Hall Of Fame
https://www.theguardian.com/science/...ion-scientists
Its a common topic in the papers just now.
Humans shouldnt play creator if you ask me.
Hall Of Fame
Absolutely they should. If we have the ability to create a mammoth then why not. People view these subjects with skepticism and feel there is a moral obligation not to recreate something if nature destroyed it, however in the case of the mammoth, it was hunted to extinction rather than selected for extinction by nature. It will of course be a hybrid of some sort, but we have the scientific ability to do it, so we very well should do it.Originally Posted by Pacman1903
Hall Of Fame
That is why, as it wont be the real thing, it will be a makey uppy new version and I don't se the point
A bit like sevco
Hall Of Fame
This science is scary. You just don't know what they will create next.
Hall Of Fame
Some scientist Pict will try the impossible and re- create an Aberdeen team that wins games. Mind you, they will have to re programme the rest of the league as three legged, hand webbed mo rons. Even then, it will be touch and go, probably winning on goal average.
Hall Of Fame
I'd take that
Hall Of Fame
Goal average was replaced by goal difference in the 70's around the same time your brain was replaced by jelly.
Hall Of Fame
Ill chuck this in here
20 years today since Dolly the Sheep came into being
Hall Of Fame
Is it still alive?
Hall Of Fame
That's an arbitrary distinction and natural selection is a bit of a misnomer. Nature doesn't really 'select' animals for extinction. Animals either live long enough to pass on their genes to offspring or they don't. Simple as that really.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote