South Korean and Russian scientists have joined up to attempt cloning a Woolly Mammoth from the well preserved remains of a young Mammoth found frozen in Permafrost. Scientists have cloned ancient flowers from the preserved fruits and seeds in an ancient squirrels den that was also frozen in perma frost.
South Korean and Russian scientists have vowed to work together in an attempt to clone a woolly mammoth from remains found in Siberia.
The giant Ice Age animal last roamed the Earth some 10,000 years ago - but experts believe it is possible to bring it back to life. Vasily Vasiliev, from Russia's North Eastern Federal University of the Sakha Republic, and Hwang Woo-Suk of South Korea's Sooam Biotech Research Foundation have agreed to join forces to research the mammoth task. The new pact comes after scientists resurrected an ancient flower from fruit and seeds hidden in an Ice Age squirrel's burrow in permafrost.
The researchers said their results proved that permafrost serves as a natural depository for ancient life forms. Experts in South Korea and Russia now plan to take DNA from the remains of a woolly mammoth uncovered by the thawing Siberian permaforst. They plan to insert it into the egg cell of an Indian elephant to hopefully produce an embryo, which will then be placed into the womb of an elephant for gestation.
"The first and hardest mission is to restore mammoth cells," Sooam researcher Hwang In-Sung said. "This will be a really tough job, but we believe it is possible because our institute is good at cloning animals." South Korean scientists have previously cloned animals including a cow, a cat, dogs, a pig and a wolf.
However, Sooam's leading clone researcher, Hwang Woo-Suk is controversial figure in South Korea. In 2005 he created Snuppy, the world's first cloned dog, and last October he reportedly cloned the endangered American coyote. But his 2004 research into the creation of human stem cells from a cloned embryo was recently found to have been faked.
Despite that controversy at the end of the article over a particular scientist, cloning is possible and they have DNA from a preserved Woolly Mammoth. Anyone else think this is absolutely amazing?
Edit: Ty to the mod who edited the title. Your awsum <3
On March 15 2012 22:14 Plexa wrote: Screw ethics, I want to see mammoths in my lifetime
Does this remind anyone of that very popular movie called Ice Age? I believe the main character in that movie is a wooly mammoth voiced by actor/comedian Ray Romano.
Didn't the swedes clone a sheep like 20 years ago? How is this a New thing now? meaning, why hasn't cloning been more common in science? Just the medical implications alone are staggering. Imagine a world where you can get an organ flash cloned and instead of waiting on a donor list for 10 years for a replacement, you can have your own cloned.
And if they succeed (doubtful I guess) it seems as if it would be a real mammoth? It's not like they are cloning mammoth sperm and inseminating. Sounds more like a surrogate.
On March 15 2012 20:36 Tristran wrote: South Korean and Russian scientists have joined up to attempt cloning a Woolly Mammoth from the well preserved remains of a young Mammoth found frozen in Permafrost. Scientists have cloned ancient flowers from the preserved fruits and seeds in an ancient squirrels den that was also frozen in perma frost.
South Korean and Russian scientists have vowed to work together in an attempt to clone a woolly mammoth from remains found in Siberia.
The giant Ice Age animal last roamed the Earth some 10,000 years ago - but experts believe it is possible to bring it back to life. Vasily Vasiliev, from Russia's North Eastern Federal University of the Sakha Republic, and Hwang Woo-Suk of South Korea's Sooam Biotech Research Foundation have agreed to join forces to research the mammoth task. The new pact comes after scientists resurrected an ancient flower from fruit and seeds hidden in an Ice Age squirrel's burrow in permafrost.
The researchers said their results proved that permafrost serves as a natural depository for ancient life forms. Experts in South Korea and Russia now plan to take DNA from the remains of a woolly mammoth uncovered by the thawing Siberian permaforst. They plan to insert it into the egg cell of an Indian elephant to hopefully produce an embryo, which will then be placed into the womb of an elephant for gestation.
"The first and hardest mission is to restore mammoth cells," Sooam researcher Hwang In-Sung said. "This will be a really tough job, but we believe it is possible because our institute is good at cloning animals." South Korean scientists have previously cloned animals including a cow, a cat, dogs, a pig and a wolf.
However, Sooam's leading clone researcher, Hwang Woo-Suk is controversial figure in South Korea. In 2005 he created Snuppy, the world's first cloned dog, and last October he reportedly cloned the endangered American coyote. But his 2004 research into the creation of human stem cells from a cloned embryo was recently found to have been faked.
Despite that controversy at the end of the article over a particular scientist, cloning is possible and they have DNA from a preserved Woolly Mammoth. Anyone else think this is absolutely amazing?
Edit: Oh awesome, topic title didn't spell Mammoth correctly, maybe I went over the character limit, can a mod edit it please? <3
It's cool to the extent that theyre dealing with old-ass DNA from an old-ass creature. Other than that, it's totally unimpressive. We've been cloning shit since like 1980. We've also been using cloning methodologies and applying them to regenerative biology, which is far more clinically relevant. For example, making insulin-producing pancreatic beta cells from islet cells is much more therapeutically valuable, and it comes from the same exact line of discoveries enabling this wooly mammoth cloning attempt.
On March 15 2012 22:03 FallDownMarigold wrote: It's cool to the extent that theyre dealing with old-ass DNA from an old-ass creature. Other than that, it's totally unimpressive. We've been cloning shit since like 1980. We've also been using cloning methodologies and applying them to regenerative biology, which is far more clinically relevant. For example, making insulin-producing pancreatic beta cells from islet cells is much more therapeutically valuable, and it comes from the same exact line of discoveries enabling this wooly mammoth cloning attempt.
There's no "other than that", the simple fact that it's a mammoth is fucking impressive.
On March 15 2012 22:03 FallDownMarigold wrote: It's cool to the extent that theyre dealing with old-ass DNA from an old-ass creature. Other than that, it's totally unimpressive. We've been cloning shit since like 1980. We've also been using cloning methodologies and applying them to regenerative biology, which is far more clinically relevant. For example, making insulin-producing pancreatic beta cells from islet cells is much more therapeutically valuable, and it comes from the same exact line of discoveries enabling this wooly mammoth cloning attempt.
There's no "other than that", the simple fact that it's a mammoth is fucking impressive.
Yes. It's cool because it's a fucking mammoth, as stated. That's all tho, the actual biology isn't impressive, hence the "other than that" comment, lol
Some of you dont realize/understand the complexity of cloning... Yes the techniques have been known/employed for a long time, but the success rate is extremely small for complex organism.
This is amazing, i knew it was technically possible however the fact someone is actually doing it is amazing. This will be big news if they are successful.
Is there any surviving dna from dinosaurs? Is it technically possible to make one jurrasic park style? :D
I want a Jurassic Park in my lifetime. It'll be like a zoo with different sections. An ice age section, jurassic period, triassic etc. That would be so awesome.
On March 15 2012 22:03 FallDownMarigold wrote: It's cool to the extent that theyre dealing with old-ass DNA from an old-ass creature. Other than that, it's totally unimpressive. We've been cloning shit since like 1980. We've also been using cloning methodologies and applying them to regenerative biology, which is far more clinically relevant. For example, making insulin-producing pancreatic beta cells from islet cells is much more therapeutically valuable, and it comes from the same exact line of discoveries enabling this wooly mammoth cloning attempt.
There's no "other than that", the simple fact that it's a mammoth is fucking impressive.
Yes. It's cool because it's a fucking mammoth, as stated. That's all tho, the actual biology isn't impressive, hence the "other than that" comment, lol
Not the actual technicality of it is very impressive just because the DNA they will be working with is going to be basically garbage can status damaged shreds. They have to go in there and repair that shit one ATCG at a time. If they can do a good job its basically a work of art.
On March 15 2012 22:01 Ryuhou)aS( wrote: Didn't the swedes clone a sheep like 20 years ago? How is this a New thing now? meaning, why hasn't cloning been more common in science? Just the medical implications alone are staggering. Imagine a world where you can get an organ flash cloned and instead of waiting on a donor list for 10 years for a replacement, you can have your own cloned.
It's a big deal to create a clone of an animal that doesn't exist anymore.
On March 15 2012 22:16 Nyarly wrote: I figured they would have done that already..
What's the next step after mammoth ? Humans. And i believe there are already labs researching for it or doing it. inb4 savior baby.
I believe the tricky part is separating actual mammoth DNA from contamination caused by microorganisms. You can't just take entire DNA strands from a cell, you first have to break everything down, including the DNA and then try to assemble it back together which is not easy even for organisms that aren't extinct. I think they're using elephant's genome to figure out which genes belong to the mammoth and which don't.
On March 15 2012 22:19 AeroGear wrote: Some of you dont realize/understand the complexity of cloning... Yes the techniques have been known/employed for a long time, but the success rate is extremely small for complex organism.
