do humans mutate throughout their life if so does cloning of an adult cause rapid mutation of the embryo?
103912
I disagree with Cobra.  Cloning an old human being will not result in advanced aging in the clone.  Remember dolly, the cloned sheep?  At first, scientists thought that she would age much faster than a regular sheep.  This, however, was not the case.\n\nAnd, since the clipping of telomeres (that change in your genes that Cobra was talking about) is the only change that occurs in the genes during the life of a human (barring radioactive exposure), cloning a 100-year-old human would have the same result as cloning the same human when he or she is an infant.  No difference, no additional mutation.\n\nFor info about dolly's aging, see the below article under "Controversy."
110014
1)Cloning isn’t very successful. Currently scientists have to attempt to produce hundreds of clones just to get one success. The rest of the clones either resulting a spontaneous abortion or else are deformed deformed and die or are euthanased shortly after birth. Obviously we can’t ethically apply such a technique to human babies, even if we could find women willing to carry children with a high probability of miscarriage or being born deformed.\n\n2)It’s a worthless exercise. Genetics is only a small part of  what makes someone intelligent. Environmental effects such as diet, childhood stimulation, education and upbringing are far more important.  Even if we could clone Einstein we almost certainly wouldn’t end up with anyone of any great ability.\n\n3)It’s ethically and legally impossible. Einstein gave consent for organ harvesting, he never gave consent to being cloned. You simply can’t do this legally, which means it could only possibly be achieved by a Mad Doctor, possibly using a lightning rod. Possibly working a a castle on a high peak in Transylvania. Necessarily with an assistant named Igor.\n\n4)It’s physically impossible, at least with modern technology. Cloning requires live cells. Al has been dead for some time. Even if technology reaches appoint where we can clone animals form dead cells we still won’t be able to use remains that have been pickled in formaldehyde like Al because formaldehyde destroys DNA. Maybe in another 50 years or so we will have the technology tot allow use to reconstitute shattered DNA, but not today.
1042798
The current understanding of the biology of aging and disease is still quite limited, to the point that we probably won't see any major breakthroughs in the next century. There have been some studies in model organisms (such as the nematode and the fruit fly) that suggest that there are genes that regulate aging. However, this is not well understood in these organisms, and very poorly understood in humans. There are human cell lines (cells that grow in growth medium) that are "immortalized," that is, they continue dividing apparently forever, but these are a far cry from an organism put together like you or I. These cells often come from cancerous tumors and have extremely disrupted genotypes, such that basically all they can do is grow and divide. \n\nNot only do we understand little about the aging process itself, but any hopes of human genetic engineering depend on the ability to change a person's genetic complement. This, of course, is remarkably difficult in adults, who have countless cells that would have to be changed. Some "gene therapy" techniques have been tried in humans, including viral vector-based gene delivery systems. These show some promise, but there haven't been any major breakthroughs. An alternative is to try to engineer an organism from the very beginning; that is, to manipulate a zygote. However, this is widely considered to be unethical, at least in the case of humans.\n\nMy opinion is that through genetic technology, we will make better and more effective cures and preventative therapies, which will have the potential of increasing the length and quality of our life. Overcoming death is a completely different story (and a very interesting question for philosophy and religion!).
107576
Genetic Mutations\n\nIn biology, mutations are changes to the genetic material (usually DNA or RNA). Mutations can be caused by copying errors in the genetic material during cell division and by exposure to radiation, chemicals, or viruses, or can occur deliberately under cellular control during the processes such as meiosis or hypermutation. In multicellular organisms, mutations can be subdivided into germline mutations, which can be passed on to progeny and somatic mutations, which cannot be transmitted to progeny. Mutations, when accidental, often lead to the malfunction or death of a cell and can cause cancer. Mutations are considered the driving force of evolution, where less favorable (or deleterious) mutations are removed from the gene pool by natural selection, while more favorable (beneficial or advantageous) ones tend to accumulate. Neutral mutations are defined as mutations whose effects do not influence the fitness of either the species or the individuals who make up the species. These can accumulate over time. Contrary to tales of science fiction, the overwhelming majority of mutations have no significant effect, since DNA repair is able to revert most changes before they become permanent mutations, and many organisms have mechanisms for eliminating otherwise permanently mutated somatic cells.
