Will they be able to resurrect Mammoths?

[RonO]

https://www.cnn.com/2021/09/13/world/woolly-mammoth-resurrect-deextinction-scn/index.html

Likely not. Mammoths are the result of millions of years of evolution
separating them from their closest living relatives. There are millions
of differences in the genomes of Mammoths compared to extant elephants.
Most of these differences likely have very little to do with what makes
a Mammoth, but these guys are trying to figure out the minimal number of
changes that they need to make in order to make a mammoth. They claim
to have around 50 changes that they think will get an Asian elephant to
survive in the Arctic. My guess is that they will need 50 changes just
to replicate the shaggy coat. There may be just a few mutations that
could cause meter long fur to grow, but the wooly mammoth had a couple
million years of intermittent ice ages to fine tune their wooly coat.
You need modifiers to maintain the coat (oil glands, grooming?), and
grow additional insulating fibers. You need to adapt the skin to being
able to be covered by such a massive coat. You need to adapt to
surviving with the commensal microbes that will grow in such a coat.
You need the genes that will allow shedding with the seasons.

It doesn't seem like these guys have thought this through very much at
all. They likely don't even know what most of the variants do, so how
are they going to pick which ones are important enough to change in an
Asian Elephant genome?

The pig model for making organs for humans was given where they have
made 42 changes to the pig genome to make the tissue compatible for
humans. This is an example where they knew the blood group proteins and
compatibility genes that they wanted to swap over to make tissue
matches. It is not turning a pig into a human. The pig with the
GalSafe pig has one of these changes and knocks out the gene for
galactoxyltransferase that puts a sugar that humans do not glycosylate
their proteins with. Pig proteins with the normal pig glycoproteins
would not just be allergens, but identified as foreign proteins because
humans do not have that sugar on their proteins.

A lot of medical research has gone into figuring out why we reject
transplanted organs. About zero research has gone into what makes a
mammoth a mammoth.

They likely need more than 15 million dollars in order to figure out
what genes they want to transfer, and what regulatory sequences that
they need to change.

A while ago they had an article about a poor sheep found wandering in
the Outback, and likely had not been sheared for years. The poor thing
had survived by chewing away enough hair to keep it's head clear of the
mass. You don't just want to make meter long hair. The Mammoth coat
probably had some interesting dynamics and had to change between summer
and winter. Musk Ox coats are complex in make up and are shed and have
to regrow every year. Some of their hair grows to 24 inches in length.
What do you need to grow hair a meter in length every year?

Ron Okimoto

[Dale]

On 9/19/2021 7:49 AM, RonO wrote:
> ... Likely not. ...

if there is DNA, how about 3D printing?


--
Mystery? -> https://www.dalekelly.org/

[jillery]

My inpression is, the cited speculations are similar to Jack Horner's
suggestion of genetically turning chickens into dinosaurs. The fact
is, in addition to all the genetic, anatomical, and physiological
differences you mention above, there are also differences in
gestational and post-natal development mediated by the mother and the
herd. Given all the unknowns, of unknown significance, we could at
best genetically modify organisms to superficially resemble mammoths.

--
You're entitled to your own opinions.
You're not entitled to your own facts.

[RonO]

The issues with dinos and birds is greater. For Mammoths you only have
to compensate for changes that have occurred within the last 3 to 5
million years. For birds and Dinos you are talking about a separation
of over 100 million years. The physiology that you talk about has
changed. We'd have to see how much embryonic development in the egg has
changed because development is still in a hard shelled egg. It is
amazing how distant hybrids can be made among birds compared to mammals.
Turkeys and chickens and Coturnix quail and chicken hybrids are
possible and the separation for both pairs is around 40 million years.
My guess is that this is due to developmental constraints in the egg.
Mammals have fewer such constraints on development.

There is still a lot that they are not considering for their project.

Ron Okimoto

[RonO]

On 9/19/2021 7:55 AM, Dale wrote:
> On 9/19/2021 7:49 AM, RonO wrote:
>> ... Likely not. ...
>
> if there is DNA, how about 3D printing?
>
>

The guys that told you that DNA was like computer coding lied to you.

3D printing is not an option.

We do have ink jet printing technology to make DNA any sequence that you
want, but there is a size limit and you end up trying to piece short
sequences together. People still do it for gene sized bits of DNA.

Ron Okimoto

[jillery]

I only now recognized my unintended non-sequitur, of turning chickens
into dinosaurs; chickens are already dinosaurs, as are all birds.
Horner's idea is to activate dinosaur genes in chickens, specifically
for teeth and tails. It's unclear if the mammoth scientists intend a
similar strategy, to activate mammoth genes in Asian elephants.

[RonO]

They have mammoth genomes, so they should know how much mammoth and
mastodon DNA is in the extant species. Before we had ancient DNA there
was speculation that Asian elephants had mammoth DNA through
hybridization because they have a more similar body shape and head shape
than African elephants. Some individuals have the sloping back and the
mammoth back bump. It might be that there are genes already there to
work with in terms of breeding a more mammoth like Asian elephant.

Ron Okimoto

[Bob Casanova]

On Sun, 19 Sep 2021 06:49:49 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by RonO <roki...@cox.net>:

While everything you said was almost certainly true, it was
also (apparently, based on the article) irrelevant. To
quote:

"The goal isn't to clone a mammoth -- the DNA that
scientists have managed to extract from woolly mammoth
remains frozen in permafrost is far too fragmented and
degraded -- but to create, through genetic engineering, a
living, walking elephant-mammoth hybrid that would be
visually indistinguishable from its extinct forerunner."

IOW, they want to create a simulation, with only the
physical appearance of the original.
>
--

Bob C.

"The most exciting phrase to hear in science,
the one that heralds new discoveries, is not
'Eureka!' but 'That's funny...'"

- Isaac Asimov

[Bob Casanova]

On Sun, 19 Sep 2021 09:48:02 -0400, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>:

....which is exactly what the article stated they are
attempting.

[Bob Casanova]

On Sun, 19 Sep 2021 08:55:03 -0400, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by Dale <da...@dalekelly.org>:

>On 9/19/2021 7:49 AM, RonO wrote:
>> ... Likely not. ...
>
>if there is DNA, how about 3D printing?
>

We can always count on Dale...

[Dale]

yesterday I was watching the splash down of the space tour

news men said that 3D printing of organs have to be done in space due to
gravity

organs can be done

if you can do an organ how far off are the Mammoths you mentioned?

[RonO]

You are wrong. My comments had nothing to do with cloning. I was
specifically discussing their claims about changing a few genes to make
a mammoth. At this time they don't even know what genes that they
should change.

There may be some major mutations that they can identify in relevant
genes that may be doing something relevant, but the way that these
systems seem to work is that a major change might occur, but then a
bunch of modifiers are selected for to make that change more of an
advantage. Just making the hair grow longer isn't enough. You have to
make the hair stronger to survive a 3 foot length. Those are just what
they call the guard hairs, but the insulating hairs have to evolve to be
hollow etc.

So a major change ends up with a lot of little changes to make it work
for the mammoth. Do Asian elephants shed their hair with the season? I
don't know what they do with what hair that they have.

Ron Okimoto

Ron Okimoto

[RonO]

Look up how 3D tissue printing works. You need living cells and a
matrix to put down in a pattern. You also have to create the cell types
from existing tissue or stem cells. There isn't just one type of cell
in an organ like a kidney. There are no living mammoth cells.

Ron Okimoto

[Dale]

when is DNA not "living" ?

[Bob Casanova]

On Sun, 19 Sep 2021 12:04:24 -0500, the following appeared

No, I'm not.

>
>My comments had nothing to do with cloning.
>

I said nothing about cloning; that was in the quote from the
article. Read my final statement again, the one beginning
"IOW..."; the part about "only the physical appearance" is a
bit relevant.

>
> I was
>specifically discussing their claims about changing a few genes to make
>a mammoth. At this time they don't even know what genes that they
>should change.
>

And my point was that they're not trying to "make a
mammoth", as the article clearly stated. They're trying to
use *some* mammoth DNA (possibly; that wasn't entirely
clear) to breed a creature that will *look like* a mammoth.

>
>There may be some major mutations that they can identify in relevant
>genes that may be doing something relevant, but the way that these
>systems seem to work is that a major change might occur, but then a
>bunch of modifiers are selected for to make that change more of an
>advantage. Just making the hair grow longer isn't enough. You have to
>make the hair stronger to survive a 3 foot length. Those are just what
>they call the guard hairs, but the insulating hairs have to evolve to be
>hollow etc.
>
>So a major change ends up with a lot of little changes to make it work
>for the mammoth. Do Asian elephants shed their hair with the season? I
>don't know what they do with what hair that they have.
>

....which again has nothing to do with the objective stated
in the article.

[DB Cates]

Which makes me wonder 'to what purpose'? And $15 mil still probably not
enough to sustain that limited objective. But then my cynicism kicks in
and I think;'Still, ...$15 mil, I wonder how much of that is to be used
for substantial salaries, expenses, and/or consulting fees'.



--
--
Don Cates ("he's a cunning rascal" PN)

[Dale]

add its mRNA?

[Wolffan]

On 2021 Sep 19, DB Cates wrote
(in article <si8auq$65c$1...@solani.org>):

perhaps they want to make a live-action, non-cgi, version of ‘Ice
Age’https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ice_Age_(2002_film) . They’ll also need
a sabre-tooth cat, a ground sloth, and a bunch more.

> And $15 mil still probably not
> enough to sustain that limited objective.

$15 mill is enough to write the ’treatment’ for the flick and see if it
can get green-lighted for production. Then the spend the _real_ money.

Of course, they could do things the easy way: see Harry Harrison’s ’The
Technicolor Time Machine’.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Technicolor_Time_Machine I particularly
like the end of that book. It’s a religious story which just can’t miss!

> But then my cynicism kicks in
> and I think;'Still, ...$15 mil, I wonder how much of that is to be used
> for substantial salaries, expenses, and/or consulting fees’.

all of it

[RonO]

Cloning is in the quote that you put up.

>>
>> I was
>> specifically discussing their claims about changing a few genes to make
>> a mammoth. At this time they don't even know what genes that they
>> should change.
>>
> And my point was that they're not trying to "make a
> mammoth", as the article clearly stated. They're trying to
> use *some* mammoth DNA (possibly; that wasn't entirely
> clear) to breed a creature that will *look like* a mammoth.

And my point is that I never claimed that they were trying to create a
Mammoth in the way that you are talking about. I specifically was
discussing their notion that they could change a few genes and create
something that could live in the arctic.

>>
>> There may be some major mutations that they can identify in relevant
>> genes that may be doing something relevant, but the way that these
>> systems seem to work is that a major change might occur, but then a
>> bunch of modifiers are selected for to make that change more of an
>> advantage. Just making the hair grow longer isn't enough. You have to
>> make the hair stronger to survive a 3 foot length. Those are just what
>> they call the guard hairs, but the insulating hairs have to evolve to be
>> hollow etc.
>>
>> So a major change ends up with a lot of little changes to make it work
>> for the mammoth. Do Asian elephants shed their hair with the season? I
>> don't know what they do with what hair that they have.
>>
> ....which again has nothing to do with the objective stated
> in the article.
>>

Which has everything to do with the objective stated in the article.
They think that they can change a few genes and get some animal to
survive in arctic conditions. What do you think that I was talking about?

You might change a few genes, but you aren't going to get something
adapted to the environment that mammoths lived in.

Ron Okimoto

[RonO]

No one can be this mentally incompetent, and still type on a keyboard,
so you might as well stop pretending.

Ron Okimoto

[Bob Casanova]

On Sun, 19 Sep 2021 16:43:58 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by DB Cates
<cate...@hotmail.com.invalid>:

Damfino what the purpose might be; possibly just to be able
to say they could? As long as someone is willing to pay, and
it doesn't come out of tax revenue, no harm, no foul.

[Bob Casanova]

On Sun, 19 Sep 2021 18:17:07 -0500, the following appeared

Yes, as I said. Perhaps you should complain to the
authors...

>
>>>
>>> I was
>>> specifically discussing their claims about changing a few genes to make
>>> a mammoth. At this time they don't even know what genes that they
>>> should change.
>>>
>> And my point was that they're not trying to "make a
>> mammoth", as the article clearly stated. They're trying to
>> use *some* mammoth DNA (possibly; that wasn't entirely
>> clear) to breed a creature that will *look like* a mammoth.
>
>And my point is that I never claimed that they were trying to create a
>Mammoth in the way that you are talking about. I specifically was
>discussing their notion that they could change a few genes and create
>something that could live in the arctic.
>

"The way I'm talking about" is as I noted , and as the
article stated. Did you even read the damned thing?

>>>
>>> There may be some major mutations that they can identify in relevant
>>> genes that may be doing something relevant, but the way that these
>>> systems seem to work is that a major change might occur, but then a
>>> bunch of modifiers are selected for to make that change more of an
>>> advantage. Just making the hair grow longer isn't enough. You have to
>>> make the hair stronger to survive a 3 foot length. Those are just what
>>> they call the guard hairs, but the insulating hairs have to evolve to be
>>> hollow etc.
>>>
>>> So a major change ends up with a lot of little changes to make it work
>>> for the mammoth. Do Asian elephants shed their hair with the season? I
>>> don't know what they do with what hair that they have.
>>>
>> ....which again has nothing to do with the objective stated
>> in the article.
>>>
>
>Which has everything to do with the objective stated in the article.
>

Nope. Once more, the article stated, as I quoted above and
oyu apparently missed, that the objective is "to create,

through genetic engineering, a living, walking

elephant-mammoth hybrid that would be VISUALLY
INDISTINGUISHABLE from its extinct forerunner."

Get it? Nothing about physically identical, or even similar,
except for the visual aspect.

>
>They think that they can change a few genes and get some animal to
>survive in arctic conditions. What do you think that I was talking about?
>

Nothing was said in the article about being able to survive
in arctic conditions; that's strictly your take. Perhaps you
should read what they wrote, and stop adding your
interpretations to it. And please note that if it's derived
from the "...help restore the fragile Arctic tundra
ecosystem" comment, that's quite a stretch, especially since
the article is from CNN, a source not especially known for
competent reporting.

>
>You might change a few genes, but you aren't going to get something
>adapted to the environment that mammoths lived in.
>

Please cite *from the article* where that specific goal was
stated by other than CNN, the news equivalent of Lucas
Electrics, the "Prince of Darkness". I can wait.

[Bob Casanova]

On Sun, 19 Sep 2021 18:31:32 -0500, the following appeared

in talk.origins, posted by RonO <roki...@cox.net>:

Oh ye of little faith...

[broger...@gmail.com]

You just don't get it. Why are you in denial? Beats me why you're running away. Not sure whether you're a rube or a perp. Obviously the authors meant they wanted to make a hybrid that could survive in the Arctic. If they didn't actually say that in the article, it's because it's so obvious that they didn't think they needed to state it explicitly. Why can nobody on TO understand that you have to read between the lines to know what the authors really meant to say? - You can't just read the article and take them at their word.

[RonO]

Do you know what was under discussion? What did I actually write, and
what was the issue?

You don't seem to know that.

>>
>>>>
>>>> I was
>>>> specifically discussing their claims about changing a few genes to make
>>>> a mammoth. At this time they don't even know what genes that they
>>>> should change.
>>>>
>>> And my point was that they're not trying to "make a
>>> mammoth", as the article clearly stated. They're trying to
>>> use *some* mammoth DNA (possibly; that wasn't entirely
>>> clear) to breed a creature that will *look like* a mammoth.
>>
>> And my point is that I never claimed that they were trying to create a
>> Mammoth in the way that you are talking about. I specifically was
>> discussing their notion that they could change a few genes and create
>> something that could live in the arctic.
>>
> "The way I'm talking about" is as I noted , and as the
> article stated. Did you even read the damned thing?

My examples came from the article. Do you understand what I wrote in
the initial post?

>>>>
>>>> There may be some major mutations that they can identify in relevant
>>>> genes that may be doing something relevant, but the way that these
>>>> systems seem to work is that a major change might occur, but then a
>>>> bunch of modifiers are selected for to make that change more of an
>>>> advantage. Just making the hair grow longer isn't enough. You have to
>>>> make the hair stronger to survive a 3 foot length. Those are just what
>>>> they call the guard hairs, but the insulating hairs have to evolve to be
>>>> hollow etc.
>>>>
>>>> So a major change ends up with a lot of little changes to make it work
>>>> for the mammoth. Do Asian elephants shed their hair with the season? I
>>>> don't know what they do with what hair that they have.
>>>>
>>> ....which again has nothing to do with the objective stated
>>> in the article.
>>>>
>>
>> Which has everything to do with the objective stated in the article.
>>
> Nope. Once more, the article stated, as I quoted above and
> oyu apparently missed, that the objective is "to create,
> through genetic engineering, a living, walking
> elephant-mammoth hybrid that would be VISUALLY
> INDISTINGUISHABLE from its extinct forerunner."
>
> Get it? Nothing about physically identical, or even similar,
> except for the visual aspect.

