Genetics Intelligent Design

Did anyone predict this? Cloned cat looks nothing like the original

Spread the love

A guy got his cat cloned, thinking the cat would live again:

But what actually happened was that Huang paid Sinogene Biotechnology Company nearly $35,000 for a Garlic clone — and it doesn’t even look like the original.

Kristin Houser, “Extra Garlic” at Futurism

For sure, too bad about the money.

Otherwise, take that! genetic determinism and blow it out your ear!

Image may contain: indoor
Toby

Toby, one of the talented editorial assistants at Uncommon Descent News, has a message for those of you who are heartbroken on learning this:

Good news! There is a kitty at your local animal welfare society for each and every one of you. A kitty who is happy to let you cater to his every wish, reasonable or otherwise. Or, come to think of it, he is just as happy to live with you and mind his own business, as long as you let him into the cellar now and then when he senses there might be mice down there. Above all, just let him be a cat. That is the happiest thing he can hope for.

See also: There’s a gene for that… or is there?

Follow UD News at Twitter!

4 Replies to “Did anyone predict this? Cloned cat looks nothing like the original

  1. 1
    Brother Brian says:

    We have identical twins. Does anyone really think that identical twins don’t differ significantly?

  2. 2
    ET says:

    Umm, at least identical twins look alike. You have to look close to tell some apart. These two cats look as similar as you could expect from fraternal twins.

  3. 3
    goodusername says:

    “Did Anyone Predict This? Cloned Cat Looks Nothing Like The Original”

    Well, yeah. We’ve been cloning animals for a few decades now. Actually, the cats do look quite a bit alike, but there’s some subtle coloring differences (the original cat had a dark spot under its chin that the clone lacks). I remember a cat named Rainbow that was cloned in 2002, with the clone named “Cc” (for “carbon copy”). They also looked pretty similar but with some color variations. (And, no, the geneticists were not surprised.) Genes aren’t blueprints and don’t determine every detail, which is why fingerprints aren’t predictable.

  4. 4
    PaV says:

    There was a paper out about a year ago that dealt with a clonal population, and within this clonal population they found that the genetic diversity of this population matched that of sexually reproducing populations. Now THAT was surprising. There is so much that we don’t understand.

    This much we do understand: population genetics is flawed, and Darwinism is worse.

Leave a Reply