2007-10-23 23:23:29 · 8 answers · asked by getuplate_haha 1 in Science & Mathematics ➔ Biology
no because cloning animals produces shorter chromosomes and therefore the dogs or animals cloned will age much faster (such as dolly the sheep). This wouldnt be useful as the dogs would spend most of their lives being trained, rather than actually doing what tehy are ftrained for. Cloning also creates higher mutation rates which could in turn even lead to extinction, and cloning could arise hidden gene mutations that if they were passed on could be dangerous for future generations. Not to mention other dogs that breed with clones could create hybrid offspring with more genetic mutations and potential dangers.
So cloning anmilas is bad, and still needs to be figured out because it took over 200 embryo's to even produce one sucessful clone "Dolly the sheep".
2007-10-23 23:58:37 · answer #1 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
Aside from the technical difficulties in cloning that have been discussed above, it just wouldn't be practical. Assuming that we could clear the hurdles of low efficiency and poor health, a cloned dog would be just like any other puppy. You'd have to train it like any other, and since there are so many uncontrollable factors in it's upbringing, there is no guarantee that it would be anything like it's 'parent'.
Plus, there would be disadvantages to having such a uniform population. If a virus were to infect one dog, it would be very easy for it to sweep through the entire population. With natural breeding, there would be enough variation that some dogs would have a resistance to it (this is one of the big arguments against human cloning too).
All in all, I think it would be most efficient to just stick with natural methods. Since cloning requires implantation into a surrogate mother (cloning tubes are still sci-fi), there would be no real advantages over natural methods.
2007-10-24 11:06:30 · answer #2 · answered by andymanec 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
People think that cloning a good dog would bring another good dog. It doesn't mean that at all. A cloned animal is another animal all together. It would simply be a new animal that you would again have to train to be a police dog/whatever.
2007-10-24 06:41:50 · answer #3 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 0⤋
Ethically...
Cloning in general is seen as "Playing God".
But practically...
It could solve world food shortages, the lack of skilled "Animal Labour" like dogs and whatnot could be solved too. So yeah, I do agree with it, at least in the practical sense.
2007-10-24 06:37:58 · answer #4 · answered by Ayanami Z 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Sure. The cloning of animals like cows would be acceptable too. Just when they sell the beef or milk had a tag on the packages **CLONED**
2007-10-24 06:25:31 · answer #5 · answered by pilvlpway21337 2 · 1⤊ 1⤋
Yeah, cloning a good dog is better than taking chances with a new one.
Cloning good beef is better than letting genetics take it's course and ending up with evil beef.
2007-10-24 06:25:47 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 1⤊ 1⤋
Yes, as long as it will not harm the animals. It could be helpful to our society.
2007-10-24 06:27:58 · answer #7 · answered by holyone11 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋
yeah that's a great idea!
2007-10-24 06:27:17 · answer #8 · answered by 007james bond 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