Orphan Black

[Dragon Lady]

Does anybody else thing Sara (or is it Sarah?) is the original and not a
clone?

She doesn't seem to have a minder, unless they recruited her foster brother.
She was hidden after they got the cloning material from her (why?).
They could tell she wasn't who she claimed to be, yet at the same time, we
didn't see the answer to "then who is she?"

[Winston]

"Dragon Lady" <sgt...@comcast.net> writes:
> Does anybody else thing Sara (or is it Sarah?) is the original and not a
> clone?

Assuming the clones grew from a single cell to adulthood more or less
the standard way, then the "original" is the oldest.

At the moment, I don't think we have any information on how old the
original was when the cell/tissue samples were taken. However old she
was at the time, the original is that much older than any of the clones.
My first guess is that no one Sarah's age is the original.

OTOH, if they took an embryo, extracted one cell at a time as the
original embryo divided, and helped each extracted cell grow to
adulthood, then they're actually identical twins more than clones, all
the twins are essentially the same age, and any of them could be the
original. Growing and raising exact twins doesn't really fit the story
so far, though.

*SPOILER from the 5/11 episode*






















Since it looks like the head Neolutionist is behind this, and neolution
followers are using genetics to change themselves (e.g., to grow a
tail), I figure it's possible that the clones/twins are NOT exact
duplicates -- that there are genetically engineered small differences,
and the grand experiment involves making specified small changes from a
common starting point and seeing what happens. In that sense, there
would need to be a "control" who had no genetic modification. Sarah
could be the control, even if not the original tissue donor if she's a
clone.

There are also lots of other possibilities.
-WBE

[Adam H. Kerman]

Winston <w...@UBEBLOCK.psr.com.invalid> wrote:
>"Dragon Lady" <sgt...@comcast.net> writes:

>>Does anybody else thing Sara (or is it Sarah?) is the original and not a
>>clone?

>Assuming the clones grew from a single cell to adulthood more or less
>the standard way, then the "original" is the oldest.

No, that's merely first, chronologically. Original would be the physicaly
human being that provided the genetic material to be copied.

[David Johnston]

On 5/17/2013 10:43 PM, Dragon Lady wrote:
> Does anybody else thing Sara (or is it Sarah?) is the original and not a
> clone?

That seems to be what they are indicating even though it makes no sense.

>
> She doesn't seem to have a minder, unless they recruited her foster
> brother.

Note that the "original" should have a minder since she'd be the
experimental control.

[David Johnston]

Which would require it to be the oldest.

[Adam H. Kerman]

Missing the point again, Johnston. To repeat myself for the incredibly
slow Canadian, the original is the donor of the genetic material from which
the clones were made.

The oldest would be the first born. That's all oldest means. It doesn't mean
original.

We don't know when they were born nor what order they were born in, nor
if the donation was made from foetal cells and not from a baby. Perhaps
the cloning was performed from a zygote. We don't know if the original
was a test tube baby as well or if it was grown in an artificial womb
and perhaps born later than one or more of the clones.

Of course, it's not even been established that they were cloned. The
genetic material may have been entirely artificial and everyone may be
an artificially created identical twin, not cloned at all.

[David Johnston]

On 5/18/2013 10:37 AM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
> David Johnston <Da...@block.net> wrote:
>> On 5/18/2013 8:44 AM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>>> Winston <w...@UBEBLOCK.psr.com.invalid> wrote:
>>>> "Dragon Lady" <sgt...@comcast.net> writes:
>
>>>>> Does anybody else thing Sara (or is it Sarah?) is the original and not a
>>>>> clone?
>
>>>> Assuming the clones grew from a single cell to adulthood more or less
>>>> the standard way, then the "original" is the oldest.
>
>>> No, that's merely first, chronologically. Original would be the physicaly
>>> human being that provided the genetic material to be copied.
>
>> Which would require it to be the oldest.
>
> Missing the point again, Johnston. To repeat myself for the incredibly
> slow Canadian, the original is the donor of the genetic material from which
> the clones were made.

Which would require it to be the oldest.

>
> The oldest would be the first born. That's all oldest means. It doesn't mean
> original.
>
> We don't know when they were born nor what order they were born in, nor
> if the donation was made from foetal cells and not from a baby.

Which would mean that it was the oldest, but not by a big margin because
it would have been farther along than the spinoffs.

Perhaps
> the cloning was performed from a zygote.

If it was performed from a zygote then the concept of an "original"
becomes meaningless.

[Malcom "Mal" Reynolds]

In article <ydsj1ko...@UBEblock.psr.com>,

Winston <w...@UBEBLOCK.psr.com.invalid> wrote:

> "Dragon Lady" <sgt...@comcast.net> writes:
> > Does anybody else thing Sara (or is it Sarah?) is the original and not a
> > clone?
>
> Assuming the clones grew from a single cell to adulthood more or less
> the standard way, then the "original" is the oldest.
>
> At the moment, I don't think we have any information on how old the
> original was when the cell/tissue samples were taken. However old she
> was at the time, the original is that much older than any of the clones.
> My first guess is that no one Sarah's age is the original.
>
> OTOH, if they took an embryo, extracted one cell at a time as the
> original embryo divided, and helped each extracted cell grow to
> adulthood, then they're actually identical twins more than clones, all
> the twins are essentially the same age, and any of them could be the
> original. Growing and raising exact twins doesn't really fit the story
> so far, though.
>
> *SPOILER from the 5/11 episode*
>
>
>
>
>

If the purpose of the "cloning" was to test a how to do it, there
doesn't seem to be much point...after all in most SF the purpose of
cloning is to provide either a new "you" or to provide a parts bank to
keep "you" living. Makes more sense to believe that as all the clones
appear to be in their late 20's/early 30's either the experiment was to
test rapid growing (but we know Sara has a long past as does Alison,
that would eliminate that) or the clones are testing methods of
extending life, vitality and all that good stuff so that Mr Neolution
can live forever

[Adam H. Kerman]

David Johnston <Da...@block.net> wrote:
>On 5/18/2013 10:37 AM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>>David Johnston <Da...@block.net> wrote:
>>>On 5/18/2013 8:44 AM, Adam H. Kerman wrote:
>>>>Winston <w...@UBEBLOCK.psr.com.invalid> wrote:
>>>>>"Dragon Lady" <sgt...@comcast.net> writes:

>>>>>>Does anybody else thing Sara (or is it Sarah?) is the original and not a
>>>>>>clone?

>>>>>Assuming the clones grew from a single cell to adulthood more or less
>>>>>the standard way, then the "original" is the oldest.

>>>>No, that's merely first, chronologically. Original would be the physicaly
>>>>human being that provided the genetic material to be copied.

>>>Which would require it to be the oldest.

>>Missing the point again, Johnston. To repeat myself for the incredibly
>>slow Canadian, the original is the donor of the genetic material from which
>>the clones were made.

>Which would require it to be the oldest.

It requires you to be the stupidest and least able to comprehend
plain language.

Massive Johnston stupidity snip. He's written himself into a corner and
refuses to back off, just keeps repeating the same stupid crap.

[Winston]

"Dragon Lady" <sgt...@comcast.net> originally asked:

>>> Does anybody else thing Sara (or is it Sarah?) is the original and
>>> not a clone?

to which I replied:

>> Assuming the clones grew from a single cell to adulthood more or less
>> the standard way, then the "original" is the oldest.

to which "Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.com> replied:

> No, that's merely first, chronologically. Original would be the
> physicaly human being that provided the genetic material to be copied.

Yes, we agree, but you seem to have ignored the very next paragraph in
which I continued:

>> At the moment, I don't think we have any information on how old the
>> original was when the cell/tissue samples were taken. However old
>> she was at the time, the original is that much older than any of the
>> clones. My first guess is that no one Sarah's age is the original.

IOW, of the set (donor + clones), the oldest is the original, and, as I
wrote, my first guess is that no one Sarah's age is the original. We
currently don't know for sure whether they're clones or twins, and if
they are clones, we don't know how old the original was when the tissue
sample was taken. If they're clones, I'm guessing the original will
turn out to be some 30 years older than the clones, possibly the good
Neolutionist professor's former wife or daughter or some such who was
killed.