How did they claim to do that? My examples came from the paper. I am
the one that is claiming that they are not going to get there doing what
they claim to want to do. Did you miss that part of what I wrote? The
guy was really claiming that he could just change a few genes and get
something that could survive in the arctic. The phenotypes were
superficial. He talked about hair a meter in length when he should have
been thinking about everything to support that guard hair, and what it
covered in terms of the hollow insulating hairs.

>>
>> They think that they can change a few genes and get some animal to
>> survive in arctic conditions. What do you think that I was talking about?
>>
> Nothing was said in the article about being able to survive
> in arctic conditions; that's strictly your take. Perhaps you
> should read what they wrote, and stop adding your
> interpretations to it. And please note that if it's derived
> from the "...help restore the fragile Arctic tundra
> ecosystem" comment, that's quite a stretch, especially since
> the article is from CNN, a source not especially known for
> competent reporting.

QUOTE:
Geneticists, led by Harvard Medical School's George Church, aim to bring
the woolly mammoth, which disappeared 4,000 years ago, back to life,
imagining a future where the tusked ice age giant is restored to its
natural habitat.
END QUOTE:

QUOTE:
Proponents say bringing back the mammoth in an altered form could help
restore the fragile Arctic tundra ecosystem, combat the climate crisis,
and preserve the endangered Asian elephant, to whom the woolly mammoth
is most closely related. However, it's a bold plan fraught with ethical
issues.
END QUOTE:

QUOTE:
The research team has analyzed the genomes of 23 living elephant species
and extinct mammoths, Church said. The scientists believe they will need
to simultaneously program "upward of 50 changes" to the genetic code of
the Asian elephant to give it the traits necessary to survive and thrive
in the Arctic.
EMD QUOTE:

That should be enough.

>>
>> You might change a few genes, but you aren't going to get something
>> adapted to the environment that mammoths lived in.
>>
> Please cite *from the article* where that specific goal was
> stated by other than CNN, the news equivalent of Lucas
> Electrics, the "Prince of Darkness". I can wait.
>>

Who cares. It was stated. Do you think that they quoted Church in an
inappropriate context? Where would CNN get the idea that Church's group
wanted to restore the animal to the Arctic? Isn't that something that
you should demonstrate if you think that is the case?

Do you know what I was discussing in my first post?

Ron Okimoto

[RonO]

He can come up with partial sentences. My take is that he is just
pretending. Look how many threads that he derails with his bogus
behavior. That likely is not accident. What he doesn't want to discuss
doesn't get discussed.

Ron Okimoto
>>

[Bob Casanova]

On Sun, 19 Sep 2021 17:29:29 -0700 (PDT), the following
appeared in talk.origins, posted by "broger...@gmail.com"
<broger...@gmail.com>:

That's fair; beats me why you consider that repeatedly
refuting, via the actual content of the article, with direct
quotes in support, constitutes "running away", but I'm
obviously deficient.

>
> Not sure whether you're a rube or a perp. Obviously the authors meant they wanted to make a hybrid that could survive in the Arctic.
>

Oh, obviously; nothing else is remotely possible. Uh-huh...

>
> If they didn't actually say that in the article, it's because it's so obvious that they didn't think they needed to state it explicitly. Why can nobody on TO understand that you have to read between the lines to know what the authors really meant to say? - You can't just read the article and take them at their word.
>

OK, I guess you got me. I'm going to assume that was
intended as sarcasm. If so, congrats; you had me going.

[DB Cates]

Aww, it's so cute that you think the taxpayer isn't going to get dinged
some way or another. There are people with money, accountants, and
lawyers involved.

[Bob Casanova]

On Sun, 19 Sep 2021 19:51:20 -0500, the following appeared

Could well be, but I've seen similar in which the poster
really *was* that clueless. IOW, you could be giving undue
credit.

[Bob Casanova]

On Sun, 19 Sep 2021 19:48:34 -0500, the following appeared

It seems to all be preserved above.

>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> I was
>>>>> specifically discussing their claims about changing a few genes to make
>>>>> a mammoth. At this time they don't even know what genes that they
>>>>> should change.
>>>>>
>>>> And my point was that they're not trying to "make a
>>>> mammoth", as the article clearly stated. They're trying to
>>>> use *some* mammoth DNA (possibly; that wasn't entirely
>>>> clear) to breed a creature that will *look like* a mammoth.
>>>
>>> And my point is that I never claimed that they were trying to create a
>>> Mammoth in the way that you are talking about. I specifically was
>>> discussing their notion that they could change a few genes and create
>>> something that could live in the arctic.
>>>
>> "The way I'm talking about" is as I noted , and as the
>> article stated. Did you even read the damned thing?
>
>My examples came from the article. Do you understand what I wrote in
>the initial post?
>

Yep, you assumed they intended to re-create mammoths. They
seem to disagree.

You seem unable to address the single quote I provided in
which they state what they intend to accomplish. Since it
seems to have missed you, here it is again:

"...to create, through genetic engineering, a living,

walking elephant-mammoth hybrid that would be VISUALLY

INDISTINGUISHABLE [emphasis added] from its extinct
forerunner."

IOW, *how* they intend to do this is irrelevant, since they
don't intend to re-create actual mammoths, but a simulation
with *some* similar traits.

>
>>>
>>> You might change a few genes, but you aren't going to get something
>>> adapted to the environment that mammoths lived in.
>>>
>> Please cite *from the article* where that specific goal was
>> stated by other than CNN, the news equivalent of Lucas
>> Electrics, the "Prince of Darkness". I can wait.
>>>
>
>Who cares. It was stated. Do you think that they quoted Church in an
>inappropriate context? Where would CNN get the idea that Church's group
>wanted to restore the animal to the Arctic? Isn't that something that
>you should demonstrate if you think that is the case?
>

OK; I'll give you that an Arctic-capable animal is a goal.
That has nothing to do with your objections regarding a
"rewind" of the genome changes leading from mammoths to
current elephants.

>
>Do you know what I was discussing in my first post?
>

Do you know what I wrote, and why?

[Glenn]

On Sunday, September 19, 2021 at 4:50:10 AM UTC-7, Ron O wrote:
> https://www.cnn.com/2021/09/13/world/woolly-mammoth-resurrect-deextinction-scn/index.html
>
> Likely not. Mammoths are the result of millions of years of evolution
> separating them from their closest living relatives. There are millions
> of differences in the genomes of Mammoths compared to extant elephants.
> Most of these differences likely have very little to do with what makes
> a Mammoth, but these guys are trying to figure out the minimal number of
> changes that they need to make in order to make a mammoth.

Nope, a "elephant-mammoth hybrid".

[Bob Casanova]

On Sun, 19 Sep 2021 21:21:56 -0500, the following appeared

Think of it as wishful thinking, not expectation.

[jillery]

Post your working definition of "living".

--
You're entitled to your own opinions.
You're not entitled to your own facts.

[jillery]

On Sun, 19 Sep 2021 16:43:58 -0500, DB Cates
<cate...@hotmail.com.invalid> wrote:

>On 2021-09-19 4:16 PM, Bob Casanova wrote:
>> On Sun, 19 Sep 2021 12:04:24 -0500, the following appeared
>> in talk.origins, posted by RonO <roki...@cox.net>:

[...]

>>> So a major change ends up with a lot of little changes to make it work
>>> for the mammoth. Do Asian elephants shed their hair with the season? I
>>> don't know what they do with what hair that they have.
>>>
>> ....which again has nothing to do with the objective stated
>> in the article.
>>>
>Which makes me wonder 'to what purpose'? And $15 mil still probably not
>enough to sustain that limited objective. But then my cynicism kicks in
>and I think;'Still, ...$15 mil, I wonder how much of that is to be used
>for substantial salaries, expenses, and/or consulting fees'.

The cited article identifed several "purposes"

*******************************

Geneticists, led by Harvard Medical School's George Church, aim to
bring the woolly mammoth, which disappeared 4,000 years ago, back to
life, imagining a future where the tusked ice age giant is restored to
its natural habitat.

