scientists resurrect 30000 year old plant

If the dna is mostly viable. It's all a matter of plugging holes and flipping switches til something clicks.

The older the thing is. The harder it is to revive. Since genes also have half lives.
 
And yet the "differences were subtle" between modern varieties of the same plant.
That's somewhat surprising. I thought 30k yrs would've been enough time for some greater differences.
 
30,000 years is still relatively short in the perspective of things. I'm not saying I disagree. But, if there's no real benefit to change. An organism will practically stay unchanged for as long as is viable.
 
Nugachino said:
30,000 years is still relatively short in the perspective of things. I'm not saying I disagree. But, if there's no real benefit to change. An organism will practically stay unchanged for as long as is viable.
Click to expand...
I thought about that briefly, after I posted. I'm thinking in terms of cannabis as a proxy, which isn't fair, since it has had plenty of help from human hands; roses and tomatoes, too.
 
Agreed. Any plant we value for whatever reason. Has had sufficient nudging along in a beneficial direction... Well. At least for us it has.
 
Yeah right!
Just like earth has 4,54 billions of years old with a margin for error of 50 millions years..
It's all very logical, they say
 
That dude with the beans from 85 should share some with me. I'd love to grow something from when I came about.
 
cannabineer said:
That is the typical answer of a liar. No links (to primary, peer-reviewed sources) = no argument.
Click to expand...

I was giving u an opportunity to not be embarrassed by your Naturalism and Evolution theories, but since u r too lazy to make research i will give u some hints:
-There r none Fossils records from the transitions between species, there should be as much as fossils from the actual species
-Latest Dna tests have shown that apes have the double of Y chromosome than men, and generally apes and men chromosomes r remarkably divergent and too different for the ape to man evolution
- The Law of Biogenesis (the Law of Life Beginnings) accurately states that life only comes from life, and that life only reproduces after its own kind. Life cannot spontaneously generate and life forms do not change from one kind into another kind
-How can u explain symbiosis ( like the bee/flower relation, they need each other to survive)?
-Where r the "missing links"?
-If we came from apes why they still exist today?

And the list goes on and on...
 
Nugachino said:
Mate. I don't know what you think I'll find that will convince me the earth is a whole lot younger than we're being told. But, if it's creationist crap. I'm not interested.
Click to expand...
Let me guess u already have everything figured out, have some respect for God and his creation, even though u dont believe him u shouldnt say that is crap.
The continents erode too quickly for the Earth to be any older than 15-16 million years, so its impossible to be 4.5billion years old!
 
Leandrobcool said:
I was giving u an opportunity to not be embarrassed by your Naturalism and Evolution theories, but since u r too lazy to make research i will give u some hints:
-There r none Fossils records from the transitions between species, there should be as much as fossils from the actual species
-Latest Dna tests have shown that apes have the double of Y chromosome than men, and generally apes and men chromosomes r remarkably divergent and too different for the ape to man evolution
- The Law of Biogenesis (the Law of Life Beginnings) accurately states that life only comes from life, and that life only reproduces after its own kind. Life cannot spontaneously generate and life forms do not change from one kind into another kind
-How can u explain symbiosis ( like the bee/flower relation, they need each other to survive)?
-Where r the "missing links"?
-If we came from apes why they still exist today?

And the list goes on and on...
Click to expand...

I will not discuss articles of faith with an illiterate with a religious axe to grind. If you "do your research" and restrict yourself to the "teachings" of people compelled by the very same weaponized meme as you: "this is the TRUTH and any idea that opposes it is to be eradicated as Evil" you will of course never be exposed to Wrong Ideas. Be honest about your being utterly uninterested in discourse. You're preaching and not even admitting it. That says something utterly condemning about the basic mindset your war-meme demands of you: one of deliberate rejection of plain fact. The above unreferenced* word salad, heavily garnished with fallacious logic, demonstrates the point to those with eyes to see and ears to hear.

*References from the peer-reviewed primary literature are valid here. Books that do not need peer review as a condition of publication are uniformly rejected. This means the necessary info is probably not on the public Web. So your exhortation to "do one's research" without disclosing that fact is an act of deceit. Thus my calling you a likely liar is no insult: it is a description.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top