Many people are confused about the difference between genotypes and phenotypes, and the relative effects of genetics versus environment in creating the latter. The genotype is the genetic information, and by Dawkins’ “selfish gene” theory, this is what “attempts” to replicate itself. (I use quotes around the word “attempts” because genes don’t really have any sense of purpose, or anything else.)

The phenotype is the body–the expression of the genotype in the physical world that is used to do the actual replication.

Much of the opposition to cloning stems from the assumption that the genotype is a blueprint , or specification for the phenotype, and fully describes the phenotype. In fact, blueprint is a poor analogy. Genes are much more akin to a recipe. That is, they’re not a plan–they’re a procedure. First grow this, here, next grow that there.

The difference is crucial, because if something is built to spec, it will, by definition, be very similar to another thing built to that same spec. A recipe, on the other hand, can come out dramatically differently, depending on the type of kitchen, available materials, the mood of the cook, etc. Two people can follow the same recipe and come out with different results.

The same applies to the expression of the genotype–the phenotype. Even identical twins have different retinal scans and fingerprints, so clearly they weren’t built to a specification–there’s nothing in the DNA to describe the exact configuration of the whorls and loops on the thumb.

What does this mean? It means that clones may, in fact, end up not being very similar to each other, meaning in turn that the fears about, e.g., armies of superwarriors are overblown. Identical twins share both genetics and the womb environment, so they are indeed close to identical, but even they will have distinct differences, as anyone who knows twins well can tell you. Two genetically-identical individuals gestated in entirely different environments may turn out to be dramatically different, to the point that it’s not at all obvious that they’re even related.

This has always been the theory.

Now apparently it’s the practice as well.

The first cats to be cloned ended up not being, well, clones.

Many people are confused about the difference between genotypes and phenotypes, and the relative effects of genetics versus environment in creating the latter. The genotype is the genetic information, and by Dawkins’ “selfish gene” theory, this is what “attempts” to replicate itself. (I use quotes around the word “attempts” because genes don’t really have any sense of purpose, or anything else.)

The phenotype is the body–the expression of the genotype in the physical world that is used to do the actual replication.

Much of the opposition to cloning stems from the assumption that the genotype is a blueprint , or specification for the phenotype, and fully describes the phenotype. In fact, blueprint is a poor analogy. Genes are much more akin to a recipe. That is, they’re not a plan–they’re a procedure. First grow this, here, next grow that there.

The difference is crucial, because if something is built to spec, it will, by definition, be very similar to another thing built to that same spec. A recipe, on the other hand, can come out dramatically differently, depending on the type of kitchen, available materials, the mood of the cook, etc. Two people can follow the same recipe and come out with different results.

The same applies to the expression of the genotype–the phenotype. Even identical twins have different retinal scans and fingerprints, so clearly they weren’t built to a specification–there’s nothing in the DNA to describe the exact configuration of the whorls and loops on the thumb.

What does this mean? It means that clones may, in fact, end up not being very similar to each other, meaning in turn that the fears about, e.g., armies of superwarriors are overblown. Identical twins share both genetics and the womb environment, so they are indeed close to identical, but even they will have distinct differences, as anyone who knows twins well can tell you. Two genetically-identical individuals gestated in entirely different environments may turn out to be dramatically different, to the point that it’s not at all obvious that they’re even related.

This has always been the theory.

Now apparently it’s the practice as well.

The first cats to be cloned ended up not being, well, clones.

Some researchers have discovered that we (and all other placental mammals) are descended from an aardvark-like creature.

The scientists said that the common ancestor probably belonged to a mammalian ?super order? known as Afrotheria, which includes the aardvark and both species of elephant.

Kind of makes me peckish for some ants.

Christians in Pakistan fear a backlash when we depose Saddam.

Christians are a small minority in Pakistan and dozens of Christians died in targeted killings by Muslim extremists last year.

Their fears have been exacerbated by a pamphlet distributed last week in Pakistan, which urged Muslims to attack Christians to avenge “the defeat of the Taliban government in Afghanistan and an expected U.S. invasion of Iraq.”

Al Sharpton has entered the presidential race.

This should be fun.

If people who run a regime like this cannot be called evil, then no one can.

Which is, of course, the goal of many of our “allies.” It’s gruesome reading, and bear in mind, while reading it, that the organizers of Saturday’s “peace” marches support this regime.

T. L. James has a thoughtful post on the space program as the outcome of a mass movement.

Jay Manifold has a post on nanotech and its implications for space, and vice versa.

Jay Manifold has a post on nanotech and its implications for space, and vice versa.

Jay Manifold has a post on nanotech and its implications for space, and vice versa.