*********************************

and

*********************************

Proponents say bringing back the mammoth in an altered form could help
restore the fragile Arctic tundra ecosystem, combat the climate
crisis, and preserve the endangered Asian elephant, to whom the woolly
mammoth is most closely related.

*********************************

and

********************************

The goal isn't to clone a mammoth -- the DNA that scientists have
managed to extract from woolly mammoth remains frozen in permafrost is
far too fragmented and degraded -- but to create, through genetic
engineering, a living, walking elephant-mammoth hybrid that would be
visually indistinguishable from its extinct forerunner.

********************************

It's possible those aren't their real reasons, but are what they say
in press releases. My impression is their intent is analogous to that
of Edmund Hillary and Tenzig Norgay climbing Everest; because they
can.

[jillery]

On Sun, 19 Sep 2021 17:06:33 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>

Yet another statement from Bob "I don't do politics" Casanova. Since
you have such a low opinion of CNN, there's not much point to citing
an article from CNN. There are other sources which reported on the
same new item. Here's one which should inspire less cynicism in you:

<https://lsc.org/news-and-social/news/genomics-pioneer-dr-george-church-on-making-mammoths-and-groundbreaking-new-science-at-lsc>

<https://tinyurl.com/76452mb8>

The above includes a link to a video from George Church, presumptive
leader of the project:

<https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-LSFOni0n8E>
***********************************
@1:20
Things would be much improved if we went back to the grasslands that
were maintained by uh the mammoths so that so we're we're trying to
make cold resistant elephants that fill that ecological niche. They
don't have to be perfect copies of mammoths, just good enough to uh to
do their job that they used to do over uh 10 to 20 million square
kilometers of arctic
************************************

Whether herds of neo-mammoths munching on frozen tundra and knocking
down arctic trees would actually help anything is an entirely separate
question.

[broger...@gmail.com]

Yup.

[RonO]

Now, you are the one that has to demonstrate that, that is what I was
talking about when I was criticizing their claim that they could produce
something that could survive in the Arctic with just a few changes.
What type of mammoth recreation were they talking about?

So what? What was I arguing? Just looking like a mammoth with a few
changes wasn't going to get them to something that could survive in the
artic. Do you know what your objection is to what I wrote. You may
have to explain what it is.

>>
>>>>
>>>> You might change a few genes, but you aren't going to get something
>>>> adapted to the environment that mammoths lived in.
>>>>
>>> Please cite *from the article* where that specific goal was
>>> stated by other than CNN, the news equivalent of Lucas
>>> Electrics, the "Prince of Darkness". I can wait.
>>>>
>>
>> Who cares. It was stated. Do you think that they quoted Church in an
>> inappropriate context? Where would CNN get the idea that Church's group
>> wanted to restore the animal to the Arctic? Isn't that something that
>> you should demonstrate if you think that is the case?
>>
> OK; I'll give you that an Arctic-capable animal is a goal.
> That has nothing to do with your objections regarding a
> "rewind" of the genome changes leading from mammoths to
> current elephants.
>>
>> Do you know what I was discussing in my first post?
>>
> Do you know what I wrote, and why?
>>

What you are beefing about, doesn't seem to be anything against what I
wrote in the original post.

Ron Okimoto

[Bob Casanova]

On Mon, 20 Sep 2021 03:49:54 -0400, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>:

>On Sun, 19 Sep 2021 17:06:33 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>
>wrote:
>

<snip>
>
>>...CNN, the news equivalent of Lucas

>>Electrics, the "Prince of Darkness". I can wait.
>
>Yet another statement from Bob "I don't do politics" Casanova.
>

Wow, an actual direct response from jillery! I feel so
honored!

That said, thanks for admitting the CNN is a political
organization, as are nearly all such. And, for that matter,
as they always have been, on *all* sides, protestations of
"professionalism" and "neutrality" notwithstanding.

And I notice you failed to respond to my further post, in
which I stipulated that cold tolerance *is* one of the
goals, which I missed. Here it is:

****************************************************************

OK; I'll give you that an Arctic-capable animal is a goal.
That has nothing to do with your objections regarding a
"rewind" of the genome changes leading from mammoths to
current elephants.

****************************************************************

But of course, that wouldn't have allowed you to vent.

> Since
>you have such a low opinion of CNN, there's not much point to citing
>an article from CNN. There are other sources which reported on the
>same new item. Here's one which should inspire less cynicism in you:
>
><https://lsc.org/news-and-social/news/genomics-pioneer-dr-george-church-on-making-mammoths-and-groundbreaking-new-science-at-lsc>
>
><https://tinyurl.com/76452mb8>
>
>The above includes a link to a video from George Church, presumptive
>leader of the project:
>
><https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-LSFOni0n8E>
>***********************************
>@1:20
>Things would be much improved if we went back to the grasslands that
>were maintained by uh the mammoths so that so we're we're trying to
>make cold resistant elephants that fill that ecological niche. They
>don't have to be perfect copies of mammoths, just good enough to uh to
>do their job that they used to do over uh 10 to 20 million square
>kilometers of arctic
>************************************
>

And once more, this confirms what my original post said,
supported by the article quote, which was that *they are not
attempting to re-create mammoths, but something which
physically looks like a mammoth, using recovered mammoth DNA
to modify current elephant DNA*, and which hopefully shares
some of its characteristics. And just to be clear, here is
my original post, to which Ron replied, "You are wrong", and
went off about cloning:

**********************************************************

While everything you said was almost certainly true, it was
also (apparently, based on the article) irrelevant. To
quote:

"The goal isn't to clone a mammoth -- the DNA that
scientists have managed to extract from woolly mammoth
remains frozen in permafrost is far too fragmented and
degraded -- but to create, through genetic engineering, a
living, walking elephant-mammoth hybrid that would be
visually indistinguishable from its extinct forerunner."

IOW, they want to create a simulation, with only the
physical appearance of the original.

************************************************************

>
>Whether herds of neo-mammoths munching on frozen tundra and knocking
>down arctic trees would actually help anything is an entirely separate
>question.
>

Yes, it is.

[Bob Casanova]

On Mon, 20 Sep 2021 05:58:24 -0500, the following appeared

I quoted their statement regarding intent several times; all
still appear above. I won't do so again.

Did so; you said "You are wrong", and failed to demonstrate
that what I wrote, as contrasted with your interpretation of
my intent, was wrong. It's *also* all still above.

>
>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> You might change a few genes, but you aren't going to get something
>>>>> adapted to the environment that mammoths lived in.
>>>>>
>>>> Please cite *from the article* where that specific goal was
>>>> stated by other than CNN, the news equivalent of Lucas
>>>> Electrics, the "Prince of Darkness". I can wait.
>>>>>
>>>
>>> Who cares. It was stated. Do you think that they quoted Church in an
>>> inappropriate context? Where would CNN get the idea that Church's group
>>> wanted to restore the animal to the Arctic? Isn't that something that
>>> you should demonstrate if you think that is the case?
>>>
>> OK; I'll give you that an Arctic-capable animal is a goal.
>> That has nothing to do with your objections regarding a
>> "rewind" of the genome changes leading from mammoths to
>> current elephants.
>>>
>>> Do you know what I was discussing in my first post?
>>>
>> Do you know what I wrote, and why?
>>>
>
>What you are beefing about, doesn't seem to be anything against what I
>wrote in the original post.
>

Well, that seems fair, since your original response to my
comment had nothing to do with what I wrote.

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

The fact that Dale posts all these "questions" confirms what we already
knew, that he has no understanding of anything -- in this case not
genes, not the living state, not organs, not 3D printing.


--
Athel -- French and British, living mainly in England until 1987.

[Athel Cornish-Bowden]

Yes, but Edmund Hillary and Tenzing Norgay really could. In this case I
don't think that there are good reasons for thinking that they can --
not in our lifteimes anyway. Being pedantic for a moment, I don't think
it was Edmund Hillary and Tenzing Norgay who said that, it was George
Mallory, and he said it was "because it is there", not "because I can"
(and at that time he couldn't).

[jillery]

On Mon, 20 Sep 2021 09:24:57 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>

wrote:

>On Mon, 20 Sep 2021 03:49:54 -0400, the following appeared
>in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>:
>
>>On Sun, 19 Sep 2021 17:06:33 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>
>>wrote:
>>
><snip>
>>
>>>...CNN, the news equivalent of Lucas
>>>Electrics, the "Prince of Darkness". I can wait.
>>
>>Yet another statement from Bob "I don't do politics" Casanova.
>>
>Wow, an actual direct response from jillery! I feel so
>honored!

