Poll: If you could choose?

Page 3 of 4 FirstFirst
1
2
3
4
LastLast
  1. #41
    Merely a Setback Kaleredar's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    phasing...
    Posts
    25,555
    Quote Originally Posted by Atethecat View Post
    You didn't read my post at all did you? Mammoths survived as recently as a few thousand years ago, where the climate wasn't very different. Mammoths also ranged across the globe from Africa to America (Africa was actually warmer in the ice age or Pleistocene). They also survived countless inter-glacial periods, where the polar icecaps had decreased rapidly or even completely melted.
    First off, almost all species we think of as mammoths (i.e, giant furry elephants) died 10,000+ years ago, and in the northern extremes of the world. And yes, the climate, in many of those areas, was much different. Glaciers had begun to recede; the tundra heath the mammoths subsisted on became isolated and fractured as forests became more prominent, making these smaller populations more prone to things like hunters, disease, etc. Regardless, the world that the mammoths had adapted to occupy had begun to vanish. And it has not "reappeared," nor would that be a compelling reason.

    The animals you're describing that "only died out a few thousand years ago" are a select few dwarf mammoth populations that were isolated on islands.

    They also have a very prominent ecological role. They trampled over bushes and trees that made room for grass to grow and their dung fertilized grasses. It's a common fact everybody who's familiar with mammoths knows...
    The animals and plants that currently exist there do so in niches that have adapted for some 10,000 years to exclude the existence of animals like mammoths.
    Last edited by Kaleredar; 2015-04-04 at 08:38 PM.
    “Do not lose time on daily trivialities. Do not dwell on petty detail. For all of these things melt away and drift apart within the obscure traffic of time. Live well and live broadly. You are alive and living now. Now is the envy of all of the dead.” ~ Emily3, World of Tomorrow
    Quote Originally Posted by Wells View Post
    Kaleredar is right...
    Words to live by.

  2. #42
    Quote Originally Posted by Atethecat View Post
    Thank you, I am very delusional aren't I, but delusional doesn't equate to non-intelligent...
    The ability to critically think things through is, however, a sign of intelligence :/ I read somewhere that you are young, so I'm not going to give you too much criticism, but you keep posting the same threads over and over again without ever engaging in much forethought, nor really giving much of a solid defense as to what you are saying.

    I did watch part of the Ted talk you mentioned earlier, the Pleistocene Park experiment in Russia sounds interesting but we could probably replicate it with already existing large herbivores that are suited for northern climates.

  3. #43
    Quote Originally Posted by Celista View Post
    The ability to critically think things through is, however, a sign of intelligence :/ I read somewhere that you are young, so I'm not going to give you too much criticism, but you keep posting the same threads over and over again without ever engaging in much forethought, nor really giving much of a solid defense as to what you are saying.

    I did watch part of the Ted talk you mentioned earlier, the Pleistocene Park experiment in Russia sounds interesting but we could probably replicate it with already existing large herbivores that are suited for northern climates.
    I really don't create the same threads per say, I can agree that I can create threads that are similar to previous topics or that lead into a repetitive topic. That's largely because there aren't enough genuine scientific sites that are easier to use (Ted is complicated and io9 is annoying and slow). I do have the Speculative Evolution Forum I go onto occasionally, but I'm not that welcomed there because of my preference for mammals (there more for dinosaurs and reptiles).

    But besides from that, I accept any form of criticism. Although, I do think I have pretty solid defenses most of the time, I just feel like people ignore them or don't bother to do any research.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Kaleredar View Post
    First off, almost all species we think of as mammoths (i.e, giant furry elephants) died 10,000+ years ago, and in the northern extremes of the world. And yes, the climate, in many of those areas, was much different. Glaciers had begun to recede; the tundra heath the mammoths subsisted on became isolated and fractured as forests became more prominent, making these smaller populations more prone to things like hunters, disease, etc. Regardless, the world that the mammoths had adapted to occupy had begun to vanish. And it has not "reappeared," nor would that be a compelling reason.

    The animals you're describing that "only died out a few thousand years ago" are a select few dwarf mammoth populations that were isolated on islands.



