What is Digg?Sponsored by Dragon Age: Origins
Join the Dragon Age: Origins development team on Facebook view!
facebook.com/DragonAgeOrigins - EA presents BioWare's new dark fantasy epic Dragon Age: Origins. '9/10' from Game Informer.
567 Comments
- M0b1u5, on 10/11/2007, -7/+376If by "dangerous" you mean "not dangerous in the slightest" - then yeah.
I say bring 'em back. Bring 'em all back; Moa, Tasmanian tigers, Marsupial lions, The Quagga, Dodo, Giant New Zealand Eagle... It'd be great. - obliviousfool, on 10/11/2007, -4/+241I say "hell yeah!" ...and I've even seen Jurassic Park!
- ricperry1, on 10/11/2007, -40/+265I say bring 'em back to show creationists that evolution/extinction is scientific fact and that scientific research produces tangible results.
- oiooioio, on 10/11/2007, -25/+159That could be dangerous, but I sure would love to see one in person!
- Junkyarddawg, on 10/11/2007, -11/+117I'm sorry, because as much as I'd like to see a cloned mammoth, this is *****.
It's the same research group which has been claiming to be on the verge of cloning mammoths for at least five years, to get more funding, yet producing no results at all.
Fact of the matter is cloning is not trivial, and DNA degrades rapidly even under ideal conditions. Even when stored in liquid nitrogen the DNA degrades within a few decades to the point that it becomes impossible to extract long sequences of the DNA; in the case of mammoths the DNA has been degraded to snippets a few tens to a few hundred bases long (for comparison, the human genome is three BILLION bases long!).
What one could conceviably do is transfer the few genes one could find among the degraded mammoth DNA to an elephant embryo. That wouldn't be "cloning a mammoth", that would be "creating a transgene elephant which has a very few genes from mammoth".
So although this will get me buried: cloning a mammoth is a pipe dream; no mammoth will ever walk the earth again. Sorry, just not going to happen. The information has been lost. - notfaded1, on 10/11/2007, -2/+108Bring back the Wooly Booly!
- WaterDragon, on 10/11/2007, -0/+104They should clone the T-Rex, so they could use it for a crane.
- Domza, on 10/11/2007, -0/+87Only if we can put them on an island accessible only by helicopter and use Frog DNA to fill in the gaps and ensure they cannot breed.
- inactive, on 10/11/2007, -15/+90diggers....please ... one Rosie O'Donnell is enough.
- ChrisWickenscom, on 10/11/2007, -14/+73***** this lame crap, bring on the one-eyed, one-horned flying purple people eater.
- stotty, on 10/11/2007, -0/+54Title is misleading
FTA - "Researchers are divided over how they might try to do this and whether it's even feasible."
So "The Woolly Mammoth can now be cloned..." is not quite true now is it?! - Zippo, on 10/11/2007, -0/+47I think we really ought to; partly because it would be a huge scientific achievement to resurrect a species from thousands of years of extinction and mostly because it would allow us to study the biology of an ancient species. It would be extremely fascinating.
And after it's all said and done, we could find out how it tastes. - HBNDonut, on 10/11/2007, -0/+45Might wanna throw some Raptors in there too... maybe even a T-Rex for a wee laugh. I hear they like the city.
- Hentez, on 10/11/2007, -3/+44Sure we could bring it back, but never as a species. They would not have the genetic diversity needed to sustain it.
- nyzzi, on 10/11/2007, -8/+48How does bringing back the woolly "show creationist that evolution/extinction is scientific fact"? Extinction by no means proves evolution, and brining back the woolly by no means proves evolution either. So your argument is faulty, especially since everyone agrees that scientific research produces tangible results. Is that not part of the scientific method--to gather results?
- spearce, on 10/11/2007, -9/+45I for one welcome our newly resurrected Wooly Mammoth Overlords.
- tehrob, on 10/11/2007, -2/+35Only so I can go to the zoo and see them. It's not like they are going to release them into the wild.
- WaterDragon, on 10/11/2007, -3/+36But if they made dodo birds, we could make some awesome giant deviled eggs!
And nobody would ever need to make a three-egg omelet. - inactive, on 10/11/2007, -4/+35***** yes we should!! Can anyone say, "woolly mammoth rides at sea world?"
- frepont, on 10/11/2007, -10/+39I just want some mammoth meat...wow that sounded gay.
- PATSCRU, on 10/11/2007, -2/+30the mammoths would want to be resurrected.
i don't think that releasing these formerly extinct animals into the wild would in any way be a good idea though. - Toast1185, on 10/11/2007, -0/+27I'm simply saying that life, uh... finds a way.
- insonh58, on 10/11/2007, -3/+27i say yes
as long as we call it "Stampy" - arenz003, on 10/11/2007, -3/+27yes ....wait, why are we all saying yes?
- Bahimiron, on 10/11/2007, -1/+24What could go wrong?
- inactive, on 10/11/2007, -5/+28And what.. The devil can do magic as well.. nothing changes..
- oxdeltaxo, on 10/11/2007, -0/+22Yes, the damn thing is extinct, so why not? It can be my new guard dog.
"Sick em' stampy!" - jlebrech, on 10/11/2007, -5/+27***** Mammoths I want raptors.
http://xkcd.com/c155.html - nicnic77, on 10/11/2007, -1/+22To say "No mammoth will ever walk the earth again" is a bit hasty. Currently we obviously can't do it, but technology and science is improving exponentially. In the next 10, 100, 500+ years you can't rule it out.
- darfvader, on 10/11/2007, -1/+21DUGG!! For making me piss my sides at the fact that ANY news story on digg always boils down to republicans vs democrats, creationism vs evolution or ***** da RIAA!! :D It was most amusing to see it stuck into a story about wooly mammoths.
- drakenlot, on 10/11/2007, -0/+20I bet it takes like chicken
- DropTheOxygen, on 10/11/2007, -1/+20In the pursuit of knowledge and science, I couldn't be more confident in my opinion. Yes.
Not doing this would equal to ignoring scientific developments and would lead to further experiments not taking place, and slowing scientific development to a hault. - inactive, on 10/11/2007, -9/+27Yes, because aside from religious non-sense, there's no real reason why we shouldn't.
- TravisMc, on 10/11/2007, -1/+19unfortunately, that's not such a bad idea...
- aukxsona, on 10/11/2007, -0/+18I want a Dodo for a pet...
- rmacnguyen, on 10/11/2007, -6/+23Can you be more naïve? Of course other people's beliefs have a bearing on my life. Sure, I hate it when people shove their opinions down my throat, and I surely wouldn't want to shove my opinions down anyone else's throat. But the fact of the matter is that there are way too many people out there spouting religious crap in every which direction, leaving no room for open mindedness or discussion on the topic. A lot of kids are brought up going to church, so the only viewpoint they see growing up is that of the church. If no one tries to open discussion about the topic and "let people believe or not believe what they want," then America will no longer be a land of the free, but a land of the sheep. And as anyone can see, we're already well on the path away from the former. With certain prominent people saying they "don't know that atheists should be considered as citizens, nor should they be considered patriots," and with other crazy fanatics trying to teach ancient mythology to the children of America as truth over scientific theory/fact, it's a wonder how one can even say that other people's beliefs have no impact on another's life. We live in what we call a "society," of which "social" behavior is an integral part. Everyone influences everyone else. So, no, I can't give it a rest; I'd like to, but it's affecting my life a bit more than I'm willing to bear. And maybe you're the one that needs to grow up a bit and see things the way they are.
- TheLD, on 10/11/2007, -1/+17I think they should clone Pegasus first. I've always wanted one of those.
- jabab, on 10/11/2007, -12/+27But it says in the bible "Thou shalt not clone animals." You will go to hell if you do, so you better not.
- stonebear, on 10/11/2007, -40/+55Not that it will make any difference, but no; their world is gone, and we should have enough respect for nature not to resurrect them in to a world where they don't belong, as novelties for our amusement. Better that science should use its dwindling resources to help animals we ourselves are killing off right now.
If you enjoy science fiction, I recommend "The Ugly Little Boy," by Isaac Asimov, as a thoughtful exploration of this subject. - SlewDigger, on 10/11/2007, -4/+18Ah, but why is it OK to save today's species, and not the mammoths? Who are we to say that today's species "belong", and the mammoths don't? And aren't we defying nature by artificially keeping today's species alive anyway?
It's an interesting moral dilemma, and there are certainly many questions that need to be asked. - WaterDragon, on 10/11/2007, -2/+16Watch it now, watch it now!
- arenz003, on 10/11/2007, -0/+14large, prehistoric birds are great for transportation... take that OPEC
- LeeSoong, on 10/11/2007, -6/+19Yes.
I want a brand new Woolly Mammoth through rug,
in my dining room where I'll be eating freshly grilled 3 inch thick Woolly steaks. - Hillsfar, on 10/11/2007, -1/+14Sorry, the mammoth is most viable because cells were frozen. Can't say the same for the other species that may only have bits left in bone.
- Daveecee, on 10/11/2007, -0/+13Aww but can't we ressurect just one, mommy? Just one for the zoo?
- goettel, on 10/11/2007, -1/+14The title is bullcrap, mammoths can't "now be cloned" - read the article. Some researchers believe we're close to being able to do it, but many other researchers disagree. I suspect the last group of scientists outnumbers the first by a factor of ten.
Apart from the topic being bunk, there also no "should we?" about it; asking that question implies that there is any authority which could even decide on forbidding any research, let alone enforce that decision. There isn't one, and the chances of such an authority being created - ever - are essentially nill.
So, once 'we' can clone the mammoth, someone will do it. Until that happens, why waste time even thinking about it unless you're a student in the field? - wakananda, on 10/11/2007, -0/+13It seems to me that, while genetic material degrades, it is going to degrade differently in each cell. You have billions of copies of the same book. all being horribly eaten by worms; but each word is going to be present. The problem is cross-referencing, right?
- SleepingOrange, on 10/11/2007, -1/+14Cheap on gas. Runs on humans.
- Ndiggnation, on 10/11/2007, -2/+15Well, I was awed by the power of this place. But I didn't hve enough respect for that power, and it's out now!! (Gets crushed by Mammoth)
- xsuite, on 10/11/2007, -1/+13He meant 'mammoth' in the adjectival sense. So that means he was describing a penis to be 'mammoth' in proportions, not describing a penis that belongs to a mammoth.
-
Show 51 - 100 of 567 discussions
Browsing Digg on your phone just got easier with our enhancements to the 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is