Maybe around 1-2% for cloning by SCNT in mouse, sheep, horse, etc. Success rates are always low in processes that involve genetic modification. For example, even just generating a transgenic line in mouse, avian, or fish model... Success rate for germ line transfer is like 1-5%
On March 15 2012 22:23 Arthemesia wrote: I want a Jurassic Park in my lifetime. It'll be like a zoo with different sections. An ice age section, jurassic period, triassic etc. That would be so awesome.
This!
Science is so awesome. I hate it when it gets stopped or hindered by moral or ethical debates.
On March 15 2012 22:01 BlackJack wrote: Does this remind anyone of that very popular movie called Ice Age? I believe the main character in that movie is a wooly mammoth voiced by actor/comedian Ray Romano.
Reminds me more of an even more popular movie called Jurassic Park !
This is old news. The scientists are actually behind the schedule they announced couple of years back if I recall correctly. Nevertheless I'm rooting for the mammoth
Well, maybe we'll have a less cinematic version of Jurassic Park? XD
This is actually fucking incredible, if they manage to do it. I don't really see what would be so morally wrong about it that we couldn't do it. This is too big of a deal :D
While cloning is not new, it is new to clone an ancient and extinct animal. It would be a Woolly Mammoth despite being born from an Indian Elephant, the Elephant is merely carrying the egg, modified to be a Woolly Mammoth from the frozen DNA.
I also think Dinosaurs could be cloned and safely contained, the question is would they have enough DNA to do it and how would they create it. Dinosaurs are born differently from Mammals and if my brain serveth me correctly, they are much older than Woolly Mammoths meaning they are not as similar to any modern day animal, as Woolly Mammoths are to Elephants. Who knows.
Also Humans will be cloned one day. Lets hope they don't execute order 66 (herp).
I also think Dinosaurs could be cloned and safely contained, the question is would they have enough DNA to do it and how would they create it.
Yes. In theory you could clone dinosaurs if you had sufficient genomic DNA intact, or if you could at least infer the missing elements from phylogenetic studies on gene evolution, etc.
Would they have enough DNA? Can't answer that question without having a dino sample... How would the create it? Same way cloning is achieved in any organism - by SCNT based techniques. The first organisms to be cloned weren't mammals. That dinos aren't mammals has no bearing on whether or not they can be cloned. The way something is born has nothing to do with the process.
I also think Dinosaurs could be cloned and safely contained, the question is would they have enough DNA to do it and how would they create it.
Yes. In theory you could clone dinosaurs if you had sufficient genomic DNA intact, or if you could at least infer the missing elements from phylogenetic studies on gene evolution, etc.
Would they have enough DNA? Can't answer that question without having a dino sample... How would the create it? Same way cloning is achieved in any organism - by SCNT based techniques. The first organisms to be cloned weren't mammals. That dinos aren't mammals has no bearing on whether or not they can be cloned. The way something is born has nothing to do with the process.
Or, when understanding of genes, proteins and how they create organisms is developed enough, we could attempt to engineer organisms phenotypically identical to dinosaur species. Assuming that actual dinosaur DNA remains as scarce as I have been lead to believe.
Our team of crack scientists have accurately replicated the DNA of several extinct Dinosaurs, bringing them to life for your entertainment. Armchair gaming is a thing of the past with our all new Combat system, featuring real guns, ammo and targets, you play the Soldier.... Literally!!!
Featuring famous figures from History such as - Tyrannosaurus Rex - Raptor - Rekyallyuptyrexasaurus
Battlefield 7 incorporates new features into the gaming franchise such as! - Hardcore Mode only, for all you pro nerds out there! NO RESPAWNS EVER! - Real working guns - Dinosaurs
Sign up to join the fight against the Terrorist Dinosaurs today!
Entry Fee: $100 Guns and Ammunition are not provided, see our online market for information on how to purchase
Note: EA is not responsible for player death. Dinosaurs are not actually terrorists, but they do have big teeth.
I want to see this happening. While cloning is certainly nothing new, to recreate a species that is extinct, is just... awesome and an incredible achievement for science.
Also: Imagine how cute a baby woolly mammoth would be ^_^
I also think Dinosaurs could be cloned and safely contained, the question is would they have enough DNA to do it and how would they create it.
Yes. In theory you could clone dinosaurs if you had sufficient genomic DNA intact, or if you could at least infer the missing elements from phylogenetic studies on gene evolution, etc.
Would they have enough DNA? Can't answer that question without having a dino sample... How would the create it? Same way cloning is achieved in any organism - by SCNT based techniques. The first organisms to be cloned weren't mammals. That dinos aren't mammals has no bearing on whether or not they can be cloned. The way something is born has nothing to do with the process.
Or, when understanding of genes, proteins and how they create organisms is developed enough, we could attempt to engineer organisms phenotypically identical to dinosaur species. Assuming that actual dinosaur DNA remains as scarce as I have been lead to believe.
Haha yeah... It's actually not even as nuts as it sounds! I like your thinking. And much more practically, when we can do that, we'll be able to do things like organ and tissue engineering. Imagine having limitless skin with which to administer skin grafts to burn victims?
On March 15 2012 23:43 zezamer wrote: I think it's really sad that talented scientists are working on cloning a zoo-animal instead of doing something real.
On March 15 2012 23:43 zezamer wrote: I think it's really sad that talented scientists are working on cloning a zoo-animal instead of doing something real.
You obviously don't understand the wider benefits that experimenting with cloning can do, the benefits it can bring in other areas of Science. I believe someone mentioned already that cloning organs for transplants would be a good use to help combat waiting lists.
"Something real". I would certainly call this something real. Think more broadly instead of being so narrow minded, they aren't just cloning a Woolly Mammoth because they want a spectacular Zoo exhibition.
The problem with cloning is not complexity. It is just that the method used is crude. You do a lot of damage to the egg cell by removing the original nucleus and then transplanting in the new one. They have no special progress to make this work. Most of the time it just doesn't. Sometimes it does. It's not like with a heart or some other organ transplant where you have to do a lot of stuff to make it work.
Of course here of course they don't have a nucleus. Somehow they need to scrape the DNA together, arrange it in proper chromosomes and then somehow rely on I guess elephant organelles to get an actual nucleus. This is actually complex since you need to do complex things and not just something crude that just sometimes magically works because of chance.
As for ethics. A huge number of mammals are slaughered every year. They live miserable lives and then are killed off. This happens by the millions every year. The number gets even more insane if you add in chickens.
I don't know how one can object to cloning 1 extinct species to do actual science.when factory farming is completely moral and acceptable.
I took a Bioethics course and this was one of the topics. The well preserved remains was due to the flash freeze if im not mistaken (ice age) and the controversy was if it could actually live after it was cloned and other factors that go into cloning.
To be honest, i wouldn't even call it cloning at this stage of the process due to the nature of the Wooly mammoth. I believe it should be more, regenerative process of the species or some other method of describing this.
On March 15 2012 23:58 ccJroy wrote: I took a Bioethics course and this was one of the topics. The well preserved remains was due to the flash freeze if im not mistaken (ice age) and the controversy was if it could actually live after it was cloned and other factors that go into cloning.
To be honest, i wouldn't even call it cloning at this stage of the process due to the nature of the Wooly mammoth. I believe it should be more, regenerative process of the species or some other method of describing this.
I don't understand how anyone could call this unethical, there is no harmful treatment to animals. The only people who are likely to object are fanatically Religious people probably, flaming us for "playing God" or some shit. Science is whats allowed these people to live longer than 30 years so technically we have been "playing God" for centuries. Bring on the Woolly Mammoths.
Edit: If the controversy was over whether it would survive living in our time or not, it would likely be kept in very carefully controlled conditions, not released into the Wild. It would likely be one of the most well looked after animals on the Planet.
On March 15 2012 23:53 Miyoshino wrote: The problem with cloning is not complexity. It is just that the method used is crude. You do a lot of damage to the egg cell by removing the original nucleus and then transplanting in the new one. They have no special progress to make this work. Most of the time it just doesn't. Sometimes it does. It's not like with a heart or some other organ transplant where you have to do a lot of stuff to make it work.
As for ethics. A huge number of mammals are slaughered every year. They live miserable lives and then are killed off. This happens by the millions every year. The number gets even more insane if you add in chickens.
I don't know how one can object to cloning 1 extinct species to do actual science.when factory farming is completely moral and acceptable.
The thing with Factory Farming, it's basically like cloning. They altered the genes of those animals only to live a certain number of weeks so they can provide the quota. So either way, they're only growing them for them to die. I agree with how inhumane they kill them sometimes, but what can I do? They have already been doing this for plenty of years. Now, with cloning this Mammoth? If they can do this, that means, any kind of extinct animal can be brought back and we can study their methods and learn more from our past. It will be huge discovery and findings.
I also agree with the clone farming for organs. Make a replicate of yourself, keep them cryogenically frozen, till you have a problem with one of your organs and bam, no wait list, but I'm pretty sure this is for people that have some money.
On March 15 2012 23:43 zezamer wrote: I think it's really sad that talented scientists are working on cloning a zoo-animal instead of doing something real.