856325
Beause it you do not go through it, you will not be able to produce the egg and the sperm that make up the baby which in turn grows up to adulthood and produces its own sex cells and the generations continue.  Now you could reproduce with mitosis but you would be a clone of your parent and therefore you would be susceptable to anything your parent is, in other words you would die of the same causes your parents would and at the same time just like bacteria.
514686
If this were possible which it is not then what you would have is spontaneous cloning.  The offspring would not only be female it would be an exact duplicate of the mother.  There is no genetic material available in human females to reproduce anything other than a clone without fertilization.
309255
NO it is not, it is a cellular mutation that can be reversed. To find our more check out the link.
55818
Human cloning is practically possible. That is ,it can be done. But the actual human cloning is at present; illegal.\nAt the same time animal cloning has not even been perfected. Only 1 or 2 offsprings are gotten from about 100 experiments.
1027341
It all depends how you look at the clone.  Some people might not like the clone and disregard the kid.  Whereas, some might accept it that they are the same.  But in my opinion, I would say that no it is not.  Since each clone can function independently of one another, then each must be considered as a separate "object" even though the DNA is the same.  By the way, your clone might end up cutting his right finger, but his DNA is still the same.  There are external factors such as anxiety, depression, and other life experiences that might shape your clone differently emotionaly and physically.
207392
In organisms that reproduce only sexually, the mutations in somatic cells normally don't go beyond the individual. But in the case of organisms that can reproduce asexually, by means of divisions of those somatic cells, a mutation in those cells could be passed to the descendants and thus be under the influence of evolutionary forces. \nThat's a common event in plants, especially a type of mutation called polyploidy (multiplication of the entire chromosome set). These types of mutations are also induced by man to obtain new varieties.
263964
Absolutely, I suggest\n\nYang X, Tian XC, (2002). Cloning adult animals - what is the genetic age of the clones? Cloning, 2(3):123-8. \n\nThat is an almost perfect review!\n\n:-) Happy reading!
225669
When thereis a mutation in the body cell. I COULD be past on. it's not a 100% chance. but it's possible. \ncan you give me the 10 points since i'm the only one who answered it .
79394
To answer this properly, we would really have to define what is meant by cloning. To clone something is just to make a copy, and genes are cloned safely all the time. I think you mean making an individual who is a genetic copy of another individual.\n\nThis certainly hasn't been done often, and is in no way safe. Dolly the sheep died young and had problems, and I don't think it's completely understood yet why. There was a dog cloned in Korea, but now that researcher has been fired for publishing fraudulent data, even though they've checked out the dog and he does seem to be an actually clone. It still casts some doubt.\n\nThe idea of cloning humans is completely unethical at this point, because it is unsafe. At the current state of technology, you couldn't clone a human without producing probably hundreds of babies with birth defects in the process.\n\nHow long until it is safe? There's really no way to tell. If people were determined to do this (not sure why, there are much easier ways to have children), being able to do it safely will depend on discoveries that haven't been made yet, so there's really no way to predict. Could be 50 years, could be ten years if something really amazing happens in the meanwhile.
406300
This is my own conclusion, but based on most people's belief in God, man is the most intelligent of God's creations.  So therefore we have been given the knowledge to clone.  For animal testing, cloning could possibly cure or eradicate diseases (for our benefit), and allow us to mass produce animals.  \nI think a lot of people's concern has to do with at what stage of development cloning becomes unethical.  Is forcing a cell to split early in development the same as cloning later in the development process?  I researched this same topic for a class project that I did, and found most everybody in my class biases toward cloning were based on if animals had souls, and if and when they received them.  \nAs for my personal opinion, I believe that animal cloning in most forms is ethical.  If we as the human race can benefit from what we learn from cloning organs to eradicating diseases, this knowledge should be used for our benefit.  We have no idea what if any repercussions will take place from cloning, but the benefits seem to outweigh any of them.
143311
Mutation not nutation\nIn biology, mutations are changes to the genetic material (usually DNA or RNA). Mutations can be caused by copying errors in the genetic material during cell division and by exposure to radiation, chemicals, or viruses, or can occur deliberately under cellular control during the processes such as meiosis or hypermutation. In multicellular organisms, mutations can be subdivided into germline mutations, which can be passed on to progeny and somatic mutations, which cannot be transmitted to progeny. Mutations, when accidental, often lead to the malfunction or death of a cell and can cause cancer. Mutations are considered the driving force of evolution, where less favorable (or deleterious) mutations are removed from the gene pool by natural selection, while more favorable (beneficial or advantageous) ones tend to accumulate. Neutral mutations are defined as mutations whose effects do not influence the fitness of either the species or the individuals who make up the species. These can accumulate over time. Contrary to tales of science fiction, the overwhelming majority of mutations have no significant effect, since DNA repair is able to revert most changes before they become permanent mutations, and many organisms have mechanisms for eliminating otherwise permanently mutated somatic cells.\n\nBy effect on structure\nThe DNA sequence of a gene can be altered in a number of ways. Gene mutations have varying effects on health, depending on where they occur and whether they alter the function of essential proteins. Structurally, mutations can be classified as:\n\nSmall-scale mutations affecting one or a few nucleotides, including: \nPoint mutations, often caused by chemicals or malfunction of DNA replication, exchange a single nucleotide for another. Most common is the transition that exchanges a purine for a purine (A ↔ G) or a pyrimidine for a pyrimidine, (C ↔ T). A transition can be caused by nitrous acid, base mispairing, or mutagenic base analogs such as 5-bromo-2-deoxyuridine (BrdU). Less common is a transversion, which exchanges a purine for a pyrimidine or a pyrimidine for a purine (C/T ↔ A/G). A point mutation can be reversed by another point mutation, in which the nucleotide is changed back to its original state (true reversion) or by second-site reversion (a complementary mutation elsewhere that results in regained gene functionality). These changes are classified as transitions or transversions. An example of a transversion is adenine being converted into a cytosine. There are also many other examples that can be found. Point mutations that occur within the protein coding region of a gene may be classified into three kinds, depending upon what the erroneous codon codes for: \nsilent mutations: codes for the same amino acid \nmissense mutations: codes for a different amino acid \nnonsense mutations: codes for a stop, which can truncate the protein \nInsertions add one or more extra nucleotides into the DNA. They are usually caused by transposable elements, or errors during replication of repeating elements (e.g. AT repeats). Insertions in the coding region a gene may alter splicing of the mRNA, or cause a shift in the reading frame (frameshift), both of which can significantly alter the gene product. Insertions can be reverted by excision of the transposable element. \nDeletions remove one or more nucleotides from the DNA. Like insertions, these mutations can alter the reading frame of the gene. They are irreversible. \nLarge-scale mutations in chromosomal structure, including: \nAmplifications (or gene duplications) leading to multiple copies of chromosomal regions, increasing the dosage of the genes located within them. \nDeletions of large chromosomal regions, leading to loss of the genes within those regions. \nMutations whose effect is to juxtapose previously separate pieces of DNA, potentially bringing together separate genes to form functionally distinct fusion genes (e.g. bcr-abl). These
325023
First, DNA is not the person, its the template for making protein which can build a person, but its no more the person than blueprint are a building.. Second, if you are talking biologically, the only characterstics that are passed on to the progeny are those in the DNA-But keep in mind, philosophy, ideas, culture can all evolve, and of course you will teach these to your children, and thus pass them on.  I think, though , that your question was what biological traits are passed on, and those are only carried in the DNA.  Protein, by the way, does not evolve independently-If the DNA mutates, it will produce a slightly different protein (or more or less of a protein, if the mutation was in a promoter and not coding region of DNA).  Proteins do not pass directly from parent to child.
3468
A human clone, if succesful, is just a twin of the original person (but younger).  That's seems morally legitimate.  But today the success rate would be very low; some of the failures would be horrible birth defects.  So it would be unethical to attempt cloning a human today.  Eventually, if it could be done reliably, it would be ethical (but getting there from here seems awfully difficult).