Atheists and other scientists : Cloning from an image possible innear futur?

Not all atheists are scientists, and not all scientists are atheists.

A person's genetic information is known as a genotype. The physical attributes that they develop are known collectively as the phenotype. For example, I have brown eyes. That is the phenotype. I have genes that code for brown eyes; that is the genotype.

The phenotype directly results from proteins being produced according to the information in the genotype. The DNA is 'decoded' by enzymes. Theoretically speaking, it's conceivable that a device could be invented that assesses a person's physical features and is then capable of reverse engineering the genetic information from there. (Obviously it's conceivable, because I just conceived of it, and I'm probably not the first person to do so.)

For example, in a photograph of me, one could clearly see that I have brown eyes; it's therefore not difficult to deduce that my genetic information codes for brown eyes.

However, it would take masses of information more than a single image can produce. A person's genotype isn't the only influence on their physical appearance. If a person is born of tall parents, who themselves have tall parents, it's quite likely the child has the genotype to produce a tall person. However, if that child is malnourished, the body simply will be unable to express the genotype, and the child will not grow up to be tall. A single image would not convey this information.

Not to mention, photographs only show the outside. A person's entire body is rife with slight variations; perhaps my intestines are half an inch longer than my neighbour's.

At best, you could take accurate guesses at a person's genotype from images and descriptions, but to clone an entire person, you would need access to the entirety of their genotype. You would only get that from a cell from their body.

It's quite probable that such a device would never exist. It would be akin to developing a supercomputer that can predict the weather with 100% accuracy, because it can calculate the movements of every single molecule in the atmosphere.

No, because DNA is actually of very little significance when determining someone's personality traits, especially to the point they are painting, writing, or being written about.

DNA alone isn't even the whole story inside the womb (the womb environment has a large role in what you are finally going to be like). After you are born, it's a constant feedback between you and environment - none of which has really got anything to do with your DNA.

No. You would need a physical sample of DNA.

Its tentatively and conceptually possible to recreate a likeness of a person based on their character and life but that is far beyond the scope of simple cloning and goes into artificial intelligence, neurology and cybernetics. But I think you could recreate an intelligence or even a person from knowledge of a real (or indeed fictional) person (they do this in Star Trek 'holodecks')

You can't reconstruct dna from nothing. You need dna TO reconstruct something, and even then it isn't going to be feasible in the near future.

If the paintings, texts, stories of the person include that person's DNA code, then yes. Otherwise, no.

Of course not. Paintings and texts are not human remains. If DNA were ON them, then it might be possible.

Not a chance. I mean we might in the distant future make someone that looks a certain way, but they wouldn't be a clone.

No. A picture or a text tells far from everything about a person.

I doubt such a thing would ever be possible. You need DNA to clone.

Peace.

No, because you can't guess DNA.