Of those Sarah's age, maybe it's just my eyes, but Helena looks slightly
older than the others. If so, maybe her father/captor/monitor/whatever-
he-is is right about her being the original. Or maybe she's the same
age and her life aged her appearance faster than the others. Still lots
of possibilities... :)
-WBE

[Winston]

"Malcom \"Mal\" Reynolds" <atlas-...@invalid.invalid> writes:
> If the purpose of the "cloning" was to test a how to do it, there
> doesn't seem to be much point...

Well, one has to be able to do it at all and have it work with some
degree of consistency before one can progress to doing it for a purpose.
If the clones all died young because their telomeres were left too short
or for some unforseen cause, then using them for body and limb
replacement would look a lot less promising.

> after all in most SF the purpose of cloning is to provide either a new
> "you" or to provide a parts bank to keep "you" living.

Or to bring back dead loved ones. :)

Or, in the case of the Neolutionists, to create a superior being by
genetic manipulation. Introducing tails, eagle eyes, or any of a long
list of other traits from other species can't be assumed to "just work"
in humans the first try.
-WBE

[Adam H. Kerman]

Winston <w...@UBEBLOCK.psr.com.invalid> wrote:
>"Dragon Lady" <sgt...@comcast.net> originally asked:

>>>>Does anybody else thing Sara (or is it Sarah?) is the original and
>>>>not a clone?

>to which I replied:
>>>Assuming the clones grew from a single cell to adulthood more or less
>>>the standard way, then the "original" is the oldest.

>to which "Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.com>replied:
>>No, that's merely first, chronologically. Original would be the
>>physicaly human being that provided the genetic material to be copied.

>Yes, we agree, but you seem to have ignored the very next paragraph in
>which I continued:

>>>At the moment, I don't think we have any information on how old the
>>>original was when the cell/tissue samples were taken. However old
>>>she was at the time, the original is that much older than any of the
>>>clones. My first guess is that no one Sarah's age is the original.

>IOW, of the set (donor + clones), the oldest is the original, and, as I
>wrote, my first guess is that no one Sarah's age is the original.

The point I made (maybe it was in a different followup) was that we have no
reason to believe that the donor was a human being. That's one possibility,
but not the only one.

>We currently don't know for sure whether they're clones or twins, and
>if they are clones, we don't know how old the original was when the
>tissue sample was taken. If they're clones, I'm guessing the original
>will turn out to be some 30 years older than the clones, possibly the
>good Neolutionist professor's former wife or daughter or some such who
>was killed.

This is possible.

>Of those Sarah's age, maybe it's just my eyes, but Helena looks slightly
>older than the others. If so, maybe her father/captor/monitor/whatever-
>he-is is right about her being the original. Or maybe she's the same
>age and her life aged her appearance faster than the others. Still lots
>of possibilities... :)

I think the latter is more likely. It's kind of hard to believe she hasn't
died of sepsis.

[David Johnston]

On 5/18/2013 9:23 PM, Winston wrote:

> Of those Sarah's age, maybe it's just my eyes, but Helena looks slightly
> older than the others.

She's made up to look sicker than the others, but that's intended to
reflect abuse and malnourishment.

[Adam H. Kerman]

And Johnston plays selective quoting games AGAIN. If he'd read just two
more sentences, he'd have noticed that the author made that comment:

>>Of those Sarah's age, maybe it's just my eyes, but Helena looks slightly

>>older than the others. If so, maybe her father/captor/monitor/whatever-
>>he-is is right about her being the original. Or maybe she's the same

>>age and her life aged her appearance faster than the others. . . .

I don't know why Johnston has to be such an asshole.

[Malcom "Mal" Reynolds]

In article <ydd2sno...@UBEblock.psr.com>,

but we have real live clones and we had a real live tail. they couldn't
have made the clones 30 or so years ago...technology not advanced enough
and if it were, there would be a new batch every so often just in case,
so they must have forced "aging" but we know that at least 2/3 have long
backgrounds so the premise is wonky

[David Johnston]