    The animals and plants that currently exist there do so in niches that have adapted for some 10,000 years to exclude the existence of animals like mammoths.
    The last mammoths died off around 3,000-4,000 years ago and made it into the early Holocene (human/modern era). The animals and plants have not evolved without the mammoth or else there wouldn't be an ecological issue with the arctic in Siberia as it is now. Large mammals (bison, mammoth, etc) maintained the grasslands of the arctic.

  4. #44
    Merely a Setback Kaleredar's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    phasing...
    Posts
    25,555
    Quote Originally Posted by Atethecat View Post
    The last mammoths died off around 3,000-4,000 years ago and made it into the early Holocene (human/modern era).
    The only paleontological evidence for the existence of actual mammoths (and not the afformentioned dwarf mammoths) at such a time period is on a single island in the Bering Straight.

    The animals and plants have not evolved without the mammoth or else there wouldn't be an ecological issue with the arctic in Siberia as it is now. Large mammals (bison, mammoth, etc) maintained the grasslands of the arctic.
    The prime issue with the ecology of the arctic is that it's melting a lot earlier and a lot more quickly than it used to. Nothing that mammoths helped abate.
    “Do not lose time on daily trivialities. Do not dwell on petty detail. For all of these things melt away and drift apart within the obscure traffic of time. Live well and live broadly. You are alive and living now. Now is the envy of all of the dead.” ~ Emily3, World of Tomorrow
    Quote Originally Posted by Wells View Post
    Kaleredar is right...
    Words to live by.

  5. #45
    Deleted
    I want a T-Rex n Corgi hybrid.

    Mammoths roaming around in Siberia would be cool, but since it's getting warmer, they'd keep their summer coat for longer, which is shorter, n wouldn't look as furry as in pics, all the time.

  6. #46
    The Insane Acidbaron's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Belgium, Flanders
    Posts
    18,230
    I was wondering what more we could do to ruin our eco system on this planet, and you just found the answer. Let's make pre-historic animals that surely wouldn't ruin the balance

  7. #47
    Herald of the Titans Tuor's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    Valinor
    Posts
    2,888
    Quote Originally Posted by Atethecat View Post
    So what do you guys think about the idea of creating artificially genetically engineered animals that look similar to iconic prehistoric animals such as smilodon (saber-tooth cat), selectively breeding an animal that closely resembles an extinct subspecies (Examples: European Cave Hyena, American Lion, Javan Tiger).
    i would love to see Mamoths.

    Quote Originally Posted by Atethecat View Post
    Currently, scientists are working on and have successfully worked on inserting mammoth genes (adaptive hemoglobin, thick fat, small ears, hair) into an Asian elephant genome. Technically they only have the create an embryo and fertilize a female Asian elephant (their closet relative as mammoths were still elephants). We still haven't figured out a plan to what will happen to these wooly elephants, hopefully they would be created in large numbers and reintroduced to experimental areas in Siberia and possibly the American continents and East Asia.
    Doubt they will ever succed until they manage to find, or recreate a full mamoth DNA sequence, which until this date, they still haven't.

    Whille elephants are the closest relatives to mamoth's, their DNA is quite diferent, to the point that they might never manage to combine it with an elephant. The evidence are African/Asian elephants hybrids, those hybrid cubs always die after a few days, this means that their DNA isn't compatable, and Asian/African elephants are a lot more closer in terms of DNA then mamoth's.

  8. #48
    Banned Hammerfest's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    United States of America
    Posts
    7,995
    I think it would be logical and make sense to first perfect the process of cloning a healthy goat first.

  9. #49
    Uh...sure, I guess, as long as said animals can keep things in balance somehow and not cause problems. If we're just creating/breeding them for the lulz or creating problems (fucking up the eco system somehow or other) by doing so, I don't really see a point.
    Last edited by Ciddy; 2015-04-06 at 02:39 PM.

  10. #50
    Banned Hammerfest's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    United States of America
    Posts
    7,995
    Quote Originally Posted by ro9ue View Post
    Dr. Grant.... my dear Dr. Sattler... Welcome to Jurassic Park.
    More like "Jur-ass-has-had-it Park." Cloning is no where near viable enough yet to start this kind of thing. And there's no dinosaur DNA to work with anyway.

