"Everything that can be thought will be thought at one time or another" - F. Duerrenmatt

Humans are curious by nature, that's how we got to be the way we are now. If you reject other's curiosities, you might as well stop typing right now...

since when did love exist? It is nothing more than a word, like freedom or rights

You might as well add psychotic to that list I came up with on the first page... I have argued my point very well and you have all proved me right, thank you

so you think we were put here for no reason? you think that an afterlife (if one exists in your belief) is achieved by destroying everything?
I don't think we where put here, full stop. And I don't think theres a afterlife eather.

Love? You mean that warm, pleasant feeling that makes you content just to sit with your partner, and makes fear flood your body when you think they may have come to harm?

If you can't even feel one of the most tangible driving forces of human emotion, then what on earth is wrong with you?

Seriously, you must feel it, or there is something fundamentally wrong with the chemical balance of your body.

Wich is impossible if we are so truly flawed beings.
It's not just the results that count but what it takes to get them.
Would you be more impressed with someone getting a 9inch group with a .50 rifle at 900 yds or some one getting the same group with a lee enfield?
see not just what you get but what material you use to get it.
I think what I'm saying, is it not better that flawed humanity can achieve great things than a perfect humanity doing the same?

It. Does. Not. Exist. Therefore there is nothing to feel

You might as well add psychotic to that list I came up with on the first page... I have argued my point very well and you have all proved me right, thank you


No, actually youve spouted bitterness towards humanity in general, and havent really made a case for much of anything.

And, no, a father figure isn't essential. Better have none than have one like I did...


I have seen the things you posted about your parents Cabra, and you are right about that. That is why I used the qualifiers responsible and loving and also why I said “father figure” as it doesn’t necessarily have to be a biological father.

It. Does. Not. Exist. Therefore there is nothing to feel
It does exist. I've felt it.

It's not just the results that count but what it takes to get them.
Would you be more impressed with someone getting a 9inch group with a .50 rifle at 900 yds or some one getting the same group with a lee enfield?
see not just what you get but what material you use to get it.
I think what I'm saying, is it not better that flawed humanity can achieve great things than a perfect humanity doing the same?


Im sorry, but the analogy with the guns....ya lost me there...

But..as for humanity..

Its nice to me, that we as humans can achieve anything significant, and even though capable of great things...most times such greatness is overwhelmed by greed and stupidity.

as I have said before: Psychotic

as I have said before: Psychotic
What is, your making no sense.

stated my point well, now I am off to sleep

as I have said before: Psychotic


and as I have said before...

Crap.

Love is a basic human emotion.

Its even formidable in lesser mammals.

Dont believe me?

Get a dog.

It. Does. Not. Exist. Therefore there is nothing to feel

Actually, it can be scientifically proven that it does exist. It's a electro-chemical and hormonal reaction stimulating certain areas in your brain.

No you didn't. I don't understand at all. WHATS YOUR POINT

stated my point well, now I am off to sleep


I would have settled for you to state A point...any point at all.

Good night sweet prince...let not dreams of rationality trouble thy rest.

I have seen the things you posted about your parents Cabra, and you are right about that. That is why I used the qualifiers responsible and loving and also why I said “father figure” as it doesn’t necessarily have to be a biological father.

I think the general misunderstanding here is just that: A child will not only have its parents as parental figures, just as you said.
A family is not an island, there are friends, neighbours, other relatives, people all around. Social interaction is learned and practiced by children in single-parent families just as it is learned and practiced in clan families.
It's not really important that the people the child learns interaction with are related in any way, it's a simple case of the more, the better.
If you consult you statistics again, they will also show you that children do better if they have more brothers and sisters, if they have close contact with neighbours' children, if they have close connections to people outside the own family, etc.

No, to ensure that a child will have a good childhood you don't need a father. You just need people around you who love and accept that child.

Well i know the whole appealing to nature thing can annoy people but this has actually happened a few times in nature (the males being eliminated) and the species began a decline very soon after.
Exactly. The last time this happened (I forget how long ago), the human Y gene almost ceased to exist. We know this because of scar-marks still present on every Y gene.