You obviously don't understand the wider benefits that experimenting with cloning can do, the benefits it can bring in other areas of Science. I believe someone mentioned already that cloning organs for transplants would be a good use to help combat waiting lists.
"Something real". I would certainly call this something real. Think more broadly instead of being so narrow minded, they aren't just cloning a Woolly Mammoth because they want a spectacular Zoo exhibition.
Organs are grown from pluripotent stem cells. Cloning is just a way to get them. There's no reason to do it anymore since you can reprogram adult stem cells to become stem cells that act like pluripotent. Ton of guys who have worked on research that gets stem cells from cloning haven ditched it because of that. More efficient, no ethical problems.
Working on cloning a mammoth is just waste of these guys talent. They could be working on stem cell research but yeah..
On March 15 2012 23:43 zezamer wrote: I think it's really sad that talented scientists are working on cloning a zoo-animal instead of doing something real.
You obviously don't understand the wider benefits that experimenting with cloning can do, the benefits it can bring in other areas of Science. I believe someone mentioned already that cloning organs for transplants would be a good use to help combat waiting lists.
"Something real". I would certainly call this something real. Think more broadly instead of being so narrow minded, they aren't just cloning a Woolly Mammoth because they want a spectacular Zoo exhibition.
Organs are grown from pluripotent stem cells. Cloning is just a way to get them. There's no reason to do it anymore since you can reprogram adult stem cells to become stem cells that act like pluripotent. Ton of guys who have worked on research that gets stem cells from cloning haven ditched it because of that.
Working on cloning a mammoth is just waste of these guys talent. They could be working on stem cell research but yeah..
They are still 2 different fields of science. It isn't ONLY to learn how to clone human organs (it might not be at all, its just a possible use), it has all kinds of other uses as well. The study of Earth's History for a start. Who even said these scientists are the right kind of scientists to work on stem cells? Would you like EVERY scientist on Earth to study stem cells? Narrow minded thinking man, what did I say.
On March 16 2012 00:09 Tristran wrote: They are still 2 different fields of science. It isn't ONLY to learn how to clone human organs (it might not be at all, its just a possible use), it has all kinds of other uses as well. The study of Earth's History for a start. Who even said these scientists are the right kind of scientists to work on stem cells? Would you like EVERY scientist on Earth to study stem cells? Narrow minded thinking man, what did I say.
On March 15 2012 22:01 Ryuhou)aS( wrote: Didn't the swedes clone a sheep like 20 years ago? How is this a New thing now? meaning, why hasn't cloning been more common in science? Just the medical implications alone are staggering. Imagine a world where you can get an organ flash cloned and instead of waiting on a donor list for 10 years for a replacement, you can have your own cloned.
Not Swedes but Scots (or rather a team in Scotland). Wooly mammoths are cool and all but aren't they just hairy elephants? I'm holding out for a dinosaur in the next 10-20 years.
On March 16 2012 00:09 Tristran wrote: They are still 2 different fields of science. It isn't ONLY to learn how to clone human organs (it might not be at all, its just a possible use), it has all kinds of other uses as well. The study of Earth's History for a start. Who even said these scientists are the right kind of scientists to work on stem cells? Would you like EVERY scientist on Earth to study stem cells? Narrow minded thinking man, what did I say.
No, not everyone one of course...
Well then stop crapping on the thread and admit you'd be excited to see a living breathing Woolly Mammoth. If the cute-ness factor doesn't get you then the sheer amazement at Science should. I love Science <3
I have no problem with cloning a Mammoth, but predatory creatures, and human beings are absolutely unethical, and seriously dangerous. We never stop and ask ourselves if we should do, only if we can. Technology works best with wisdom. Let's not get too far ahead of ourselves.
On March 16 2012 00:05 ShoCkeyy wrote: The thing with Factory Farming, it's basically like cloning. They altered the genes of those animals only to live a certain number of weeks so they can provide the quota. So either way, they're only growing them for them to die. I agree with how inhumane they kill them sometimes, but what can I do? They have already been doing this for plenty of years. Now, with cloning this Mammoth? If they can do this, that means, any kind of extinct animal can be brought back and we can study their methods and learn more from our past. It will be huge discovery and findings.
I also agree with the clone farming for organs. Make a replicate of yourself, keep them cryogenically frozen, till you have a problem with one of your organs and bam, no wait list, but I'm pretty sure this is for people that have some money.
Cloning doesn't alter genes. Also, the altering of domestic animals is a complete disgrace and abomination. Real cows are long extinct. The cow livestock we have right now are supranatural in a scary and cruel way. Same is true for many race pure dog breeds. Many are so deformed, they suffer physically. Things like eyes that can't fit in the eye sockets of the skull. Pretty crazy.
The main problem with factory farming is the scale and the lack of good benefits. The suffering inflincted and the benefit gained from it doesn't add up. I don't want to rag on everyone that isn't a vegetarian, but if you are so concerned about a single mammuth for actual science, you either misunderstand some crucial things, or you are a hypocrite.
Cloning for organs is basically the only real benefit of cloning. The other would be cloning people with very special genes. I mean, imagine people cloning Messi and Ronaldo 1000 times and putting them in some intense football school that borders on slavery. Imagine how much better the end product would be compared to the Messi and Ronaldo we now have. It's going to take a long time before we understand what certain genes actually do and engineer them. When human cloning becomes reliable and considering the value of top athletes in certain sports, it will surely be profitable and some crazy people will at some point try to do exactly that. And stealing some Messi dna isn't going to be extremely hard either.
On March 16 2012 00:05 ShoCkeyy wrote: The thing with Factory Farming, it's basically like cloning. They altered the genes of those animals only to live a certain number of weeks so they can provide the quota. So either way, they're only growing them for them to die. I agree with how inhumane they kill them sometimes, but what can I do? They have already been doing this for plenty of years. Now, with cloning this Mammoth? If they can do this, that means, any kind of extinct animal can be brought back and we can study their methods and learn more from our past. It will be huge discovery and findings.
I also agree with the clone farming for organs. Make a replicate of yourself, keep them cryogenically frozen, till you have a problem with one of your organs and bam, no wait list, but I'm pretty sure this is for people that have some money.
Cloning doesn't alter genes. Also, the altering of domestic animals is a complete disgrace and abomination. Real cows are long extinct. The cow livestock we have right now are supranatural in a scary and cruel way. Same is true for many race pure dog breeds. Many are so deformed, they suffer physically. Things like eyes that can't fit in the eye sockets of the skull. Pretty crazy.
The main problem with factory farming is the scale and the lack of good benefits. The suffering inflincted and the benefit gained from it doesn't add up. I don't want to rag on everyone that isn't a vegetarian, but if you are so concerned about a single mammuth for actual science, you either misunderstand some crucial things, or you are a hypocrite.
Cloning for organs is basically the only real benefit of cloning. The other would be cloning people with very special genes. I mean, imagine people cloning Messi and Ronaldo 1000 times and putting them in some intense football school that borders on slavery. Imagine how much better the end product would be compared to the Messi and Ronaldo we now have. It's going to take a long time before we understand what certain genes actually do and engineer them. When human cloning becomes reliable and considering the value of top athletes in certain sports, it will surely be profitable and some crazy people will at some point try to do exactly that. And stealing some Messi dna isn't going to be extremely hard either.
I know cloning doesn't alter the genes, but if you think about it, the way we have been altering the genes of those animals for years now, it's basically like cloning. We've been creating newer versions of the chicken that are fatter and what not and replicating them over and over and so on with other farm animals. Humans, have also been long extinct, since we were first able to think for ourselves, we've injected and polluted our body with tons of things. We can't even survive anymore with out having shots right after we're born.
On March 16 2012 00:18 Wegandi wrote: I have no problem with cloning a Mammoth, but predatory creatures, and human beings are absolutely unethical, and seriously dangerous. We never stop and ask ourselves if we should do, only if we can. Technology works best with wisdom. Let's not get too far ahead of ourselves.
How is cloning a predatory creature less ethical than cloning a mammoth?
On March 15 2012 23:24 Grumbels wrote: If they succeed with the mammoth they should do sabretooth tigers next. ^_^
This!!!
Interesting to see if this will work. I am very curious as to how the proteins that already exist in the egg will affect the mammoth. This could tell us an awful lot about epigenetics. If they can get the DNA together in the correct way, I still think they face enormous challenges getting plain DNA into a nucleus ... think of the packaging etc. which all has to go exactly right for proper gene expression ... hmmmm.
On March 15 2012 23:24 Grumbels wrote: If they succeed with the mammoth they should do sabretooth tigers next. ^_^
This!!!
Interesting to see if this will work. I am very curious as to how the proteins that already exist in the egg will affect the mammoth. This could tell us an awful lot about epigenetics. If they can get the DNA together in the correct way, I still think they face enormous challenges getting plain DNA into a nucleus ... think of the packaging etc. which all has to go exactly right for proper gene expression ... hmmmm.
