<p>good point akash - no further development of species, perpetuation of negative/recessive features</p>
<p>OOh, my teacher mentioned that movie. I want to see it!</p>
<p>reminds me of um... Mutant X on star plus/world>> hehe</p>
<p>
[QUOTE]
a disadvantage of gene cloning is that the offspring is an exact replica of the parent-this stops evolution in its tracks
[/QUOTE]
</p>
<p>That's not such a bad thing if you think we're devolving. Assuming evolution exists and works the way we think it does, why would man continue to improve with natural selection? If over a few thousand years man's average IQ went down 20 points, by then would it really have much effect on his ability to reproduce? Maybe the convenience of technology will cause man to devolve around it.</p>
<p>I think akash's point was that negative and positive characteristics within a human remain constant through cloning, there is no change from one generation to the next and so virtually we are not moving forward and progressing... we're biologically standing still. Evolution, ideally is about survival of the fittest - the stongest genes, the best traits, the toughest characteristics win out over the weaker ones. If we evolve, the weak traits should become less influencial, and the stronger ones should outnumber them. With gene cloning, however, the clone is not an evolved version of the original, they are exactly the same - no progress.</p>
<p>cloning organisms is different from gene cloning.</p>
<p>by gene cloning, your teacher may mean recombinant DNA for insertion of DNA fragments coding for proteins into bacterial DNA for manufacture, e.g. insulin.</p>
<p>Anyways, that's a vague question.</p>
<p>Yeah, in the end, I just decided to write about pros and cons of application of making recombinant DNA. If it's a vague question, it's probably because my teacher was confused and really doesnt' understand the difference between the two.</p>