No, to ensure that a child will have a good childhood you don't need a father. You just need people around you who love and accept that child.

In my experience (read non-statistical and limited to a limonene liberal suburb and the rural American South) men who had father’s growing up that they loved and respected tend to fit my definition of honorable far more often than not, and women who had the same type of father tend to exhibit what I consider to be proper conduct for a lady, far more often than not.

Exactly. The last time this happened (I forget how long ago), the human Y gene almost ceased to exist. We know this because of scar-marks still present on every Y gene.

Woops, I dont think i stated that properly. I mean other animals have at some point eliminated males (Not humans, one of them was a type of spider but there have been a couple of others) but they quickly went into decline right after that. I'm not sure what you're talking about in reference to humans.

So, to all those homophobes out there : as it will be possible in the near future for two women to have a child together, you need to come up with some new arguments as to why they should not be allowed to marry....

*Wonders what your definition of the words "near future" would be*

LOL

Woops, I dont think i stated that properly. I mean other animals have at some point eliminated males (Not humans, one of them was a type of spider but there have been a couple of others) but they quickly went into decline right after that. I'm not sure what you're talking about in reference to humans.

Whiptail lizards are doing just fine.

as I have said before: Psychotic

Yes, one incapable of feeling love would most likely be psychotic.

I hereby revoke Dirgecallers' speaking privileges.

*Wonders what your definition of the words "near future" would be*

LOL

Oh, I'm a patient person... anything within the next century or two ;)

Oh, I'm a patient person... anything within the next century or two ;)

LOL. Well, ok then, there's a chance it might happen in humans by then. =)

2 males still can't have a baby together :D

*dives for cover before flames start*

I don't think males are necessarily obselete. I believe that they are not as indispensible as many seem to think they are, especially to life in this age and beyond. Reproductively it is as Madame Mao said, man's contribution to society is but one drop of sperm.

I get the feeling that a type of egg/egg birth such as this would only result in females. Note that A. This "virgin animal" was female, and B. the Y chromosome comes from semen.

And we all know that a world of all females would collapse simply because everyone would loathe eachother on pure general grounds.

More then today, you know.

Well, SOMEONE has to go downstairs and see what that weird noise that's probably nothing but might be something is.

WTH is wrong with humans these days? I'm okay with certain genetics research, The kind that lead to such discoveries as Why we live so long, Why we are all differant, How babies are made... but this is a little to screwed up for me...

At any rate to answer your question, males are not obsolete YET, and there are still those women who will think is odd AFTER we perfect the method...
Perfect the method? I have to go vomit now... :headbang:

Love? You mean that warm, pleasant feeling that makes you content just to sit with your partner, and makes fear flood your body when you think they may have come to harm?

If you can't even feel one of the most tangible driving forces of human emotion, then what on earth is wrong with you?

Seriously, you must feel it, or there is something fundamentally wrong with the chemical balance of your body.

The dude/dudette must be from Vulcan then! LOL

Various studies have shown that children with fathers are less likely to get involved with drugs and other crime, and also tend to do better in school.
These are single parent families. It's not because there's no father, it's because there's just one parent. These studies say nothing about 2 women or 2 men.

These are single parent families. It's not because there's no father, it's because there's just one parent. These studies say nothing about 2 women or 2 men.

Never claimed it did. However, the studies were conducted on two parent families, not on families run by a single father.

Anyway, I just thought of a reason that males will not become biologically obsolete. For the vast majority of females in the world, other women just don’t do it for them, and, if they are going to have children, they would rather conceive naturally.

Those punks stole my idea and went and made it work.

http://forums.jolt.co.uk/showpost.php?p=8349483&postcount=4

From the Article in the Original Post: However, several experts have already warned against assuming the method could be used in humans to help two women have a biological child, not least because the process is extremely inefficient.
Also from the Original Article: However, Kaguya and one sister were the only live animals resulting from 457 reconstructed eggs.
As well from the Original Article: ...imprinting expert Azim Surani, at the University of Cambridge, UK, hopes the work will not be misinterpreted to imply that males are somehow redundant. "It shows the opposite - clearly IGF-2 is the key gene," he says. "They managed to get around it but to really get to a situation where the procedure would work as well as [fertilisation with] sperm, you would need to mutate a lot more genes."
Don't know if anyone has posted these quotes already, but they can be found by reading the article linked in the original post. Males are clearly not biologically obsolete according to the original poster's source.

