EPTScientists making attempt to Clone a Woolly Mammoth - Page…
| Forum Index > General Forum |
|
ZooMForYou
Singapore56 Posts
| ||
|
Detri
United Kingdom683 Posts
On March 15 2012 22:14 Plexa wrote: Screw ethics, I want to see mammoths in my lifetime Indeed, would be so fucking awesome to see a Mammoth. Been kinda obsessed with pre-human times since I found out about dinosaurs when I was 3 or 4. Also, I wonder what it tastes like.... | ||
|
xM(Z
Romania5296 Posts
of course it wont be legal but who cares right?, as long as there will be a demand, it'll sell. on topic: in theory i have nothing against this but people are just to stupid to play god now. | ||
|
3clipse
Canada2555 Posts
OH GOD YES ITS FINALLY HAPPENING | ||
|
JieXian
Malaysia4677 Posts
On March 17 2012 23:30 WhiteDog wrote: But if the only argument is that it is a dead speccies and that it's cool to see it alive, then I do not agree. Consider the fact that they are cloning something that has been extinct. Unless I'm missing something, that should be something new. | ||
|
-_-Quails
Australia796 Posts
On March 17 2012 13:24 CursOr wrote: There is no way to replicate all the DNA 100% accurate. I really don't give a shit what they are thinking. Those things are going to be missing genes, have mutations, and crazy health problems even if they come out "living". I think this is a very bad idea. You know the part in Jurassic Park where they used frog DNA to patch some of the gaps in the dinosaur DNA? In the movie that was done solely so they could have gender-changing raptors, but in real-life if you know approximately what genes you expect to be in a region and have access to DNA from a species similar enough in a relevant way in that region you can fill in the holes fairly well. DNA isn't just a giant unknown code. Enough DNA is shared between species that, with modern elephants still existing we probably have enough available data to avoid the obvious pitfalls. There is of course a risk of some anomalous error existing in the mammoth, or being introduced through interplay between mammoth and elephant genes, or an error at a boundary between original and filler DNA. You know that if you have a decent enough understanding of what a particular gene does you can often insert it without harm into very distantly related species. Examples include fish genes in plants, firefly genes in puppies, and jellyfish genes in pigs. Given this precedent, it is not impossible that, with sufficient modelling, mammoth DNA could be rendered usable and mammoths born with no significant health problems stemming from damaged source DNA or ill-chosen repair work. | ||
|
JieXian
Malaysia4677 Posts
On March 17 2012 23:30 WhiteDog wrote: No scientist will never research on something if it has no further outlets. I'm not talking about material gains at all. [...] But if the only argument is that it is a dead speccies and that it's cool to see it alive, then I do not agree. Firstly a lot of mathematical breakthroughs were done just because the scientists just wanted to solve the puzzle. Cantor's "infinity of infinities", Henri Poincaré who laid the foundations of topology and chaos theory, or just look at the development of electricity. All kinds of great discoveries started out seemingly meaningless and pointless, and many of them would still appear pointless to us laymen. Consider the fact that they are cloning something that has been extinct. (Unless similar things have been done before of course). | ||
|
Chaosvuistje
Netherlands2581 Posts
Would love to see this actually working. | ||
|
WhiteDog
France8650 Posts
On March 18 2012 00:08 JieXian wrote: Firstly a lot of mathematical breakthroughs were done just because the scientists just wanted to solve the puzzle. Cantor's "infinity of infinities", Henri Poincaré who laid the foundations of topology and chaos theory, or just look at the development of electricity. All kinds of great discoveries started out seemingly meaningless and pointless, and many of them would still appear pointless to us laymen. Consider the fact that they are cloning something that has been extinct. (Unless similar things have been done before of course). There are no link between what I am talking about and what you are talking about (because math is all theory and not practice), except the fact that some people research into things for personnal satisfaction and just solving puzzle, but it's entirely different from making research in a field where you actually need a certain number of ressource that usually cost a lot. | ||
|
Mawi
Sweden4365 Posts
| ||
|
-_-Quails
Australia796 Posts
On March 18 2012 01:41 WhiteDog wrote: There are no link between what I am talking about and what you are talking about (because math is all theory and not practice), except the fact that some people research into things for personnal satisfaction and just solving puzzle, but it's entirely different from making research in a field where you actually need a certain number of ressource that usually cost a lot. Any company and country that is really serious about remaining on the technological frontier long-term invests in blue-sky as well as research with obvious goals. Without blue-sky research, we can only ever reach the lowest-hanging fruit of the tree of knowledge and that in tiny increments. There are a very great number of inventions that could never have been made if someone hadn't decided to investigate something they had no clue could ever have practical applications. A good research department uses its budget to meet as many of its goals as possible as efficiently as possible. A great reasearch department holds a part of its budget back for the researchers to throw at whatever interests them, no questions asked. | ||
|
rOse_PedaL
Korea (South)450 Posts
| ||
|
Mithriel
Netherlands2969 Posts
On March 15 2012 22:14 Plexa wrote: Screw ethics, I want to see mammoths in my lifetime i second this!!! Need mammoth! | ||
|
Mortal
2943 Posts
| ||
|
Coal
Sweden1535 Posts
| ||
|
-_-Quails
Australia796 Posts
On March 18 2012 02:23 Coal wrote: Dinosaurs next? ^_ ^ Che Che Raptors would play as zerg, even in the WoL campaign. | ||
|
Klive5ive
United Kingdom6056 Posts
Homo erectus next? | ||
|
ProxyKnoxy
United Kingdom2576 Posts
| ||
|
askTeivospy
1525 Posts
On March 18 2012 00:00 -_-Quails wrote: You know the part in Jurassic Park where they used frog DNA to patch some of the gaps in the dinosaur DNA? In the movie that was done solely so they could have gender-changing raptors, but in real-life if you know approximately what genes you expect to be in a region and have access to DNA from a species similar enough in a relevant way in that region you can fill in the holes fairly well. DNA isn't just a giant unknown code. Enough DNA is shared between species that, with modern elephants still existing we probably have enough available data to avoid the obvious pitfalls. There is of course a risk of some anomalous error existing in the mammoth, or being introduced through interplay between mammoth and elephant genes, or an error at a boundary between original and filler DNA. You know that if you have a decent enough understanding of what a particular gene does you can often insert it without harm into very distantly related species. Examples include fish genes in plants, firefly genes in puppies, and jellyfish genes in pigs. Given this precedent, it is not impossible that, with sufficient modelling, mammoth DNA could be rendered usable and mammoths born with no significant health problems stemming from damaged source DNA or ill-chosen repair work. Do you have any background in genetics or do you watch movies and listen to the grapevine to get your information? There are other aspects to getting a viable animal than just the genes, which you can't just replace with random animal genes and expect everything to go well. also lol at the phrase "sufficient modelling" | ||
|
Shottaz
United Kingdom414 Posts
*sunglasses* Mammoth yeeeeaaaaaaaaah! | ||
| ||
