|
On March 16 2012 07:53 AnachronisticAnarchy wrote:
What exactly is the ethics issue here? Playing god? Not only is that the only real problem I can forsee, but it is also a stupid problem. The progression of science is synonymous with the progression of the human race. Evolution can no longer effectively occur with society (an erratic construct) dictating who we should mate with. I don't want to see my species stuck in a dead end until we can deplete the Earth of its resources and thus destroy ourselves.
AI is outpacing humans anyway so it's not like if we magically went back to a time when "natural" selection was predominant it's not really gonna matter anymore.
|
Everytime I see shit like this I first think "Oh thats cool" but then I realize it has absolutely no point. I'm not sure if science is put to good use by making cool shit.
|
On March 16 2012 09:59 bioniK wrote:
Everytime I see shit like this I first think "Oh thats cool" but then I realize it has absolutely no point. I'm not sure if science is put to good use by making cool shit.
Think of the amount of meat these mammoths will have, and the tusks, and the pelts, and the bones. They're a walking department store - you can make everything from furniture and clothing to breakfast out of them.
|
Is there any reason why this is more difficult than any other cloning? Cause I want, no, NEED this to happen.
|
On March 16 2012 10:10 -_-Quails wrote:Show nested quote +On March 16 2012 09:59 bioniK wrote:
Everytime I see shit like this I first think "Oh thats cool" but then I realize it has absolutely no point. I'm not sure if science is put to good use by making cool shit. Think of the amount of meat these mammoths will have, and the tusks, and the pelts, and the bones. They're a walking department store - you can make everything from furniture and clothing to breakfast out of them.
Mammoths do not have more meat than a standard elephant.. The woollen mammoth grows as big as 3 meters tall, same as a fully grown male elephant. The reason why people think they have more meat, is because of their dense fur, that makes them look way bulkier than elephants.
You could say the same exact thing about elephants "They have loads meat, tusks you can make stuff out" - Except you then get shot by enviromentalists ;-)
|
its more difficult because the DNA is likely fragmented and damaged and if its fragmented how are you going to put it back together in the proper order without reasonable comparison from a genome database of wooly mammoth. cloning a sheep is much easier to do so than something like this (to counter what some of the wiki scientists said on the first page). that said idk how damaged the DNA is, but i imagine it is completely different from what a living mammoth has
personally i don't see the big deal with cloning and ethics issues, I can see some people thinking this is bad and will effect the ecosystem too much if they try to make new species / reintroduce extinct species into our environment and i do agree with that, but i doubt that scientists are trying to do that lol. i really doubt it will work
|
the issue is where are they going to keep the clone if they are letting live to maturity.
|
i hope someday we can bring back dinosaurs to life, make mars inhabitable and have a real fucking zoo.
Also, immortality please.
|
On March 16 2012 09:59 bioniK wrote:
Everytime I see shit like this I first think "Oh thats cool" but then I realize it has absolutely no point. I'm not sure if science is put to good use by making cool shit.
Why do we do these things? Because humans are awesome. Our reason is that nature has told us that woolly mammoths are extinct. WELL WHO THE HELL MADE NATURE THE BOSS?? FUCK YOU NATURE I WANT A MAMMOTH!
Nature ain't the boss of humans. Nature doesn't get to tell humans they can't fly, or can't go to the fuckin' moon.
Fuck nature. Fuck yea science. That's the best reason we have for doing anything.
Edit: Made a gif
+ Show Spoiler +
|
clone dinosaurs or GTFO! but mammoths are good enough.
|
In b4 ice age park. fuck nature we humans are the boss here
|
am I the only one hearing the jurassic park's music ?
dun-dun, dun-dun, du du du....
|
On March 16 2012 23:14 oGoZenob wrote:
am I the only one hearing the jurassic park's music ?
dun-dun, dun-dun, du du du....
it was a great song
|
On March 16 2012 09:59 bioniK wrote:
Everytime I see shit like this I first think "Oh thats cool" but then I realize it has absolutely no point. I'm not sure if science is put to good use by making cool shit.
uh, what is the point of doing anything?
case closed?
|
Seems fucked up...