EDIT: Just scanned this thread; no one has picked up on this yet. Did anyone, especially the original poster, even read the article?

Don't know if anyone has posted these quotes already, but they can be found by reading the article linked in the original post. Males are clearly not biologically obsolete according to the original poster's source.

EDIT: Just scanned this thread; no one has picked up on this yet. Did anyone, especially the original poster, even read the article?
Didn't really have any desire to. All I could think of after reading the thread topic was...

Hasn't anyone watched Gall Force (http://search.store.yahoo.com/cgi-bin/nsearch?catalog=bestbuyanime&query=gall+force&.autodone=http%3A%2F%2Fstore.yahoo.com%2Fbestbuyanime%2Fnsearch.html)? :rolleyes:

This sounds like a justification for Feminazis. The costs of maintaining a female-only world, when a single study was able to produce a single offspring, would be enormous. And I doubt the world would become so sexist as to try and create a world free from mammalian males. It's an interesting study, but not a single thing will come of it.

I can't wait til it works, so that at least lesbians will be able to have children together.
But there's still the problem of gay men being unable to...
It would be rather nice if someone came up with male artificial reproduction as well. That is, if it is possible and all.

This is exactly the direction we should go in. By teh standpoint of nature, there should be fewer males than women since one man can impregnate several women (Within a short time as well), but to our grave misfortune this isn't the case. By eliminating the need for a male to reproduce, that does make us obsolete. If we can further perfect genetic modification, we can eliminate hereditary genetic disorders. Best of all, we don't need the males to do it, making things far more simple.

And women do not naturally need a man around to be happy.

I can't wait til it works, so that at least lesbians will be able to have children together.
But there's still the problem of gay men being unable to...
It would be rather nice if someone came up with male artificial reproduction as well. That is, if it is possible and all.
External reproduction vats. The logical extension of in-vitero. Pick your baby and pay at the front register. :eek:

Don't say that we'll soon have lesbians producing children. The article even said that this shouldn't be attempted in humans, ect. ect. ect. Besides, there's probably too many oppossed to this that it would be illogical to try it. Also, they could only do this after experimentation. That right there proves it to be unnatural.

Ah well, I might be obsolete, but I will live eternally in a video game.

This is exactly the direction we should go in. By teh standpoint of nature, there should be fewer males than women since one man can impregnate several women (Within a short time as well), but to our grave misfortune this isn't the case. By eliminating the need for a male to reproduce, that does make us obsolete. If we can further perfect genetic modification, we can eliminate hereditary genetic disorders. Best of all, we don't need the males to do it, making things far more simple.

And women do not naturally need a man around to be happy.

and where on earth did you get that from? do you speak for 3.5 billion women?

hahaha you people are dumb.

its been *possible* to create a new life from two *mothers* by splicing the respective parents dna for years.

BUT its just as easy to do that from two *fathers*. so are women obsolete now?

wait ive got an even better idea. now that we can clone, is everyone obsolete? because you know we could just clone the best person in the world.

no one will ever become obsolete.

the very nature of genetic diversity is what makes a species strong. so by using these reproductive technologies you would only be weakening the species.

BUT, the question then arises about genetic engineering.

different question different day.

the point im trying to make is that 2 mothers could just as well be 2 fathers so get your panties out of a bunch.

hahaha you people are dumb.

its been *possible* to create a new life from two *mothers* by splicing the respective parents dna for years.

BUT its just as easy to do that from two *fathers*. so are women obsolete now?




I'm no scientist, but I would imagine that it will be infinitely more difficult with 2 fathers. You can't use two sperm cells to begin with, as they are not constructed to evolve into an embryo, they just transport the genetic information.
I guess you could extract the DNS from two sprem cells and transplant that into an egg cell, but where would you get that from without women?
And that then leaves you with the problem of finding a womb in which to let the embryo develop... while fertilisation is possible and comparatively easy, it's not yet possible to let a baby grow in a tube, you will need a mother.

