/sci/ - Science & Math

> would the resulting child be essentially a clone of you as well? Or would the child be like, super inbred or something?
both. Half of the chromosome combinations would be equal to yours, the other half would be maximally inbred.

>>14731186
Anything you're heterozygous for would only have a 50% chance of being the same in the resulting child. Not to mention other randomness in the process like crossing over during meiosis. There is basically no chance your child will be identical to you.

For a quick summary and refresher on the basics, as well as some of the more nuanced/esoteric mechanisms of genetic recombination, there is this well documented wikipedia page. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Genetic_recombination

>>14731213
>>14731226
So the answer is essentially not your clone, but very inbred due to the source genetic material from both parents being essentially identical?

>>14731253
Yes, the main risk for inbreeding is that many disease causing genes are recessive. This is because there are numerous scenarios where a gene may be fucked up and produce a fucked up protein. If you have 1 fucked up copy and 1 good copy, you'll be fine, but if you have two fucked up copies, you'll be screwed. Inbreeding maximizes the possibility that you repeatedly have the same bad gene copy.

>>14731300
Kek. I got dubs of homozygous-nonsense mutation.

All right, thanks for the clear answers, solves the thought experiment I had pretty solidly.

>>14731186
>would the resulting child be essentially a clone of you as well?
no, beacuse each chromosome you give to a sperm or to an egg cell mixes up with its pair chromosome, so the resulting child will have a diffeernt genetic mixture of the chromosome he gets from you and the one he gets from your clone
basically the chromosome in your sperm cells are not the copy of either one of your chromosomes, but are a randomized mix of genes from either of the chromosomes in the pair

>>14731186
This was a plot point from Robert A. Heinlein's "Time Enough for Love." The protagonist got surprise-secksed by twin female clones of himself. It's also heavily implied that said twins are only barely just old enough for such an act to be legal in Germany.

>>14731543
God bless old scifi authors and their quest to explore the untold possibilities of perversion new technologies could bring forth

>>14731555
Yeah but the loli twins in question were redheads. I can't really blame Lazarus. Or Heinlein, for that matter.

>>14731543
Heinlein was a true libertarian.

>>14731585
>>14731543
>>14731589
Is there even any valid moral arguments to be made about making female clones of yourself to serve in your harem? I mean, as long as you pay for the serivices needed to bring the girls forth so to speak, genetic engineering, surrogacy and so on.

Your DNA is after all your property and should you by all rights, have the right to do whatever you want with what's yours?

>>14731186
I have better question, would you find such female hot AF? what if you're handsome or fugly?
Or would some family instics kick in and make it completely asexual?

>>14731647
West Mark effect aka the whole a sexuality towards family members isn't actually due to biological relatedness but due to growing up in close proximity I think. So that would only aplly if you yourself reared this clone girl

>>14731611
>Your DNA is after all your property and should you by all rights, have the right to do whatever you want with what's yours?
Twins can have the same DNA and be legally distinct entities. Even conjoined ones.

>>14731611
Deontological: You are the custodian of your DNA, not the owner. Your role is to preserve and propagate your genes, not exploit them for personal pleasure. Cloning yourself may be a valid means of propagating your genes, but that does not give you ownership over those separate instances of your genes.

Utilitarian: You're creating a greater quantity of disutils than you are creating utils.

>>14731683
Not if I copyright my genome

>>14731703
Not how it works. Courts already ruled that genomic patents were not allowed, and even if they were allowed, the original patent applicants just wanted to hold the rights for producing pharmaceuticals from the genes, not the rights to the humans themselves.

>>14731706
Well see about that in 50 years when Monsanto has had its way with the law. My very own patented female clone cat girls of myself will be my legal property as my concubines God dammit

>>14731647
The closest I can compare this situation to is my younger sister. I do find her attractive, and we get along. In a "stranded on a deserted island" scenario, I probably wouldn't be bothered by it if we needed to start a family together.

>>14731714
Monsanto does't even exist as a company any more, Bayer bought them out like 4 years ago.

>>14731186
test

>>14731813
wtf

>>14731647
Genetic sexual attraction is a thing and aversion to incest due to proximity during upbringing, so you probably would find her very attractive unless you/she are ugly or you have very high standards or specific tastes.

>>14731555
relevant Isaac Asimov:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hAtz2rO-E_0

Oh, give me a clone
Of my own flesh and bone
With its Y-chromosome changed to X
And when it is grown
Then my own little clone
Will be of the opposite sex.

(Chorus)
Clone, clone of my own,
With your Y-Chromosome changed to X
And when I’m alone
With my own little clone
We will both think of nothing but sex.

>>14732572
... didn't his son get busted for child pornography?

>>14731300
one of the reasons why interracial mixing is healthy too. when people from two different races have offspring, this greatly minimizes the chances of having any diseases caused by recessive alleles.