You haven't paid attention. The above wasn't the first. And since
you admitted your opinion of me, it won't be the last.

>That said, thanks for admitting the CNN is a political
>organization, as are nearly all such.

Aping Glenn is a poor strategy. I neither posted nor implied any such
admission.

With that clarification out of the way, I acknowledge that "nearly
all" organizations have political biases. I deny such biases mean
their reporting is faulty, as you allude, or that they justify your
pointless cynicism.

Do you acknowledge that posting baseless criticisms of CNN is a common
practice among the far-right?

>And, for that matter,
>as they always have been, on *all* sides, protestations of
>"professionalism" and "neutrality" notwithstanding.
>
>And I notice you failed to respond to my further post, in
>which I stipulated that cold tolerance *is* one of the
>goals, which I missed. Here it is:

I "failed to respond" to lots of things. WRT the particular point you
mention, the fact is, the cited article has several quotes stating
goals, so not sure why you're spamming about it. But facts don't
matter to those who handwave them away just because they're reported
by CNN.

But since you mention it, I noticed you posted nothing to back up your
mindless and irrelevant noise about CNN.

>****************************************************************
>OK; I'll give you that an Arctic-capable animal is a goal.
>That has nothing to do with your objections regarding a
>"rewind" of the genome changes leading from mammoths to
>current elephants.
>****************************************************************
>
>But of course, that wouldn't have allowed you to vent.

Sez the guy who posted mindless and irrelevant noise about a news
agency. Apparently you don't appreciate the irony of the name of my
cite's source.

Notice me not responding to your additional misrepresentations.

[jillery]

Oopsie, you're right, but I wouldn't put it past Hillary and Norgay to
have thought it.

[Dale]

On 9/20/2021 12:52 PM, Athel Cornish-Bowden wrote:
> ... he has no understanding of anything ...

God has "anything" to choose from but chooses the best?


--
Mystery? -> https://www.dalekelly.org/

[Bob Casanova]

On Mon, 20 Sep 2021 14:59:53 -0400, the following appeared

in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>:

>On Mon, 20 Sep 2021 09:24:57 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>
>wrote:
>
>>On Mon, 20 Sep 2021 03:49:54 -0400, the following appeared
>>in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>:
>>
>>>On Sun, 19 Sep 2021 17:06:33 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>><snip>
>>>
>>>>...CNN, the news equivalent of Lucas
>>>>Electrics, the "Prince of Darkness". I can wait.
>>>
>>>Yet another statement from Bob "I don't do politics" Casanova.
>>>
>>Wow, an actual direct response from jillery! I feel so
>>honored!
>
>
>You haven't paid attention. The above wasn't the first. And since
>you admitted your opinion of me, it won't be the last.
>

No, *you* weren't paying attention. This is the first
*direct* (as contrasted with piggyback) response to or about
me from you I've seen in quite a few months; IIRC you
stopped responding to me after I disagreed with you about
something Harran posted which you didn't like. But since
bringing up things over a year old in response to current
assertions apparently now qualifies as "spamming", I
wouldn't dream of indulging in it.

>
>>That said, thanks for admitting the CNN is a political
>>organization, as are nearly all such.
>
>
>Aping Glenn is a poor strategy. I neither posted nor implied any such
>admission.
>

So implying that my characterization of CNN was "political"
doesn't mean that in your opinion CNN is a political
organization? OK, if you say so...

>
>With that clarification out of the way, I acknowledge that "nearly
>all" organizations have political biases. I deny such biases mean
>their reporting is faulty, as you allude, or that they justify your
>pointless cynicism.
>
>Do you acknowledge that posting baseless criticisms of CNN is a common
>practice among the far-right?
>

Do *you* acknowledge that viewing a "news" organization as
biased says nothing about the politics of the viewer?
Especially when that criticism extends to all such
organizations, from one end of the political spectrum to the
other? No, probably you don't; that would require a lack of
bias.

>
>>And, for that matter,
>>as they always have been, on *all* sides, protestations of
>>"professionalism" and "neutrality" notwithstanding.
>>
>>And I notice you failed to respond to my further post, in
>>which I stipulated that cold tolerance *is* one of the
>>goals, which I missed. Here it is:
>
>
>I "failed to respond" to lots of things. WRT the particular point you
>mention, the fact is, the cited article has several quotes stating
>goals, so not sure why you're spamming about it.
>

Ah, now I'm "spamming" again; defending against an outdated
assertion such as you made is now "spamming"! Glad we
cleared that up.

> But facts don't
>matter to those who handwave them away just because they're reported
>by CNN.
>

Y'know, I could probably find dozens of comments here,
mostly by professionals, in which reference to such as CNN
for information was denigrated (justifiably) because it's
neither professional (in the science sense; the other is not
relevant to this) nor peer-reviewed. And I think that claims
about the purpose and methodology of a scientific effort
qualify as the same sort of problem. YM, of course, MV.

>
>But since you mention it, I noticed you posted nothing to back up your
>mindless and irrelevant noise about CNN.
>

It's an opinion, based on years of observation. And just as
scientific as data provided by CNN. Or Fox.

>
>>****************************************************************
>>OK; I'll give you that an Arctic-capable animal is a goal.
>>That has nothing to do with your objections regarding a
>>"rewind" of the genome changes leading from mammoths to
>>current elephants.
>>****************************************************************
>>
>>But of course, that wouldn't have allowed you to vent.
>
>
>Sez the guy who posted mindless and irrelevant noise about a news
>agency.
> Apparently you don't appreciate the irony of the name of my
>cite's source.
>
>Notice me not responding to your additional misrepresentations.
>

Notice me giving not a fsck whether you put your fingers in
your ears and shout "LALALALA! I can't HEAR you!
REEEEEEEEEEE!" and mindlessly assert that things you
dislike, such as direct quotes demonstrating that my
original post was correct, are "misrepresentations". (Been
studying The Refrigerant's techniques? He simply *loves*
doing that.)

[jillery]

On Mon, 20 Sep 2021 14:17:30 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>

wrote:

>On Mon, 20 Sep 2021 14:59:53 -0400, the following appeared
>in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>:
>
>>On Mon, 20 Sep 2021 09:24:57 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Mon, 20 Sep 2021 03:49:54 -0400, the following appeared
>>>in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>:
>>>
>>>>On Sun, 19 Sep 2021 17:06:33 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>><snip>
>>>>
>>>>>...CNN, the news equivalent of Lucas
>>>>>Electrics, the "Prince of Darkness". I can wait.
>>>>
>>>>Yet another statement from Bob "I don't do politics" Casanova.
>>>>
>>>Wow, an actual direct response from jillery! I feel so
>>>honored!
>>
>>
>>You haven't paid attention. The above wasn't the first. And since
>>you admitted your opinion of me, it won't be the last.
>>
>No, *you* weren't paying attention. This is the first
>*direct* (as contrasted with piggyback) response to or about
>me from you I've seen in quite a few months;

Really? You're so determined to dig that hole even more? And when I
cite a post where I recently replied to you *directly*, are you going
to handwave that away as well?

[RonO]

Someone wrote this about my post, and it turns out that nothing in my
post was irrelevant to the article.

QUOTE:

While everything you said was almost certainly true, it was
also (apparently, based on the article) irrelevant. To
quote:

"The goal isn't to clone a mammoth -- the DNA that
scientists have managed to extract from woolly mammoth
remains frozen in permafrost is far too fragmented and
degraded -- but to create, through genetic engineering, a
living, walking elephant-mammoth hybrid that would be
visually indistinguishable from its extinct forerunner."

IOW, they want to create a simulation, with only the
physical appearance of the original.

END QUOTE:

You do understand that you were wrong about that, right? My post was
apt and relevant to the article. The points that I addressed came from
the article.

Ron Okimoto

[Bob Casanova]

On Mon, 20 Sep 2021 18:19:12 -0400, the following appeared

You cite no such post, because it didn't exist.

Nice clippage. Have A Nice Day.

[Bob Casanova]

On Mon, 20 Sep 2021 17:55:36 -0500, the following appeared

in talk.origins, posted by RonO <roki...@cox.net>:

>On 9/20/2021 11:30 AM, Bob Casanova wrote:
>

<snip>

>QUOTE:
>While everything you said was almost certainly true, it was
>also (apparently, based on the article) irrelevant. To
>quote:
>
>"The goal isn't to clone a mammoth -- the DNA that
>scientists have managed to extract from woolly mammoth
>remains frozen in permafrost is far too fragmented and
>degraded -- but to create, through genetic engineering, a
>living, walking elephant-mammoth hybrid that would be
>visually indistinguishable from its extinct forerunner."
>
>IOW, they want to create a simulation, with only the
>physical appearance of the original.
>END QUOTE:
>
>You do understand that you were wrong about that, right?
>

Oh, absolutely. I was wrong in stating that everything you
said was almost certainly true, and I was wrong in my
comment, derived directly from the article, that they didn't
intend to create an actual mammoth, but a simulation of one,
and I was wrong to quote the article which said. So
everything I stated was wrong. Mea maxima culpa.

Dolt.

[jillery]

On Mon, 20 Sep 2021 17:29:11 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>

I gave you a chance to back away, but apparently you're determined to
compete with Glenn for village idiot:
***************************
From: jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>
Subject: Re: real-life effects of made-up facts
Date: Mon, 13 Sep 2021 14:46:05 -0400
Message-ID: <m07vjglataqiuilkl...@4ax.com>

On Mon, 13 Sep 2021 09:11:58 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>
wrote:
****************************

[RonO]

Why be such a dolt? You were wrong in your first sentence and you know
it. My post was relevant and I was talking about examples from the
article. You were just wrong. I was not discussing cloning, I was
discussing what they actually wanted to do. The guy was claiming that
he could create something like a mammoth that could survive in the
arctic by just putting in a few changes.

REPOST:

END REPOST:

Ron Okimoto

[Bob Casanova]

On Tue, 21 Sep 2021 01:25:15 -0400, the following appeared

You are indeed correct; my apologies.

Imagine, someone who went over to the dark side,
misrepresents others by quoting a passage from their own
cites, and suffers from cognitive disconnect, figured out
how to apologize. Simply amazing!

[Glenn]

"And so Casanova continues to dig that hole he's in. Not sure how
misrepresenting what others post does anything to support whatever
point he thinks he's making. Cognitive disconnect seems a likely
explanation. "

If that is a *direct response to Bob* about Bob, Bob will eat his hat.

Otherwise, jillery is just being jillery.

[Bob Casanova]

On Tue, 21 Sep 2021 05:34:22 -0500, the following appeared

He was claiming that he can create something which looks
like a mammoth, and which, as I later acknowledged, can
survive Arctic conditions and subsist on the same forage as
mammoths did. IMHO, based on the content of the article, my
comment was not wrong, since your post seemed to me to be
about trying to re-create all the characteristics of a
mammoth, not just a look-alike with Arctic survival
capabilities. Perhaps it was his reference to an
"elephant-mammoth hybrid" that led you to come to the
apparent conclusion you did? To me, it simply meant he
intended to use both elephant and recovered mammoth DNA,
with modifications as required to reach his intended goal.

And perhaps, instead of arrogantly stating "You are wrong",
and doubling down when questioned or when perceived problems
with your (quite good and fairly thorough) analysis were
brought up, it might be better to inquire *why* you saw the
post as "wrong". Or not; your choice.

And I'm done with this; my initial comment seems to have
unleashed a tirade from a couple of posters, which was
hardly my intent. In retrospect, I probably should have
simply posted my original quote, with no comment, and let
you address it, although such posts are usually less than
helpful.

[jillery]

On Tue, 21 Sep 2021 09:29:07 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>
wrote:

>And I'm done with this; my initial comment seems to have
>unleashed a tirade from a couple of posters,

Yet another misrepresentation. You just can't stop digging that hole
you're standing in.

[jillery]

On Tue, 21 Sep 2021 09:10:27 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>

The fact is, you could have proved this for yourself, but instead you
chose to double-down on your willfully stupid assertion. Based on
your recent posts to me, this wasn't the first, and won't be the last,
pointless sword you choose to fall.

[jillery]

On Tue, 21 Sep 2021 09:14:50 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>
wrote:

Once again Glenn shows he has no idea what he's talking about and is
proud of it.

[Glenn]

Yet you know what you're talking about, and are proud of it.

[Bob Casanova]

On Tue, 21 Sep 2021 13:09:23 -0400, the following appeared

Probably, assuming that after your recent posts about (and
occasionally, to) me I actually gave enough of a sh*t what
you had to say to take the time.

[Bob Casanova]

On Tue, 21 Sep 2021 13:08:25 -0400, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>:

>On Tue, 21 Sep 2021 09:29:07 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>
>wrote:
>
>>And I'm done with this; my initial comment seems to have
>>unleashed a tirade from a couple of posters,
>
>Yet another misrepresentation.
>

Nice snippage; leave out everything relevant in my reply to
Ron in order to post a supposed "gotcha".

But to address your assertion: Nope. There were indeed
tirades (of a sort; your characterization of the responses I
got may not agree; that is your problem, not mine), and
they were indeed from a couple of posters.

>
> You just can't stop digging that hole
>you're standing in.
>

And you just can't resist posting your straining at gnats;
you tend to remind me of The Peter in that respect.

[Glenn]

On Tuesday, September 21, 2021 at 11:20:09 AM UTC-7, Bob Casanova wrote:
> On Tue, 21 Sep 2021 13:08:25 -0400, the following appeared
> in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>:
> >On Tue, 21 Sep 2021 09:29:07 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>
> >wrote:
> >
> >>And I'm done with this; my initial comment seems to have
> >>unleashed a tirade from a couple of posters,
> >
> >Yet another misrepresentation.
> >
> Nice snippage; leave out everything relevant in my reply to
> Ron in order to post a supposed "gotcha".
>
> But to address your assertion: Nope. There were indeed
> tirades (of a sort; your characterization of the responses I
> got may not agree; that is your problem, not mine), and
> they were indeed from a couple of posters.
> >
> > You just can't stop digging that hole
> >you're standing in.
> >
> And you just can't resist posting your straining at gnats;
> you tend to remind me of The Peter in that respect.
> >

Actually, you and jillery might as well be twins.

[jillery]

On Tue, 21 Sep 2021 11:11:19 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>
wrote:

>>The fact is, you could have proved this for yourself, but instead you
>>chose to double-down on your willfully stupid assertion. Based on
>>your recent posts to me, this wasn't the first, and won't be the last,
>>pointless sword you choose to fall.
>>

>Probably, assuming that after your recent posts about (and
>occasionally, to) me I actually gave enough of a sh*t what
>you had to say to take the time.

Really? That's why you raised your willfully stupid assertion in the
first place, and why you perpetuate your willfully stupid spam rant,
because you don't give a sh*t about it. Tell me again that your check
is in the mail.

[jillery]

On Tue, 21 Sep 2021 11:18:05 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>

wrote:

>On Tue, 21 Sep 2021 13:08:25 -0400, the following appeared
>in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>:
>
>>On Tue, 21 Sep 2021 09:29:07 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>And I'm done with this; my initial comment seems to have
>>>unleashed a tirade from a couple of posters,
>>
>>Yet another misrepresentation.
>>
>Nice snippage; leave out everything relevant in my reply to
>Ron in order to post a supposed "gotcha".

Now you're parroting the peter. What I snipped has nothing whatever
to do with your misrepresentation. What I quoted illustrates your
misrepresentation just fine. That you disagree is *your* problem.

>But to address your assertion: Nope. There were indeed
>tirades (of a sort; your characterization of the responses I
>got may not agree; that is your problem, not mine), and
>they were indeed from a couple of posters.

I suppose you're right, if you count yourself twice.

[Bob Casanova]

On Tue, 21 Sep 2021 14:56:50 -0400, the following appeared

in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>:

>Really?
>
Yep.

[Bob Casanova]

On Tue, 21 Sep 2021 15:03:53 -0400, the following appeared

in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>:

>I suppose you're right
>
I am.

[jillery]

On Tue, 21 Sep 2021 12:39:24 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>
wrote:

>On Tue, 21 Sep 2021 15:03:53 -0400, the following appeared
>in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>:
>

>>I suppose you're right, if you count yourself twice.
>>

>I am.


And now you're channeling JTEM.

I bet 100 Quatloos your fellow stormtroopers have already decided to
blame me for your willfully stupid tirade, so you can stop spamming
now.

[Glenn]

On Tuesday, September 21, 2021 at 1:10:09 PM UTC-7, jillery wrote:
> On Tue, 21 Sep 2021 12:39:24 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>
> wrote:
> >On Tue, 21 Sep 2021 15:03:53 -0400, the following appeared
> >in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>:
> >
> >>I suppose you're right, if you count yourself twice.
> >>
> >I am.
>
>
> And now you're channeling JTEM.
>
> I bet 100 Quatloos your fellow stormtroopers have already decided to
> blame me for your willfully stupid tirade, so you can stop spamming
> now.
> --

To which Naz...er, stormtroopers do you refer?

[Bob Casanova]

On Tue, 21 Sep 2021 16:05:18 -0400, the following appeared

in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>:

>On Tue, 21 Sep 2021 12:39:24 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>
>wrote:
>
>>On Tue, 21 Sep 2021 15:03:53 -0400, the following appeared
>>in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>:
>>
>>>I suppose you're right, if you count yourself twice.
>>>
>>I am.
>
>
>And now you're channeling
>

Nope; just following your lead and snipping everything I
didn't feel like including.

[RonO]

You were just wrong about my post. That should not be up for debate.
What did I have in the post that was not relevant to the article?
Nothing, becuase I got the examples from the article.

Ron Okimoto

>>

[Dale]

On 9/19/2021 12:22 PM, Bob Casanova wrote:
> On Sun, 19 Sep 2021 08:55:03 -0400, the following appeared
> in talk.origins, posted by Dale <da...@dalekelly.org>:
>
>> On 9/19/2021 7:49 AM, RonO wrote:
>>> ... Likely not. ...


>>
>> if there is DNA, how about 3D printing?
>>


> We can always count on Dale...


I'm a calculator.

You can count on me by pressing my buttons right.

--
Mystery? -> https://www.dalekelly.org/

[Bob Casanova]

On Tue, 21 Sep 2021 18:34:50 -0500, the following appeared

in talk.origins, posted by RonO <roki...@cox.net>:

>On 9/21/2021 11:29 AM, Bob Casanova wrote:
>> On Tue, 21 Sep 2021 05:34:22 -0500, the following appeared
>> in talk.origins, posted by RonO <roki...@cox.net>:
>>

<snip>

And I stated exactly why I posted as I did. But thanks for
failing (again) to actually read and consider what I wrote.
I guess all one must do to refute anything is to say that
it's simply wrong; thanks for the tip.

[Bob Casanova]

On Tue, 21 Sep 2021 21:03:14 -0400, the following appeared

in talk.origins, posted by Dale <da...@dalekelly.org>:

>On 9/19/2021 12:22 PM, Bob Casanova wrote:
>> On Sun, 19 Sep 2021 08:55:03 -0400, the following appeared
>> in talk.origins, posted by Dale <da...@dalekelly.org>:
>>
>>> On 9/19/2021 7:49 AM, RonO wrote:
>>>> ... Likely not. ...
>
>
>>>
>>> if there is DNA, how about 3D printing?
>>>
>
>
>> We can always count on Dale...
>
>
>I'm a calculator.
>
>You can count on me by pressing my buttons right.
>

You'll excuse me for declining.

[jillery]

On Tue, 21 Sep 2021 14:53:26 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>

wrote:

>On Tue, 21 Sep 2021 16:05:18 -0400, the following appeared
>in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>:
>
>>On Tue, 21 Sep 2021 12:39:24 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Tue, 21 Sep 2021 15:03:53 -0400, the following appeared
>>>in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>:
>>>
>>>>I suppose you're right, if you count yourself twice.
>>>>
>>>I am.
>>
>>

>>And now you're channeling JTEM.
>>
>>I bet 100 Quatloos your fellow stormtroopers have already decided to
>>blame me for your willfully stupid tirade, so you can stop spamming
>>now.

>Nope;


Why not? You made whatever point you might be making many times over.
Oh wait... I forgot... you're in willful stupidity mode... nevermind.

>just following your lead and snipping everything I
>didn't feel like including.

I quote what provides context to the issues to which I respond. OTOH
you and JTEM leave mangled corpses, quotemines and/or meaningless
phrases. Only willfully stupid liars do that. Only willfully stupid
trolls claim an equivalence.

All of your posts in your tirades are a tour-de-force demonstration of
spam trolling techniques made infamous by other T.O. trolls. They
share a common feature of completely avoiding all relevant discussion.
It's as if they're your sock puppets.

[RonO]

And you were still just wrong in what you posted. Just take what you
have snipped out. Go back to your original post, and what do you
discover? You were just wrong.

Ron Okimoto

[Bob Casanova]

On Wed, 22 Sep 2021 01:26:26 -0400, the following appeared

in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>:

>On Tue, 21 Sep 2021 14:53:26 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>
>wrote:
>

>>just following your lead and snipping everything I
>>didn't feel like including.
>
>I quote what provides context to the issues to which I respond.
>

As do I. Of course, my idea of what constitutes relevant
context seems to differ from yours. C'est la vie...

[Bob Casanova]

On Wed, 22 Sep 2021 05:29:38 -0500, the following appeared

You keep saying that. Here's the entirety of my original
post:

***************************************************************

While everything you said was almost certainly true, it was
also (apparently, based on the article) irrelevant. To
quote:

"The goal isn't to clone a mammoth -- the DNA that
scientists have managed to extract from woolly mammoth
remains frozen in permafrost is far too fragmented and
degraded -- but to create, through genetic engineering, a
living, walking elephant-mammoth hybrid that would be
visually indistinguishable from its extinct forerunner."

IOW, they want to create a simulation, with only the
physical appearance of the original.

***************************************************************

The only thing which may have been "wrong" in that was the
statement regarding relevance; it's impossible for a direct
quote to be "wrong" (unless misquoted, which this was not),
and my final comment simply summarizes what was in the
quote. So, your only objection was my characterization of
your post as being "(apparently, based on the article)
irrelevant"?

[jillery]

On Wed, 22 Sep 2021 08:24:50 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>

wrote:

>On Wed, 22 Sep 2021 01:26:26 -0400, the following appeared
>in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>:
>
>>On Tue, 21 Sep 2021 14:53:26 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>just following your lead and snipping everything I
>>>didn't feel like including.
>>

>>I quote what provides context to the issues to which I respond. OTOH
>>you and JTEM leave mangled corpses, quotemines and/or meaningless
>>phrases. Only willfully stupid liars do that. Only willfully stupid
>>trolls claim an equivalence.
>>
>>All of your posts in your tirades are a tour-de-force demonstration of
>>spam trolling techniques made infamous by other T.O. trolls. They
>>share a common feature of completely avoiding all relevant discussion.
>>It's as if they're your sock puppets.

>>

>As do I.


"and now you're channeling" and "I suppose you're right" are both
fragments which have different meanings than what I posted. That make
your "responses" outright lies, a classic troll tactic.

[Glenn]

You really don't even know what honesty and integrity means.

[jillery]

On Wed, 22 Sep 2021 09:54:15 -0700 (PDT), Glenn <GlennS...@msn.com>
wrote:

>You really don't even know what honesty and integrity means.

If you're through playing with yourself, please clean up the wet spot
you left behind.

[Bob Casanova]

On Wed, 22 Sep 2021 12:02:23 -0400, the following appeared

in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>:

<snip meaningless rant>

HAND.

[Dale]

On 9/22/2021 12:12 AM, Bob Casanova wrote:
> On Tue, 21 Sep 2021 21:03:14 -0400, the following appeared
> in talk.origins, posted by Dale <da...@dalekelly.org>:
>
>> On 9/19/2021 12:22 PM, Bob Casanova wrote:
>>> On Sun, 19 Sep 2021 08:55:03 -0400, the following appeared
>>> in talk.origins, posted by Dale <da...@dalekelly.org>:
>>>
>>>> On 9/19/2021 7:49 AM, RonO wrote:
>>>>> ... Likely not. ...
>>
>>
>>>>
>>>> if there is DNA, how about 3D printing?
>>>>


>>
>>
>>> We can always count on Dale...
>>


>>
>> I'm a calculator.
>>
>> You can count on me by pressing my buttons right.
>>


> You'll excuse me for declining.
>>

wrong button

[DB Cates]

Umm, I think he is referring to this bit:

" IOW, they want to create a simulation, with only the physical
appearance of the original."

'only' is incorrect.

--
--
Don Cates ("he's a cunning rascal" PN)

[jillery]

On Wed, 22 Sep 2021 13:50:08 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>
wrote:


>HAND.


Let's all hope you mean it this time.

[Glenn]

On Sunday, September 19, 2021 at 4:50:10 AM UTC-7, Ron O wrote:
> https://www.cnn.com/2021/09/13/world/woolly-mammoth-resurrect-deextinction-scn/index.html
>
> Likely not.

What are you referring to? Sounds like you think they are trying to clone a mammoth.

>Mammoths are the result of millions of years of evolution
> separating them from their closest living relatives. There are millions
> of differences in the genomes of Mammoths compared to extant elephants.

They know that.

> Most of these differences likely have very little to do with what makes
> a Mammoth, but these guys are trying to figure out the minimal number of
> changes that they need to make in order to make a mammoth.

No, they specifically claim they want to attempt to create a mammoth-elephant hybrid.

>They claim
> to have around 50 changes that they think will get an Asian elephant to
> survive in the Arctic. My guess is that they will need 50 changes just
> to replicate the shaggy coat. There may be just a few mutations that
> could cause meter long fur to grow, but the wooly mammoth had a couple
> million years of intermittent ice ages to fine tune their wooly coat.
> You need modifiers to maintain the coat (oil glands, grooming?), and
> grow additional insulating fibers. You need to adapt the skin to being
> able to be covered by such a massive coat. You need to adapt to
> surviving with the commensal microbes that will grow in such a coat.
> You need the genes that will allow shedding with the seasons.

Yes, so what if you don't think they can reproduce exactly a mammoth?
That isn't what they want to do.

>
> It doesn't seem like these guys have thought this through very much at
> all.

Sounds like you're doing a lot of speculating.

>They likely don't even know what most of the variants do, so how
> are they going to pick which ones are important enough to change in an
> Asian Elephant genome?

To create a hybrid animal that can survive in arctic conditions doesn't seem to far of a stretch.
But again, they're just trying to get an elephant to survive in conditions mammoths experienced.
Again, they do not claim to be trying to make a mammoth as you claim.
>

[RonO]

And here is the entirety of my post, and you were just wrong.

I addressed what was in the article and it was obviously not irrelevant.

[RonO]

So is the part where he claims what I posted was irrelevant, and his
weird quote about cloning which I did not mention. All I discussed was
what was actually in the article.

Ron Okimoto

[Bob Casanova]

On Wed, 22 Sep 2021 16:46:36 -0500, the following appeared
in talk.origins, posted by DB Cates
<cate...@hotmail.com.invalid>:

Yes, as I acknowledged in a later post, the ability of the
simulated mammoth to survive in the Arctic was also a goal.

[Bob Casanova]

On Wed, 22 Sep 2021 18:12:42 -0400, the following appeared

in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>:

>On Wed, 22 Sep 2021 13:50:08 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>
>wrote:
>
>
>>HAND.
>
>
>Let's all hope you mean it this time.
>

Why would I wish you, as contrasted with The Refrigerant,
other than a nice day? You may be a pain in the ass, bit
you're not a smug moron like him.

[Bob Casanova]

On Wed, 22 Sep 2021 18:06:07 -0500, the following appeared

Your inability to read the quoted material for comprehension
is no one's problem but yours.

[Bob Casanova]

On Wed, 22 Sep 2021 18:03:34 -0500, the following appeared

<snip unnecessary repost>

So you have no desire to discuss this, or to state what was
"wrong" in my post. Sobeit.

HAND.

[RonO]

Your inability, seems to be why you are just wrong.

Ron Okimoto

[RonO]

Snipping and running from reality doesn't change reality. Why would you
even do it? Does it do Nyikos or Glenn any good? My original post is
just what it is whether you snip it out or not.

Ron Okimoto

[Bob Casanova]

On Wed, 22 Sep 2021 19:10:30 -0500, the following appeared

I never denied or refused to read what you posted, which is
why the repost was unnecessary. It seems to be you who are
refusing to acknowledge any questions about your post,
ignoring questions about your reply, and running away to
"You were simply wrong".

I'm done trying to discuss anything with you.

[jillery]

On Wed, 22 Sep 2021 16:45:52 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>

wrote:

>On Wed, 22 Sep 2021 18:12:42 -0400, the following appeared
>in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>:
>
>>On Wed, 22 Sep 2021 13:50:08 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>
>>wrote:
>>
>>
>>>HAND.
>>
>>
>>Let's all hope you mean it this time.
>>
>Why would I wish you, as contrasted with The Refrigerant,
>other than a nice day? You may be a pain in the ass, bit
>you're not a smug moron like him.

I am reminded of my father, who stopped smoking... many times.

[Bob Casanova]

On Thu, 23 Sep 2021 02:52:00 -0400, the following appeared

in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>:

>On Wed, 22 Sep 2021 16:45:52 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>
>wrote:
>
>>On Wed, 22 Sep 2021 18:12:42 -0400, the following appeared
>>in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>:
>>
>>>On Wed, 22 Sep 2021 13:50:08 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>>HAND.
>>>
>>>
>>>Let's all hope you mean it this time.
>>>
>>Why would I wish you, as contrasted with The Refrigerant,
>>other than a nice day? You may be a pain in the ass, bit
>>you're not a smug moron like him.
>
>
>I am reminded of my father, who stopped smoking... many times.
>

Yeah, and how 'bout them Mets?

[jillery]

On Thu, 23 Sep 2021 09:17:30 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>

wrote:

>On Thu, 23 Sep 2021 02:52:00 -0400, the following appeared
>in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>:
>
>>On Wed, 22 Sep 2021 16:45:52 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>On Wed, 22 Sep 2021 18:12:42 -0400, the following appeared
>>>in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>:
>>>
>>>>On Wed, 22 Sep 2021 13:50:08 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>
>>>>wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>HAND.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>Let's all hope you mean it this time.
>>>>
>>>Why would I wish you, as contrasted with The Refrigerant,
>>>other than a nice day? You may be a pain in the ass, bit
>>>you're not a smug moron like him.
>>
>>
>>I am reminded of my father, who stopped smoking... many times.
>>
>Yeah, and how 'bout them Mets?

As if any of your comments were relevant, but ok, roomba.

[Bob Casanova]

On Thu, 23 Sep 2021 16:10:19 -0400, the following appeared

in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>:

>On Thu, 23 Sep 2021 09:17:30 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>
>wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 23 Sep 2021 02:52:00 -0400, the following appeared
>>in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>:
>>
>>>On Wed, 22 Sep 2021 16:45:52 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>
>>>wrote:
>>>
>>>>On Wed, 22 Sep 2021 18:12:42 -0400, the following appeared
>>>>in talk.origins, posted by jillery <69jp...@gmail.com>:
>>>>
>>>>>On Wed, 22 Sep 2021 13:50:08 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>
>>>>>wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>>HAND.
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>Let's all hope you mean it this time.
>>>>>
>>>>Why would I wish you, as contrasted with The Refrigerant,
>>>>other than a nice day? You may be a pain in the ass, bit
>>>>you're not a smug moron like him.
>>>
>>>
>>>I am reminded of my father, who stopped smoking... many times.
>>>
>>Yeah, and how 'bout them Mets?
>
>

>...ok, roomba.
>
Good to hear.

"Just sweepin' up the dirt, boss."

[RonO]

You are in denial of what I posted, and keep claiming that you not just
wrong. You snipped it out to maintain that denial. You could
demonstrate that you were not just wrong by comparing what you wrote to
what you were responding to, but you don't. Since I used examples right
out of the article how much of my post was irrelevant? Pretty much
nothing. What was I talking about, and it was exactly what the guy was
claiming to do it had nothing to do with the quote that you put up,
except to demonstrate that I was not talking about cloning.

REPOST of my post and your response:

While everything you said was almost certainly true, it was
also (apparently, based on the article) irrelevant. To
quote:

"The goal isn't to clone a mammoth -- the DNA that
scientists have managed to extract from woolly mammoth
remains frozen in permafrost is far too fragmented and
degraded -- but to create, through genetic engineering, a
living, walking elephant-mammoth hybrid that would be
visually indistinguishable from its extinct forerunner."

IOW, they want to create a simulation, with only the
physical appearance of the original.
>

END REPOST:

[Bob Casanova]

On Thu, 23 Sep 2021 17:59:16 -0500, the following appeared

As I said, I'm through with this, and will ignore any
further posts from you in this thread. HAND.

[jillery]

On Thu, 23 Sep 2021 17:29:59 -0700, Bob Casanova <nos...@buzz.off>
wrote:

>As I said, I'm through with this, and will ignore any
>further posts from you in this thread. HAND.

Ok roomba.