So, no. Women won't be obsolete anytime soon ;)

And in case anybody is wondering : I'm not serious about that whole thing

Well I find it interesting,

Firstly dolly the sheep although a feet of genetics was full of flaws and errors, which is why she died young, and also why they have been unable to recreate another cloned sheep. This is why across the world there have been so many failures to create clones.
Theres a reason to have two different parents, it's to ensure weeker genes are not used in construction of an individual.

Secondly women / women child. The ideas been around for a long time, and ethically it is wrong, also I am sure there is an increased risk of abdromalities, also it must be, more women to test tube to women relationship, so the child may see the father figure as a glass tube.

Two men could use there sperm chromosomes, however there would be a 25% chance female, 50% chance male and 25% chance a nothing at all.
So pretty soon men would be overpopulating themselves, there would be less women to go round, and it doesn't sound like a world I would want to be in!

I just came across an interesting article concerning female artificial reproduction:

http://www.newscientist.com/article.ns?id=dn4909



So, to all those homophobes out there : as it will be possible in the near future for two women to have a child together, you need to come up with some new arguments as to why they should not be allowed to marry....

Science: kicking the rear of pointless bigotry since the 1700s. And proving time and again that attempting to hold the natural world to dogmatic religious and local social standards doesn't work.

Only non-Christians are obsolete (both species).

Well I find it interesting,

Firstly dolly the sheep although a feet of genetics was full of flaws and errors, which is why she died young, and also why they have been unable to recreate another cloned sheep. This is why across the world there have been so many failures to create clones.
Theres a reason to have two different parents, it's to ensure weeker genes are not used in construction of an individual.

Secondly women / women child. The ideas been around for a long time, and ethically it is wrong, also I am sure there is an increased risk of abdromalities, also it must be, more women to test tube to women relationship, so the child may see the father figure as a glass tube.

Two men could use there sperm chromosomes, however there would be a 25% chance female, 50% chance male and 25% chance a nothing at all.
So pretty soon men would be overpopulating themselves, there would be less women to go round, and it doesn't sound like a world I would want to be in!

You are correct in that there is probably greatly increased chance of abnormalities, because different genes are 'methelated' by males then by females, and thusly something produced female-female will have two copies of some genes methylated and two copies of some genes unmethylated when the stable form is one copy of the gene.
You are wrong about them failing to create more clones. Cloning mice for research has become everyday: some creatures are just less susceptible to abnormalieies then others, and are easier to clone. They even found that, instead of the telomeres being smaller and quickly depleted in clones, after several clonings of the same creature the telomeres were actualy lengthening beyond those of the original genetic source, increasing in size with each cloning.
And the thing about weaker genes? Well, if your cloning, 'weaker genes' are not used, because the individual is already created by the genes of the parents somewhere down the line. As for the 'weaker gene' argument as pertains to female-female? You still have two parents so your argument is shot.
"Ethically it is wrong" you say? You did not support this argument, you simply stated it, and to say anything is 'ethically wrong' in the first place is to be restricting your view to that which you have been taught. At one time, freeing slaves was 'ethically wrong' (I refer you to Huckleberry Finn's internal dilemma over helping tom), there are numerous examples that could be given where this argument was used and later fell into disuse as society changed. thusly it was never technically wrong to begin with, people just sort of felt like viewing it that way, or somehting. It makes no logical sense to me that anyone would even use the 'ethically wrong' issue anymore.
The crud you spout about 'seeing the father as a test tube' is downright stupid and that's the only comment I can make on the matter. You are using a metaphore taken dogmatically, with little sense of the adaptability of the mind anyway.
Your mendelian statistics are correct, and assuming the male male reproduction occurs, then indeed there is a 66% chance that each success will be male. However if the females female reproduction occurs, there is a 100% chance of a female, resulting in more females per capita assuming equal amounts of like-genetic reproductions occur... also, it's a dumb argument anyway, but pardon me, I am biased against you (by everything else you have said)
"there would be less women to go round, and it doesn't sound like a world I would want to be in!" you say? First, chauvenist. Second, society will adapt accordingly. Third, given the human lifespan, you will probably be too old to reproduce or dead of old age by the time society even sees any marked change in the gender ratio anyway.
I can just hope my anger at your silly arguments is not considered 'flaming', because I have yet to see a coherent definition of what 'flaming' is.