  11. #51
    The Insane Masark's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Canada
    Posts
    17,970
    Quote Originally Posted by Hammerfest View Post
    And there's no dinosaur DNA to work with anyway.
    Not directly, but a lot of it can be found in modern birds. You might not be recreating an actual dinosaur (though by some definitions, modern birds are dinosaurs), but you could possibly get something similar enough for zoos or exotic pets.

    Warning : Above post may contain snark and/or sarcasm. Try reparsing with the /s argument before replying.
    What the world has learned is that America is never more than one election away from losing its goddamned mind
    Quote Originally Posted by Howard Tayler
    Political conservatism is just atavism with extra syllables and a necktie.
    Me on Elite : Dangerous | My WoW characters

  12. #52
    Quote Originally Posted by Tuor View Post
    i would love to see Mamoths.


    Doubt they will ever succed until they manage to find, or recreate a full mamoth DNA sequence, which until this date, they still haven't.

    Whille elephants are the closest relatives to mamoth's, their DNA is quite diferent, to the point that they might never manage to combine it with an elephant. The evidence are African/Asian elephants hybrids, those hybrid cubs always die after a few days, this means that their DNA isn't compatable, and Asian/African elephants are a lot more closer in terms of DNA then mamoth's.
    Mammoths were a sister genus to the Asian elephant.

    - - - Updated - - -

    Quote Originally Posted by Acidbaron View Post
    I was wondering what more we could do to ruin our eco system on this planet, and you just found the answer. Let's make pre-historic animals that surely wouldn't ruin the balance
    I don't support releasing pseudo-dinosaurs into the wild, but mammoths still have plenty of ecosystem.

  13. #53
    Banned Hammerfest's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    United States of America
    Posts
    7,995
    Quote Originally Posted by Masark View Post
    Not directly, but a lot of it can be found in modern birds.
    I don't think so.

  14. #54
    The Patient Tileyfa's Avatar
    15+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Nov 2008
    Location
    Kansas, sadly not Smallville though
    Posts
    226
    If we every actually teraform Mars, we could fill it with all sorts of crazy animals/dinosaurs and since it is currently devoid of life (beyond single cellular stuffs at least), there would be no ecosystem to screw up.

  15. #55
    Titan MerinPally's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Dec 2009
    Location
    Chemistry block.
    Posts
    13,372
    Quote Originally Posted by Hammerfest View Post
    I don't think so.
    What, do you think the DNA code is completely different?

    You're 95-98% the same as a halibut genetically, if we got rid of all the human shit and only activated certain genes by DNA methylation, we could take your DNA and grow a fish. Dinosaurs and birds are far closer cousins genetically than you are with a halibut, however, some nifty science could create a fish from you. Thus relatively, doing a dinosaur from a bird would be easier.

    Both situations are out of reach but relative difficulty says that getting a "dinosaur" from a bird is a lot simpler than many of the tasks that people like to dream up.
    http://eu.battle.net/wow/en/characte...nicus/advanced
    Quote Originally Posted by goblinpaladin View Post
    Also a vegetable is a person.
    Quote Originally Posted by Orlong View Post
    I dont care if they [gays] are allowed to donate [blood], but I think we should have an option to refuse gay blood if we need to receive blood.

  16. #56
    Merely a Setback Kaleredar's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    phasing...
    Posts
    25,555
    Quote Originally Posted by MerinPally View Post
    What, do you think the DNA code is completely different?

    You're 95-98% the same as a halibut genetically, if we got rid of all the human shit and only activated certain genes by DNA methylation, we could take your DNA and grow a fish. Dinosaurs and birds are far closer cousins genetically than you are with a halibut, however, some nifty science could create a fish from you. Thus relatively, doing a dinosaur from a bird would be easier.

    Both situations are out of reach but relative difficulty says that getting a "dinosaur" from a bird is a lot simpler than many of the tasks that people like to dream up.
    "A lot simpler" in that it's a lot simpler to travel to the edge of our galaxy than the edge of the Andromeda galaxy.