If this leads to the ability to clone human beings and predatory creatures, it'll be a terrible disaster. As a species we still haven't come to terms with our ability to destroy ourselves in an instant (the sheer numbers of nuclear weapons we have). Rather not open pandoras box with the astonishingly low amount of wisdom that most human beings have.
Maybe we are destined on this course -- as George Mallory said 'Because it is there'. Just because we have or will have the ability, doesn't mean we should automatically act on it.
/shrug
Let's at least analyze and contemplate the possible and likely consequences of our actions before we act.
On March 15 2012 23:24 Grumbels wrote: If they succeed with the mammoth they should do sabretooth tigers next. ^_^
This!!!
Interesting to see if this will work. I am very curious as to how the proteins that already exist in the egg will affect the mammoth. This could tell us an awful lot about epigenetics. If they can get the DNA together in the correct way, I still think they face enormous challenges getting plain DNA into a nucleus ... think of the packaging etc. which all has to go exactly right for proper gene expression ... hmmmm.
If this leads to the ability to clone human beings and predatory creatures, it'll be a terrible disaster. As a species we still haven't come to terms with our ability to destroy ourselves in an instant (the sheer numbers of nuclear weapons we have). Rather not open pandoras box with the astonishingly low amount of wisdom that most human beings have.
Maybe we are destined on this course -- as George Mallory said 'Because it is there'. Just because we have or will have the ability, doesn't mean we should automatically act on it.
/shrug
Let's at least analyze and contemplate the possible and likely consequences of our actions before we act.
Calm down. "This" will lead to the ability to cure diabetes, Parkinson's, a vast swath of other neurological diseases, grow organs, and much more other cool stuff, well before the ability to clone healthy humans with 100% identical genomes.
It is not as easy as clonning Dolly. Not only the DNA is damaged (even though that might be partially figured out thanks to Pääbo's sequencing of the Neardenthal genome from bones), but the whole organism is new and therefore the development of the fetus, even if they make it that far, will still be very difficult. They'll have to find the right medium/conditions for it to grow in-vitro and then in a borrowed mother (which I assume it's going to be the closest possible alive elephant, which might still be like putting a human fetus inside a monkey..)
Pretty cool if they make it tho, since then you might be able to start breeding them naturally.
On March 16 2012 03:09 InseKtSC2 wrote: gonna be pretty cool til it destroys everything in its path
As long as the scientists would be intelligent enough to put it in an elephant cage and not in a petting zoo, I doubt that could happen. Although, thinking about it... somebody would probably want to put it in a petting zoo because it's so fluffy ^.^
On March 16 2012 03:36 Blasterion wrote: Didn't they use frog DNA to clone Dinos in Jurassic Park? Elephant gene in mammoth only makes sense hahaha
It is cloning, not mating. There will be no mix with elephant DNA. It would have DNA complelely identical to the cloned mammoth. Well except for the mitochondrial DNA which would come from the elephant egg cell.
On March 16 2012 03:36 Blasterion wrote: Didn't they use frog DNA to clone Dinos in Jurassic Park? Elephant gene in mammoth only makes sense hahaha
Well that was actually a flaw in Jurassic Park, even though it was supposed to be filling a plot hole. If the dinosaurs were to have frog DNA 'intertwined' in their DNA, the creatures would be very very different, probably non-functional, unless the filler DNA was not "non-coding."
The same could and would go for the mammoth; it doesn't really matter how close of creature you chose, the DNA must be from a mammoth, otherwise you wouldn't actually create a mammoth. The only gaps that could be filled would be the ones that don't really decide what the creature is or how it functions.
I really don't know much about the topic, but this is just my two cents.
On March 15 2012 22:23 Arthemesia wrote: I want a Jurassic Park in my lifetime. It'll be like a zoo with different sections. An ice age section, jurassic period, triassic etc. That would be so awesome.
You did SEE the movie, right? Turns out to be NOT SO COOL for a lot of the Park's visitors....
On March 15 2012 23:02 Darth Cuddles wrote: did we learn nothing from Jurassic park?
Wikipedia writes: Jurassic Park became the most financially successful film released worldwide as of that time, beating Spielberg's E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial which previously held the title.
I'd say we learned our lesson
On March 15 2012 22:56 barth wrote: I believe the tricky part is separating actual mammoth DNA from contamination caused by microorganisms.
Giant woolly amoeba death viruses! That's even more awesome than ultras, for sure!
In all seriousness, though, this is absolutely awesome!
On March 15 2012 23:16 -_-Quails wrote: Next step: Raptors
Clever girl..
On March 16 2012 02:31 cari-kira wrote: cmon.. they will die in sight of every common virus/bacteriae. just think of it, their immune system is at the level from 20.000 years before.
I read something about this in something similiar to andromeda strain(sorta) that basically the diseases wont be adapted to infect their older immune systems(like a space borne virus wont be able to effect ours) and will actually die rather than kill them.
Cloning extinct animals will inevitably have consequences. If they ever reach a point they can successfully clone this animal and continue to do so, it's only a matter of time before a few escape and integrate into the wild. Hundreds of accidental introductions throughout history. Africanized bee
It would be pretty sick to visit jurassic park in my lifetime, though.
On March 16 2012 05:44 Tyrant0 wrote: Cloning extinct animals will inevitably have consequences. If they ever reach a point they can successfully clone this animal and continue to do so, it's only a matter of time before a few escape and integrate into the wild. Hundreds of accidental introductions throughout history. Africanized bee
It would be pretty sick to visit jurassic park in my lifetime, though.
Cloned animals are sterile, no? What would it matter if one escaped, without human aid it would have no ability to survive outside of its natural habitat, which no longer exists. Not to mention, it's a fucking mammoth. They're not exactly hard to spot.
On March 15 2012 22:16 Nyarly wrote: I figured they would have done that already..
What's the next step after mammoth ? Humans. And i believe there are already labs researching for it or doing it. inb4 savior baby.
You figured they would have already cloned mammoths..? And yet you've never seen a living one... Don't you think if humans were able to bring an extinct creature back to life, it would be big news or something?
This is how the world ends. We think a meteor hit the Earth. No. Mammoths transformed into avatars of death and destroyed everything. It will happen again. 2012. The Mayans were right.
you guys wanna see real living dinosaurs? they're flying all around us and some of us are going to eat some of them for dinner. and i'm not even trolling. + Show Spoiler +
On March 16 2012 06:36 NOobToss wrote: you guys wanna see real living dinosaurs? they're flying all around us and some of us are going to eat some of them for dinner. and i'm not even trolling.
On March 16 2012 06:36 NOobToss wrote: you guys wanna see real living dinosaurs? they're flying all around us and some of us are going to eat some of them for dinner. and i'm not even trolling. + Show Spoiler +
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_birds
So... Birds are descendants of dinosaurs, therefore birds are dinosaurs. It don't work like that
Edit - I do not see any ethical dilemmas here. We are not talking about humans or anything. I have no qualms about cloning animals, esp. those driven to extinction by human actions (Dodo etc). I do not see why my generation and those after me should be denied the sight of these magnificent creatures.
I think that the future of technology like this is an interesting way to show how humanity and an advancing society can be a force for creating just as well as destroying.
I mean, the advancement of our civilization has wiped out countless species and are driving more towards extinction but we also have the power to be the opposite. Imagine the long term future of technology like this. I can very much see how in the far future we will be able to have a database containing the genome of every animal, plant, insect etc on earth living now, that combined with the capacity to actually recreate life forms as long as you know their genetic structures would allow human beings to be the wardens of life on earth. Imagine a massive catastrophe like the many mass extinctions in the past, with our digital "ark" we could recreate the eco system even if the planet is left barren.
On March 16 2012 06:36 NOobToss wrote: you guys wanna see real living dinosaurs? they're flying all around us and some of us are going to eat some of them for dinner. and i'm not even trolling. + Show Spoiler +
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Origin_of_birds
So... Birds are descendants of dinosaurs, therefore birds are dinosaurs. It don't work like that
semantics. we're just apes, with less hair and more manners.
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.
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.
Mammoths had their time, and nature selected them for extinction
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.
Mammoths had their time, and nature selected them for extinction
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.
Mammoths had their time, and nature selected them for extinction
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.
Mammoths had their time, and nature selected them for extinction
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.
Mammoths had their time, and nature selected them for extinction
>_>
I thought Man helped with overhunting?
Haha, at first I thought you were referring to Manifesto7. Then I thought, that makes sense.
On March 16 2012 07:56 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: I hope the island they attempt this on doesn't get hit by a hurricane causing them to lose power to the park and all hell breaking loose.
Even that will all be fine if you do basic things like avoiding single points of failure in your security system, doing background checks on those with access to sensitive or valuable assets or systems, and not taunting the single point of failure in your security system about his massive debt and need for money.
On March 16 2012 07:56 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: I hope the island they attempt this on doesn't get hit by a hurricane causing them to lose power to the park and all hell breaking loose.