I'm no scientist, but I would imagine that it will be infinitely more difficult with 2 fathers. You can't use two sperm cells to begin with, as they are not constructed to evolve into an embryo, they just transport the genetic information.
I guess you could extract the DNS from two sprem cells and transplant that into an egg cell, but where would you get that from without women?
And that then leaves you with the problem of finding a womb in which to let the embryo develop... while fertilisation is possible and comparatively easy, it's not yet possible to let a baby grow in a tube, you will need a mother.

So, no. Women won't be obsolete anytime soon ;)

And in case anybody is wondering : I'm not serious about that whole thing

I believe your arguments to be largely correct. There are, however, probably ways that it can be made viable. Such as removing the nucleus from an egg, and inserting a male's nucleus. Granted this might pose problems because some of the female genetic material might be needed to initiate certain phases of early development, but it may work without problems. It can just be good to look at all possible problems and be prepared to look at them if they come up, in science.
As for wombs, I refer you to the Bene Tleilax of Dune. Also, it is possible to get a male cell to undergo female gametogenesis (becoming an egg) though it helps to start with a stem cell because starting with a male reproductive cell seems less sucessful.

Only non-Christians are obsolete (both species).

Both species, eh? Humans and...dogs? sparrows? elephants? titmice? The suspense is killing me.

Only non-Christians are obsolete (both species).

How do you genetically seperate them from Christians?
The cross-shaped gene? :D

First off, the government should stay out of marriage.
Secondly, I do believe that the presence of a responsible, loving father figure helps to raise better adjusted children. Various studies have shown that children with fathers are less likely to get involved with drugs and other crime, and also tend to do better in school. These studies are all US based, however. I have no idea how things work in other parts of the world.
If you check out what the studies you refer to are based on, they cover only the situations of a heterosexual couple or single mother. Of course children are going to do better with two loving parents than one. I just don't see why American society assumes that one of each sex will b better than two men or two women. It's a bit too early in the realm of gay/lesbian parenting/adoption to do similar studies, but I'd like to see the results when they finally do happen.

Men and women were meant to be together thats y u have to have 1 guy and 1 grl to have a kid. im not against gays but thats wat i think.humankind has messed up nature. do we even know that this could work on human. and i hope we never do :mad: :headbang:

Men and women were meant to be together thats y u have to have 1 guy and 1 grl to have a kid. im not against gays but thats wat i think.humankind has messed up nature. do we even know that this could work on human. and i hope we never do :mad: :headbang:

Sure, otherwise who knows what we would mess up next? Orthography?

Only non-Christians are obsolete (both species).

Heeey....

Then, when all the non Christians are dead because we're not "fit," and therefore Christians are the "fittest," they'll finally see evolution is right. And then kill themselves off because they disagree on the meaning of the 10,412 word in the Bible is.

Well, that's nifty, but in about a decade both sexes will be obsolete, what with the coming of artificial wombs. Admittedly, females have it a little easier considering they make the egg, and all it needs is DNA, courtesy of the sperm.

But, artificial wombs are most definitely on the way, and they would work better for both sexes. Having an embryo develop outside the enclosed female womb would result in larger brain size. Woot.

But, artificial wombs are most definitely on the way, and they would work better for both sexes. Having an embryo develop outside the enclosed female womb would result in larger brain size. Woot.