>>14731700
I don't know what deontological means but I hope it'd not as poor of a thought process as shown here because you own everything about your person.

>>14731186
Just use a condom.

>>14731186
You wouldn't happen to be living in Alabama?

bump

>>14732572
what the actuall fuck

>>14731186

>>14733383
Lel

>>14731186
>reproductive age
based

>>14731186
>would the resulting child be essentially a clone of you as well? Or would the child be like, super inbred or something?
the second thing.

>>14733507
What's the biological reason for this?

>>14734377
Optimum of youthfulness and fertility. Caveman brain doesn't know anything about feminist age of consent laws.

>>14731186
Wouldn't this essentially be the same as a male and female identical twins making a child together?
I bet that throughout human history this has actually happened several times. The question is, do we have any record of it and how it turned out?

>>14731611
So any regular parent couple owns the genes of their children so they should be allowed to use them for whatever they want?

As long as what you produce is a human, why does it matter where the genes are from?
Whether you produced them normally, by cloning yourself, or by generating the dna from scratch using magic, at the end of the day that's still a human.

>>14731186

The bigger question is
Would YOU like YOU?

Seriously, would you really LIKE and enjoy being around another you.

Are you a great friend to have?

>>14731186
>different gender
>clone
pick one

>>14733084
>You wouldn't happen to be living in Alabama?
I never understood why this joke is so common as cousin marriage in Alabama is only as common as other white states, and is much more prevalent in states in New York, New Jersey, and Michigan which have Muslim populations where cousin marriage is actually common and not some joke

>>14732987
>I don't know what deontological means
Then you aren't qualified to evaluate moral claims, including claims of ownership, simple as.

>>14734569
>>You wouldn't happen to be living in Alabama?

>>14734569
>I never understood why this joke is so common
Because it's an expression of classism, which is one of the few forms of discrimination in which liberals are still permitted (encouraged) to engage. It's their Two Minutes Hate.

>>14734461
Male and Female identical twins aren't a thing. Identical twins are always the same sex

>>14734554
Yes. I would smother my female clone with love and cuddles

>>14734816
>I would smother my female clone with love and cuddles

Would SHE love you?
Are YOU are the best she can do?
Would YOU chose you?

>>14734830
Why would female me hurt me and abandon me?

>>14734840
>Why would female me hurt me and abandon me?

Because he offers her more than you.

>>14734842

Think of it this way, a clone of you (probably not too attractive) or her?

>>14734814
Ah I see, thanks.

>>14734569
Faulkner and the Southern gothic literary tradition

>>14731186
A X chromosome duplication is likely to cause deleterious phenotypes. There is a good reason parthenogenesis is rare.

>>14735388
This. You would need to use an X chromosome from your paternal grand mother

>>14731186
You'd have some mutant retard inbred baby

>>14731186
What would happen if a female had sperm created from her cells and then impregnated with it?
Thats basically the same as this question right?

>>14735764
>had sperm created from her cells
Is that a thing?

>>14735764
This thread is just an excuse to talk about fucking your female clone. Stop trying to make it weird.

>>14735786
>This thread is just an excuse to talk about fucking your female clone. Stop trying to make it weird.

Only on 4chan could someone write that and actually mean it.

>>14735771
>Is that a thing?
Yes
https://nypost.com/2021/03/18/australian-researchers-are-first-to-grow-embryos-from-skin-cells/

>>14735832
god I want to make some selfcest babies to conduct unethical human experimentation on... if only I was born a woman..

>>14735840
I suppose in theory you could pay a surrogate to have the baby once you get a fertilized embryo of your selfcest baby. It would be considerably less ethical than cloning imo, but I'm not sure if it would actually violate any laws.

>>14731226
>Not to mention other randomness in the process like crossing over during meiosis.

Inbred shit fucks with this hard core. The genes have spots they like to mate up against and too many similarities (caused by having cloned chronozones) make it grab on at the wrong spot and tare up and shit. You get way more duplications and deletions than with a normal healthy pairing.

Also, the Christian god impregnated his own mom fathering himself. Please anyone if you can explain that genetics. Please draw it on an inheritance chart or something.

>>14735840
You can impregnate your self and carry an ectopic pregnancy to term. Uteruses are only really necessary for vaginal births, now that we have the Caesarean section and IVF females are only really needed as egg donors, and ever that is quite nearly unnecessary.

I wonder, is identical twin incest more or less common than (same gender) fraternal twin incest?

>>14731543
Didn't he also write "All you Zombies" where the main character impregnates himself/herself through time travel shenanigans

>>14735764
To create sperm she would need the Y chromosome from her father

>>14736343
>Inbred shit fucks with this hard core. The genes have spots they like to mate up against and too many similarities (caused by having cloned chronozones) make it grab on at the wrong spot and tare up and shit. You get way more duplications and deletions than with a normal healthy pairing.
This is interesting, I am surprised to get a lucid comment this deep in the horny-posting death of the thread.