That sounds like a sweet script fot a movie!
I dont give a f**k if this about the ethics in this case. I want to be able to order mammoth burgers at a resturaunt next year!
On March 16 2012 07:56 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: I hope the island they attempt this on doesn't get hit by a hurricane causing them to lose power to the park and all hell breaking loose.
Luckily mammoths will never be able to open doors.
On March 16 2012 05:44 Tyrant0 wrote: Cloning extinct animals will inevitably have consequences. If they ever reach a point they can successfully clone this animal and continue to do so, it's only a matter of time before a few escape and integrate into the wild. Hundreds of accidental introductions throughout history. Africanized bee
It would be pretty sick to visit jurassic park in my lifetime, though.
Cloned animals are sterile, no? What would it matter if one escaped, without human aid it would have no ability to survive outside of its natural habitat, which no longer exists. Not to mention, it's a fucking mammoth. They're not exactly hard to spot.
No. Cloned animals are usually capable of reproduction. It's hybrids you are thinking of - many of them are sterile, and of those that are not the second generation often is. Depending on where a species is released, it may or may not be able to cope with a new environment in the wild. Examples include wallabies in England, the cane toads in Australia, and Africanized bees in South America.
On March 16 2012 07:56 {CC}StealthBlue wrote: I hope the island they attempt this on doesn't get hit by a hurricane causing them to lose power to the park and all hell breaking loose.
Luckily mammoths will never be able to open doors.
The only reason anyone would ever see this as unethical would be if it was on the basis that we shouldn't 'play God'. I think it should be easy for most people to reject this, especially anyone who has any real faith in humanity. More importantly, the solution isn't to say "screw ethics", it is to say "screw that person's ethical code because it is irrational and a rational ethical code allows things like this as completely ethical".
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
On March 15 2012 22:03 FallDownMarigold wrote: We've been cloning shit since like 1980.
Humans have actually been cloning since ancient times.
With regard to what people are referring to here as "cloning", the first example was in Xenopus model in 1952, Briggs & King
I'm guessing you might be referring to plant clones or something in ancient times. I'm a fan of being really literal too though, so it's okay, by definition you are correct. Nuclear reprogramming, however, was definitely not going down in the ancient timez
Well I'm assuming you aren't using nuclear reprogramming in the strictness sense but in the sense of controlling gene expression. A discussion on changing cell types isn't that pertinant to the concept of genetic engineering existing before through selective breeding and cloning plants.
On March 15 2012 21:55 Felnarion wrote: Well it wouldn't be a REAL mammoth if the mother is an Indian Elephant. But still kind of cool.
Realistically though, it will probably live a painful, short, life, riddled with diseases and defects.
It would be a real mammoth. They replace all of the dna in an elephant egg with dna from the mammoth. Thus, it doesn't matter what the mother is, since the dna is all mammoth. It's not going to be a hybrid or something.
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 ;-)
Exactly. Mammoths have everything good that elephants have, plus lots of fur and environmentalists too busy worrying about what will happen if they get loose to shoot you for farming them.
I remember hearing about this in elementary school; im in college now. I think i heard it was going to happen in 20 years. 20 years seemed like many lifetimes to me back then. newayz cheers for science!
On March 17 2012 13:23 dcemuser wrote: I remember them recovering these mammoth samples like 6 years ago. The article way back then had exactly the same promises and statements.
Why is this actually news again? What changed that was important? That's what I want to know from media, not a fast overview/rehash of old news.
They found scientists willing to agree to do the work?
On March 17 2012 13:29 peekn wrote: That would be cool to see a mammoth in real life. So are they going to mix it with some other animals DNA to fill in the missing gaps??
Jurassic Park used frogs, Because it was the closest they can find. We can use elephants because that's even closer.
On March 17 2012 22:44 NuKedUFirst wrote: To close something wouldnt they need something to give its birth?
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.
No it's not what humans do, it's what human think they do. We don't control shit, we are tiny in the face of the universe. Fukushima at least showed that.
Imo it's just fucked up because I don't see what we will do with the mammoth afterwards. It's just entertainment ? We cloned it, great, let's put it in a zoo.
Knowing how to do it and improving our technology in order to control cloning the best way possible and doing it for no fucking purpose are two completly different mindset.
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.
No it's not what humans do, it's what human think they do. We don't control shit, we are tiny in the face of the universe. Fukushima at least showed that.
Hey the more that we have control over the surrounding, the better right?
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.
No it's not what humans do, it's what human think they do. We don't control shit, we are tiny in the face of the universe. Fukushima at least showed that.
"HEY GUYS, LET'S STOP ALL SCIENTIFIC DEVELOPMENT BECAUSE WE'RE ONLY A TINY SPECK OF SHIT ON THE BOOT OF THE UNIVERSE"
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.
No it's not what humans do, it's what human think they do. We don't control shit, we are tiny in the face of the universe. Fukushima at least showed that.
Hey the more that we have control over the surrounding, the better right?
And cloning a mammoth will help in... what way exactly ? Will it give food to starving kids in africa ? Will it help us go through global warming or anything else. It has no purpose at all except showing off. That's what makes me uneasy.
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.
No it's not what humans do, it's what human think they do. We don't control shit, we are tiny in the face of the universe. Fukushima at least showed that.
"HEY GUYS, LET'S STOP ALL SCIENTIFIC DEVELOPMENT BECAUSE WE'RE ONLY A TINY SPECK OF SHIT ON THE BOOT OF THE UNIVERSE"
Read my post entirely plz
Knowing how to do it and improving our technology in order to control cloning the best way possible and doing it for no fucking purpose are two completly different mindset.
On March 17 2012 23:01 Lior wrote: "HEY GUYS, LET'S STOP ALL SCIENTIFIC DEVELOPMENT BECAUSE WE'RE ONLY A TINY SPECK OF SHIT ON THE BOOT OF THE UNIVERSE"
Read my post entirely plz
I replied before your edit; my point still stands. Also: do you realize how many scientific breakthroughs were made on fucking accident?
"HEY GUYS, LET'S STOP ALL SCIENTIFIC DEVELOPMENT BECAUSE WE'RE ONLY A TINY SPECK OF SHIT ON THE BOOT OF THE UNIVERSE"
Read my post entirely plz
I replied before your edit; my point still stands. Also: do you realize how many scientific breakthroughs were made on fucking accident?
Stop being so close minded and retrogressive.
You whole argument doesn't mean anything.
Why not cloning human then ? We need to test it, to know if we can or not do it ? No ? Yes okay ethically it's kinda weird but that kind of thinking is retrogressive and "close minded" isn't it ? It's only going against further progress in science !
There are no purpose into cloning a man except knowing "we can do it". But nobody is against the idea of cloning some organe for transplant, that's a purpose.
"HEY GUYS, LET'S STOP ALL SCIENTIFIC DEVELOPMENT BECAUSE WE'RE ONLY A TINY SPECK OF SHIT ON THE BOOT OF THE UNIVERSE"
Read my post entirely plz
I replied before your edit; my point still stands. Also: do you realize how many scientific breakthroughs were made on fucking accident?
Stop being so close minded and retrogressive.
You whole argument doesn't mean anything.
Why not cloning human then ? We need to test it, to know if we can or not do it ? No ? Yes okay ethically it's kinda weird but it's retrogressive and "close minded" isn't it ?
Sure, and who said I was opposed to cloning humans?
"HEY GUYS, LET'S STOP ALL SCIENTIFIC DEVELOPMENT BECAUSE WE'RE ONLY A TINY SPECK OF SHIT ON THE BOOT OF THE UNIVERSE"
Read my post entirely plz
I replied before your edit; my point still stands. Also: do you realize how many scientific breakthroughs were made on fucking accident?
Stop being so close minded and retrogressive.
You whole argument doesn't mean anything.
Why not cloning human then ? We need to test it, to know if we can or not do it ? No ? Yes okay ethically it's kinda weird but it's retrogressive and "close minded" isn't it ?
Sure, and who said I was opposed to cloning humans?
I don't really care about your personnal point of view, but most countries are against human cloning.
"HEY GUYS, LET'S STOP ALL SCIENTIFIC DEVELOPMENT BECAUSE WE'RE ONLY A TINY SPECK OF SHIT ON THE BOOT OF THE UNIVERSE"
Read my post entirely plz
I replied before your edit; my point still stands. Also: do you realize how many scientific breakthroughs were made on fucking accident?
Stop being so close minded and retrogressive.
You whole argument doesn't mean anything.
Why not cloning human then ? We need to test it, to know if we can or not do it ? No ? Yes okay ethically it's kinda weird but it's retrogressive and "close minded" isn't it ?
Sure, and who said I was opposed to cloning humans?
I don't really care about your point of view, but most countries are against human cloning.
Oh, you don't care about my point of view! Good! What a marvelous way to say you can't use proper argumentation, and give up!
Typical frenchie... always waving that white flag, eh?