*Shudders at thoughts of pinhead population*

You are wrong about them failing to create more clones. Cloning mice for research has become everyday: some creatures are just less susceptible to abnormalieies then others, and are easier to clone. They even found that, instead of the telomeres being smaller and quickly depleted in clones, after several clonings of the same creature the telomeres were actualy lengthening beyond those of the original genetic source, increasing in size with each cloning.
And the thing about weaker genes? Well, if your cloning, 'weaker genes' are not used, because the individual is already created by the genes of the parents somewhere down the line. As for the 'weaker gene' argument as pertains to female-female? You still have two parents so your argument is shot.
"Ethically it is wrong" you say? You did not support this argument, you simply stated it, and to say anything is 'ethically wrong' in the first place is to be restricting your view to that which you have been taught. At one time, freeing slaves was 'ethically wrong' (I refer you to Huckleberry Finn's internal dilemma over helping tom), there are numerous examples that could be given where this argument was used and later fell into disuse as society changed. thusly it was never technically wrong to begin with, people just sort of felt like viewing it that way, or somehting. It makes no logical sense to me that anyone would even use the 'ethically wrong' issue anymore.
The crud you spout about 'seeing the father as a test tube' is downright stupid and that's the only comment I can make on the matter. You are using a metaphore taken dogmatically, with little sense of the adaptability of the mind anyway.
Your mendelian statistics are correct, and assuming the male male reproduction occurs, then indeed there is a 66% chance that each success will be male. However if the females female reproduction occurs, there is a 100% chance of a female, resulting in more females per capita assuming equal amounts of like-genetic reproductions occur... also, it's a dumb argument anyway, but pardon me, I am biased against you (by everything else you have said)
"there would be less women to go round, and it doesn't sound like a world I would want to be in!" you say? First, chauvenist. Second, society will adapt accordingly. Third, given the human lifespan, you will probably be too old to reproduce or dead of old age by the time society even sees any marked change in the gender ratio anyway.
I can just hope my anger at your silly arguments is not considered 'flaming', because I have yet to see a coherent definition of what 'flaming' is.

Just quickly to respond,
Firstly I stated they have been unable to clone another sheep, I am fully aware of the success in cloning mice. The researchers at Roslin have even said that they think it was a fluke that dolly lasted so long.
Secondly 'weaker genes' I was refereing to chromosomes specific to sex that would increase in there percentage in population, eg colour blindness (or deficiency).

Oh I personally see it as ethically wrong. Everyones entitled to there view, I can't be bothered to justify myself, it would take to much typing.


Oh my 'mendelian statistics' were in answer to a previous question - not a belief of my own, they asked about the outcome of male/male children.

'chauvenist', first time I have been called that, maybe I am, maybe I am not. Either way I do like to see women and would not like to think of a world with the absence of women, I don't think there is anyone, female or male that would want a world populated by just men, or just women.

Flaming, yur comments hardly make me flinch, I have heard far worse and more agressive comments, however I don't like people saying I am wrong, when there are rationally explanations, and comments which are not my own view are backed with science.

We are being tested by our creator and we are failing badly

i dont know. I think he'd be quite impressed that is such a short time on this planet, we could do such cool things.
I mean damn, he needed a man and a women to start the human population (adam&eve). We can do it with 2 eves. Hurray

it means that we are not even close to perfect beings and that we should aspire to be better

so we should all be the same?

hahaha you people are dumb.

its been *possible* to create a new life from two *mothers* by splicing the respective parents dna for years.

BUT its just as easy to do that from two *fathers*. so are women obsolete now?

wait ive got an even better idea. now that we can clone, is everyone obsolete? because you know we could just clone the best person in the world.

no one will ever become obsolete.

the very nature of genetic diversity is what makes a species strong. so by using these reproductive technologies you would only be weakening the species.

BUT, the question then arises about genetic engineering.

different question different day.

the point im trying to make is that 2 mothers could just as well be 2 fathers so get your panties out of a bunch.

don't be stupid!
Why would you want to clone me so many times?

I believe your arguments to be largely correct. There are, however, probably ways that it can be made viable. Such as removing the nucleus from an egg, and inserting a male's nucleus. Granted this might pose problems because some of the female genetic material might be needed to initiate certain phases of early development, but it may work without problems. It can just be good to look at all possible problems and be prepared to look at them if they come up, in science.

That still wouldn't be doing it without a woman, now would it? You have to get the egg from somewhere. =)