Let's clone God

In order to end all speculation on his existence, the purpose of life, humanity's suffering and where I left my car keys, I propose we use the finding of Jesus' tomb to clone God, and ask him directly all the questions that have plagued his followers since the Bible was first published in weekly installments available from the local news stand.

Apparently they are collecting DNA from the sarcophagi in the tomb, and intend to use it to establish the identity of the deceased. Why this doesn't count as grave robbery, I have no idea, quite frankly. Assuming they are able to find nuclear DNA of the former inhabitants of the coffins, and not just residual mitochondrial DNA, this opens up exciting possibilities for in vitro cloning technology.

Taking Mary's DNA and matching it against that of her son, Jesus, we should be able to remove all his mother's chromosomes and crossed over fragments, and have a pure God chromosome.

Obviously, it would be the "Y" chromosome, as this only occurs in males, and Jesus was the son of god. God, not having a mother, as he just always existed apparently, would have no "X" chromosome, so logically, He must have had two Ys. Duplicating Jesus' Y chromosome and inserting it into a viable egg should allow the production of a God embryo. This bypasses the ethical dilemmas of the human cloning debate, as God is at least as different from us as we are from Chimpanzees.

It stands to reason that what separates God from man, is that us men on earth only have one copy of Y, and are therefore limited to dominating only those directly under our influence. Women, children, animals, plants, and so forth, down the tree of life. It's pretty clear that 2 copies of the Y chromosome grant much greater power, and indeed, would allow total dominion over the universe, and quite conveniently, the ability to create new ones at leisure.

Of course, the cellular mechanisms outside the nucleus must necessarily be inherited from the mother's own cells (though who would volunteer to carry such a special child?), and the resulting infant would not be a true Deity, perhaps a mere demigod. Assuming at least some of the omnipotent omniscience was inherited from the celestial father, though, perhaps some of the most pressing mysteries of life could be revealed in an interview.

Anyone got Andrew Denton's phone number?

What am I thinking now?

I finally figured out the other day why I can't accept tales of psychic ability. It is because it would require me to abandon all of my education related to the field in which I make my money. I was spurred by my annoyance that the ABC's excellent weekly science magazine program Catalyst was replaced during the summer non-ratings period by a program about Psychic Detectives. Not only was it completely unscientific, presented as a kind of "real life drama" but on checking I discovered that according to Scotland Yard, no case in the history of policing in Britain has been solved using information obtained from psychics. Ever.

So, I began to wonder, aside from the obvious accusations of charlatanism, of preying on the vulnerable families of victims of crime, of wasting police time, why it bothered me so much. Then I realised it was because I am a biologist. I understand the world as consisting of organisms that have evolved by gradual steps with each successive generation, changing by random genetic mutation, shaped by natural selection, according to which individuals produce the most offspring in a population. This is a simple enough concept on the surface, and most thoughtful people accept that this is how life achieved the complexity we see around us on earth.

My problem with psychic ability is that it doesn't appear to have any precursors, and appears not to be genetically inherited, but manifests in truly random pattern and apparently fully functional. This single fact goes against almost everything that the standard theory of evolution suggests. Certainly if such an ability did exist, it would be passed down according to Mendelian laws of inheritance, but does not appear to be present in the general population in any conceivable pattern.

A wing or an eye did not appear fully functional, for example, as we see them today. They served various purposes as useful adaptations on their way to becoming the organs which we recognise in modern species, and not in random individuals, but in entire populations. Echo-location, as used by bats, or sonar as used by whales and dolphins, is possibly a more valid analogue, but again, the ability is present in all members of the respective species, those not in possession of the superior ability would be strongly selected against, in such environments.

Also as a biologist, I can't assume that humans possess a capability apparently completely unknown in the entire animal kingdom, which is present in only a few, seemingly unrelated individuals of our species at any given time. If someone could develop a clear biological model of advantage in the ability, and a phenological or phenomenological series of small mutations (all of which must be advantageous also) that could lead to psychic ability, I would be far more able to accept the likelihood of it's existence. As such, the ability to read other individual's thoughts could be clearly seen as an advantage, however, no prominent or successful individuals claim such ability, where it should surely be concentrated if it existed. It could also be strongly selected against, as rival individuals may quite reasonably attempt to destroy the chances of psychically able individuals to reproduce, or even survive.

But this is purely hypothetical, because as far as I have ever seen, or even personally experienced, there is no solid evidence of the usefulness or reliability of such ability. Until such evidence is presented, I will continue questioning the motives of those who claim such abilities, and seek more mundane explanations for their apparent feats.