"HEY GUYS, LET'S STOP ALL SCIENTIFIC DEVELOPMENT BECAUSE WE'RE ONLY A TINY SPECK OF SHIT ON THE BOOT OF THE UNIVERSE"
Read my post entirely plz
I replied before your edit; my point still stands. Also: do you realize how many scientific breakthroughs were made on fucking accident?
Stop being so close minded and retrogressive.
You whole argument doesn't mean anything.
Why not cloning human then ? We need to test it, to know if we can or not do it ? No ? Yes okay ethically it's kinda weird but it's retrogressive and "close minded" isn't it ?
Sure, and who said I was opposed to cloning humans?
I don't really care about your point of view, but most countries are against human cloning.
Oh, you don't care about my point of view! Good!
Typical frenchie... always waving that white flag, eh?
Seriously ? I was talking about the purpose of cloning and you are not discussing it since the beginning and now you flame my country, funny guy.
PS : Where is your country again ? Do you have any war history ?
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.
No it's not what humans do, it's what human think they do. We don't control shit, we are tiny in the face of the universe. Fukushima at least showed that.
Hey the more that we have control over the surrounding, the better right?
And cloning a mammoth will help in... what way exactly ? Will it give food to starving kids in africa ? Will it help us go through global warming or anything else. It has no purpose at all except showing off. That's what makes me uneasy.
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.
No it's not what humans do, it's what human think they do. We don't control shit, we are tiny in the face of the universe. Fukushima at least showed that.
"HEY GUYS, LET'S STOP ALL SCIENTIFIC DEVELOPMENT BECAUSE WE'RE ONLY A TINY SPECK OF SHIT ON THE BOOT OF THE UNIVERSE"
Knowing how to do it and improving our technology in order to control cloning the best way possible and doing it for no fucking purpose are two completly different mindset.
Think of it as a test. Sure the actual product, the mammoth, isn't going to help us, but confirmation of whatever underlying theories we're assuming going into this cloning project will. It's better that our understanding is confirmed even slightly than untested when the time comes for us to apply our knowledge in ways that could seriously harm or benefit us.
"HEY GUYS, LET'S STOP ALL SCIENTIFIC DEVELOPMENT BECAUSE WE'RE ONLY A TINY SPECK OF SHIT ON THE BOOT OF THE UNIVERSE"
Read my post entirely plz
I replied before your edit; my point still stands. Also: do you realize how many scientific breakthroughs were made on fucking accident?
Stop being so close minded and retrogressive.
You whole argument doesn't mean anything.
Why not cloning human then ? We need to test it, to know if we can or not do it ? No ? Yes okay ethically it's kinda weird but it's retrogressive and "close minded" isn't it ?
Sure, and who said I was opposed to cloning humans?
I don't really care about your point of view, but most countries are against human cloning.
Oh, you don't care about my point of view! Good!
Typical frenchie... always waving that white flag, eh?
Seriously ? I was talking about the purpose of cloning and you are not discussing it since the beginning and now you flame my country, funny guy.
PS : Where is your country again ? Do you have any war history ?
Oh, I'm sorry, I don't care about your view points. If you didn't understand how my original post replying to you ties in to 'the purpose of cloning' discussion, well, read more carefully.
Regarding Portuguese war history, go read up on the Peninsular War. God, you could at least be aware of your own country's history..
"HEY GUYS, LET'S STOP ALL SCIENTIFIC DEVELOPMENT BECAUSE WE'RE ONLY A TINY SPECK OF SHIT ON THE BOOT OF THE UNIVERSE"
Read my post entirely plz
I replied before your edit; my point still stands. Also: do you realize how many scientific breakthroughs were made on fucking accident?
Stop being so close minded and retrogressive.
You whole argument doesn't mean anything.
Why not cloning human then ? We need to test it, to know if we can or not do it ? No ? Yes okay ethically it's kinda weird but it's retrogressive and "close minded" isn't it ?
Sure, and who said I was opposed to cloning humans?
I don't really care about your point of view, but most countries are against human cloning.
Oh, you don't care about my point of view! Good!
Typical frenchie... always waving that white flag, eh?
Seriously ? I was talking about the purpose of cloning and you are not discussing it since the beginning and now you flame my country, funny guy.
PS : Where is your country again ? Do you have any war history ?
Oh, I'm sorry, I don't care about your view points. If you didn't understand how my original post replying to you ties in to 'the purpose of cloning' discussion, well, read more carefully.
No saying accident happen and help science is not a purpose for doing shit man. Give better argument if you want me to care.
About Portugal I was teasing you, but there it's a fact my country have a way more important military history and actually won more than any european country, so the "white flag" bullshit is like pissing in a violin. Don't come with the all america argument at me again please.
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.
No it's not what humans do, it's what human think they do. We don't control shit, we are tiny in the face of the universe. Fukushima at least showed that.
Hey the more that we have control over the surrounding, the better right?
And cloning a mammoth will help in... what way exactly ? Will it give food to starving kids in africa ? Will it help us go through global warming or anything else. It has no purpose at all except showing off. That's what makes me uneasy.
On March 17 2012 23:01 Lior wrote:
On March 17 2012 22:57 WhiteDog wrote:
On March 16 2012 23:34 Blasterion wrote:
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.
No it's not what humans do, it's what human think they do. We don't control shit, we are tiny in the face of the universe. Fukushima at least showed that.
"HEY GUYS, LET'S STOP ALL SCIENTIFIC DEVELOPMENT BECAUSE WE'RE ONLY A TINY SPECK OF SHIT ON THE BOOT OF THE UNIVERSE"
Read my post entirely plz
Knowing how to do it and improving our technology in order to control cloning the best way possible and doing it for no fucking purpose are two completly different mindset.
Think of it as a test. Sure the actual product, the mammoth, isn't going to help us, but confirmation of whatever underlying theories we're assuming going into this cloning project will. It's better that our understanding is confirmed even slightly than untested when the time comes for us to apply our knowledge in ways that could seriously harm or benefit us.
I agree with that but what's the difference between the soon to be mammoth and dolly the sheep (not to mention the bulls and the horses that have cloned after dolly) in this regard ?
"HEY GUYS, LET'S STOP ALL SCIENTIFIC DEVELOPMENT BECAUSE WE'RE ONLY A TINY SPECK OF SHIT ON THE BOOT OF THE UNIVERSE"
Read my post entirely plz
I replied before your edit; my point still stands. Also: do you realize how many scientific breakthroughs were made on fucking accident?
Stop being so close minded and retrogressive.
You whole argument doesn't mean anything.
Why not cloning human then ? We need to test it, to know if we can or not do it ? No ? Yes okay ethically it's kinda weird but it's retrogressive and "close minded" isn't it ?
Sure, and who said I was opposed to cloning humans?
I don't really care about your point of view, but most countries are against human cloning.
Oh, you don't care about my point of view! Good!
Typical frenchie... always waving that white flag, eh?
Seriously ? I was talking about the purpose of cloning and you are not discussing it since the beginning and now you flame my country, funny guy.
PS : Where is your country again ? Do you have any war history ?
Oh, I'm sorry, I don't care about your view points. If you didn't understand how my original post replying to you ties in to 'the purpose of cloning' discussion, well, read more carefully.
No saying accident happen and help science is not a purpose for doing shit man. Give better argument if you want me to care.
Sigh, see, that wasn't the point at all. The point was, 'why stifle scientific researched on the basis that it doesn't immediately give us material gains' - if you had understood my post before replying, you might have seen this is what I meant. But, instead, you chose to ignore what I was trying to say, and filled in the gaps you didn't understand with what you wanted.
Your argument is very much akin to the argument that we shouldn't be exploring space because 'it doesn't feed kids in Africa'. And I find it just as utterly ridiculous.
"About Portugal I was teasing you, but there it's a fact my country have a way more important military history and actually won more than any european country, so the "white flag" bullshit is like pissing in a violin. Don't come with all america argument at me again please."
People only remember you for the last thing you've done.
I replied before your edit; my point still stands. Also: do you realize how many scientific breakthroughs were made on fucking accident?
Stop being so close minded and retrogressive.
You whole argument doesn't mean anything.
Why not cloning human then ? We need to test it, to know if we can or not do it ? No ? Yes okay ethically it's kinda weird but it's retrogressive and "close minded" isn't it ?
Sure, and who said I was opposed to cloning humans?
I don't really care about your point of view, but most countries are against human cloning.
Oh, you don't care about my point of view! Good!
Typical frenchie... always waving that white flag, eh?
Seriously ? I was talking about the purpose of cloning and you are not discussing it since the beginning and now you flame my country, funny guy.
PS : Where is your country again ? Do you have any war history ?
Oh, I'm sorry, I don't care about your view points. If you didn't understand how my original post replying to you ties in to 'the purpose of cloning' discussion, well, read more carefully.
No saying accident happen and help science is not a purpose for doing shit man. Give better argument if you want me to care.
