There is a myth about clonal reproduction that says the clones are all the same, except for the inevitable handful of mutations that accompany any reproduction event. When I started preparing this post, I was aware this idea had been shown false in the 1970's. I learned something during my research.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/12700273

Some of the mechanisms of clonal variation have been studied, naturally, but investigation is continuing. Research in this field is really only beginning. Clonal variation is not some oddball exception, either. Anywhere clonal reproduction is found, you'll find it.

The myth relies on the misconception that lifeforms only carry a single blueprint. In reality, plans for variations of many parts are always present. We know that variety is good for life, and even "clonal" lifeforms possess toolkits for producing it.

http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/107626599/abstract

Variation in "clonal" worms:


http://www.plosgenetics.org/article/info:doi/10.1371/journal.pgen.0010030

In Tobacco

http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/119517164/abstract

In the germs that attack our mouths

http://www3.interscience.wiley.com/journal/118757850/abstract

Defenders of the myth frequently resort to redefining 'mutation'. This merely concedes defeat. If one equivocates and classifies all adaptation as "mutation", doing so does not even defend the notion that all this variety is the result of random mistakes. Such a "defense" does not deny the work of adaptive mechanisms; it simply tries to steal credit for their work.

They may try to let on that all this variety should have been detected, and thoroughly documented by now. This is just a play on ignorance. We don't live in a sci-fi realm, where a cell can be inserted into a machine, and the machine will generate a full report on every detail about its composition.

http://journal.shouxi.net/html/qika...24312/wzjh/20080831204312705_193400.html

One has to actively search in order to find most of these things out, and the search is not easy, even with 21st century gadgetry.

It even appears that clonal cells doing what they do, changing from one generation to the next, is an inconvenient for some researchers.

http://www.wikigenes.org/e/gene/e/947170.html

Next time someone presents a wonderful study claiming they "evolved a clonal lifeform", take a few minutes and fire up your search engine. Enter the name of the lifeform, and "clonal variation". You probably won't have the time or the inclination to read all the results.

Who are the "defenders of the myth"? Any particular scientists claiming that there is no clonal variation? That would be odd since it is well known that the sex of an alligator is dependent upon temperature in the nest which means that DNA can be changed by something as simple as heat or cold.

What does this have to do with Creation vs Evolution?

Alligators aren't clones.

I guess there's more than one term the defenders can misinterpret. Please don't fault me, folks, for failing to account for all possibilities. I never claimed I did, if anyone cares to review.

Wow! Way to miss the whole point! Sorry, I forgot about your poor reading comprehension skills.

How about providing some reference showing biologists defending the "myth of clonal reproduction".

Nah. Everyone's seen it. Even you. Are we to gather you "just don't remember"? Wouldn't be the first time.

Anyhow, if you want to try & bluff folks that's fine. An highly cherished evolie dead without a fight? That's not bad news from my perspective!

If "[e]veryone's seen it" then you could easily provide the evidence and show me to be in error. However, you would rather bluster and spout innuendo about my intellectual capacity. Why is that? Does it provide some sort of titillating satisfaction in your "holier than thou" mind to treat people with disdain?
I realize that most of the people on this board are not well versed in science and, because of their desire to believe, are willing to lap up the garbage that you spout out. However, your responses and unwillingness to provide support for your quote-mine conclusions indicate that you are somewhat aware of the dearth of evidence for your assertions.

And what happens when the children you are teaching grow up, realize that you have misrepresented actual science and they drift from Christianity because you told them that belief in Christ depends on a literal Genesis?

Got Millstones?

And you could easily pretend not to see whatever I might present, just as you are now pretending you have not witnesses disputes over the issue of clones being identical.

That's a silly loaded question.

Just what do you say for my intellect when you ask me to argue against myself? If there are good arguments, go find them. If not, let the bad ones fall.

If I misrepresent science, it shouldn't be all that hard to figure out. And if you could show where I've done so, you might look less like someone who just slings mud when they don't like the facts.

Now here's the fact: clones ain't all identical. If that's a misrepresentation, get busy. Show the error of the science I've presented.

As for concerns about children learning false ideas, folks who oppose efforts to remove lies from school textbooks ain't got much room to talk. By their actions, we can discern their true concerns.

You claim that there are "defenders of the myth" that all clones are identical.
You also provide examples of organisms that reproduce asexually or are being stimulated to reproduce asexually (worms, tobacco cells). Are those clones in the same sense that Dolly (the sheep) is a clone produced by inserting a particular sheep's DNA into an emptied egg cell?

So, we are back to the original question. What current biologists have claimed that all clonal reproduction will result in identical individuals? I could try to prove there are no biologists that are "defenders of the myth" by interviewing every biologist in the world. However, it would be easier for you, since you have done the research already, to produce one that does defend that myth.

Are you saying the evidence against the myth is compelling? That it deserves no defense?

I am saying that no biologist says that the clonal (asexual) reproduction you describe should always produce identical individuals.

You indicate in the first post that this "myth" is a widespread phenomenon. So, I am asking you to provide evidence that biologists are stating that clonal (asexual) reproduction always produces identical individuals.

You can't do it because you are using semantics to misrepresent the truth. You are using the popular meaning for "clone" and then providing quotes that use the word "clonal", which in the context of the research means asexual reproduction.

Clones are identical in their DNA to the individual from which the DNA was collected. However, "clonal reproduction" is not the making of clones.

BTW: What does this have to do with the truth or falseness of evolution?

I consistently use the terms 'clone' and 'clonal' in the very same sense they are used in the literature I cited. It is you who introduced the "popular meaning for clone" to the discussion for the very first time. It's a tad late for any attempts to reverse-confuse the readership. If they have read this far, it's a pretty safe bet they understand.

I asked you if you agree to a statement that is perfectly consistent with your contention, and you refused. You have access to the evidence; you can evaluate it. What then prevents you from agreeing with my statement?

Really? The very first line from the introductory post states:
Where in the literature you cited is the indication that all clones are the same?

Your first sentence introduced the idea that all clones are the same.


I agree that clonal reproduction doesn't always result in identical individuals. I don't agree that biologists have claimed that it does. Could you show me where they have claimed this?

Additionally, this seems to have nothing to do with whether all life on Earth evolved from a common ancestor or not.

I employed the term exactly as my sources did. You said I employed different meanings, but you cannot even begin to demonstrate such a difference in anything I posted.

How cheesy!
I addressed the existence of the myth, yes indeed. I then proceeded to debunk it. Perhaps you should specify what you mean by "popular meaning", since you're claiming it differs from the use in the links I presented. Or are you just bluffing & wasting time?

Why should I bother? If you agree that the idea is false, why are you so bent on seeing "biologists" support it? Is this a trick to get me to call someone a "biologist" who has no business being labeled as such?

Life is designed to adapt. If you can live with that, and the loss of claims that the results of such built-in adaptive mechanisms represent evolution of novelties, then please do so.

So? Why not let it go? What harm is done if people learn a fact or two?

I think those who can have connected the dots, and I don't think I have any outstanding obligation regarding those who cannot. If you're so unfamiliar with the claims of your fellow evolutionists that you haven't heard any of these lines, great! You don't really need to learn how to employ these defective "arguments", at least in my opinion. Where's the up-side to presenting them?