>>14736389
So, an egg can be created from sperm?

>>14736586
From fat cells actually.

>>14732572
how the hell didn't I hear this before?
lmao

>>14731611
Do you guys really view yourselves as sex objects?
A female clone of me would be horrendously ugly.
No wonder all of you turn into trannies.

>>14733507
should consent age be reduced to 14, scientifically speaking?

>>14731186
>removing the y chromosome from it, and replacing it with a copy of your x chromosome
Then it's not a clone retard

>>14737004
>>14734404
Females are stupid, let's not act otherwise, but there is a difference between a female that is 14 and that is 18. You would rather let an 18-year-old female drive a car than a 14-year-old. 18-year-old female would make better decisions than a 14-year-old.
sneed

>>14737063
Also decisions making is important in relationships, 14-year-old would choose some mentally ill schizo (because they don't know better) and would mess up her life.
Thus, making age of consent 18 there is less probability of this occurrence.
Even if girls at 14 could have kids, that is autistic, and you watched too many porn videos.

tl;dr go to discord you trannie nigger.
sneed

>>14736353
Where would the amniotic sac attach to? Where would it be contained?

>>14731186
>and impregnate her, would the resulting child be essentially a clone of you as well?
Human sperm and ovums have a random assortment of half the chromosomes of the parent, ie each has 23. They combine with each other to make 46 total or 23 pairs. So simplistically (no mutations) speaking there is a 1 in 2^23 chance the offspring in this scenario would be a clone of yourself (I guess slightly higher chance since we're a little more likely to have male offspring). If I'm not mistaken that individual sperm cell should coincidentally be identical to the one that made you because derp it's producing a clone of you.
>>14731300
>many disease causing genes are recessive
>If you have 1 fucked up copy and 1 good copy, you'll be fine
Why are recessive genes the fucked up ones? What if the dominant gene (allele rather) is the fucked up one? Mutations are random so there should be an equal distribution of disease on dominant and recessive genes.

>>14736343
>Also, the Christian god impregnated his own mom fathering himself. Please anyone if you can explain that genetics
The Bible verbatim gives the blood lineage of Mary and Joseph back to Abraham that splits at king David. It makes the most sense that God simply copied* the genetic stock from Joseph and used it to create the embryo.
*It must be a copy, not "teleporting" Joseph's sperm into Mary, because that would violate the curse of Jeconiah, ergo it's a requirement the Messiah be of a virgin birth. It's simply amazing how the Bible understood genetic details that had implications many many centuries apart. It's impossible a bunch of random people could have accidentally got all of it right, it's truly divinely inspired.
>Please draw it on an inheritance chart or something
Pic related it's easy to understand

>>14737435
Because it's easier to break something in a gene to create something. Therefore most mutations break existing proteins, a few of them create new functions. Breaking existing protein function tends to cause diseases/conditions in many cases.

>>14737478
*break something in a gene than create something

>>14737435
>Why are recessive genes the fucked up ones?
They're not necessarily. See Huntington's disease.
>What if the dominant gene (allele rather) is the fucked up one?
Then the child usually dies without reproducing.

>>14737063
Their father would make a better decision than both of them, though, so let's just embrace arranged marriage and lower the age of marriage to 14.

>14 year old girls pay attention to the law
Lol.

>>14733331
He dies in the last verse
but not before making two male clones to doubleteam his clonefu

>>14735388
Not really worse than an XY, most X genes are totally missing on Y so any recessive X gets triggered

>>14731647
Would you fuck Faceapp you?

>>14738095
I already came to faceapp me once. She was hot.

>>14738088
On the X chromosome having a homozygous genotype for a risk allele is incredibly bad since barr bodies wouldn't prevent either from being expressed. This is believed to be part of the reason women have such higher risk for autoimmunity because there's essentially a 50/50 chance of a risk allele being expressed. Also in men a lot of X-linked genes are silenced or have reduced transcription, leading to less effect on the phenotype.

>>14737435
Because when the detrimental mutation is in a dominant gene it becomes more frequent, and more likely to harm the viability of the offspring with the mutation, so the evolutionary pressure selects against it. Meanwhile recessive bad genes can stay inactive but still spread.

>>14731186
Interesting concept. May try it out with mice one day.

>>14737063
Car is a modern invention
Humans walked on Earth since 500k years ago

>>14737655
From a place where age of consent is 14 here and it's not any better, actually it is arguably worse and there's a kind of a faint pedophilic culture around trying to get virgin young girls just to fuck them and then dump them, so that's a really nice thing, now imagine your wife got borderline raped at 14 by some schizo retard and now she's mentally retarded regarding anything sexual (probably thinks that it is normal for her to be threated like soulless fuck doll). Of course the retards from here would like to larp as the schizo so they are going to say that it is a good thing.