On 5/19/2013 1:32 PM, Malcom "Mal" Reynolds wrote:
> In article <ydd2sno...@UBEblock.psr.com>,
> Winston <w...@UBEBLOCK.psr.com.invalid> wrote:
>
>> "Malcom \"Mal\" Reynolds" <atlas-...@invalid.invalid> writes:
>>> If the purpose of the "cloning" was to test a how to do it, there
>>> doesn't seem to be much point...
>>
>> Well, one has to be able to do it at all and have it work with some
>> degree of consistency before one can progress to doing it for a purpose.
>> If the clones all died young because their telomeres were left too short
>> or for some unforseen cause, then using them for body and limb
>> replacement would look a lot less promising.
>>
>>> after all in most SF the purpose of cloning is to provide either a new
>>> "you" or to provide a parts bank to keep "you" living.
>>
>> Or to bring back dead loved ones. :)
>>
>> Or, in the case of the Neolutionists, to create a superior being by
>> genetic manipulation. Introducing tails, eagle eyes, or any of a long
>> list of other traits from other species can't be assumed to "just work"
>> in humans the first try.
>> -WBE
>
> but we have real live clones and we had a real live tail. they couldn't
> have made the clones 30 or so years ago...technology not advanced enough

How did you determine how advanced the technology was 30 years ago in
the world of Orphan Black?

[Winston]

[This reply is less organized than usual. There seem to be lots of
possibilities. :-)]

I previously posted, in part:

>> Or, in the case of the Neolutionists, to create a superior being by
>> genetic manipulation. Introducing tails, eagle eyes, or any of a long
>> list of other traits from other species can't be assumed to "just work"
>> in humans the first try.

"Malcom \"Mal\" Reynolds" <atlas-...@invalid.invalid> pointed out:

> but we have real live clones

Yes (or twins).

> and we had a real live tail.

I got the impression that Olivier's tail had been done by genetic
manipulation (in our world, via something like a DNA-altering /
gene-splicing virus, though I don't recall any such thing ever being
mentioned in the show). I didn't have the impression he'd been born
with it. Similarly, I had the impression that many of the people in the
club had selectively undergone their choice of various genetic
alterations available.

> they couldn't have made the clones 30 or so years ago...technology not
> advanced enough

However, the technology for extracting a cell from a zygote to produce a
twin has been around for a long time, and would be especially
straightforward if they started with in vitro fertilization, which has
also been around for a good while.

> ... and if it were, there would be a new batch every so often just in
> case,

That's a good point. They're old enough that if they're someone's
genetic experiment, a followup experiment some years later as technology
improved would seem likely.


==========
Re: real world cloning technology

I just checked. Dolly the Sheep was 17 years ago (1996). Four days
ago, "Scientists Report First Success in Cloning Human Stem Cells"
appeared in the news:

http://healthland.time.com/2013/05/15/first-success-in-using-human-egg-to-reprogram-cells-back-to-embryonic-state/

==========

> so they must have forced "aging"

I'm not sure we can conclude that. Have we seen a date/year? The
visible electronic technology looks relatively current, so it can't be
set too far in the future. If you're willing to assume someone went
straight from cloning sheep to cloning people, and if Orphan Black were,
say, 7 years in the future, 17(since Dolly) + 7 = 24 years, which is in
the ballpark of Sarah's age. [IMDB says Tatiana was born September
1985, so she's currently 27.]

> but we know that at least 2/3 have long backgrounds so the premise is
> wonky

Unless those backgrounds are implanted memories... :)
No such technology is in evidence yet, though.

I think at the moment that odds are against there having been forced
aging. Twinning + later genetic modification (if the Neolutionists are
testing non-human genes in humans, or the like) is a better fit
technologically.

However, the big problem with twinning is the question: Why would anyone
do it, and especially, why would Neolutionist Dr. Leeky, who's professed
interest is self-directed evolution via genetic modifications, be
interested in a bunch of completely identical twins? It doesn't seem
like he would, which suggests either clones or not-as-yet-revealed
genetic differences.

As I said, a rather disorganized followup. :)
-WBE

[Winston]

"Adam H. Kerman" <a...@chinet.com> replied:

> The point I made (maybe it was in a different followup) was that we
> have no reason to believe that the donor was a human being.
> That's one possibility, but not the only one.

That's an interesting thought. I haven't seen that suggestion elsewhere
in the Orphan Black threads yet.

If you define "human" strictly, so that "human with eagle eye genes
spliced in" is not "human", then, yes, the donor doesn't have to be
"human". However, based on real world cloning technology, I don't think
you could get a result like Sarah without the donor nucleus being
(mostly) human DNA. You could put a human nucleus in a completely
non-human recipient cell, but I don't think that would work either. I
think the recipient cell for a human clone has to be close to human.

