QUOTE (Saigo_no_gakusha @ Aug 21 2008, 01:34 AM)Near impossible actually. There are certain nucleotide bonds which are more likely to break than others. In a living cell these breaks are easily repaired, but in dead tissue; not a chance. Not to mention, what source would you use ?
If your talking about dinosaurs then I agree with you.
That is close to impossible (despite what Jurassic Park says). It maybe a good film but some of its science is rather suspect. So we can't draw to many things from the film. If it means anything Jurassic Park is probably more scientifically accurate than Armageddon... Now that's bad! I generally hesitate to say something impossible. As they say, never say never! Hence my conservative statement.
On a more serious note I think it would be possible to bring back extinct species if they died out 20 years ago. If they could recover blood/tissue samples from somewhere then then it is very possible.
QUOTE (Saigo_no_gakusha)Are you sure that they didn't just reactivate the telomerase gene during the cellular reset process.
I don't know what the scientists did exactly when cloning the cattle. The basic gist was this. They took some stem cells from the cattle and when they fused it with an egg the length of telomeres actually increased. Why this happened is a mystery but happen it did!
QUOTE (Saigo_no_gakusha)In other words, as long as this bacteria is provided with this chemical it is happy and can reproduce and grow and survive. But the moment it leaves your care, and is therby deprived of the chemical, it dies. Or in the case of the oil spill cleaner, as soon as it has consumed the oil spill, it either starves to death, or gets the signal to die. If you have more than one signal that will do this, it becomes so difficult to escape that it approaches statistical impossibility.
I suppose if we put the controls as you suggested it is feasible. Then again how easy this is, is difficult to tell. I'm sure this technology (like nanotechnology) is still at it's infancy. So it's difficult to predict anything with any accuracy. Only time will tell if this is possible. Finally enough this is the same sort of stuff people say nanotechnology will be used for.
QUOTE (Saigo_no_gakusha)The edible parts of most crops are based on reproduction (seeds, fruits, vegetables etc are all reproductive parts), while most GM modifications are designed to enhance the organisms ability to grow faster with less waste, or resist problem diseases. By the way, breeding for a certain trait is GM, it just is done the old fashioned way, and takes a great deal more time.
The difference between convention breeding (what they've done for hundres of years) and GM foods is GM food have their DNA altered through genetic engineering NOT breeding. So it's different and has only started in the late 20th century.
QUOTE (Saigo_no_gakusha)Hmm, I guess I forgot to mention that in my first post. When you modify an exisiting animal you can change or modify it unintentionally. For example, changing a grain to make it resistant to a particular disease by producing a toxin that is effective against the disease, now has the potential to make the food possibly unedible, or at least more prone to allergic or negative reactions in the animal which is destined to eat it.
Also, inserting a gene into an existing genome is not as easy as it sounds.
If we have problems predicting the change of one gene. How is making an entire organism going to be simpler? If we're messing with a whole genome there are bound to be unpredictable effects. I believe the current problems of genetically modified bacteria will only be exacerbated if we started making new organisms.
Hmm perhaps we should carry on this discussion in a separate thread. At the moment it isn't really relevant to cloning (as interesting as it is). Why don't you open a separate thread on this topic and make the points you listed?
If your talking about dinosaurs then I agree with you.
On a more serious note I think it would be possible to bring back extinct species if they died out 20 years ago. If they could recover blood/tissue samples from somewhere then then it is very possible.
QUOTE (Saigo_no_gakusha)Are you sure that they didn't just reactivate the telomerase gene during the cellular reset process.
I don't know what the scientists did exactly when cloning the cattle. The basic gist was this. They took some stem cells from the cattle and when they fused it with an egg the length of telomeres actually increased. Why this happened is a mystery but happen it did!
QUOTE (Saigo_no_gakusha)In other words, as long as this bacteria is provided with this chemical it is happy and can reproduce and grow and survive. But the moment it leaves your care, and is therby deprived of the chemical, it dies. Or in the case of the oil spill cleaner, as soon as it has consumed the oil spill, it either starves to death, or gets the signal to die. If you have more than one signal that will do this, it becomes so difficult to escape that it approaches statistical impossibility.
I suppose if we put the controls as you suggested it is feasible. Then again how easy this is, is difficult to tell. I'm sure this technology (like nanotechnology) is still at it's infancy. So it's difficult to predict anything with any accuracy. Only time will tell if this is possible. Finally enough this is the same sort of stuff people say nanotechnology will be used for.
QUOTE (Saigo_no_gakusha)The edible parts of most crops are based on reproduction (seeds, fruits, vegetables etc are all reproductive parts), while most GM modifications are designed to enhance the organisms ability to grow faster with less waste, or resist problem diseases. By the way, breeding for a certain trait is GM, it just is done the old fashioned way, and takes a great deal more time.
The difference between convention breeding (what they've done for hundres of years) and GM foods is GM food have their DNA altered through genetic engineering NOT breeding. So it's different and has only started in the late 20th century.
QUOTE (Saigo_no_gakusha)Hmm, I guess I forgot to mention that in my first post. When you modify an exisiting animal you can change or modify it unintentionally. For example, changing a grain to make it resistant to a particular disease by producing a toxin that is effective against the disease, now has the potential to make the food possibly unedible, or at least more prone to allergic or negative reactions in the animal which is destined to eat it.
Also, inserting a gene into an existing genome is not as easy as it sounds.
If we have problems predicting the change of one gene. How is making an entire organism going to be simpler? If we're messing with a whole genome there are bound to be unpredictable effects. I believe the current problems of genetically modified bacteria will only be exacerbated if we started making new organisms.
Hmm perhaps we should carry on this discussion in a separate thread. At the moment it isn't really relevant to cloning (as interesting as it is). Why don't you open a separate thread on this topic and make the points you listed?