>>14738768
>wife
Meant daughter, wife also works too, don't think the average person would want to deal with shit like that for a wife too kek.

>>14738535
>so the evolutionary pressure selects against it.
There are plenty of dominant "bad" genes. Almost all GOF mutations are dominant and they cause some of the worst genetic conditions around. Some extremely recessive traits, like having blonde hair, are common in places like Sweden because of the founder effect. What it comes down to is the frequency of that allele in the population.

>>14737478
How does this answer anything

>>14738768
Very few women aren't retarded.

>>14731611
Are you actually asking if another human can be born as your property, or is this just a joke?
If you need an answer: sound out your thought loudly and think hard, for a change.

>>14738975
Yes, but overall gain of function diseases are less common due to the evolutionary pressures he described. In fact, many recessive diseases present advantages when individuals are carriers, further encouraging the gene to stay in the population.

>>14739136
If you can't tell that the whole exchange is a joke you might be autistic m8

>>14738986
It's a two part answer:

1. Gain of function gene mutations are less frequent than loss of function gene mutations.
2. Dominant disease genes have lower chances of spreading in the population, unless like huntington's, the disease carriers can reproduce before they suffer from the disease. Recessive diseases on the other hand can have widespread carriers and even provide benefits to their carriers, causing natural selection to keep those genes in a population (ex. Malaria, asian glow gene, FSGS gene)

>>14739300
Ok now it's actually clear

>>14736996
These guys are faggots anon. Any prime male here would make male clones of themselves. Then, you could plot and dominate the whole world. Muhahahahahahhaa faggots.

>>14737478
>easier to break something
>than create something
This is a common sense generality and doesn't answer the questions

>>14738535
>it becomes more frequent
>so the evolutionary pressure selects against it
This is an obvious contradiction. Traits are selected for/against because of utility or harm, not frequency. Your statements offer a neutral change in frequency of spreading if a defect were on the dominant gene

>Meanwhile recessive bad genes can stay inactive but still spread
And they are also selected against every time they're expressed but when inactive natural selection has no effect on them (so they'd be at the mercy of genetic drift which is no different than flipping a coin to determine if they spread) hence there would be a neutral change in frequency of spreading if a defect were on the recessive gene.

You're juggling two mechanisms but mathematically neither should outperform the other in the long run based on what you said.

>>14739294
>gain of function diseases
?? Blonde hair is a loss of function. One loses the ability to pigment the hair. If you're implying there might some day be a disease on blonde hair recessive genes they would not be called "gain of function diseases"

>>14731186
let this thread die already

>>14739295
L2imgeboard. There wasn't an exchange is the problem, it was a new passerby, which is heavily implied by him replying to multiple other posts.

Yes.

>>14731186
It would be retarded because chances are your genes aren’t perfect and the human reproduction counts on double counts of the same genes in both parents in case one is messed up. Suppose you engineer to make sure your dna is clean of huntingtons or something you’ll be fine.

>>14737435
> individual sperm cell should coincidentally be identical to the one that made you
The egg could have the copy from your dad and the sperm the other one. If you wanted identical sperm odds are worse. Probably 1 in 2*4^22: there are 2^23 ways to pick chromosomes for sperm and the complementary egg is one out of 2^22 (not 23 since X is always the right).

>>14731700
Holy fuck what a gene simp.

How about this. My DNA is actually my property intrinsically by the grace of god you pfizer shill.
And if I pay for it to be grown in an artificial womb as a female and accelerated to 16 then I can do whatever the fuck I want with it. How about that?

Perhaps I'll cut her arms and legs off and leave her as very expensive luxury flashlight and you can deontologically suck my dick once I'm done.

>>14744397
>The egg could have the copy from your dad
every egg lacks a Y so it can't be the full copy from the dad. It could be a full copy from the mom , or it could be a copy of the allosomes from the dad.
>If you wanted identical sperm odds are worse
Now that I think about it this is correct. If the sperm is identical to the one that created you then the ovum must also be identical to the one that created you, so it would require winning the lottery twice, which isn't necessary if the only goal is to simply make a clone.

>>14732572
I first read that as Isaac Arthur

>>14737063
I wouldn't let women drive at all

>>14734842
My female clone would be peak schizoid and would never fuck chad

>>14734584
Age of consent is 18 in germany. 14 year olds can only consent to to sex with somone who is 14-17 years.

Fuck, this stupid thread is gonna hit bump limit, isn't it.

>>14746720
Wrong. But I think they have a clause where if someone who's 14 reports you then you run into problems

>>14737004
The age of consent should be marriage anything else is degenerate.

>>14732490
kek

>>14731186
What are the odds OP made this thread just to post that picture

>>14747112
There is not a single ghibli girl that I wouldn't nakadashi