"Snuppy" [Archive]

lv4dogs

08-04-2005, 02:44 PM

I think its wrong too, very wrong. Oh I could list a zillion reason behind it but I'm sparing me & you.

I don't understand it. They made an afghan with a labs egg. Even if it was unfertilized wouldn't it still be part lab?

GoldenRetrLuver

08-04-2005, 03:12 PM

Originally posted by lv4dogs
I don't understand it. They made an afghan with a labs egg. Even if it was unfertilized wouldn't it still be part lab?

No, because there is no DNA of the Lab in the egg, just of the Afgan. They take out the nucleus from the unfertilized egg of the Lab, so it's just a cell, and then they replace it with a nucleus from one of the Afgan's skin cells. So, that makes it 100% Afgan DNA.

.. Or something like that, lol. It's hard to explain. Of course, doing this rarely works.

I'm not so sure if I agree with cloning animals or not. I think the money people spend in order to try to "bring" their deceased pet back could be put to much better use. How many animals in shelters could be saved with the amount of money these people are spending hoping it will work? It's not even the same animal, anyway, but to each their own I suppose..

vinjashira

08-04-2005, 03:21 PM

Originally posted by GoldenRetrLuver
It's not even the same animal, anyway, but to each their own I suppose..
You're quite right. Take two identical twin sisters for example (twins are natural clone to each other) eventhough they may look so much like each other they are their own individuals, aren't they?

lv4dogs

08-04-2005, 03:28 PM

Originally posted by GoldenRetrLuver
No, because there is no DNA of the Lab in the egg, just of the Afgan. They take out the nucleus from the unfertilized egg of the Lab, so it's just a cell, and then they replace it with a nucleus from one of the Afgan's skin cells. So, that makes it 100% Afgan DNA.

.. Or something like that, lol. It's hard to explain. Of course, doing this rarely works.

It worked I understand! I didn't know they removed the necleus.
But still, isn't there SOME DNA or something passing through the umbilical cord or something?

Almita

08-04-2005, 03:34 PM

that is so wrong!

anna_66

08-04-2005, 04:09 PM

Sorry to say, but I don't think it's wrong. If we could afford it, we'd try to clone Angus in a heartbeat.
Of course it wouldn't be him, but it sure would look like him.

luvofallhorses

08-04-2005, 04:13 PM

I just think it's wrong!

vinjashira

08-04-2005, 04:14 PM

Originally posted by lv4dogs
It worked I understand! I didn't know they removed the necleus.
But still, isn't there SOME DNA or something passing through the umbilical cord or something?
no there isn't, the same way a surrogate mother do not pass her DNA to the baby she is carrying...

Muddy4paws

08-04-2005, 05:22 PM

I just think its all wrong personally, I can understand why some people would like to do this but I personally wouldnt want my memories of my RB dog relived through another dog, It would be a constant reminder of what I've lost, I think they should be left in peace when they go, it would just all be too weird after knowing my dog was gone and then he's clone is back again I find it all quite creepy.

ugh I feel like crying :(

Iilo

08-04-2005, 05:49 PM

I think it's wise for all of you to remember that this particular animal was cloned specifically for scientific research.

GoldenRetrLuver

08-04-2005, 06:35 PM

Originally posted by lv4dogs
It worked I understand! I didn't know they removed the necleus.
But still, isn't there SOME DNA or something passing through the umbilical cord or something?

Nope, it's not possible. Once they have the cell they want, and they make it divide into hundreds of the same cells and they stick them back inside of the Lab, there's no way that it can become anything else.

CagneyDog

08-04-2005, 09:48 PM

Originally posted by Iilo
I think it's wise for all of you to remember that this particular animal was cloned specifically for scientific research.

Poor dog..

Iilo

08-04-2005, 10:12 PM

Originally posted by CagneyDog
Poor dog..

Actually, that poor dog in question, though I'm not sure which one you're talking about.... the dog that they got the DNA from is a well loved Afghan Hound...

The puppy is IMPRESSIVE. And it's not like he's being treated like a specimen in a lab.

"Contrast to Tai’s gentleness character, SNUppy is very active dog with really spoiled manner. He is always so bright and burning with curiosity.

Tai is finicky eater but SNUppy loves all kind of foods." - from a yahoo Affie list, directly from the owner of both Tai and SNUppy.

This dog was not cloned for pleasure. It wasn't, "Oh, dear, I won't be able to deal with Fido's death. I'll get an exact carbon copy." Because, as we all know, a clone will carry the PERSONALITY of whoever it got the DNA from. NOT.

This dog was cloned for research. To further our knowledge and perhaps make it so we can clone human stem cells. And what a great day it will be when scientists will be able to do research without ignorant people trying to prevent them from saving lives.

finn's mom

08-04-2005, 11:22 PM

I wouldn't want to do that with a lost pet of mine. Bruno is my soul, always will be, but, I think it would just be heartbreaking to see a dog that looked just like him. I think it would actually just make me miss Bruno even more. I don't like the idea of cloning, but, to each his own.

CagneyDog

08-05-2005, 01:44 AM

Originally posted by Iilo
This dog was cloned for research.

This is exactly why I don't agree with it.

Originally posted by Iilo
o further our knowledge and perhaps make it so we can clone human stem cells. And what a great day it will be when scientists will be able to do research without ignorant people trying to prevent them from saving lives. .

I don't think animals should be at risk just for humans. I am completely against cloning for so many reasons and I think it is ridiculous to be testing it on animals. There are so many risks that come along with cloning, and in the future, if it does indeed become a "big thing" people are certainly going to try and abuse it. It is also so incredibely expensive and I think there are so many more productive things to spend money on.

I'm not ignorant, we all have our opionins. I'm entitled to have mine. This is hardly saving lives, infact, its the opposite. They are just contributing to the dog population that is entirely too large already.

And when we do make a so called "break through" and are able to easily clone humans it will cause even more problems. It could be an alternative to reproduction which would lead to big troubles.

cute_pup

08-05-2005, 02:38 AM

Very wrong, they are playing with the natural creation for their own porposes...

Pawsitive Thinking

08-05-2005, 06:49 AM

Cloning is dangerous and just plain wrong. Can I just point out that the article was in The Sun which isn't known over here for bothering too much with printing the truth!!! It is just as likely that someone made the whole thing up

lbaker

08-05-2005, 07:17 AM

This science is NOT made up and they are not cloning "pets" for the sake of re-creating a loved and missed animal. No more so than stem cell research is to re-create humans. It's science, it's medical progress.. it's studies to find the basis.. therefore hopefully a preventative.. for heartbreaking disease and sickness. Genetic studies are no more voodoo than any other medical breakthrough (do you really need examples??) in the last several hundred years. Can you spell PENICILLIN?

Pawsitive Thinking

08-05-2005, 09:00 AM

Iilo

08-05-2005, 12:49 PM

Originally posted by CagneyDog
[B] there are so many more productive things to spend money on.
There are more productive things to spend money on than finding a cure for Parkinson's? I'm sorry. Perhaps you should've met my grandfather when he was alive.

They are just contributing to the dog population that is entirely too large already.
They made ONE puppy. It's not like that puppy doesn't have a home. It's not like that puppy isn't extremely well loved. I'm not saying there aren't dogs that need homes out there.... I'm saying what the #$%! does this have to do with it?

When I first heard the news soundbite on the 6-o-clock news, I was less than pleased. When I heard it wasn't that company in California who are trying to clone PETS for no scientific purpose, I almost bounced off the walls in joy.

CagneyDog,
I don't think, if you lived back then, you and Galileo would've gotten along.
Scientific progress? NO!!! How frightening and wrong!

CagneyDog

08-05-2005, 04:17 PM

Originally posted by Iilo
There are more productive things to spend money on than finding a cure for Parkinson's? I'm sorry. Perhaps you should've met my grandfather when he was alive.

They made ONE puppy. It's not like that puppy doesn't have a home. It's not like that puppy isn't extremely well loved. I'm not saying there aren't dogs that need homes out there.... I'm saying what the #$%! does this have to do with it?

When I first heard the news soundbite on the 6-o-clock news, I was less than pleased. When I heard it wasn't that company in California who are trying to clone PETS for no scientific purpose, I almost bounced off the walls in joy.

CagneyDog,
I don't think, if you lived back then, you and Galileo would've gotten along.
Scientific progress? NO!!! How frightening and wrong!

One fricken puppy isnt going to give answers on a bunch of diseases. They are obviosely going to clone more things. they just spent 50 000 bucks on this puppy when they could of donated it to shelters ect. It is not even known for sure if they can get medical answers from cloning, and if they do, imagin all the money that would be put into it.

Iilo

08-05-2005, 04:23 PM

I'm sorry, but I'm more than willing to spend $50,000 towards finding a cure for so many diseases. That's damned cheap.

And yes, there will be more money put towards FINDING CURES FOR TERMINAL ILLNESSES.

Oh. No. Wait, you know what, no... Let's not do that. Let's put all that money towards homeless animals instead. Yeah, we'll just leave all those people to suffer. We'll tell them that some mutts in a pound were more important than they are.

:rolleyes:

Also, I'd be willing to bet that the money that funded this project (I'm not sure where you're getting the $50,000 quote from, when I heard that number it was about how much money a woman paid to get her cat cloned for pet purpases) was under a GRANT.

Shelters can get their own grants. It's not that hard. MY shelter got a $10,000 grant. And we're not some big-time-we-have-our-own-training-facility-and-three-different-buildings.

CagneyDog

08-05-2005, 05:10 PM

Originally posted by Iilo
I'm sorry, but I'm more than willing to spend $50,000 towards finding a cure for so many diseases. That's damned cheap.

And yes, there will be more money put towards FINDING CURES FOR TERMINAL ILLNESSES.

:rolleyes:

.

Shelters can get their own grants. It's not that hard. MY shelter got a $10,000 grant. And we're not some big-time-we-have-our-own-training-facility-and-three-different-buildings.

Not all shelters are like that. I know some that are going down the drain because lack of funding.

Were already finding cures for terminal illnesses. It hasn't actually be proven that cloning will definetely be the answer to everything. Im saying that we will spend all this money and then it may not actually work.

Oh. No. Wait, you know what, no... Let's not do that. Let's put all that money towards homeless animals instead. Yeah, we'll just leave all those people to suffer. We'll tell them that some mutts in a pound were more important than they are.

I think those "mutts" are just as important as humans.

Vette

08-05-2005, 05:25 PM

All the starving people and animals in the world...
i think money can be more wisely spent then tinkering around with nature.

Iilo

08-05-2005, 07:32 PM

To cure parkinsons, we need stem cells.

To get LOTS of stem cells, we need cloning.

And as much as I love dogs, I would have to put my a good quality life for my grandfather (may he rest in peace) over either of my dogs, despite how much I love them.

And ask anyone who knows me, I'm not the icey-cold, heartless bitch I come off as ;)

CagneyDog

08-05-2005, 09:05 PM

Originally posted by Iilo
To cure parkinsons, we need stem cells.

To get LOTS of stem cells, we need cloning.

And as much as I love dogs, I would have to put my a good quality life for my grandfather (may he rest in peace) over either of my dogs, despite how much I love them.

And ask anyone who knows me, I'm not the icey-cold, heartless bitch I come off as ;)

Shocking...Keep in mind this is a family site...

I guess we will just have different opionins on this subject.

IRescue452

08-06-2005, 02:22 PM

People need to learn to let go. The dog is physically the sam and it end there. Why don't people rescue a dog in need when their beloved pet dies?

Roxyluvsme13

08-06-2005, 02:53 PM

my animal shelter is overcrowded sometimes and they cant get a grant....i say i agree with irescue....go rescue an animal in need don't clone your dog....it is wrong and just let the poor animal rest in peace!!!!!!! if i had enogh money to do that i wouldnt i would donate it to saving animals not cloning them...

Iilo

08-06-2005, 03:06 PM

I don't understand why you people won't get it through your skulls that this animal WAS NOT CLONED FROM A DEAD ANIMAL.

SNUppy was cloned for scientific research, not to reanimate someone's deceased pet.

Roxyluvsme13

08-06-2005, 03:11 PM

i know that! but still i mean thats good for research but when people are gonna spend that much money to clone their pet its WRONG....and its still kinda wrong that they even cloned from a living animal!

grybai

08-06-2005, 03:16 PM

I don't see what's so wrong with cloning the dog... He was cloned to replace a lost pet but for scientific purposes and it sounds like he's being well taken care of. Cloning is very important for scientific and medical research.

Now, all the people who are now jumping to clone their pets... personally that just seems kind of weird. After putting my dog Dewey to sleep after only having him for a couple weeks, I started browsing petfinder for a new dog but I immediatly vetoed anything that looked a little like him. To have one that looked exactly like him would just be much too creepy.

lbaker

08-06-2005, 06:38 PM

This is NOT about "cloning" a pet that will bring "yours" back. This is SCIENCE. Not to reproduce a "PET". It's to find the genetic similarities between species and find what may be involved in finding a basis for the genetic illness nasties that invade a humans', or animals'.. system. We are not talking about Frankenstein here. We are talking science and medicine. This has been going on for centuries! Each century has given us progress. Can you spell P-R-O-G-R-E-S-S?

edit here - I am sorry, I truly don't mean to sound this nasty. I will shut up now. I am sorry if I offended anyone...

Pawsitive Thinking

08-08-2005, 04:48 AM

There are more productive things to spend money on than finding a cure for Parkinson's? I'm sorry. Perhaps you should've met my grandfather when he was alive.

My Dad died from Parkinsons 5 months ago so don't you dare use that tactic........................................I am entitled to my opinion without getting abuse from you