• Hemingways_Shotgun@lemmy.ca
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    72
    arrow-down
    3
    ·
    6 days ago

    Can I be nit-picky here for a second?

    If you’re genetically modifying an elephant for cold tolerance and fur growth, you’re not “bring a mammoth back from extinction”, you’re creating a furry elephant. It may look somewhat like a mammoth, but genetically it’s not a mammoth at all.

    It’s like saying you can genetically modify a homo-sapien to have a pronounced brow ridge and a hairier back and say that you’ve brought the neandertal back from extinction. No you haven’t, you’ve just designed a human who looks different.

    • go $fsck yourself@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      22
      ·
      6 days ago

      Well, the goal isn’t to just create woolly mammoth-lile creatures by copying characteristics. The goal is to recreate the genome from what genome data we have into a living creature.

      It’s not like they are trying to create a sweded version, but take a creature that is already close and change the genes to match.

      At least, that’s how I understood it based on the article.

    • Silic0n_Alph4@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      10
      ·
      6 days ago

      And next you’ll say that genetically-modified ears aren’t enough to make catgirls real either 😩

      Can we let this one go? Not for science, not for accuracy, but for the prospect of having catgirls in our lifetimes, at least?