███████ ████████

[pseudomonas]

█ █████ ██████████ ██████████ █████████████████████████████████ ████ ███████ ██ █████ ██████ █████ ███ ████ ██████ ██ ███ █████████ ███████ ██ ████████ █████ ███ ██ ███████ ███████ █ █████ ██████████ ███████ ████████████████████████████████████████████ ████ ████ ██ ████ █ █████ ███████████████████ ███████████ ███████████ ████ ████ ██ █ ███

Comments

[pseudomonas]

The cloning one is vague about "result from" - with nuclear transplant a fertilized egg is required, albeit not as a source of genomic DNA.

The chimp one: not clear whether it means coding DNA or includes non-coding DNA and/or heterochromatin. Also (and being more pedantic still), they mean same DNA sequence, not same DNA instance.

The embryos one I'd dispute whether it's genetics at all, and I wouldn't have known the answer if they hadn't been provided.

The eating GM fruit one is badly drafted, they mean "there is a significant risk that that same person's genes might be modified as a result".

I wonder how these were translated into other languages?

[kaet]

I wasn't sure about what they meant with the cloning one, as the thing cloned came from a sperm and egg, presumably, and wouldn't have been possible if it hadn't.

With the chimp one, too, I wasn't sure what they meant by half.

[pseudomonas]

That's the point, it should have said "always requires" or some such. Certainly many clones are done with conventionally-fertilized oocytes.

Animal/plants has even been done commercially they put some fish "antifreeze" gene into something a while back.

[emperor]

There is a typo in the "half of their DNA in common" question :)

[pseudomonas]

Indeed so, but it's not mine. I should have put a [sic] there.

[toothycat]

(toothycat poll replies by Serge the compsci, not Morag the biologist, so are unlikely to be right :) )

[gerald_duck]

I think they should have been a little more clear what they mean by "animal" and "plant".

Though, actually, I now realise everything with even the most meagre chance of being called a plant or animal has DNA, doesn't it? Hmm.

[pseudomonas]

What's ambiguous as to whether it's an (animal or plant) or not?

[gerald_duck]

Prokaryotes?

I know that in biological terms they're organisms/life, but neither animal nor plant, but in non-scientific language people still expect that all organisms are either animals or plants, I feel.

There's a danger of turning such questions into a test of whether people use words in the everyday or scientifically-precise sense, rather than whether or not they understand the science at all.

[pseudomonas]

The answer to the question remains the same whether you use "animal or plant" as a synonym for "independent biological organism" or not.

[zotz]

In principle you could get stem cells from an embryo and still implant it. You can split very early stage embryos and have both halves be viable, so you could actually do it that way too. I'm not aware of it every having been tried, though.

[pseudomonas]

Been done with Xenopus back in the 80s, IIRC. Whole load of albino froggies sliced up from one embryo and implanted into non-albino parents.

[pseudomonas]

Ah, the question did specify human. I'm sure inducing identical twins must be possible even if it's not something you'd want to do regularly.