So, I don't see how the donor could be not (at least mostly) human.
-WBE

[Malcom "Mal" Reynolds]

In article <knbb9f$m4e$1...@dont-email.me>,

if dolly was 17 years ago, by extension 13 years earlier would seem
rather problematic

[David Johnston]

Right now would be "rather problematic". That's what makes it science
fiction.

[Adam H. Kerman]

Winston <w...@UBEBLOCK.psr.com.invalid> wrote:

>I got the impression that Olivier's tail had been done by genetic
>manipulation (in our world, via something like a DNA-altering /
>gene-splicing virus, though I don't recall any such thing ever being
>mentioned in the show). I didn't have the impression he'd been born
>with it. Similarly, I had the impression that many of the people in the
>club had selectively undergone their choice of various genetic
>alterations available.

I heard them say surgery. Perhaps it was Olivier's cells genetically
manipulated to form a tale. Probably no modification is required, if we
still have the genetic code to grow a tale lying dormant in our DNA.
Then attached surgically without tissue rejection.

[David Johnston]

On 5/19/2013 8:00 PM, Winston wrote:
> [This reply is less organized than usual. There seem to be lots of
> possibilities. :-)]
>
> I previously posted, in part:
>>> Or, in the case of the Neolutionists, to create a superior being by
>>> genetic manipulation. Introducing tails, eagle eyes, or any of a long
>>> list of other traits from other species can't be assumed to "just work"
>>> in humans the first try.
>
> "Malcom \"Mal\" Reynolds" <atlas-...@invalid.invalid> pointed out:
>> but we have real live clones
>
> Yes (or twins).
>
>> and we had a real live tail.
>
> I got the impression that Olivier's tail had been done by genetic
> manipulation

It was done by surgery.

>
> That's a good point. They're old enough that if they're someone's
> genetic experiment, a followup experiment some years later as technology
> improved would seem likely.

We have no way of knowing that there are no other experiments.

>
> However, the big problem with twinning is the question: Why would anyone
> do it, and especially, why would Neolutionist Dr. Leeky, who's professed
> interest is self-directed evolution via genetic modifications, be
> interested in a bunch of completely identical twins? It doesn't seem
> like he would, which suggests either clones or not-as-yet-revealed
> genetic differences.

My surmise is that each clone has a different genetic tweak and they
want to see what the effect was. Which is how they knew that Sara
wasn't Beth.

[Adam H. Kerman]

I'm defining human being as a living human being who has been birthed live.
That would make an original that could be cloned from.

If the copies were made from DNA donated by an embryo or foetus, those
aren't clones the way I understand it, and there's a possibility that the
original could be younger than the copies if the birth order was screwed
with in laboratory.

The orphans assumed they are clones and born of surrogate mothers, but
the whole thing could have been done in a laboratory.

(Helena has been told she's not a clone, and is crazy enough to believe it
to justify the murders.)

Oh, a human with genetic modification is still human, I guess.

[Dimensional Traveler]

Ya, that occurred to me a couple of episodes ago.

--
The 'Enterprise' crew in the 2009 Star Trek are adrenaline addicted,
hyper-active teenagers with ADD whose Ritalin got replaced with
methamphetamine, displaying a level of discipline that a Somali pirate
wouldn't tolerate.

[Malcom "Mal" Reynolds]

In article <knc934$lkn$1...@dont-email.me>,

then the 9 Beths isn't a very good experimental sample, which would mean
it behooves them to have new batches as they learn more about the code
and have new techniques to implement Neolution

[David Johnston]

> then the 9 Beths isn't a very good experimental sample,which would mean

> it behooves them to have new batches as they learn more about the code
> and have new techniques to implement Neolution

Well first of all, it's pretty improbable that the Toronto group have
identified all of the members of their generation. And we have no
reason to think there isn't a second group out there unidentified
because Beth wasn't looking for them.



>

[Malcom "Mal" Reynolds]

In article <knds75$v2g$1...@dont-email.me>,

But Cosima would have had questions about the "group" and possibly
sussed out that in doing genetic experiments a larger sample and
multiple generations are the only way to determine if your experiment is
on track

[David Johnston]

Still gives her no clue what the next generation is like.