    The first problem with selectively cloning a dinosaur is conceptual... namely, that we have no idea what a dinosaur's DNA looked like. We don't know what traits were expressed. So even if we knew how to express those traits selectively, we'd be cobbling together genes into some poor shambling mess we think looks like a dinosaur. Any given bird might be genetically similar to a Tyrannosaurus or Brachiosaurus, but damned if there isn't a pretty big genetic margin of traits being expressed or not expressed there. And we don't know what they are beyond things that fossils can tell us.

    The second problem is of course the fact that such technology far exceeds our current capabilities.
    “Do not lose time on daily trivialities. Do not dwell on petty detail. For all of these things melt away and drift apart within the obscure traffic of time. Live well and live broadly. You are alive and living now. Now is the envy of all of the dead.” ~ Emily3, World of Tomorrow
    Quote Originally Posted by Wells View Post
    Kaleredar is right...
    Words to live by.

  17. #57
    Quote Originally Posted by Kaleredar View Post
    "A lot simpler" in that it's a lot simpler to travel to the edge of our galaxy than the edge of the Andromeda galaxy.


    The first problem with selectively cloning a dinosaur is conceptual... namely, that we have no idea what a dinosaur's DNA looked like. We don't know what traits were expressed. So even if we knew how to express those traits selectively, we'd be cobbling together genes into some poor shambling mess we think looks like a dinosaur. Any given bird might be genetically similar to a Tyrannosaurus or Brachiosaurus, but damned if there isn't a pretty big genetic margin of traits being expressed or not expressed there. And we don't know what they are beyond things that fossils can tell us.

    The second problem is of course the fact that such technology far exceeds our current capabilities.
    Birds are actually dinosaurs (avian dinosaurs). Technically, almost all the characteristic that you'd associate with a therapod dinosaur are technically present, but dormant in most birds. In terms of morphology, Galliformes (chickens, turkeys, pheasants) are closet to therapod dinosaurs.

  18. #58
    The Insane Acidbaron's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Oct 2010
    Location
    Belgium, Flanders
    Posts
    18,230
    Quote Originally Posted by Atethecat View Post

    I don't support releasing pseudo-dinosaurs into the wild, but mammoths still have plenty of ecosystem.

    The thing is, people release animals illegally in other atmospheres all the time to hunt. There will be one person with enough money to find it entertaining enough to do something like that.

  19. #59
    Merely a Setback Kaleredar's Avatar
    10+ Year Old Account
    Join Date
    Sep 2010
    Location
    phasing...
    Posts
    25,555
    Quote Originally Posted by Atethecat View Post
    Birds are actually dinosaurs (avian dinosaurs).
    Yeah I know that. But I dislike having to type "non avian dinosaurs" when everyone knows what you mean you just type "bird" or "dinosaur." That's an unnecessary distinction to make to 99% of the time.

    I mean we're all technically fish as well. But if I'm talking about the ocean-going animals we refer to as "fish," I'm just going to type "fish," not "non-tetrapod gnathostomes."

    Technically, almost all the characteristic that you'd associate with a therapod dinosaur are technically present, but dormant in most birds. In terms of morphology, Galliformes (chickens, turkeys, pheasants) are closet to therapod dinosaurs.
    Galliformes are only close in incidental morphology. They aren't the "direct genetic descendants" any more than ducks or ostriches are.

    And again, making something express teeth, a tail, and "removing" the beak doesn't make it a dromeosaur. That just makes it a bird that you hodge-podged to look like a dinosaur.
    Last edited by Kaleredar; 2015-04-06 at 08:45 PM.
    “Do not lose time on daily trivialities. Do not dwell on petty detail. For all of these things melt away and drift apart within the obscure traffic of time. Live well and live broadly. You are alive and living now. Now is the envy of all of the dead.” ~ Emily3, World of Tomorrow
    Quote Originally Posted by Wells View Post
    Kaleredar is right...
    Words to live by.

  20. #60
    http://www.sierraclub.org/sierra/201...kan-wilderness related to our discussion of reintroducing large land animals to northern climate. The wood bison is north america's largest land animal, so its return to Alaska should be a huge cause for celebration from an ecosystem perspective.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •