Because the previous editions of the math and science threads have been dead too long for any hope of resuscitation, I'm giving birth to a new generation for the math, science and technology lovers of this generation. Feel free to discuss anything regarding the unbelievably general topics of math, science and technology here.
SciMaTech is a shorthand version of writing science, math and technology if that wasn't obvious.
On the one hand, it'd be rather cool to see a Whooly Mammoth or a Chinese River Dolphin.
No argument here.
But how would we know if they just wouldn't go extinct again?
Exactly! Surely a Whooly Mammoth couldn't ever survive in the relatively hot temperatures of today, what with global warming and all. Not to mention the fact they'd be extremely susceptible to predators, specifically poachers, and who knows how drastic the seemingly subtle changes are to the creatures?
---
Let's take all of these bad chemistry jokes and barium.
But is DeExtinction worthwhile? Should it be done?
Releasing these animals into the ecosystem wouldn't necessarily be useful, but breeding them entirely in captivity for educational purposes, i.e. zoos, wildlife museums, doesn't sound like a complete waste of resources. Yes, it would be expensive at first, but think of how much money the museum/zoo with the world's only living mammoths would make.
An ion was walking down the street and asked a second ion if he'd seen a stray electron floating around because he'd lost it. The second ion said, "No, I haven't. Are you sure you lost it?" "Yes! I'm positive!" replied the first ion.
But is DeExtinction worthwhile? Should it be done?
Come on man...Dodo bird. Don't fall for those misconceptions about them being dumb..they just didn't have any natural predators..so they were just some chill birds
But would a DoDo bird even be a DoDo bird? Creatures are more than their genome. If they're aren't any parent Dodo birds to impart a behavior, is it even a true Dodo bird? Also, how would we know if this Dodo bird could survive in the wild today? Imagine spending the time and money to clone an organism, only to have it become re-extinct fifteen minutes later.
Outside of a strictly laboratory setting, I really question the true practical value of this.
There's a "science jokes" thread where you can place all your chemistry jokes, don't contaminate this one.
If they're aren't any parent Dodo birds to impart a behavior, is it even a true Dodo bird?
Inversing the question, should a dodo not be counted as dodo anymore just because it had no parents to learn from? I think not. (And I expected better from your grammars, Mav :P)
The problem with extinct species is not that it might behave differently; the problem is much more fundamental. First, for many species we probably don't even have the complete DNA code, the basic condition for even thinking of cloning. Then, the mechanics of cloning an animal with extinct DNA might itself have its limits and only give birth to an animal merely similar to the extinct species. Then of course, during pregnancy, the mother does have an influence on the development of the offspring. How do we know that the mammoths released the same kind of morphogenic factors in the same periods than elephants do?
I sort of agree with Maverick, within a scientific context it is certainly very interesting to clone ancient DNA to better understand it, and in cases like the mammoth, its publicistic power would help gaining the funds for it. But reviving species just to dump them out in the world sounds like nonsense. Species come and go, extinction is a normal part of life, and as much as it hurts me each time that I learn of an animal driven to extinction just because of our influence, it kind of sends the wrong message to say that it doesn't matter since we can revive it anyway. The same way, of course, I would argue for the scientific use of such techniques; the diversity of species on earth is subject to change, whether the animal evolved or was cloned from extinct relatives doesn't really matter; the animal is not "wrong" just because it once went extinct. Like in the case of so many animals that would still live today if not for our ancestors.
On "Wait, Wait, Don't Tell Me!" this morning, they had a guy on talking about how they have the DNA from more recently extint creatures. The Tasmanian tiger, the Passenger Pigeon, etc. So while I doubt we'll ever see a Jurassic Park, species that have dies in the last few thousand years have a greater chance of being cloned.
But to meld DNA with morphogenic factors, what about the apparent lack of genetic diversity? Having a population of Dods or Wooly Mammoths that are crippled with a host of genetic diseases seems a waste of time in my opinion.
On an interesting side note, you can use "laying god" to justify and demonize both sides of the argument. I'm sure Bioethicists are having a field day with all this.
Anyway, what are the point of imaginary numbers? When are they used in a real world setting?
Depends how you define "a real world setting", because there's plenty of uses for a bunch of higher math and science things. Off the top of my head, they're used in Fourier analysis, which has applications for both image and sound processing. Also, if you extend the complex number system, you have a handy way to express 3D rotations, which is handy for both computer graphics and computer vision.
Come on man...Dodo bird. Don't fall for those misconceptions about them being dumb..they just didn't have any natural predators..so they were just some chill birds
I would love to see a dodo bird. I wouldn't mind having one as a pet, as long as it just stood around.