Sigh, see, that wasn't the point at all. The point was, 'why stifle scientific researched on the basis that it doesn't immediately give us material gains' - if you had understood my post before replying, you might have seen this is what I meant. But, instead, you chose to ignore what I was trying to say, and filled in the gaps you didn't understand with what you wanted.
Your argument very much akin to the argument that we shouldn't be exploring space because 'it doesn't feed kids in Africa'. And I find it just as utterly ridiculous.
No scientist will never research on something if it has no further outlets. I'm not talking about material gains at all. Cloning can and will maybe be usefull for humanity and researching on it is important. Cloning to see if the theory match practice is also something that must be done, but making a mammoth is only a marketing shit that has no scientific value in my opinion. Now if a scientist tell me it's actually way more interesting for a scientist than cloning a sheep, then okay. 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.
People only remember you for the last thing you've done.
Which is refusing to go in a war that today everybody agree was a mystake ? Cool.
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....
rich people will end up eating cloned human meat as a 'delicacy' 'cause you know ... why not if it tastes good. 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.
I replied before your edit; my point still stands. Also: do you realize how many scientific breakthroughs were made on fucking accident?
Stop being so close minded and retrogressive.
You whole argument doesn't mean anything.
Why not cloning human then ? We need to test it, to know if we can or not do it ? No ? Yes okay ethically it's kinda weird but it's retrogressive and "close minded" isn't it ?
Sure, and who said I was opposed to cloning humans?
I don't really care about your point of view, but most countries are against human cloning.
Oh, you don't care about my point of view! Good!
Typical frenchie... always waving that white flag, eh?
Seriously ? I was talking about the purpose of cloning and you are not discussing it since the beginning and now you flame my country, funny guy.
PS : Where is your country again ? Do you have any war history ?
Oh, I'm sorry, I don't care about your view points. If you didn't understand how my original post replying to you ties in to 'the purpose of cloning' discussion, well, read more carefully.
No saying accident happen and help science is not a purpose for doing shit man. Give better argument if you want me to care.
Sigh, see, that wasn't the point at all. The point was, 'why stifle scientific researched on the basis that it doesn't immediately give us material gains' - if you had understood my post before replying, you might have seen this is what I meant. But, instead, you chose to ignore what I was trying to say, and filled in the gaps you didn't understand with what you wanted.
Your argument very much akin to the argument that we shouldn't be exploring space because 'it doesn't feed kids in Africa'. And I find it just as utterly ridiculous.
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.
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.
I replied before your edit; my point still stands. Also: do you realize how many scientific breakthroughs were made on fucking accident?
Stop being so close minded and retrogressive.
You whole argument doesn't mean anything.
Why not cloning human then ? We need to test it, to know if we can or not do it ? No ? Yes okay ethically it's kinda weird but it's retrogressive and "close minded" isn't it ?
Sure, and who said I was opposed to cloning humans?
I don't really care about your point of view, but most countries are against human cloning.
Oh, you don't care about my point of view! Good!
Typical frenchie... always waving that white flag, eh?
Seriously ? I was talking about the purpose of cloning and you are not discussing it since the beginning and now you flame my country, funny guy.
PS : Where is your country again ? Do you have any war history ?
Oh, I'm sorry, I don't care about your view points. If you didn't understand how my original post replying to you ties in to 'the purpose of cloning' discussion, well, read more carefully.
No saying accident happen and help science is not a purpose for doing shit man. Give better argument if you want me to care.
Sigh, see, that wasn't the point at all. The point was, 'why stifle scientific researched on the basis that it doesn't immediately give us material gains' - if you had understood my post before replying, you might have seen this is what I meant. But, instead, you chose to ignore what I was trying to say, and filled in the gaps you didn't understand with what you wanted.
Your argument very much akin to the argument that we shouldn't be exploring space because 'it doesn't feed kids in Africa'. And I find it just as utterly ridiculous.
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).
On March 17 2012 23:07 WhiteDog wrote: [quote] You whole argument doesn't mean anything.
Why not cloning human then ? We need to test it, to know if we can or not do it ? No ? Yes okay ethically it's kinda weird but it's retrogressive and "close minded" isn't it ?
Sure, and who said I was opposed to cloning humans?
I don't really care about your point of view, but most countries are against human cloning.
Oh, you don't care about my point of view! Good!
Typical frenchie... always waving that white flag, eh?
Seriously ? I was talking about the purpose of cloning and you are not discussing it since the beginning and now you flame my country, funny guy.
PS : Where is your country again ? Do you have any war history ?
Oh, I'm sorry, I don't care about your view points. If you didn't understand how my original post replying to you ties in to 'the purpose of cloning' discussion, well, read more carefully.
No saying accident happen and help science is not a purpose for doing shit man. Give better argument if you want me to care.
Sigh, see, that wasn't the point at all. The point was, 'why stifle scientific researched on the basis that it doesn't immediately give us material gains' - if you had understood my post before replying, you might have seen this is what I meant. But, instead, you chose to ignore what I was trying to say, and filled in the gaps you didn't understand with what you wanted.
Your argument very much akin to the argument that we shouldn't be exploring space because 'it doesn't feed kids in Africa'. And I find it just as utterly ridiculous.
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).
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.
Sure, and who said I was opposed to cloning humans?
I don't really care about your point of view, but most countries are against human cloning.
Oh, you don't care about my point of view! Good!
Typical frenchie... always waving that white flag, eh?
Seriously ? I was talking about the purpose of cloning and you are not discussing it since the beginning and now you flame my country, funny guy.
PS : Where is your country again ? Do you have any war history ?
Oh, I'm sorry, I don't care about your view points. If you didn't understand how my original post replying to you ties in to 'the purpose of cloning' discussion, well, read more carefully.
No saying accident happen and help science is not a purpose for doing shit man. Give better argument if you want me to care.
Sigh, see, that wasn't the point at all. The point was, 'why stifle scientific researched on the basis that it doesn't immediately give us material gains' - if you had understood my post before replying, you might have seen this is what I meant. But, instead, you chose to ignore what I was trying to say, and filled in the gaps you didn't understand with what you wanted.
Your argument very much akin to the argument that we shouldn't be exploring space because 'it doesn't feed kids in Africa'. And I find it just as utterly ridiculous.
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).
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.
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.
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"
Some of you guys are saying how it's not a real mammoth - but it is! They're not cloning mammoth sperm and inseminating an elephant egg with it (I don't think that would work as elephants and woolly mammoths aren't close enough), they're creating an entire set of mammoth DNA and inserting it into an "empty" elephant egg cell.
For those of you who say it's not impressive, it really is - they have to repair the damaged parts of the DNA, which is really fragile and most likely in really bad condition due to its age. How they will repair the DNA is probably by replacing it with similar sequences in elephant DNA or such. It's a pretty big feat to clone an extinct mammal from thousands of years ago.
Some of you guys are saying how it's not a real mammoth - but it is! They're not cloning mammoth sperm and inseminating an elephant egg with it (I don't think that would work as elephants and woolly mammoths aren't close enough), they're creating an entire set of mammoth DNA and inserting it into an "empty" elephant egg cell.
For those of you who say it's not impressive, it really is - they have to repair the damaged parts of the DNA, which is really fragile and most likely in really bad condition due to its age. How they will repair the DNA is probably by replacing it with similar sequences in elephant DNA or such. It's a pretty big feat to clone an extinct mammal from thousands of years ago.
love the scientists of the current world is there nothing else they can be putting there brains into that they have to make wooly mammoths? the only reason to clone a wooly mammoth is for bragging rights
For a while, I've stated that the field of biology needs to get it's priorities straight. First off, we don't even fully comprehend all the enigmas of human DNA, let alone a mammoth's. There are literally thousands of gene sequences that have unknown functions in terms of protein synthesis.
IMO, biology has always been a study revolving around the human body. Sure, there are tons of great things to learn about other species, but that knowledge should in turn help us advance our own biological functions. I'm talking medicine, cures for diseases, and all that jazz. After that, THEN would be the time to start cloning up species that really have no point to being alive.
In my eyes they are cloning a mammoth for the sake of cloning a mammoth, which is pointless. If someone could explain otherwise, please do. Personally I love physics. Consider this analogy, cloning a mammoth would be like a physicist perfecting the potato launcher instead of working on fundamentals like the Standard Model.
On March 18 2012 06:30 TheToaster wrote: For a while, I've stated that the field of biology needs to get it's priorities straight. First off, we don't even fully comprehend all the enigmas of human DNA, let alone a mammoth's. There are literally thousands of gene sequences that have unknown functions in terms of protein synthesis.
IMO, biology has always been a study revolving around the human body. Sure, there are tons of great things to learn about other species, but that knowledge should in turn help us advance our own biological functions. I'm talking medicine, cures for diseases, and all that jazz. After that, THEN would be the time to start cloning up species that really have no point to being alive.
In my eyes they are cloning a mammoth for the sake of cloning a mammoth, which is pointless. If someone could explain otherwise, please do. Personally I love physics. Consider this analogy, cloning a mammoth would be like a physicist perfecting the potato launcher instead of working on fundamentals like the Standard Model.
