Overclock.net › Forums › Industry News › Technology and Science News › [Yahoo]Researchers aim to resurrect mammoth in 5 years
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

[Yahoo]Researchers aim to resurrect mammoth in 5 years - Page 15

post #141 of 144
Quote:
Originally Posted by Fullmetalaj0 View Post
Id eat mammoth...just saying..
Mammoth might be really good. If Man actually killed of Mammoths because the meat was tasty, and did so long before they attacked beef cattle, then it might be really good meat.

Quote:
Originally Posted by luckypunk View Post
very cool idea, almost like the movie jurassic park.
Except Jurassic Park sucked big time.

I can see a large number of benefits from such research efforts, and not just in bringing back extinct animals, but in learning how DNA actually functions on a deeper level. DNA research has already brought about a revolution in health care, and that frontier will be pushed even harder. But I also consider the various efforts that are put into making hearty variety of plants, so that poor people can successfully farm on marginal lands, just like Triticale has become an important crop in some regions, and so on.

Now only if scientists could come up with a way of altering genetics so that Hollywood could crank out some actually good movies, that would be worth the NSF grant...
Edited by EvanPitts - 1/23/11 at 4:50pm
post #142 of 144
how dare you! jurassic park series is one of my all time favorites
post #143 of 144
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bluescreen_Of_Death View Post
The point I was trying to arrive at was just because a few parts of a system can be preserved indefinitely does not mean the entire system can be preserved. The individual atoms that make up the DNA strand may survive until the end of time. But that doesn't mean that DNA can as well.
And I never stated that. I'm only stating that we have not yet discovered exactly how long DNA may be preserved in the right circumstances.

Quote:
Since you've taken the liberty of being first in the line of ad hominem attacks, If you're really so dense as to think such an analogy is logically sound, you might want to start padding your room.
Learn to read. I was rewording your own statement to show you how fallacious yours was, not actually making another unrelated point.


Quote:
When you resort to personal attacks, you lose the argument. But I'm sure you knew that, so there must be some brilliant spark of ingenuity that my layman brain cannot find.
But when you resort to personal attacks, you win the argument? Contradict yourself much?


Quote:
With particular emphasis on the bold. 70,000,000 year old dino bone that had stuff in it that went soft upon being re-hydrated contained no DNA, but had some of the organic molecules that DNA consist of.
And I never stated that it did contain DNA. I stated proteins that proteins were recovered. They were. DNA is far more fragile, but if proteins can be recovered after 70 million years, it's very well possible that DNA may still exist well beyond the 100,000 year mark.


Quote:
I admit, I'm no geneticist or chemist, and I have no serious education on either subject. But you really have a way with warping words and trying to cram them down my throat.
And yet, this is what you did to me when you took my reply to someone else completely out of context.


Quote:
If you could show me where I asserted as fact that DNA only lasts 100,000 max, I'd love to see it, cause I sure can't find it. The closest I come is this:
Quote:
DNA is thought to last up to a max of 100,000 years at best,
Semantics anyone?

Quote:
Considering as to your lack of ability to properly interpret words, I'll help you out a little. If you get distracted, it's okay. It happens.

Yes. Science advances. And we may find out that DNA actually outlasts the universe. But my point is, the data at hand doesn't support 70,000,000 year old DNA. Sorry charlie, but if you wan't me to concede that point, I'll need more evidence.
Where did I say that DNA would outlast the universe? Seriously, and you accuse me of twisting your words around? You're really stretching it. Read the quote directly above this, then compare what you just did to me.

Pot/kettle=black? Hmm....


Quote:
If you wish to have an actual exchange, drop the ad hominem attacks. If you wish to continue acting like a child, I'll just add you to my ignore list.
The only one acting childish here is you. Feel free to ignore me. Put your fingers in your ears and go "lalalalalala". It's not childish at all.
The Big Ugly 2.5
(13 items)
 
Spectre x360
(7 items)
 
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel i7 2600k Asus P8P67 B3 MSI GTX 1080 Ti 16GB Corsair XMS3 1600 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveOptical Drive
Samsung 850 Pro 512GB Barracuda 7200.12 1TB Hitachi 7K3000 2TB Pioneer BDR-206D 
OSMonitorPowerCase
W7 Pro x64 Dell U3415W Corsair AX850 Corsair 600T 
Mouse
Logitech G500 
CPURAMHard DriveOS
i7 6500U 8GB DDL3L 256GB M.2  Windows 10 
MonitorKeyboardCase
2560 x 1440 Touchscreen Awesome! Aluminum Billet 
  hide details  
Reply
The Big Ugly 2.5
(13 items)
 
Spectre x360
(7 items)
 
 
CPUMotherboardGraphicsRAM
Intel i7 2600k Asus P8P67 B3 MSI GTX 1080 Ti 16GB Corsair XMS3 1600 
Hard DriveHard DriveHard DriveOptical Drive
Samsung 850 Pro 512GB Barracuda 7200.12 1TB Hitachi 7K3000 2TB Pioneer BDR-206D 
OSMonitorPowerCase
W7 Pro x64 Dell U3415W Corsair AX850 Corsair 600T 
Mouse
Logitech G500 
CPURAMHard DriveOS
i7 6500U 8GB DDL3L 256GB M.2  Windows 10 
MonitorKeyboardCase
2560 x 1440 Touchscreen Awesome! Aluminum Billet 
  hide details  
Reply
post #144 of 144
Quote:
Originally Posted by xenophobe View Post

Quote:
If you could show me where I asserted as fact that DNA only lasts 100,000 max, I'd love to see it, cause I sure can't find it. The closest I come is this:

DNA is thought to last up to a max of 100,000 years at best,
Semantics anyone?
Once again, you betray your inability to read.

I'm sorry, but I'm done here. If all you want to do is troll, you ought to go back to 4chan. I never stated as fact that DNA lasts over 100,000 years. I stated:

DNA is thought to last a max of 100,000 years. Not DNA only lasts 100,000 years.

The rest of this argument is worthless, as I'm never going to reach you if you're so rooted in your infallibly. When you're ready to open your mind a little, you might learn that you're not right about everything. Until then, you'll be on my ignore list.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Technology and Science News
Overclock.net › Forums › Industry News › Technology and Science News › [Yahoo]Researchers aim to resurrect mammoth in 5 years