What's the point of cloning a mammoth ? Putting it in a cage ? For entertainment ?
Use your money to create things that matter, not screwing up with life.
|
On March 16 2012 10:12 TALegion wrote:
Is there any reason why this is more difficult than any other cloning? Cause I want, no, NEED this to happen.
So with cloning, the idea is to duplicate the entire genome of an organism such that another organism develops according to the exact same genetic information and expression programs. It's tricky though, for so many reasons. For starters, there are all of these other modifications to DNA that occur throughout life of an organism, which largely fall into the category of epigenetic modification. Basically there are little changes that affect DNA, which don't actually alter the sequence of the DNA, such as the addition of little acetyl or methyl groups to the DNA, which are attached covalently to the DNA structure and bases by enzymatic processes. These little changes are essentially just as significant as changes in DNA sequence, with regard to their effect on development and resulting phenotype and characteristics by controlling gene expression.
So here's the basic gist of how cloning goes down: Basically to clone something, you want to start by harvesting the genomic DNA of the dood you want to clone. You want the entire sequence of genomic DNA because that is what is required for cloning. In the mammoth's case, I'm assuming that they don't have an entire set of genomic DNA, which includes not only coding regions for genes, but also all the "dark" regions of "junk" DNA, which we're now understanding as being just as significant as coding region DNA. So that's one problem -- the lack of intact genomic DNA. Moving on though: The next thing you want to do is to somehow get all of the genomic DNA to revert back to a more "potent" state, or to a state that enables gene expression equivalent to gene expression in the developing organism. It is believed that epigenetic modifications, which occur throughout the life of the organism, have an impact on gene expression and probably contribute to distinctions between nascent, potent cells, versus somatic cells with the same genetic information, which are more restricted in potential. So for example, embryonic stem cells -- these guys have the exact same genetic information, or DNA, as somatic adult cells derived from the same organism after development, but these embryonic stem cells have drastically different epigenetic landscapes versus the somatic, adult cells, which entails dramatically different gene expression programs. Even adult stem cells likely don't express the same genes in maintenance of potency and fate as those genes expressed by embryonic stem cells during development. So the idea is to take genomic DNA from the dood you're cloning, make it similar to the state of DNA in a developing embryo, and then put it in a surrogate organism. You can just use regular somatic adult cell DNA, and toss it directly into an enucleated oocyte and hope for the best. Maybe you'd get 1% viability in your cloned organisms, but I'm betting they'd die off relatively quickly, as in the case of Dolly the sheep in the 90s, in addition to just about every other cloned animal -- and this death would be due to sickly development entailed by aberrant epigenetic landscape of the transplanted donor DNA. You'd have better success using the DNA of an embryonic stem cell. You'd have slightly less success using an induced-pluripotent adult stem-like cell, or even an actual adult stem cell. It's all sort of a mystery, which is why overall the success rate is never much above 2% for viable cloned animals.
|
On March 16 2012 23:31 WhiteDog wrote:
Seems fucked up...
What's the point of cloning a mammoth ? Putting it in a cage ? For entertainment ?
Use your money to create things that matter, not screwing up with life.
The point is to show that we can. Bending nature to our will and tinkering against the flow of nature is what humans do. And let's face it, it's cool and we'll enjoy something like this.
|
next step : cloning an ultralisk from virtual dna.
|
On March 15 2012 22:03 FallDownMarigold wrote:
We've been cloning shit since like 1980.
Humans have actually been cloning since ancient times.
|
On March 16 2012 23:35 Dr_Strange wrote:Show nested quote +On March 15 2012 22:03 FallDownMarigold wrote:
We've been cloning shit since like 1980. Humans have actually been cloning since ancient times.
Genetic Engineering on some level has been around since humans domesticated stuff.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/L2RmB.gif)