I'm sorry, but science doesn't have to be about improving our lives alone. Science is gaining new knowledge, and cloning a mammoth would be a huge feat in both finding out what we're capable of and finding out more about the species.
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.
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"
My post was refuting the idea that it would be impossible to create healthy mammoths starting with damaged DNA. I used the Jurassic Park frog-raptor as an accessible example, though in reality you would never use frogs to fix creatures much more closely related to birds and even with the closest living relatives there are likely to be too many holes and differences to actually make raptors. The examples I gave of inserting genes from random species without harm are ones that are easily found in the press, therefore the average TL reader can find non-paywall articles written for laypeople about them.
Would you have preferred an in-depth post explaining each choice of example, each example in depth, and how each compares to the mammoth task in hand? Or one that delves into the technical detail of what can currently be done, how, and what would need to be done in this project to maximise the chances of success. I believe that the only obvious problem I failed to mention is the accelerated aging and arthritis suffered by some clones. I did not intend to suggest that random animals could or should be used for major repair work, but that modelling could be used to find places where elephant DNA can fill in the blanks well enough and that using genes from distantly related species is not necessarily deleterious.
Sufficient modelling is a cop-out because sufficient is undefined, but for me to define it with my current state of knowledge of this project would make me a liar. My sources of knowledge are a couple of courses of genetics, a semester long course on bioinformatics, and journal articles which I guess constitute a grapevine of sorts. This is an area of interest for me rather than a primary focus.
I dont have much time so I didnt check if any one mentioned this. When I was in 5th grade they were talking about this. That was like 10 years ago. I dono I'd like to seeit.
What a real good uses of this kind of advanced knowledge and money. I've always said the most important problem in humanity was the lack of cloned mammoths.
On March 20 2012 13:25 GettingIt wrote: Can somone explain to me how a mammoth fetus and fit inside the womb of an elephant?
Fetuses are not as large as you seem to think they are. It is not as if a fully sized mammoth is going to be inside an elephant's womb. I would imagine that a elephant fetus and mammoth fetus would be around the same size.
On March 20 2012 13:27 Mrvoodoochild1 wrote: Clone Jesus 0.0? Debunk Christianity?
You only clone the DNA of an individual not the individual. Also, churches like the RC church believe that the body of Jesus ascended into heaven - which is notorious for being hard to get into and even harder to get out of. Good luck getting DNA sample which are sufficiently Jesus-y to satisfy those groups.
Plus, you haven't even established how cloning youself a Jesus is going to debunk anything.
im just curious, since these guys are so good at cloning can't we clone organs and transplant them successfully? i mean a while back didn't they finally create an organ printing machine? these guys would be so rich if they applied what they know about cloning and cloned organs successfully for transplants.
On March 20 2012 14:25 saocyn wrote: im just curious, since these guys are so good at cloning can't we clone organs and transplant them successfully? i mean a while back didn't they finally create an organ printing machine? these guys would be so rich if they applied what they know about cloning and cloned organs successfully for transplants.
Whenever the cloning will become more public it will get shitstorm from churces allover the world because it's "WRONG". And the fact that some people, not religious, might consider it ethically wrong. But still I wish in my life time to see these kinds of things happen.
Read something like this about 10years ago, and it seemed like a fucking awesome idea to me then and still does now, I want to see elephant/wooly mammoth hybrid!
On March 15 2012 20:36 Tristran wrote: South Korean and Russian scientists have joined up to attempt cloning a Woolly Mammoth from the well preserved remains of a young Mammoth found frozen in Permafrost. Scientists have cloned ancient flowers from the preserved fruits and seeds in an ancient squirrels den that was also frozen in perma frost.
South Korean and Russian scientists have vowed to work together in an attempt to clone a woolly mammoth from remains found in Siberia.
The giant Ice Age animal last roamed the Earth some 10,000 years ago - but experts believe it is possible to bring it back to life. Vasily Vasiliev, from Russia's North Eastern Federal University of the Sakha Republic, and Hwang Woo-Suk of South Korea's Sooam Biotech Research Foundation have agreed to join forces to research the mammoth task. The new pact comes after scientists resurrected an ancient flower from fruit and seeds hidden in an Ice Age squirrel's burrow in permafrost.
The researchers said their results proved that permafrost serves as a natural depository for ancient life forms. Experts in South Korea and Russia now plan to take DNA from the remains of a woolly mammoth uncovered by the thawing Siberian permaforst. They plan to insert it into the egg cell of an Indian elephant to hopefully produce an embryo, which will then be placed into the womb of an elephant for gestation.
"The first and hardest mission is to restore mammoth cells," Sooam researcher Hwang In-Sung said. "This will be a really tough job, but we believe it is possible because our institute is good at cloning animals." South Korean scientists have previously cloned animals including a cow, a cat, dogs, a pig and a wolf.
However, Sooam's leading clone researcher, Hwang Woo-Suk is controversial figure in South Korea. In 2005 he created Snuppy, the world's first cloned dog, and last October he reportedly cloned the endangered American coyote. But his 2004 research into the creation of human stem cells from a cloned embryo was recently found to have been faked.
Despite that controversy at the end of the article over a particular scientist, cloning is possible and they have DNA from a preserved Woolly Mammoth. Anyone else think this is absolutely amazing?
Edit: Oh awesome, topic title didn't spell Mammoth correctly, maybe I went over the character limit, can a mod edit it please? <3
On March 20 2012 13:28 MountainDewJunkie wrote: What a real good uses of this kind of advanced knowledge and money. I've always said the most important problem in humanity was the lack of cloned mammoths.
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.
Were not talking about like 1 copy of the chromosomes or something. DNA deterioration from the elements and time wouldnt be much of a problem when you have a shitton of DNA strands from different cells. They will be damaged in different spots, in which case you can do hybridization and find out the correct DNA sequence. Its been so long that i forgot the technical terms for the techniques but its pretty basic.
Mutations in the progenitor cells or something that results in the propagation of the mutated gene in all somatic cells would be a problem though.
On March 18 2012 06:30 TheToaster wrote: For a while, I've stated that the field of biology needs to get it's priorities straight. First off, we don't even fully comprehend all the enigmas of human DNA, let alone a mammoth's. There are literally thousands of gene sequences that have unknown functions in terms of protein synthesis.
IMO, biology has always been a study revolving around the human body. Sure, there are tons of great things to learn about other species, but that knowledge should in turn help us advance our own biological functions. I'm talking medicine, cures for diseases, and all that jazz. After that, THEN would be the time to start cloning up species that really have no point to being alive.
In my eyes they are cloning a mammoth for the sake of cloning a mammoth, which is pointless. If someone could explain otherwise, please do. Personally I love physics. Consider this analogy, cloning a mammoth would be like a physicist perfecting the potato launcher instead of working on fundamentals like the Standard Model.
I'm sorry, but science doesn't have to be about improving our lives alone. Science is gaining new knowledge, and cloning a mammoth would be a huge feat in both finding out what we're capable of and finding out more about the species.
There's really no scientific efficiency by discovering things about the wooly mammoth via cloning one. First off, the genetic offspring wouldn't technically be a wooly mammoth, but a forged copy with missing or corrupt DNA strands replaced by an elephants. Even in terms of priority, learning more about a single extinct species, that really wasn't even pivotal in terms of life's evolutionary history anyways, would be completely single minded and idiotic.
If instead scientists could simply analyze the mammoth's gene sequences based on current species, then they wouldn't even require a live clone. The raw DNA alone would be enough to describe the species. This pretty much supports the fact that knowledge of gene sequencing has multiple applications, while the cloning of a single species only has a handful of applications.
Even the basis of your argument is highly mistaken. "What we are capable of" isn't science itself, that would be technology. Science and technology are two extremely different concepts which people too often mistake for one another. Which is how we arrive at the bottom-line issue behind this mammoth cloning. Cloning a mammoth is a highly technological process, yet yields relatively little scientific knowledge itself.
I recommend researching the development of the atomic bomb, i.e. The Manhattan Project in 1940's America. The Manhattan scientists were basically trying to create a technological result (the atomic bomb) using scientific knowledge they literally knew nothing about. Nuclear physics was largely unknown at the time, but building the atomic bomb allowed discoveries to be made on the fly. This mammoth cloning highly relates to this historical story.
EPT
![[image loading]](http://news.sky.com/sky-news/content/StaticFile/jpg/2012/Mar/Week2/16188024.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://news.sky.com/sky-news/content/StaticFile/jpg/2012/Mar/Week2/16188006.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://news.sky.com/sky-news/content/StaticFile/jpg/2012/Feb/Week3/16174162.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://www.foundshit.com/images/mammoth-chunks-travel-mart.jpg)
![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/L2RmB.gif)
![[image loading]](http://www.abc.net.au/dinosaurs/chronology/149/images/liopleurodon.jpg)
